“but Obama’s going to ‘wag the dog’ with something in September or October and you know that Holder is never going to touch the ACORN crowd

“Marxists don’t relinquish power in a well behaved manner and as always the will of the people be damned”
___________________________________________________________________________

Well said. Either there will not be an election or it will be hopelessly corrupt, yet unchallenged. I will even bet, however, with the current crop of eunuchs in DC, that all Obama would have to do after he lost the election is to simply announce - with no explanation - that he was not stepping down, and tell Holder to “Make it so.”

“can’t think of a single October surprise scenario that would help Obama”

Announcing Michelle’s expecting would lock up the election. (More of an ‘August Surprise’)

She could always kill the baby- before the election even if polling indicated that would be a winning move.

Rubio’s parents were not naturalized until after he was born; thus, he was born to two Cuban citizen parents.

What to speak of the fact that he holds poisonous RINO/pro-illegal globalist viewpoints.

FEH!

“Bush was not on the ballot in 2008. Your sister is an idiot.”

She was aware of that. The point of the anecdote is that like many “Bush is an idiot” folks she voted for the Dem candidate and against the Republican candidate as a reaction to 8 years of Bush. Was it stupid? Yes. Did it happen enough times nationally to put the incompetent currently in office in charge? Absolutely. Will it happen again to drive him from office in November? Hope so. I think that is what the author is intimating.

This will go back to 2004. Kerry won Rat states, Bush won Republican states. It is now back to Ohio. Difference is Romney has a better chance of picking off Obama states than Obama has of picking off Romney states.

Will it be enough?

Nobody knew who Dan Quayle was either. Most VP’s are John Does. Nobody votes for the bottom of the presidential ticket anyway. The VP needs to be qualified to be President and his main duty is to inquire daily as to the health of the President. Its probably going to be Rob Portman a senator from Ohio and as far as I know he’s qualified to be President.

I have dreamed that same dream.

This was posted back when it first came

“This will go back to 2004. Kerry won Rat states, Bush won Republican states. It is now back to Ohio. Difference is Romney has a better chance of picking off Obama states than Obama has of picking off Romney states.Will it be enough?”

The way I see it is there are 4 possible outcomes.Romney in a landslide. Romney in a close election. Obama in a landslide. Obama in a close election.

The only outcome I think we can currently rule out is the Obama in a landslide scenario because I agree that the marginally red states that voted for him last time will not be voting for him this time.We may very well have the reverse with Romney picking up the marginally blue states like Iowa and Wisconsin resulting in a landslide with a Republican Senate ushered in or the 2004 scenario you described fighting over a few battleground states and a divided Congress. I think it gets down to the white vote. Obama won last time with the highest percentage of white voters (around 4%)than any Dem candidate since Johnson.Right now he is polling in the high thirties among white voters, the lowest in 60 years. Only problem is they are lesser share of the population this time around than in 2008.

Correction (around 4%) should be (around 44%)

“to be eligible to be president of the united states, you have to be a natural born american citizen. which is born in the usa of two legal citizens of the usa, or one legal citizen of the usa, or born of two legal citizens of the usa in a usa military post.”

Complete nonsense and has been shown to be so in court. “Natural born” folks have about the same level of rationality as Paulbots.

pistolpackinpapa....like your name...lol lol lol

The issue of Natural Born Citizen was brought against the white guy, John McCain, long before Barrack was nominated to the DNC as a Presidential Candidate.

In fact, in order to place McCain on the ballot, the United States Senate went so far as to craft the Senate Resolution 511 proclaiming John McCain a Natural Born Citizen.

There is a cloud over Barrack's birth, to be sure. But the fact that still remains is his birth was of a divided nationality British and American. One is wholly one thing or another but not completely two things at the same time.

I've leveraged some work on this from

Obama’s ineligibility: Were Americans set up by the press and then scammed by the Congress?

On February 28, 2008, about the time Barack Obama began to overtake Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Presidential primary, the New York Times published an article questioning McCain’s eligibility to be President according to the natural born citizen clause of Article II, Section I of the Constitution.

Needless to say, the Times story was immediately followed by numerous other news items questioning McCain’s eligibility.

After publication of the New York Times article in February, at least three lawsuits were filed challenging McCain’s eligibility e.g. California and New Hampshire.

Strangely enough, on February 29, 2008, the day after the Times article appeared, Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign announced he would co-sponsor legislation already introduced on February 28, 2008 by his political ally Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to ensure that John McCain could become president, even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. (Washington Post)

Obama said:

“Senator McCain has earned the right to be his party’s nominee, and no loophole should prevent him from competing in this campaign.”

SR 511 was introduced April 10, 2008 by Senator McCaskill and co-sponsored by Senators Leahy (D-VT), Obama (D-IL), Coburn (R-OK), Clinton (D-NY) and Webb (D-VA) and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

It was reported out of committee without amendment by Senator Leahy on April 24, 2008.

On April 30, 2008, the non-binding (no force of law) SR 511 was passed by unanimous consent (no recorded vote) stating:

As reported by the New York Times on April 18, 2008:

“Many who have studied the issue say it can only be definitively resolved by a Constitutional amendment.”
“Obviously, we are not going to get the Constitution amended in the next two or three months,” said Ms. McCaskill, who was driven to clear up any ambiguity after learning of the potential problem. “We are just trying to send the strongest signal we can as quickly and simply as we can.”

So, in April 2008, it appears that a political deal was struck between the Democrats and Republicans that would provide cover for both McCain and Obama on the issue of eligibility. That would also explain the continuing conspiracy of silence by our political elite.

Senate Resolution 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Now, let us take this simple and explore its hidden meaning.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

They apparently have read the Constitution and have zeroed in on one clause that no law or legislative body has the right to amend.

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

The term ‘natural born citizen’ is not defined, however other rulings by the Supreme Court, Congress, and other writings from such as John Bingham, do define what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. For sake of space I will only quote the following.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they claimed to have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

It sounds nice, but means nothing? Some fluff but again means nothing.

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whom are they referring to, that was born ‘outside’ the United States and who deemed them eligible?

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

So the Senate gave by law, what nature failed to do. Would that not be a ‘naturalized’ citizenship?

So the Senate deemed that two (2) American or US Citizen parents was an essential to the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ that was not defined in the Constitution. So how did they deem that the issue was being born outside the jurisdiction of the United States if they had no definition or requirements of what ‘constituted’ a ‘natural born citizen?’ It seems like they know the definition, but are hoping the American public doesn’t. There is but one defintion that a ‘natural born citizen’ has to have citizen parents and being born in country and that is Vattel’s Law of Nations.

As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.

“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”

The reason I make this point is that for the chance that John Mccain would have actually won the 2008 Presidential election. The issue of his eligibility not only would have been brought up, but would have stated congressional hearings, the likes of Watergate all over again. The Congress would have in no time instituted articles of impeachment and the motion would have been approved. Then the Senate would have their chance to remove John McCain, however since they already have voted with their ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, regardless how the vote went. A non-binding, non-lawful resolution that trumps the United States Constitution could be waved in front of the American public, and John McCain, could go back in the corner, stick his thumb in his pie, and exclaim “Oh, what a good boy am I.”

Senate Resolution 511, was an attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution, and amend the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause of which there has NEVER been an amendment or change too.

More then just a non-binding resolution, SR511 defined John McCain’s eligibility based on being born of US Parents [NOTE the plural] but outside the country. Therefore the only alternative based on THEIR wording is ‘born in country’. They did not change the requirement of two (2) US parents.

Where is there a definition as to a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ based on parents [again plural] and born in country? Vattel’s Law of Nations.

Why if John McCain was held to these requirements, was Barack Obama not held of being born of US Parents [plural] and in the United States.

Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution?

I think despite what people say, this won’t be a razor clise election.

Obama won 53-46-1. I think the margin will be within a point of that rangw.
Just my gut talking. Or possibly that burrito I had for breakfast

No.

In order to serve as VP you must be eligible to be president.

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Rubio is a Native Citizen.

All contributions are for the Current Quarter Expenses.

Every time a Freeper or Lurker signs up to be a New Monthly Donor

A generous Freeper donates $10!!

Please sign up now!

I`m always entertained by these comparisons to 1980. The America of that era would`ve laughed off the idea of electing a hardcore marxist. As a matter of fact, Gus Hall and Angela Davis were roughly the same ideology as today`s democrat party, and they garnered all of 1% support.

The America of today is rife with a self-interested entitlement mentality. The level of understanding of things political is far less, because voters are driven far more reflexively by ideology and not issue awareness. As a result, the candidate who promises the most “free stuff” has the inside track.

Add to all that an intensely liberal “media” providing free airtime for the dems, and we have an America that bears very little resemblance to the one that elected Reagan. The best hope for defeating 0bama (at best, a close election.. there`ll be no landslide defeat of him) is an unforeseen, cataclysmic development that turns public opinion against him.

Amazingly, the drumbeat of negative economic news, the 0bamacare ruling, F&F, the national security leaks, the homo marriage issue haven`t touched 0bama. Prompted by “media” propaganda, Americans still blame Bush for the ongoing recession.

I wish I could share the optimism.

I don’t know the answer to that question. Is not the VP positioned to take over for the POTUS in the event the latter cannot fulfill his or her duties?

Not only an excellent analysis, by but Mr. Root (whom I voted for)expresses my sentiments perfectly;
“Neither Obama nor Romney are my horses in the race. I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster. My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I don’t believe it’s possible to turnaround America.”