Posted on 07/15/2009 5:25:18 PM PDT by kellynla
Sorry, the Republican party pissed away this election. That's fact, not hot air.
McCain sucked as a candidate, but he still would have won if not for the financial melt down
While a significant factor, it alone didn't do it. It was more of what was not done, as well as what was done.
- The GOP's position/handling on amnesty pissed a lot of people
- McCain's very poor record of demonstrating loyalty to party and/or principles. His frequent backstabbing of other Republicans
- McCain's positions on some of the issues
- McCain's unwillingness to exploit any of Hussein's weaknesses and considerable load of baggage. (this is the biggest reason)
- Summed up, he ran a horrible campaign. Almost textbook horrible.
You need to get out of the circular firing squad
Nope. I'm not in one. I haven't stopped doing positive things. I would suggest that it is you that should consider we can't fix anything if we are not willing to acknowledge and admit what is and has been done wrong.
McCain and the Republican Party had no ability to force all of the individual States to “Vet” Obama
I wasn't saying they necessarily did, at least in an obvious legal sense. However it was in their power to raise the issue, and keep it out there continuously. For example, McCain could have gone out every day and said, Let's have a joint press conference and we'll both show our birth certificates. The Dem's opened that can of worms by their demand to see McCain's. His failure (and every other Republican's) to exploit that was embarrassing.
McCain deliberately took major weaknesses of BO off the table, told staff, can't talk about that, or that or that. The Dems were hardly able to hide their glee every time he did that. Pathetically embarrassing.
No, McCain should have won this election handily in spite of the mortgage issue. Which was another issue the Dems were very vulnerable on. My criticism of the GOP is very valid and necessary. If we can't them to stop doing the same stupid things, we are doomed. I am seeing very little evidence that the party leadership is interested in changing anything in their methods. And truthfully, I have pretty much had it with this whole notion that we shouldn't go after gutless liberal Republicans with pitchforks. They need to change or go.
You want negative? The RNC has, more than once, sabotaged conservative candidates that ran against RINO party favorites. Watch what happens in Florida with Crist (barf) in the next year. Then come back and tell me I have no business criticizing the "Party". The biggest roadblock to electable conservative candidates has been the RNC. That's what we need to fix.
What happens if some rat disqualifies a conservative, drops them from the ballot.?
Even if later a law suit says they are eligible the election is over.
Remember the rats will turn every law, every regulation , on it's head and if it can be twisted and contorted to their use , it will be.
If the people don't have the moral fiber and common sense to vet the candidates they vote for then we are screwed. And no legislation can fix it.
Our problems are the result of long term programs set in place and executed over decades.
Unless we can get the average citizen to realize we are in a real battle for the soul of this nation we are done for.
We can't win if no one believes we are at war.
Oboma’s election just shows how far we have fallen and how hard it will be to rise up again. On the other hand ...... it is vitally important to expose the impostor and bring every force of law against him. The Constitution must be defended and upheld.
Any law could be written to require the documents that prove eligibility to be immediately made public.
But YOU are not?
The Constitution does not list penalties for violation, it simply restrains and organizes government.
Criminal law is another thing.
Civil law is another thing.
The Constitution is NOT legislation. It does TRUMP legislation, if legislation violates the Constitution -— but the Constitution does NOT get specific and does NOT get into issues of implementation.
The state of Hawaii no longer issues “long form” birth certificates, only the short form. The short form is acceptable for all legal purposes including federal issuance of passports. The same is true in many states. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
*****
That may be true, but think about the following:
1. A person running for president must be at least, I believe, 35 years old.
2. A person born in Hawaii at least 35 years ago decides to run for President.
3. Important: I would think that most persons born in Hawaii at least 35 years ago would have a copy of their birth certificate from 35 years ago.
4. My point is this: I believe that 35 years ago Hawaii DID issue long form birth certificates, the one with the doctor and hospital names on it.
5. I would also suspect that if a person 35 years or older lost his birth certificate, say, 20 years ago, Hawaii would sent him a long form birth certificate 20 years ago or even 10 or 5 years ago, if he requested it.
6. President Obama: Do you really think that Hawaii would turn down the President of the United States if he asked for a copy of his long form birth certificate from 1961?
7. And if, for some unbelievable reason, Hawaii did turn down President Obama’s request to get a copy of his long form birth certificate, do you really believe that a Hawaiian federal judge would also turn down President Obama’s request, through his high-priced lawyers, to get a copy of his long form birth certificate? I don’t think so.
8. Finally, why would then Senator Obama request a copy of his Hawaii birth certificate in 2007, because the date stamped on the birth certificate we see on the internet is stamped 2007?
9. Do you think that Obama lost his birth certifcate stamped with the date 1961, the year when he says that he was born, and that is the reason why he had to send away for a new one in 2007?
If Obama or George Washingon for that matter was born at home and delivered by a midwife, they are still eligible if they are now 35 years of age and the birth took place on US soil.
If a person requests their “birth certificate” from the State Department of Vital Records, they are sent the short form computer print out. That version is accepted by the federal government.
In the state of Hawaii, the short form “Certification of Live Birth” has a statement at the bottom of the document which says: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in all court procedings.” The COLB is accepted as valid proof of the date and place of birth for purposes of running for office.
Any voter who requires more information than that should vote against a candidate who doesn’t provide more information to satisfy the voter but the presidential candidate providing a document from a state governing authority listing a date of birth and a state of birth has met the requirements of the US Constitution.
Hawaii WOULD indeed turn down the request for issuance of a long form certificate. They would not treat a celebrity politician any differently than they would treat an average citizen.
NOBODY in 2009 can get a copy of the long form in Hawaii from the State Department of Vital Records since the year 2000 when they computerized all birth records.
Over a year ago questions were raised about Obama’s birth place. He requested his “birth certificate” from the state and they sent him what they send to everybody.
By the way, under Hawaii statutes (338-18(b)(9), any prosecuting attorney, such as the current Republican Attorney General of Hawaii can subpoena a birth record. No one has attempted to get a subpoena to date.
Here’s a link to the law:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTM
Now why do you think that neither the Republican Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle (who spoke at the Republican convention and who endorsed and campaigned for John McCain) nor the Republican Attorney General of Hawaii Mark Bennett have sought a subpoena for Obama’s original birth record?
How about, "We The People" for starters....the Framers expected that THE PEOPLE could use common sense and judgement, and left those powers not specifically provided for IN THE CONSTITUTION remain at the power of the People, I believe.
Correct, and the parties choose the candidates unless one runs as an Independent. Regardless, the qualifications are determined by the Constitution and until now it was assumed that no one ineligible would run. The opposition and the media were expected to assure this. This time it failed primarily because of the media and the fear o it.
A challenge in court seems the only remedy and finding a court that will hear it, and give it a fair hearing, is exceedingly rare.
The constitution anticipates the possibility of an unqualified person obtaining the majority of electoral votes. The failure here, if there is one, is squarely a failure of Congress.
Same with the financial meltdown - Congress shall coin money and regulate the value thereof, etc. The condition of the economy is more a failure of Congress than of the executive.
Nope. I am critical of worthless RINOs. That's NOT backstabbing. FYI, I don't owe loyalty to those that don't earn it. McCain falls into that category.
sure. I said as much. But future implications can’t change the past. My post was in response to the statement “say the state of California or Texas were to require it — wouldn’t that forfeit all of Obama’s votes in that state at least?”
World Net Daily article that I mentioned does include a link to
the FactCheck.org story, so technically it is part of the WorlNetDaily article which says that it's own investigation into photos and scans of the birth certificate provided in the FactCheck story concluded that the photo's are authentic.
But the constitution does ! !
But the constitution does ! !
Chester Arthur was born in Vermont but his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth & that is what he was hiding. He burned all of his papers hoping that noone would discover he was not eligible.
Mark Steyn mentioned twice on Rush’s show that BO would go down in history like Chester Arthur.
Too bad the FEC isn’t the Constitution, because the Constitution requires a natural-born citizen.
“In Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress exceeded its authority when it passed a law that, among other things, prohibited the states from regulating religious uses of land. As in Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Court asserted its primacy in matters of constitutional interpretation and struck down a governmental act that challenged that primacy.” http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/democracy/landmark_boernes.html
I believe that anything Congress has to say about NBC should be left for the Supreme Court to decide. Before BO fills it with non-originalist.
LOL
Your citation has NOTHING to do with the case at hand, nothing at all!
Please do more research, and open your mind.
Election law is, primarily a STATE issue, and it always has been.
The States have the power and the authority to regulate in this matter, as long as the States do not violate the Constitution of the United States.
A simple act of Congress can instruct the Courts to but out of just about any issue, by restricting jurisdiction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.