Natural Born Citizen

January 28,2012, Atlanta, GA. President Obama’s Presidency is up for question over his heritage. For the past 2-3 years, his citizenship status has been up for debate because of his “birth certificate” which proved that he was born in Hawaii. He was born of one parent who was a non-citizen, his Dad, and his mother that is an American Citizen.
Natural-Born citizenship is required as one of the requirements to be a President. The Founding Fathers reasoned that a person who has lived as a natural-born citizen would be more familiar with being an American than someone who was a new citizen.
“For persons born in the United States, the rights of U.S. citizenship have been ensured, in constitutional theory if not in everyday practice, since the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and the civil rights laws of the 1960’s. The Fourteenth Amendment conferred citizenship upon “all persons born in the United States (It has been proven that Obama was born in Hawaii—his true copy of the birth certificate was produced)…and subject to the jurisdiction therof.” Subsequent laws also give citizenship to children born outside the United States to parents who are American citizens.”
James Q. Wilson AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
President Obama is and has been accepted as the President of the United States. The term that is up for question is “Natural Born”. This has never been questioned before. It has been assumed that everyone understands what natural born means, a natural birth. The Constitutional process has accepted the fact that if one parent is a citizen, the child is a citizen. This is accepted as the norm, world-wide. Usually after the date of majority, the person can chose which citizenship he desires. Some nations even allow dual citizenship, however the nation chosen to live in usually is the one the person must fulfill any commitments, such as military duty.

Policy or politics?

This is the height of the primary season. Speeches are coming from many candidates and those that are in office. How do you tell whether a speech is an "action" speech
(a speech that is directed towards correcting a specific problem, or a speech designed to address a problem that would be good for politics.
Policy or Politics?
A letter to the editor in January 26, 2012 Arizona Republic, by Dennis Santillo, addresses this very problem
"Whenever there is a major address or action by a politician, there emerges the
conjecture: Is this a political speech or a policy speech, a real effort to
address a problem would be good politics!
People would vote for the politician who did the right thing, right?
Yet, it is well-recognized that there is (sic)a difference between what is
political and policy.
...why is that? ...because the electorate is too ignorant to be able to tell
it.
We vote, not on the basis of an intelligent, well-informed analysis and
judgment, but on some emotional/visceral reaction."


Reference President Obama's State of the Union speech. Was it an action speech, or a political speech. It was both. You need to read the text to find where it turns from one element to the other. Most politicians give speeches that have solutions to problems, but are good for politics also. It is at this point in a speech where a politician reaches into his "party's" platform (things they stand behind and/or want to see changed) You can identify the move when they start to enunciate the party's position, or downgrade the other party's positions. An action speech usually has ways available to those voting on the issue that it can be done in the easiest manner. Remember, if you want to change someone's mind on an issue, you want to make it as easy as possible for them to say "yes". So, if you see that kind of activity within a speech, the politician is making it easy for the voter, congress person, whomever to say yes, usually that is calling for action by the listener on the issue. Political speeches can take several forms, usually it backs up the speaker and his position on the issue. He is asking you for your support, in whatever form.
It is up to you to sort through the speech, see if you can identify with any of the positions; can those positions turn you into a supporter? If so, how much, verbal, monetary, unpaid worker, have house parties for the candidate? Do you want to hear more? Less?

Only One Side?

Are you only reading, watching, listening to one side of an issue? All people like to feel comfortable with the views they receive. They tend to only read the newspapers, magazines, and/or blogs they have chosen according to their political beliefs. They tend to watch only those news programs that also feel comfortable, for instance, liberals watch MSNBC, or CNN, Conservatives watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio.
Do you realize you are only getting what you are comfortable with? You are not allowing new thoughts into your frame of reference to challenge your comfortable thoughts. Perhaps a challenge would change, or at least, strengthen your existing beliefs.
Instead of reading a local conservative newspaper, once in a while, say once a week, read a liberal paper. See what the other side is saying! Are you only watching liberal MSNBC for your news, switch over to Fox News to see what their point of view represents. If you listen/watch Rush Limbaugh, switch over to Rachel Maddow and listen to how the liberal see the same issue.
If you open your frame of reference to other opinions and beliefs you will solidify your discussions with others about the issues. Perhaps you never looked at the issue as the other party before.
When you go into the voting booth to cast your ballot, you want to feel comfortable with your decision.

Primary Election II

“The candidate of a party becomes that party’s candidate because he or she is the choice of the party’s registered voters. This primary system of selecting the party’s candidates is now either mandatory or optional in all states and is almost universally used. In most states such primaries are “closed,” which means that only the voters who have officially registered as members of a party may participate in that party’s primaries. However, a few states hold “open” primaries, which means that the voter is not required to disclose a party preference but can mark any party’s primary ballot within the privacy of the voting booth. In some states, if no candidate is able to win an absolute majority in the first primary election a run-off election is held a few weeks later. In the run-off election the two candidates who received the most votes in the first primary compete for the nomination. “ Robert C. Bone , American Government.
(A small note: usually run-off election rules are very lax. A run-off election held in Arizona was won by the turn of a card)
Once the winner has been decided for that party, running for the office begins in earnest.
The party involved will campaign what will show off their candidate’s best side. Unfortunately, winning contests have been won using a term
called “mud-slinging”. The opposing party “digs” up “dirt” on the other candidate, such
as: marital infidelity, questionable accounting practices in their campaign, pressure on
certain individuals using various under the table tactics to influence them to “get behind
their candidacy”. The Governor of Illinois was recently sent to prison for 14 years for
attempting to “sell” President Obama’s Senate Seat to the highest bidder. Although this
did not have anything to do with a primary election, it shows what ends politicians will
stoop to for a winning election.
It is your job to find the items you favor and see which candidate has the most trustworthy presentation. Could you vote for that person in the up-coming General election?
This may take many hours of research, or if you are a supporter of a “polarizing” election item such as; abortion, your selection would be easy.
What is a polarizing event? A subject that is so severe in it’s meaning and thrust that a voter will vote for that candidate whether or not they agree with anything else the candidate stands for. With abortion, many people on the far right believe that life begins with the sperm fertilizing the egg within the woman’s womb. If that be the case then abortion would be killing a “person” with all the rights and privileges of an 18 year old citizen. Because the fertilized egg can not think for itself at the moment, the state must do it for the baby. Usually a court takes over and that ensures rights and privileges. It is polarizing because you can’t be a little bit pregnant. Usually abortions are permitted on those women that have conceived via incest, or rape or danger to the mother’s life. Candidates on the right make sure their “constituencies” know their position on abortion.
You should be able to ascertain the issues that you can stand behind and those that you can not. Can you stand up in a meeting and defend your position? Are you able to come back with knowledgeable answers to people’s responses?
What is on the line? If your “opponent” wins the election and the views presented by that person is used in Congress and you will have to abide by his/her presentation and representation. Is that acceptable? Or, will you research a bit more to strengthen your position when you present your side. Look for areas of your “opponent’s” presentation that you disagree with and research why you disagree and be ready for a further discussion with the candidate.