Eligibility case finds standing...
Posted By: sm on 2008-12-31
In Reply to:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84966
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
No need for that. His eligibility has already been certified
has been upheld in court challenges. Berg's case was not dismissed on BC evidence, making your outlandish claim about the seal rather ridiculous. It was dismissed because he could not prove standing and claims of harm. Why don't you try taking a stab at the other questino about just where the pub party is trying to take this? Biden as president? Supermajority still seated? New elections? What can they possibly gain from this folly?
More on Obama eligibility status from discussion
This argument validates the lawsuit, so it would seem to not be so frivolous. Can't argue about the facts.
************************************
It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president after all for the following reason:
Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between " December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986? . Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal. US Law very clearly stipulates: ".If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which mea ns though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai'i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama's birth, but *after* age 16 It doesn't matter *after*. In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawai'i. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aforementioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent.
Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.
*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President *** Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. citizen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia. Now you can see why Obama's aides stopped his speech about how we technically have more than 50 states, because it would have led to this discovery. This is very clear cut and a blaring violation of U.S. election law. I think the Gov. of California would be very interested in knowing this if Obama were elected President without being a natural-born U.S. citizen, and it would set precedence.
I can't figure out why she finds
the word Salmonella offensive.
Am I the only one that finds all this Obama worship creepy? SM
A few days ago someone posted below how Obama was "just like one of us" because he ordered a chili dog and cheese fries for lunch with the mayor of DC! The idea, I guess, being that he isn't really like us, he's better than us, on a higher plane I guess, and that we should all swoon at his presence and revel in the idea that he could possibly be like us and eat a freaking chili dog! Am I right?!?!?!
And then there is the countdown to his inauguration. And can I just remind everyone it is an inauguration NOT a coronation. The man is not going to be king!
I've noticed this Obama worship for a while what with Oprah calling him "The One" on her show during the election race and the fervor at his rallies during the campaign, you know the swooning and fainting and the chanting "yes we can" like it was some sort of evangelical tent revival. It was as if all reason was lost in the euphoria of this "man." At first I tried to chalk it up to the excitement of the election. But it continues now even after he has won the election. Not only is it creepy, it is very, very dangerous.
Just a simple Google search of obama blogs, I find this and many others with similar sentiments:
"Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway... Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul."
I'm not sure who the author is, but the author and this country has lost touch with reality and lost touch with God to the extent that people are looking to Obama as some sort of god. Not believing in God doesn't mean you believe in nothing, it means you'll believe in anything and look around you, there is a great many people ready to believe in anything, even a black man from a corrupt Chicago political machine with a nice smile and pretty words.
Just for the record, Obama is not a messiah or the messiah, he is not our savior, though he tries portrays himself as just that. He is not operating some elevated, enlightened plane on which the rest of us are not fit to tread. He is merely a man wrongfully elected into the most powerful position in the world. Forgive me if my fears and concerns aren't assuaged by the fact that he ordered a chili dog for lunch!
Absolutely wonderful video. I hope it finds its way...
to Mr. Obama so he can put a face to his comments. I think he might find it humbling. What a wondeful young man. God bless him!
I guess I am looking at the distinct disadvantage the average worker in America finds himself in.
Most are not old enough to remember why unions were necessary in the first place. Of course unions are far from perfect, but without the collective bargaining power they afford, I'm not sure what our options are. If it is left up to the corporations then more and more is taken from the worker. That seems to be what has played out. Ideas?
compassion is standing up
for the wronged and the weak. Your constant assaults on the truth deserve no compassion. We are standing up for the truth which will lead us out of the current darkness that has descended upon our country. As soon as the scoundrels are ejected, hopefully the veil will be lifted. Until then, we will yank out the roots of deception before it can take root and grow and spread.
STANDING OVATION!!!!
.
Thank you Kaydie for standing with me.
These obots need a wake up call!
Standing ovation!!!
Take a bow - best post I've read in a while!
Still standing by the original statement.
Google "population trends" using the quotes to get exact phrase matches and voila…2,240,000 hits emerge. Scroll on down through the first couple of pages and notice that the links do not take you to blogs and chat room forums. This is the language of academic research scholarship, government institutions, statistical databases, etc. Maybe they too need to be scolded and sent to the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion
1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army
2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun.
4. Infringement by intrusion
Invasion is what we did in Iraq and what Russia did in Georgia. Legal and illegal immigrants alike are not enemies. They do not arrive in armies, nor are they a disease. They do not come here with the express intent to cause trouble, inflict harm, possess, take over, infringe or intrude. These are living, breathing, impoverished human beings who come here looking for work in an attempt to feed themselves and their families.
The underlying causes, conditions and political circumstances have been examined and debated on this forum in excruciating detail and will not be repeated here because that was not the intent of the original post. An opinion was expressed and countered. Some choose to embrace diversity, others choose to fear, still others become outraged and even hateful. The population trend is what it is. The US is a developed country with low birth rates per capita with an aging boomer population. Mexico is a developing country with a much broader youth base with many fertile years in front of them and a much higher per capita birth rate. It is a difference in cultures.
It is quite natural in this circumstance (which also exists in other western developed counties) that the population growth in developing countries like Mexico outpaces that that in the developed countries and, yes, white folks will be outnumbered. It is a simple fact of life and one that we probably should be addressing realistically.
The issue is global, not national. The equalizing affect could be manifested in another "natural" progression…the evolution away from racial division and hatred. I only regret that I will probably not live long enough to see it.
My reasons for not standing behind Obama.......... sm
In no particular order of importance.
1. Lack of qualification, even by his own admission as recently as 2004 when he accepted his Senate seat and stated that he felt he would not be qualified for POTUS.
2. Past associations.
3. Current associations and financial backers.
4. His stance on abortion.
5. His stance on gay marriage.
6. His lack of knowledge of foreign policy. He thinks he can just "sit down and negotiate" with the biggest terrorist nations on earth.
7. Lack of proof of citizenship.
8. Questionable background in terms of religion, which lies deeper than just whether he is Protestant or Catholic or nondenomianational.
9. Issues with many of his campaign "promises" not limited to the Civil Defense Service.
None of my issues with Obama center on anything other than the above. Simply put, I don't trust him.
For me, being patriotic means standing up for your
nm
Cowards never understand standing up for anything....
@
Not standing up to the liberal Democratic party
That's for starters. Here's my short list:
1) Not a strong enough military operation in Iraq and Afhghanistan.
2) Too soft on immigration.
3) Witholding the known valid/verified intelligence that proves there were WMDs in Iraq. (I'll never for my life figure that out).
4) Not hiring Tony Snow sooner to show what absolute idiots are in the White House press corps.
5) Letting the U.N. change his stance on the Lebanon/Israel conflict.
I could go on, but I'm at work and I already know you will absolutely not agree with my perceived Bush mistakes, so I won't waste anymore of my time or breath.
And re not standing up to the liberal Democratic party:
Stand up to whom and why? The Congress is run by Republicans. Bush does whatever he wants, when he wants, regardless of what Congress or the courts deem to be legal or constitutional.
He has already stood up to them by spreading propaganda that anyone who doesn't agree with him is either on the terrorist's side or a fascist. If he gets really mad, he swiftboats them.
This is the reason people want him to get warrants before spying on Americans. A President with such a history of personal revenge can't be trusted to just go after the terrorists. He can't be trusted not to spy on innocent Americans who don't agree with his policies. He can't be trusted to have a good reason to spy. He just can't be trusted, period.
Perfect definition! I'm standing up & cheering...
In applause. Excellent.
I hope you are right, that someone is standing up for the middle class (sm)
But I think what is more likely to happen is that we will ALL be taxed more and we will ALL have less money and it will be spread throughout the world. What you see as wealth and middle class will no longer be the same. Wealth will be being able to afford to feed your family. The jobs will go overseas alright, even more so than they are now. I wish I believed that you are right. That would be great! Unfortunately, I think it is a dream, far from the reality of the nightmare that is coming.
I'm standing outside with my basket. Will it fall soon, I hope? sm
...and please, if you wish to be understood by the widest viewership, confine yourself to smaller words. I believe "irony" has three of them syllerbubble thingies, which is two over the limit.
Russo's film gets standing ovation in Cannes.sm
Cannes Premiere Gets Standing Ovation
Aaron Russo’s AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM
To Open Across America July 28
CANNES, FRANCE – Aaron Russo’s incendiary political documentary which exposes many of the governmental organizations and entities that have abridged the freedoms of U.S. citizens had its international premiere at Cannes and won a standing ovation. The event, which was held on the beach and filled to capacity, was open to the public and drew a crowd of people who stood along the boardwalk to watch the film.
Through interviews with U.S. Congressmen, as well the former IRS Commissioner, former IRS and FBI agents, tax attorneys and authors, Russo proves conclusively that there is no law requiring citizens to pay a direct tax on their labor. His film connects the dots between money creation, federal income tax, voter fraud, the national identity card (which becomes law in May 2008) and the implementation of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology to track citizens. Neither left nor right-wing in perspective, the film concludes that the U.S. government is taking on the characteristics of a police state. Doc will open on multiple screens in cities across the U.S. beginning July 28.
The international audience at Cannes as well as the European media has been fascinated by Russo’s fiery diatribe against the direction America is heading. The discussion that followed the preview lasted for thirty minutes. Actor Nick Nolte, in Cannes for the premiere of “Over The Hedge,” joined Russo during the event. “The information in this film is something everybody has to know”, said Nolte, who was the lead actor in “Teachers,” a film produced by Russo.
Russo, who is best known as the producer of feature films including “The Rose” with Bette Midler and “Trading Places” with Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd, wrote, produced, and directed the doc. “I am disgusted by the direction America was heading,” says Russo. “I made this movie because I want to live in a free country and I want my kids and grandkids to live in a free country. The American people must abandon the myth that America is still the land of liberty that it once was.”
Russo’s doc already has a tremendous grass root groundswell behind it. The film has previewed in over twenty-five cities with sold out theatres and standing ovations. The website, www.freedomtofascism.com has been had over five hundred thousand (500,000) streams of the video trailer. Additionally, through the website and from grassroots screenings, over $100,000 in non-deductible donations has been collected to help with the theatrical release.
EDITORS AND PRODUCERS:
For Press Inquiries contact press@cinemalibrestudio.com
****************************************************************
Primary Objectives
* Stop the polarization of America
* Stop the domination of the Democratic and Republican parties over our political system
* Shut down the Federal Reserve system
* Return America's gold to Fort Knox and have it audited
* Have Congress and the IRS, in a public forum, reveal the law that requires Americans to pay a direct, unapportioned tax on their labor.
* Make computerized voting illegal in all 50 states
* Keep the internet free and out of the control of large institutions
* Rescind the law called the Real ID Act so Americans never have to carry a National ID Card
* Make it illegal to implant RFID chips in human beings
* Educate juries to the fact that they have the right to determine the law as well as the facts of a case
* Educate juries to the fact that they are not obligated to follow the instructions of a judge
* Stop Globalization because it is the path to a one world government
* Protect our borders
* Restore the environment
* Put an end to the Patriot Act
* Sign up millions of Americans so we can accomplish our objectives
There is a difference between courts agreeing and denying based on standing...
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules....sm
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair
01/05/2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”
In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.
After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.
Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.
Below is the text of the letter on which the House Republican leadership has signed off.
January 5, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madame Speaker,
We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.
President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans’ trust and confidence in the People’s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.
As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government – a theme central to President-elect Obama’s campaign last year. He promoted a message of “change,” but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of “change.” Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.
The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority’s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.
This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.
Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation’s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.
Sincerely,
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Republican Whip
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Conference Chairman
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Policy Committee Chairman
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wyo.), Conference Vice-Chair
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), Conference Secretary
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Chief Deputy Whip
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rules Committee Ranking Republican
(Click here for a pdf copy of the letter with signatures.)
get off my case
Did it irk you that I asked AG to post here? Did it get you so upset that you had to repost a previous post? For pete sake, what is your problem? You are filled with hate, absolute hate and anger. You need to chill. When you disagree with someone, you continue on and on and on and on, never letting up with the other person. GET OFF MY CASE. If my posts enrage you as so obviously they do, DO NOT READ THEM. You are so whacked out that you state I would chain myself to the WH with explosives. When I read that, I just about coughed up the soda I was drinking I could not believe any sane person would post something like that. As much as I know you are an angry person, no doubt with rage in your heart, I would NEVER EVER think that of you or post something so evil like that about you. Now, Im saying good bye to you as its obvious through you posts over time you cannot post to me without attacking me, so skip my posts, delete them and MYOB when it comes to me and my opinions.
I second Kam's why. I also don't believe that that will be the case s/m
If you are looking at the primary turnouts, record numbers are turning out on the Democrat side, and on the Republican side fewer are turning out than did in 2004 and 2000, and if that trend continues it bodes well for whatever Democratic candidate ultimately gets the nomination. Also, should that candidate be Hillary Clinton, what candidate on the Republican side is, for lack of a better word, sweeping the voters off their feet, whether with agenda or personality? McCain? Huckabee? Romney?, which one?
Actually, the only two candidates that I think have the qualities of real zeal and enthusiasm are Barack Obama and Ron Paul. Ron Paul isn't going to get the nomination, Obama may or may not, and if not, if the Democrat turnouts remain high, and in general the country truly wanting a different direction, they are going to elect a Democrat this time, and if it is Clinton she will be elected, even if she has no more zeal or charisma than Huckabee, McCain or Romney.
That's what I think anyway.
Just in case.
You accused me earlier of being a racist and posting racist posts. I challenged you to find one post I did and you can't find one. You tried to use something I said after you accused me. I also read through all my posts and there are no racist remarks. When I referred to Michelle not talking like a black woman I was referring to your typical stereotyping us because we don't always talk or write the way you think all black people do. You stereotype and assumed I was white because why, I didn't talk like my friends? I'll say it again. Michelle Obama is one classy lady.
You know one thing I was taught growing up is if I'm ever wrong to at least have the decency to say I'm wrong and am sorry, but I guess not everyone is like that.
You are just wrong.
Of course he would do it in that case, anyone would (sm)
They shouldn't have to do elective abortions that are not for the health of the mother unless it is something they believe in. They should not be forced to do it. It is unethical to ask someone to do something they think is wrong. It would be unethical to ask a non-Christian to pray with a patient if they felt it was against their religion, even if the patient asked for it. In these cases, they should have someone else do it, who does not feel it is against their beliefs.
yes, but the pie man in this case...
was forced to sell pies on credit to people who could never pay for them by whom?.....NOT Bush.
In this case
x
In this case.........
it is convenient to maintain the belief that life begins with conception and ends at birth...........
Oh, right. If that is the case, he should have been
nm
Hardly the case.
Bush escaped that microsope you mentioned in the mainstream media until the kick-off of the 2008 election primaries. There was next to NO scrutiny of his ineptitude prior to that. Talk about getting a free pass. Besides that, there is little to no substance in this witch hunt so far and it is certainly nothing to fear, especially with those lopsided numbers in the House and Senate that have essentialy put the pubs into exile. I'm just starting to kick back and get comfortable and am going to enjoy watching every single last second of it all.
If this were the case...(sm)
then your statment would be relevant. However, that is not the case. The pay of the white male is the pay that everyone else strives for. And why wouldn't a white male be able to sue if treated unfairly? I'm pretty sure there isn't a law that prevents that. Everyone else has had to go through that process for years and years.
Well, in that case....(sm)
the only thing that I can suggest is to buff up. This might help:
http://stronglifts.com/how-to-build-muscle-mass-guide/
In that case....(sm)
I think I've been "pubbed." LOL.
If that were the case...(sm)
then wouldn't the same be true for alcohol? Most people who drink don't make their own alcohol. As far as addiction goes, we'll just have to disagree on that one. There are studies on both sides, and they are a dime a dozen. However, I have tried it, and as Obama said -- yes I inhaled because that was the point. Did I form an addiction? No. As for new people trying it, well, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone between the ages of 12 and 65 who could honestly say they haven't already tried it.
My daughter is now 24 -- about the age when they start telling you about things they did as teenagers....LOL. I don't know if you have kids or what age they might be, but when they get to that age and if they can openly communicate with you, you might be surprised at what you will find out. No, I'm not saying that your kids would automatically fall into that category, but most do.
If that is the case, why does someone like FOX
nm
That is not the case
Social Security came into being and started paying out at the same time...there was no contributing to it for years before you got to receive payments. Each person's SS payments are funded by the other workers paying into the system. In addition, payments are determined by what you've earned historically and not by what you've paid in.
In this case.....(sm)
since we are talking about history, I would go with historical facts as opposed to theological references.
Case in point.
I never said what my political affiliation is, gt. Mostly, I have talked about one subject, Bill Bennett, and not from a political viewpoint either. You automatically assume that because I do not agree with you, I am a neocon. But to hear you tell it, you don't make generalizations. But you see, you do, and this is made perfectly clear by this post. Also, the misuse and overuse of the term neocon says a lot about you. Do you realize how strongly you negate intelligent debate when you feel the need to label the person to whom you are speaking?
In that case, you sure must not read much!!!
Plus you seem kind of proud to be so darn ignorant.
Writer, in case you do see this
This is not the first time A.W. has had a hissy fit and said she's leaving....with that said the poster she talked about who was banned (something I didn't know until this thread) was the queen mother of hatred and never posted anything that was not extremely inflammatory. She accused others of drinking while freely admitting she struggled with an alcohol problem. She verbalized death wishes upon the president...so on and so on. She attacked conservatives with her fangs bared. It's really pretty sad that they cannot talk to people without taking broad issues so personally. There are a few, (and I do mean a few here) while we definitely differ with them on a lot of issues are approachable and will have a decent conversation with you. However, the amicable people are usually run off the board by the bitter ones who equate Bush and conservatives with Satan. It's really sad they are stuck in such an immature state and/or overwrought with bitterness.
In this case, I would say it was more Malloy...sm
If it was truly financial, they just made their situation worse firing Malloy. He was very popular and many are cancelling their premium subscriptions to AAR.
Once case scenario that happens sm
One case scenario that happens regarding employed people getting health insurance through their employers is this. Unfortunately recessions happen. A covered person is laid off. Yes, they can continue coverage through COBRA. Some recessions are long lasting, the laid off person cannot find employment for months or longer. The bills meanwhile are racking up, if there are any savings it not so slowly gets eaten up, and the COBRA coverage is not cheap, to the tune of $600.00 a month or more. That person may very well want to hold onto their coverage but simply cannot. They have to drop the coverage. Hopefully this person eventually is able to get another job that also has health insurance benefits. They then have to go through another pre-existing condition waiting period as they had to drop their insurance and therefore lost their continuous coverage provision. Maybe that person falls seriously ill during that period with some pre-existing condition, and ...financially ruined for the rest of their life as a result..through no fault of their own.
Yes, there are people who are able to afford health insurance but have a devil may care attitude...until they become ill, but there are many other scenarios that are occurring as well, and occurring more frequently.
Another problem is due to the high cost of health insurance fewer and fewer employers are even offering benefits, which leaves working people to attempt to secure individual policies, and in that market anyone can be denied coverage. It does not even have to be a "major" health condition. Heath insurance companies can, and do, deny people coverage due to "run of the mill" problems such as a little hypothyroidism, or that they broke a few bones as a kid while growing up.
I certainly don't have the answers, but tis rather a mess.
well said, ditto, only in my case, it
was cherokee on one side, who by the way, are among those legally here and least heard from and not whining although they certainly have enough reason. The other sides are Irish and English and then there are the Swedes who did 6 months time quarantee on Ellis Island before coming to Texas. She outlived 3 husbands and raised 5 children, 2 boys fighting in WWII and winning for one a bronze star and the other a purple heart and he rode into Berlin on a tank the day the Americans took it. The one with the bronze star saved a man's life at the cost of his own in the 50's on a light pole working for GE. They all grew up speaking Swedish and all learned English. In my case, I learned morse code and that will have to do for my second language.
That may be the case. But it is up to individuals...
whether or not to get down and wallow in that kind of stuff or rise above it. I just wish more would rise above it. I don't think Obama thinks, because he is running for President, his children should be fair game and he should just roll over and take it because of what he is doing in his life. At least I hope he wouldn't. And I find it sad that some of his supporters do. That is all I am saying.
If that's the case, then one thing you might
the fact that Obama's opposition has had a much longer time, including the entire primary seasion (which seemed to last forever) to put him down and promote character assassinating rhetoric. SP, an unknown from out of nowhere, has been on the scene almost one week. Seems like it may be a bit premature to draw any hasty conclusions until a little more time passes. There is still much about her that is unknown. For me, that is a yellow caution light at best.
The case was about a teacher
There was a case where they were trying to ban a teacher from wearing a cross.
Well....that being the case...we only have this guy's word...
that those figures are correct, but you accept those at face value? My whole point in this is that she did her job for the people who elected her...the people of Alaska. I don't see anything wrong with that.
No I think it's another deadly case of
8
Case in point......
The fact that I know you have not bothered to educate yourself on the Federal Reserve is the reason you continue to blame a certain party, the party you hate. That doesn't mean that party is to blame, just who you chose to blame because you refuse to take the time to discover why we are in this shape. Bush wasn't even born when the problem began and the institution that started the problem...
Guess what? It is true. The Federal Reserve really does exist and will exist even when Obama is in office. And it will continue to manipulate you and your money and run your government and other governments as well. Who will you blame then?
Anybody heard of this case?
I had heard that there was some question as to where Obama was born ...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs
|
