$50,000 to anybody in the media who can answer this question about Obama. Kook to pay 50 LARGE!

Colonial girl

Reagonomics were a disaster for America and Americans especially unionized households.

Colonialgirl,

From every unbiased angle, Reagonomics failed, just like the same trickle-down theories failed in the 20's -- and gave us the Great Depression. (It was also tried in the late 1800's with the same result.)

Before Reaganomics took hold, it was pretty cyclical in terms of highs and lows, never too extreme one way or the other, but still growing overall. Once many of the safeguards were lifted, the extremes came into play, and the bubble burst due to bad decisions that might not have been possible under more stringent guidlines.

Produce the birth certificate!

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

the above link will show you a copy , if you don't believe it's real, Sorry, but experts, have proved it real, are you an expert??

Not good enough! Produce the birth certificate! What a simple task for the President to do! But he can't...because?

THE PRESIDENT has completed this simple task, click on link below to see for yourself

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

Hmmm, where is the raised stamp from Hawaii that appears on all birth certificates? I don't see it anywhere on that website.

IF you read instead of looking you will have found that it's on the back, and does it's job as a security device, it won't photocopy or scan, thus making it impossible to forge a birth certificate without the embossing tool, if you go to your local librarry the books likely have a page, thats been embossed with the library stamp, ink is NOT used, it make raised bumps, that a blind person could feel,

Brad -

I believe you're mistaken about your definition of a 'natural born citizen'. You're correct to note the distinction between simply being a 'citizen' and being a 'natural born citizen', but your definition of 'natural born citizen' is incorrect. For instance, see the discussion of the Supreme Court Case U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark here, or the general discussion of Obama's situation here.

All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of ambassadors or other foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.^[9] Additionally, under sections 301–309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (restated in sections 1401–1409 of Title 8 of the United States Code), current U.S. law defines numerous other categories of individuals born abroad, as well as people born in most U.S. territories and possessions, as being "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth".^[10] The phrase "natural born citizen," however, does not appear in the current statutes dealing with citizenship at birth.

since Obama was born in the US, He is a natural born citizen!

Brad

There are two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized. If you are born in the US you are natural born -- period -- even if neither of your parents are citizens.

But let's look at your claims a little more closely. According to your criteria, Jindel (whose mother was pregnant with him when they moved here) is not a natural born citizen. According to you, the child of two teenagers is not a natural born citizens (which means Palin's grandson is not a citizen). If they do not jump through all the legal hoops to become naturalized, then they are not citizens at all. So, what country are they citizens of?

Please take a Civics class.

PS Referring to the President as "B Hussein Obama" shows your bias and diminishes your (already flawed) arguement.

If Obama, is just like your homeland, then GO home, and get job as MA there!!! you are taking job from natural born american, if you not like it here, go home, or support democracy, Obama is not socialist, he was ELECTED by MAJORITY and has 4 years to do HIS JOB, no matter if you like him or not like him, he gets 4 years to work for all AMERICANS, this is how OUR, yes you too, our country WORKS, we just had 8 years of BUSH, making WAR, and MAKING RICH RICHER, at expense of poor, now it's time to make the POOR RICHER, maybe at expense of rich, but what was good for the goose, is good for gander also.

Yeah, I'd like the instructions for that!

it's starts with increasing the minimum wage, eliminate the bush tax cuts whice are causing the deficeit, increase the earned income credit, raise the cutoff limit also, reduce or eliminate the income tax for those making less than $25,000 a year,

So in other words if we can just get government out of our lives, more people will prosper

only if you can find businesses that will raise starting wages without minimum wage

As for raising the minimum wage, there are several case studies that show not only does that not reduce poverty, it actually hurts young and unskilled workers

California Economy PROVES otherwise, minimum wage workers live check to check, helps unskilled workers LIVE on entry level jobs, BOOSTS the economy because they spend every extra penny they make, increases business for their employers, (typically fast food ) because they can then afford to shop where they work, ie can buy a big mac after min wage increase. California min wage is $8.00 an hour S.F. is $11 or 12 I think..

How is the deficit related to the poor?

It's not, It's related to the Filthy Rich, the poor can't affect taxes either way, eliminate the poors taxes or double them, it won't change things much,

however, eliminate the BUSH tax cuts, and it will boost the IRS revenue thus bringing the federal budget under control, and the rich wont be affect, sure they will whine and cry and claim, "everything will go bad" "it's our free ride on taxes that makes the world turn" waa waa waa... I don't hear Bill Gates whining.. he's donating to charity.... hmm seems like GREED may be behind the whine...

Jim420

California Economy PROVES otherwise,

Heeeellllllllllllllloooooo, California's bankrupt

yes now california economy is in the toilet, because of the market collapse, let's not place blame now, as for details, just look BACK when california economy anytime after it raised minimum wage, and it makes the argument the we need to raise FED min wage IMMEDIATLy

and yes wasteful spending, is a big problem, as for data, common sense more income AND less spending = balance act. so really we need to both increase revenue, either by tax rates or by overall peoples income, higher wages = more taxes unless your higher income grants you a lesser tax rate ie Bush tax cuts as for less spending , first wasteful spending, sadly, the one place we can't cut, is the cost of FREEDOM, ie military, accepting risk of being a victim in exchange for personal liberty...

we've goint off topic here but.

historical FACTS prove your study links BOGUS and made up.

minimum wage should be based on costs of living, when you can't afford to pay room&board on full time min wage job, it needs to go up.

without Government, see history before unions -- kids were working for pennys, men also worked long hours for little pay, it took union strikes and gov't intervention

surely you would agree any employee worth keeping, is worth paying enough for him to have a place to sleep and food to eat, and maybe a little more, so he can afford to take a day off when he's ill and pay his doctor, ect. since min wage employers don't offer paid sick leave or ANY benefits, some don't even offer employee discounts. business seem to undervalue thier 2 most valuable assets, customer and employee

In a prospective study of the 1998 California minimum wage increase, Macpherson (1998) suggested that this increase would cause more than 25,000 people to lose job opportunities. In a similar vein, O’Brien-Strain and MaCurdy (2000) argued that price increases resulting from federal minimum wage increases will take away more from California families than it will give back to them. It is now two years since the last increase, and we have been able to test these assertions empirically. We have found no evidence to confirm these dire predictions.

above except from

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=ile

sorry, like I pointed out, labor costs increased, but that $790 directly stimulated the economy, providing more jobs, employers already work at minimum staff, no one is standing around getting paid because they are cheap labor, raiseing wages forces the empoyer to find ways to make there employees more productive for the money, because they would be short staffed if they cut workers due to increased labor rates.

the job losses NEVER MANIFESTED despite the predictions

I repeat! excerpt : "It is now two years since the last increase, and we have been able to test these assertions empirically. We have found no evidence to confirm these dire predictions.

My link about is from The University of California Institue for Labor and Employment, Multi-campus research Unit, Clearly that is a reputable source of my assertions,

Your information is from a brief article in the Los Angeles Business Journal and is a ERRONIUOUS PREDICTION as you will notice by the word "if" taken from said artilcle

Employment Policies Institute, $8.3 billion in workers' annual income and 600,000 jobs would be lost if California adopted a living wage

clearly, of the two sources- one is neutral toward minimum wages, one has an agendy towards business, we can go back and forth on this, I choose to accept the academic data as more reliable than the businessman's data against minimum wage which is highly biased,

It is now two years since the last increase, and we have been able to test these assertions empirically. We have found no evidence to confirm these dire predictions.

like I said, we can go back and forth, there's no point in repeating information that is disputed, you obviously are a businessman and accept the LA business journal data as accurate, I am a worker, and Accept the University of California data as accurate,

also, the 25, 000 jobs, could have been lost to other reasons other than wage increase, moreover, the 25,000 jobs were not the dire predictions that were forcasted to occur, also the minimum wage is near or below the poverty level in many areas, which is tantamount to slavery, i't not much to ask, to be paid a humane wage, I'm not advocating MAXIMUM WAGE LAW, which actually would be better for everyone, but that would be tantamount to socialism,

My birth certificate doesn't have the time I was born or the name of the attending physicianeither. Any one want to place bets that I wasn't born in the United States. I'll take all comers.

Save your money, your probably here illegally..

There has been illegal immigrants in this country since 1492, but my ancestors married the Native born so they became legal back in the 1700's

There has been illegal immigrants in this country since 1492, but my ancestors married the Native born so they became legal back in the 1700's

Good point.

Well, if our President was exempt from proving he is an American, then hell nobody should have to do it as well. "Oh, no Mr. Bin Laden, you don't need a birth certificate. Welcome to the United States and success to you."

THE PRESIDENT HAS PROVEN HIS CITIZENSHIP BEYOND ANY REASONABLE CONCEIVABLE DOUBT, THE ONLY THINK LEFT IS LUNACY, SO MARCIE, better watch out for the DEATH PANELS. lolololololololool that is if you really doubt Obama was born in hawaii, A US STATE.

Jim, you might want to calm down, your blood pressure appears to be skyrocketing with all your screaming.

sorry, my bad, I guess it's frustration..

can't you read? the information HAS BEEN PROVIDED AND VERIFIED

Yes thank you I can read. So if what you say is true, why don't you just pick up a cool $50,000 for doing nothing?

hey if some wacko is going to offer it up for information that 99% of americans know to be true, then why not?