Interesting article see link inside

Looks like the feminists are supporting Palin.  Very interesting article and it explains why they are supporting her. 

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/09/06/palin-punditry-you-wont-see-in-the-papers-or-on-the-tv-news/

• Interesting article see link inside - ermt
  • Another question - in regards to the article and what feminists feel. - ermt
    • The 2 issues you describe usually go hand-in-hand. - 'Pro-life' is often used as a means to
      • Thank you for your reply - good post - ermt
      • At the risk of being called one of the religious fanatics.... - sam
  • OMG! Are you freaking kidding? Feminists vote...sm - oldtimer
    • Whoa - hold on - Don't shoot the messenger - ermt
  • Like I'm really SURE any card-carrying feminist, - (and I'm one of them), -sm
    • Actually, she does leave the caveat of... - sam
      • I'm curious - what obviously god-forsaken part of the country - do you live in?

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27012038

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/10/women.uselections2008

I'm certainly no McCain fan; however, when I first heard about this possible "controversy"  concerning his birth, contrary to this article, I thought it was frivolous at least and outrageous at most, considering his father was a soldier at the time, and I felt it was a slap in the face to soldiers everywhere.

Just as McCain was vetted about this issue, so was Obama, and both men were found to be eligible to run for President.

By Carl Hulse

Published: February 28, 2008

WASHINGTON: The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

McCain's likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a "natural-born citizen" can hold the nation's highest office.

Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.

"There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent," said Sarah Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. "It is not a slam-dunk situation."

McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of McCain's closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.

"He was posted there on orders from the United States government," Graham said of McCain's father. "If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can't be president if they take an overseas assignment."

The phrase "natural born" was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to "declare expressly" that only a natural-born citizen could be president.

Duggin and others who have explored the arcane subject in depth say legal argument and basic fairness may indeed be on the side of McCain, a longtime member of Congress from Arizona. But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.

Duggin favors a constitutional amendment to settle the matter. Others have called on Congress to guarantee that Americans born outside the national boundaries can legitimately see themselves as potential contenders for the Oval Office.

"They ought to have the same rights," said Don Nickles, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma who in 2004 introduced legislation that would have established that children born abroad to American citizens could harbor presidential ambitions without a legal cloud over their hopes. "There is some ambiguity because there has never been a court case on what 'natural-born citizen' means."

McCain's situation is different from those of the current governors of California and Michigan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm, who were born in other countries and were first citizens of those nations, rendering them naturalized Americans ineligible under current interpretations. The conflict that could conceivably ensnare McCain goes more to the interpretation of "natural born" when weighed against intent and decades of immigration law.

McCain is not the first person to find himself in these circumstances. The last Arizona Republican to be a presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, faced the issue. He was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, three years before it became a state. But Goldwater did not win, and the view at the time was that since he was born in a continental territory that later became a state, he probably met the standard.

It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada. The 21st president, Chester Arthur, whose birthplace is Vermont, was rumored to have actually been born in Canada, prompting some to question his eligibility.

Quickly recognizing confusion over the evolving nature of citizenship, the First Congress in 1790 passed a measure that did define children of citizens "born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States to be natural born." But that law is still seen as potentially unconstitutional and was overtaken by subsequent legislation that omitted the "natural-born" phrase.

McCain's citizenship was established by statutes covering the offspring of Americans abroad and laws specific to the Canal Zone as Congress realized that Americans would be living and working in the area for extended periods. But whether he qualifies as natural-born has been a topic of Internet buzz for months, with some declaring him ineligible while others assert that he meets all the basic constitutional qualifications —— a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence.

"I don't think he has any problem whatsoever," said Nickles, a McCain supporter. "But I wouldn't be a bit surprised if somebody is going to try to make an issue out of it. If it goes to court, I think he will win."

Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.

In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be "unpredictable and unsatisfactory."

"If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain," Pryor said in a recent interview. "But it is certainly not a frivolous issue."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/28/america/28mccain.php

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1107-20.htm

Please see the below link for the previous time this was brought up.

convinces me.  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/ (No link, copy and paste)

Here's one example:

"Opinion of U.S. from abroad plummets under President Bush"

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/10/poll-europe-cri.html

We will not stop until the truth comes out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJc6uczdhE0

http://texasfred.net/tags/anchor-babies

I couldn't possibly agree more.  Going to bed now.

Ok, I knew I hated politics - actually I don't hate politics, just certain people in politics...this article goes to show why the Clintons are a disgrace to the democratic party.  Someone needs to slap Bill upside the head and say get with the program or get out...we don't want your kind here (this is an article coming out of UK - and they love him there).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2211812/Bill-Clinton-says-Barack-Obama-must-'kiss-my-ass'-for-his-support.html

Click below

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/

A little long but worth the read - Written by D Morris who used to work for the Clintons and were friends with them.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have always believed that they’re very different than the rest of us. Over their more than 30 years in politics together, they’ve learned one important and consistent lesson: that rules don’t matter. Rules don’t apply to them. Rules are for other people. Rules can be bent, changed, manipulated.

And that philosophy has worked very well for them.

So it’s particularly ironic that they are now turning to the Democratic Party Rules Committee to try and steal the presidential nomination that Hillary has already definitively lost to Barack Obama in the popular vote, the delegate count, and the total number of states.

Now she’ll try to get the Democratic bosses to rig it for her. If the rules don’t work, change them.

Under the guise of justice and fair play, Hillary Clinton is, in effect, asking the Rules Committee to rule that the party’s rules should be ignored — the same rules that the Rules Committee enacted and that Hillary and all of the other democrats supported without dissent. But that was then and now is now.

Hillary wants the Florida and Michigan votes to be seated, even though it would still make no difference in the outcome. She can’t win. After her embarrassing near loss in Indiana and her sound trouncing in North Carolina, Hillary Clinton is a fatally wounded candidate. She’s out of money, out of votes, and out of options.

But she won’t give up. She’ll never go home until the day that Obama actually reached the magic number of delegates.

Why?

Because she and her husband both believe that she is entitled to the nomination, entitled to the presidency. So they’re waiting for the inevitable signal that it will, in fact, be hers.

No matter that neither the voters nor the party leaders want her. No matter that she has to spend more than $11 million of her own money to keep her campaign afloat.

According to the Clintons, the nomination should be hers. She’s earned it. She’s ready. She wants it. She and Bill are sure that she’d be a great candidate.

So that’s why they’re waiting. Because there’s one other lesson they’ve both learned — that over time, anything can change. And they’re waiting for any break that time might bring.

They’ve see it before. When they were worried about her criminal liability in the Whitewater mess, they held their ground. Eventually, as the years went on, Jim McDougal, the chief witness against them, died of a heart attack in prison. When the special prosecutor was after her for perjury, she learned how to delay and then get by off on a technicality. Lost in the dust were the allegations of Hillary’s perjury. Once more, time was kind to her.

It was the same story during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. At first it seemed that Bill would be quickly thrown out of the White House, but two years later, although impeached, he was still incredibly popular. Time and patience had brought control of events back to the Clintons.

When they left the White House in utter disgrace over their ethical lapses and greed, they were under attack from even the friendliest of liberal media. But years of keeping their heads low, working hard at getting along with people in the Senate, turning to charitable works (with a little help from George W. Bush) and helping the party regulars erased the sordid images. Memories of pardons sold for campaign and library contributions, their scoundrel lobbyist brothers, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of ‘gifts’ that were solicited from people who wanted favors from the White House disappeared. Once again, time healed all.

Now, although seemingly out of time, they are still waiting. Something could happen to change things in just a minute.

They’re patiently waiting for that minute.

But beyond their belief in Hillary’s inalienable right to the nomination and Hillary’s inevitability, there are two more factors that are keeping her in.

One is a combination of Hillary’s incredible stubbornness and Bill’s growing arrogance. They both believe that no one, absolutely no one tells them what to do. No one is going to force them – a former president and a senator — to do anything. So the more people tell them that Hillary should quit the race, the more determined they are that she should stay in.

And finally, there seems to be an uncharacteristic absence of a reality base in Hillary’s thinking. Normally, she is a no-nonsense pragmatic politician who understand when she’s up and when she’s not. But lately she seems to ignore everything that’s in front of her except the supportive cheering of the partisan crowds and the certitude of Bill Clinton.

The proof of this is that she has lent a total of $11.6 million to her campaign. The Clintons are not people who part with a dime very easily. For them to fork over that much money to a failing campaign already in deep debt is the clearest statement that they are out of touch. Even after she won Pennsylvania — by only 12 delegates — there was no mathematical way for her to win the nomination. But she then poured another $6.4 million into the campaign coffers.

The Clintons are still waiting for a miracle that isn’t going to happen. They’re hoping that over time something big will derail Obama (no doubt they’re still frantically looking for that something).

And they’re stubbornly refusing to go home. And they’re desperately hoping to make sure the rules don’t count for them.

When the reality becomes unavoidable and it is clear that Hillary has to concede the nomination in 2008. Well, there’s always 2012 or 2016 or 2020 or …

These folks aren’t going away.

   http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2090356/posts

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover012207.htm