In re: 1. Amy Balliet and Willow White, is actually Willow Witte. I know, because I am her mother.

Otherwise, keep up the good work.

If you ever need pizza in North Seatlle, Errin & Marshall deserve your business. Besides, their pie is like the most fantastic pizza one could ever have for Neapolitan style.

I will take a stand: I love home improvement catalogs… There, I said it and I’m not ashamed.

Rgds,
Deeps

wonder if it had anything to do with the gangbangers?

I am biased as I just released a new book on Living Together & Loving It which is the first book to take a serious & non-judgmental look at helping cohabitating couples improve the fitness of their relationships.

America has become a Cohabitation Nation and Living Together is the new institution.

After the training mentioned in the article above, volunteers observed post-election procedures in counties around California. Velvet Revolution then requested an investigation into the Proposition 8 vote. You can read our request here, at the Velvet Revolution Election Protection Strike Force.

That’s amazing. Maybe they didn’t know she is gay. In Islamic countries homosexuality is punishable by death.

http://www.linkedin.com (professional networking)
http://www.careerbuilder.com (keyword job search)
http://www.realmatch.com (matches jobs based on skills)

good luck to those looking.

When will the United States recognize that we are all “human”?

No wonder she’s singing a different tune now that SHE’s the one who stands to lose something.

Read more: Tacos, with a side of bigotry

They complain about the boycotts being a personal attack on pro-H8 supporters. Well, the whole Yes on H8 campaign was a personal attack. I’m sick of being portrayed as the bad guy for being mad about having my rights taken away and for being pissed about someone spending money to finance hateful political attack ads that say I’m a threat to children and society.

Marriage is not a religious institution. Let me repeat: Marriage is NOT a religious institution. It is a legally binding contract issued by the state which confers hundreds of rights to the married couple (1,377 in Ohio alone). You don’t get divorced in a church, and you can get married anywhere, even in an All-Night Las Vegas Drive-thru, so let’s stop leaving the word ‘marriage’ up to religions to define, it’s not THEIRS to define!

Thanks for sharing…

My kitty cat doesn’t like real trees (I love them)
so it’s artificial city here… but it’s a huge tall - fat pre-lit
tree… and it makes me feel like a kid again… smile…

Have a great Holiday - Everyone…

~Patricia — DomainBELL.com

I have just finished a book that describes the processes of appointment and the kinds of trouble that appointees should avoid and we citizens should watch out for. It is The Obama Political Appointee Primer: How to Do Something Worthwhile, Avoid Failure and Scandal, and Keep Your Self Respect at the Same Time by Lewis D. Eigen. If you are interested in these issues, there is a free excerpt on the web that you can read: http://www.bea-enterprises.com/book1/index.htm.

Yes, the law in Hawaii allows children born overseas, or in other states for that matter, to receive Hawaii birth documents if the parents lived in Hawaii for a certain period of time prior to the birth. NO, it does not allow the children who are born overseas or in other locations than Hawaii to receive Hawaii birth documents that say that they were born in Hawaii.

In other words, if Obama’s parents came back from Kenya and said, “Our child was born in Kenya. We would like a Hawaii birth certificate.” They would receive a birth document from Hawaii, but it would NOT say “born in Hawaii.” It would say “Hawaii certification of live birth - location of birth: Kenya.”

Why doesn’t Hawaii allow children who were born overseas to receive a Hawaii birth document that says they were born in Hawaii? Well, first, the Hawaii law does not say that it should do so. Yes, the law does ask for proof of the parent’s residency for a certain period prior to the birth. But, there is nothing in the law that says: “They can receive the location in Hawaii that they want for their child, just name a location” nor is there anything like that. It says they can receive a birth document for the child; that’s all. As in all other birth certificates and other legal documents, in the Hawaii birth document the information on the form has to be accurate. So, if they said “ born in Kenya,” it would read “born in Kenya.”

Second reason, to allow a person who was born in Boise or Kukamonga or Tasmania or Kenya to receive a birth document saying “born in Honolulu” would be an outright lie, and how many states want to encourage lying, especially in official documents? Third, it would mean that the State Department would no longer accept Hawaii birth documents that say “born in Hawaii” as proof of US citizenship for issuing passports. The US state department does accept Hawaii birth documents of persons who are listed as born in Hawaii as proof of US citizenship.

The certification of live birth issued by Hawaii, which says on it three times that Obama was born in Hawaii, is the only official document issued by Hawaii relative to birth (except perhaps to native Hawaiians by race who are trying to prove that fact). A hospital birth record is not an official document. It is often not accepted by governments for issuing drivers licenses, and it is certainly not accepted by the State Department.

Really Melissa? How about the Gay doctors, lawyers, CEOs, Directors, policemen, farmers, army Captains, etc? Why use stereotypical gay occupations?

Please, hurry. Then true peace will be born. And it won’t come from those who think shit sex is a beautiful thing.

http://cultureandcurrentaffairs.com/2008/11/24/common-ground-initiative-solution-to-lds-church-pr-fiasco/

BTW - We don’t ask and could care less if a candidate is gay.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state legislators — 439 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 742 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

(1) Revolving around Obama allegedly having lost his US citizenship due to dual nationality with Indonesia, when he went there when his mother re-married and when he attended Indonesian schools.
(2) Revolving around Obama allegedly having lost his US citizenship due to allegedly having traveled on a foreign passport (an Indonesian passport).
(3) Revolving around Obama allegedly not being a natural-born US citizen due to the combination of his having dual nationality at birth because of his father’s being a Kenyan (at the time a British subject since Kenya was a colony at the time).

Taking these up in order.

As to (1) there have been several Supreme Court rulings on this, with the decision being in all cases that a child cannot lose his US citizenship due to having the combination of dual nationality and his parents renouncing his US citizenship when he was a child. The court ruled that only when a person becomes an adult can she or he themselves relinquish US citizenship.

You will see the proof of this at:
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html

In particular look at the Elg case:

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in the US to Swedish parents, who took her back with them to Sweden when she was a baby. Shortly after her 21st birthday, she obtained a US passport and returned to the US.
Some years later, the US government attempted to deport her on the grounds that when her parents had taken her to live in Sweden, she had become a Swedish citizen (under Swedish law), and as a result had lost her US citizenship. It was argued that an 1869 citizenship treaty between the US and Sweden, providing for the orderly transfer of citizenship by immigrants, called for loss of US citizenship following Swedish naturalization. This was one of the so-called “Bancroft Treaties” enacted between the US and numerous other countries between 1868 and 1937.

The Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, that the actions of Elg’s parents in obtaining Swedish citizenship for their daughter could not prevent her from reclaiming US citizenship and returning to the US as an adult, provided she did so within a reasonable time after reaching adulthood.

Obama returned to the USA before he was an adult.

As to (2). It turns out that this is based on a completely mistaken premise. The US has no policy that would strip someone of US citizenship due to she or he traveling on a foreign passport. This is simply not mentioned in the State Department’s advice on the matter. See:
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

In addition to travel on a foreign passport not being a reason that one can lose US citizenship, the State Department stress that it is difficult to lose citizenship by accident. This is because its standard for loss of citizenship requires someone to take an active role in relinquishing citizenship. In its words, “with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.” The State Department guidelines read:

“…the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.”

As to (3): This is a completely novel legal theory brought by Leo C. Donofrio, which argues that even if Obama was born in Hawaii the simple fact that his father was from Kenya and did not have US citizenship at the time of Obama’s birth meant that Obama was not “natural born” because natural born means more than the place of birth. Donofrio argues that the natural-born citizenship requirement of Article II should be read in the context of the 14th Amendment which says that a citizen must be born or naturalized AND “subject to the jurisdiction” of the USA.

Donofrio argues that Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA because his father was not a citizen and hence Obama was under the jurisdiction of the other country.

This is a highly novel theory, but the Supreme Court does not often accept novel theories. Moreover, this flies in the face of the simple fact that Article II of the constitution does not specifically rule out dual nationality, and that the common-language definition of a natural-born citizen has so far meant a person who was born in the USA. The issue of jurisdiction is unclear. It is unlikely to mean what Donofrio says, which was that Obama at the time of his birth was under the “jurisdiction” of Kenya or Britain.

More likely, jurisdiction means only that Obama was not born in a foreign embassy or consulate, where he would be under the jurisdiction of a foreign government.

To be sure, he had dual nationality, but the constitution does not rule out people who have dual nationality from being president. If it had intended to do so, it would have. So, the Donofrio theory is unlikely to get the votes of the strict constructionists on the court, and the theory is not likely to get the votes of the liberals or the swing votes.

(1) It would have taken a lifetime of covering up by his mother before and after the birth of Obama in Kenya (IF he were born in Kenya of course).

She could not have told a friend at college that she was excited that she soon would be travelling to Kenya to see her in-laws because, of course, a friend could have remembered it all the way to 2008. Or the friend could have told another friend. So, she could never have told anyone.

And, she could not have told a friend after the birth in Kenya “Say, let me tell you, it’s really an experience giving birth in Africa” because a friend could have remembered it even to 2008, or the friend could have told another friend, who would have remembered. So, she could never have told anyone.

And, she could not have told even her son when he was a kid or a teenager because kids and teenagers tend to talk, and the friends that they have told could have remembered it even to 2008. So, she could never have told even Obama.

Even though she went to Kenya to see her in-laws and was presumably proud that she was doing that, she did not have any pictures taken with them or leave any pictures of her with them. Or, she or Obama himself arranged for all the photos to be burned in the years following that trip. Why no photos? Was she covering up even then?

Thus in order to believe that Obama was born in Kenya, a lot of what is normal about taking trips and talking frankly about your life has to be eliminated. It is normal to take photos, but there are no photos. It is normal to tell people about trips, but no one was told (or they are all dead or sworn to secrecy, which is hard to believe in itself).

(2) Obama’s mother, Ann, would have had to travel to Kenya in the ninth month of pregnancy.

This is intrinsic to the born-in-Kenya theory.

But let’s examine it. For most pregnant women, even today, if they had a chance to travel before the ninth month of pregnancy, or after it, they would. Why? Because it is easier to get around and see things when you are not carrying all that weight, and because there is always a chance of sickness. This was even more the case in 1961, when the statistics of stillbirth were higher than now.

So, if they went to Kenya at all (which is unlikely because of item 1 above), it is more likely that they traveled before the ninth month, such as during the Christmas break from college, or Spring break, or right away in June when the college ended courses for the summer. Or, they planned to travel after the birth, taking Obama with them, but never made the trip because a year later the couple was breaking up. It is highly unlikely that they took the trip in the ninth month of pregnancy, and even more unlikely LATE in the ninth month, when the birth might occur on a plane or in a car in Kenya.

Also, since it is a long trip, and they did not have direct flights Hawaii-Africa at the time, it would be more likely that they would want to see some of the sights along the way. Doing that makes a long and expensive trip seem more worthwhile, since in the process of going to Kenya you also get to see New York and London and maybe Rome or Cairo on the way to Kenya, or the other way via Tokyo. But to do this would mean that you planned the trip to take it when when walking around and seeing the sights is not so difficult for a pregnant woman, such as as many months as possible before the birth, or after the birth.

(3) Obama’s mother would not have wanted to travel to Kenya when she was pregnant because to travel to Africa in those days required a Yellow Fever shot, which is not good during pregnancy.

(4) IF Obama’s mother had traveled to Kenya in 1961, there would be official records of that trip available in Kenya.

According to the theorists of Obama’s birth in Kenya, this is explained by the Kenyan government having sealed Obama’s files, which otherwise would have shown his Kenyan birth documents, his mother’s arrival in Kenya, and his own travel documents (or his being entered on his father or mother’s passport) after his birth in Kenya.

But to say explain the absence of such official documents to the Kenyan government requires it to be part of the conspiracy, and it has to be a universally successful conspiracy in Kenya. By that I mean that not only is the Kenyan government covering up, but all members of the government or hospitals who may have had a chance to look into either the immigration or birth records must be keeping the secret. That means that many people who knew about Obama’s mother being in Kenya or about the birth in Kenya must be keeping the secret. But why should they? They might mention the fact that they saw the files at a bar for a free drink. Or they might bring the story to a newspaper, or a wire service.

(5) Not merely the Kenyan government has to be party to the conspiracy.

The officials in the state of Hawaii have to be conspiring as well. You will recall that in early November they issued a press release and subsequently were interviewed by the Honolulu Advertiser, saying that they had looked into Obamas’ files and from the contents of those files could confirm the accuracy of the Certification of Live Birth that Obama has posted on Fightthesmears.com and shown to FactCheck.org and Polifact.com.

There are some conspiracy theorists who assert that what the officials in Hawaii did not say was that they had looked into the files and found a KENYAN birth certificate in the files. If so, they were intentionally misleading and were part of the conspiracy. To say that the certificate of live birth, which says on it that Obama was born in Honolulu, on the Island of Oahau, and in the County of Honolulu, is accurate after seeing a document from Kenya is a lie, and if it were shown that Obama really had been born in Kenya after giving the impression that he was born in Hawaii, the officials would be subject to prosecution for fraud. They would be very very unlikely to do that.

So, the officials in Hawaii and FactCheck and Polifact would have to be part of the conspiracy.

(6) On the other side of the story, the only “facts” that seem to weigh against the officials from Hawaii’s evidence that Obama was born in Kenya and the vast improbability of his mother traveling in the ninth month of pregnancy, is the tape recording of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, who apparently said that she was present at his birth in Kenya.

There are a number of explanations for this: the most obvious being that she did not understand the question, the one that is not so very nice is that she is an old lady. The point to remember about this interview (and I urge you to listen to it again) is that it was not conducted in order to obtain useful evidence that Obama was either born or not born in Kenya. It was designed to get a “yes” to the question whether she had been present when he was born.

If the interview had been a fair investigation of whether Obama had been born in Kenya, it would have asked questions to demonstrate that Obamas’ grandmother understood the question or that she was not confused about being “present.”

In such cases, it is normal to ask verifying questions along the following lines: “How long were Obama’s parents in Kenya before the birth?” “Did they travel to your village first, or go to the hospital and deliver the child first?” “How many days did Obams’s mother spend in hospital after delivering the child?” “In what month was the birth?” “What hospital?” And then there are questions along these lines: “If he was born in Kenya, why aren’t there any photos of him with his grandparents in Kenya?”

(7) Other than the grandmother, who is on tape, there are also claims that other Obama relatives in Kenya said the same thing, that he was born in Kenya. However, these reports all stem from the same sources, Corsi and WND, and have not been verified by anyone else. And, they also have not been asked such questions as how long Obama’s parents were in Kenya before the birth and why there are no photos.

Re: the simple question: “Mr. Obama, where is your birth certificate?”

The first answer to this is that a certification of live birth is a birth certificate, but not in the sense of being the original document issued either by the hospital or by the state at the time of birth. But it is a birth certificate in the sense of being a document issued by the state relevant to the birth and declaring that the person was born at that time and in that place.

But you may say, “why hasn’t he released his original birth certificate?” The first answer is that it is unnecessary. The officials in Hawaii have confirmed that there is a document in the files showing that he was born in Hawaii. The certification of live birth, with the location of birth being in the USA, is enough for the US state department to issue passports, and in this case it has.

A longer answer would be along the following lines: Has anyone prior to this election asked to see the birth certificate of any president or presidential candidate before? I mean, did we ask to see Tom Jefferson’ s birth certificate, Tyler’s, Polk’s, Lincoln’s, Wilson’s, Hoover’s, FDR’s, JFK’s or either of the two Bushes’?

But in this case, the person has already shown his certification of live birth. Despite that a few people are asking that he show even more than that.

Why, since the certification of live birth proves his birth in the USA, since it is incredible to think that his mother traveled to Kenya in the ninth month of pregnancy and kept the secret all her life, and since the only ones who are asking for him to POST his original birth certificate are right-wing bloggers, should he do it?

To be sure, there are still some law cases pending, which might have the effect of requiring Obama to show his hospital birth certificate. IF so, there is an original birth certificate, in the files, (we know because the officials in Hawaii said so) and Obama can arrange to have it shown to the court. A court would be the right place to show it, not on-line, and a court would have the facilities to authenticate such a document. But unless a court asks to see it, why should he post it?

IF a court doesn’t ask to see it, then what? Well, you can keep on thinking that he was born in Kenya, although there is no evidence and it is most unlikely, or you can get on with your life. Did you know that there are still some people who believe that the US government continues to hide the bodies of aliens in Rosewell, NM?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1spPrzvYWRI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8b_usFyLHQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1spPrzvYWRI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8b_usFyLHQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1spPrzvYWRI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8b_usFyLHQ