You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘POTUS’ tag.
News comes today that the DNC is in the process of scaling back on some of the events surrounding its Convention in Charlotte, NC.
Add to that the list of Democrats who are opting out of attending the Big Event. Along with Sen. Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill has announced today that she will not be in attendance. Others include Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, and Rep. Nick Rahall all of West Virginia, and Montana Sen. Jon Tester, Pennsylvania Rep. Mark Critz, New York Reps. Kathy Hochul and Bill Owens.
From West Virginia, the RNC notes:
“We all know the only reason they’re refusing to attend the DNC Convention is they’re afraid to tell the people of West Virginia who they support for President, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is political spin aimed at purposefully misleading the voters,” Conrad Lucas, chairman of the West Virginia Republican Party said in a statement following the news that Sen. Joe Manchin, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, and Rep. Nick Rahall would not be heading to the convention.
It is amazing how they are trying to distance themselves. It is amazing how in a mere 4 years the glamour of the Mile High City, with an acceptance speech in a setting like the Greek Parthenoen, the spark has dwindled to an ember.
Now the President is bashing Romney’s fundraising efforts, whining that he will be the first sitting POTUS to be outspent in his reelection campaign, citing that he cannot spend as much time fundraising because as POTUS he has more important things to do. REALLY REALLY. Is he joking!!??
Despite the fact that twenty-six states have laws or a part of their Constitution that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and despite the fact that the only states where same-sex marriage is deemed legal are where it has been done by the Legislatures or court, and despite the fact that in EVERY STATE where the measure has been placed on the ballot for the vote of the people the idea of same-sex marriage has been rejected, the Obama Administration is weighing in that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) should be overturned.
Before the “homophobe” comments begin, let me reiterate a point I have made many times on this blog: being opposed to the idea of gay marriage does not mean I hate gays. It does not mean that gays should be discriminated against.
Yet, the argument goes that by not permitting gays to marry discriminates against them. It denies them certain rights that married couples enjoy. I have said repeatedly that with the exception of tax benefits and social security benefits, every other right or benefit can be afforded to a same-sex couple by legal and enforceable means.
So why is the President pushing this issue now? Why didn’t the POTUS push this at the same time he pushed for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? Is this exactly as it appears… a calculated political move?
My question to those who support the change in the definition of marriage– if we make the change to same-sex marriage, where do we draw the line when the polygamists want it changed to accomodate them, etc?
as reported in the Huffington Post:
Maricopa County, Ariz. Sheriff Joe Arpaio called on President Barack Obama to release the microfiche of his birth certificate in an interview Tuesday with the Phoenix New Times.
The White House released Obama’s long-form birth certificate online in April. Prior to that, the Obama campaign released a copy of his certificate of live birth online.
Despite that evidence, Arpaio wants to see the microfiche of Obama’s birth certificate. He claims that the birth of a pair of twins one day after Obama in the same hospital can be seen on microfiche filed with the Hawaii Department of Health. According to Arpaio, if the twins’ records are available on microfiche, Obama’s should be too, and should put to rest rumors that the White House doctored the copies of Obama’s birth certificate it released earlier this year.
“To help the president of the United States, let’s go to the microfiche,” he said. “All you have to do if you’re the president is go to the Department of Health, or whatever, and release the microfiche.
During an appearance on Morning Joe, Tuesday, Newsweek editor Tina Brown made an off-hand remark about Barack Obama, conceding that the politician “wasn’t ready” to be President. Brown has previously attacked Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives for daring to oppose the Obama
While discussing whether New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will change his mind and run for President, the former New Yorker editor blurted, “Actually, I just hope he doesn’t, because in the end, you know, his tremendous misgivings, maybe he is right. I mean, We had this with Obama. He wasn’t ready, it turns out, really.”
See video and article at: http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/09/27/tina-brown-obama-wasnt-ready-be-president
I will expect that our frequent commentor, Historian Dude, will state that Senator Marco Rubio meets the Constitutional eligibility requirements to serve this great Nation as a Vice President , and ultimately, as the Nation’s first President of Hispanic heritage. After all, the Historian Dude has argued that Barack Obama, born in Hawaii to a British subject, and thus having dual-citizenship, is entitled to be POTUS.
But from American Thinker, the Rubio eligibility is a bit muddied:
Marco Rubio is on most short lists for the Republican vice presidential nomination. The principal objection many conservatives have is whether Rubio is constitutionally eligible. How should we view this issue? At the outset, we need to dispose of the idea that the Constitution contemplates political parties nominating candidates to run for president or vice president. It does not.
In a discussion with the smarter part of the JAMES family, despite our support of Sen. Rubio, it was argued that though he was born here, his parents were not yet citizens (same applies to Gov. Jindal), and thus Rubio is not eligible to be President based on prior interpretations, and the application of Vittal’s Law of Nations. As a underscoring point to this, it was stated to JAMES that the Muslim cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, was born here in the United States to Yemeni parents attending school here. Do we want to say that he is eligible to be the POTUS?
So, as we clarify the Constitution for a balanced-budget amendment, and put the election of the Senators back into the hands of the State, should we also clarify the exact wording needed to fulfill the intent of our forefathers in prescribing that the POTUS be a natural-born citizen of this great country?