Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley are running for the US Senate seat long occupied by Ted Kennedy.
THE POLICY DIFFERENCES between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown were as clear during last night's debate as they have been throughout this short special-election campaign.
Coakley supports ObamaCare, opposes the war in Afghanistan, and favors higher taxes on the wealthy. Brown is against the health-care legislation, backs the president's troop surge in Afghanistan, and wants across-the-board tax cuts à la JFK. Coakley is an EMILY's List pro-choice hardliner; Brown condemns partial-birth abortion and is backed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Coakley has no problem with civilian trials for the likes of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Brown thinks it reckless to treat enemy combatants as if they were ordinary defendants.
But the most striking thing about the final televised debate before next Tuesday's election was not that the very liberal Democrat and the not-especially-conservative Republican disagreed on the issues. It is that they are both viable candidates in a US Senate race too competitive to call. In Massachusetts!
"I don't know what's going to happen on January 19th," Coakley said toward the end of last night's encounter. She wasn't being coy. Nobody knows what's going to happen next week.
When Ted Kennedy died less than six months ago, who would have guessed that the contest to win the seat he occupied for 47 years would be anything but a slam-dunk for the Democratic nominee? Yet there was no slam-dunk on that stage last night, and the race certainly doesn't feel like a slam-dunk now.
"It's not the 'Kennedy Seat,'" Brown has been reminding Coakley. "It's not the Democrats' seat. It's the people's seat." Amazing thing is, he could be right.
IT'S THE PEOPLE'S SEAT
By Jeff Jacoby
THE BOSTON GLOBE
Tuesday, 12 January 10
When Democrats aren't raising the specter of the unpopular Bush administration, they're trying to tie Mr. Brown to Sarah Palin. The Democratic National Committee dispatched its top political spin artist, Hari Sevugan, to Massachusetts yesterday to help out the struggling Coakley campaign. He promptly sent out an email taunting Ms. Palin for not coming to Massachusetts to endorse Mr. Brown: "Come on, Sarah, why are you being so shy?" Within hours, he sent out another message headlined: "Has the Pit Bull lost her bark?" A third salvo late in the day demanded that reporters ask Mr. Brown a simple question: "Will you accept Sarah Palin's endorsement or won't you?"
There was no discussion of issues from Mr. Sevugan, much less any evidence that Mr. Brown has ever expressed an interest in having outsiders come into the state on his behalf. Democrats have apparently decided that hauling out fright masks beats trying to defend President Obama's record, much less Ms. Coakley's conventionally liberal positions.
by John Fund
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL / POLITICAL DIARY ONLINE
TUESDAY, 12 JANUARY 10
BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).
He is not eligible
because he was not born of
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:
‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “
The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.
Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS
“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”
- Leo Rugiens
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).