The issue here is not the private family circumstance that is Bristol Palin's pregnancy.

The issue here is the judgment of a parent who, knowing that her daughter was facing the most difficult challenge of her young life, nevertheless went ahead and chose to put that daughter on the national stage as part of a political campaign. She chose this knowing - and being warned again by the vetters - that they would all be under the most intense public scrutiny and discussion. This information had to come out some time, and there was no way it would not be a humiliating experience for her daughter.

This woman has done something despicable for her own political gain. She has placed politics before family.

And McCain, in inviting her onto the campaign, has evidenced even worse judgment, and ended up putting politics before country.

Shame on both of them.

Palin only vetoed a bill denying benefits to same-sex couples because she was advised it would be unconstitutional.

She did support the non-binding referendum to amend the state constitution to deny benefits to same-sex couples, and also supported the state constitutional amendment making same-sex marriage illegal.

And terms like "Party A" and "Party B" are typical contract terms.

Period.

I think they meant Wasilla was a city of characters.

Sarah Palin doesn't mention that she's actually married to a man who doesn't "see America as you and I see America," who "see[s] America as imperfect enough to pal around" with extremists who want to sever their ties with the country she professes such love for.

Until his wife hit the state political circuit, Todd Palin was a member of a secessionist party whose founder despised the American flag and who famously bloviated: "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government."

Oh, and did she mention that as Governor she taped a warm, warm welcome to this group at their annual convention?

Glass houses and all that, Sarah.

Heh, great minds and all that.

Do Alaska voters have the right to recall their governor?

Oh, you betcha!

www.elections.alaska.gov/petitions/irr.php

I hope they do so. She is a disgrace to the office.

Chillydogg says Vattel defined a natural born citizen as "one born in the country, to parents (plural) who are citizens."

Here's what Vattel actually wrote:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

Then there's this:

"“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

You see the difference? The first is a mere grammatical agreement, where the plural "parents" is parallel to the plural "citizens." The second makes it clear he thinks there need only be one citizen parent - and of course these days the mother exercises the same citizen rights as the father.

Of course all of this is irrelevant. The Supreme Court has held in no uncertain terms that the Constitution only requires that - with the exception of the families of diplomats and foreign military - a child be born in the United States in order to be a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) 169 U.S. 649 )

"One document would stop all the discussions on this subject."

Why? Be specific.

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

Independently of the constitutional provision it has always been the doctrine of this country except as applied to Africans brought here and sold as slaves and their descendants that birth within the limits and Jurisdiction of the United States of itself creates citizenship. In the case of Lynch v Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583 Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the limits and allegiance of the United States whatever the situation of his parents was a natural born citizen and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession In re Look Tin Sing (U. S.) 21 Fed. 905, 909.

The term natural born citizen of the United States means all persons born in the allegiance of the United States. United States v Rhodes (U. S.) 27 Fed. Cas. 785, 789. The natural born subjects of a monarch comprise all persons born in the allegiance of the King United States v Rhodes (U. S.) 27 Fed. Cas. 785, 789.

Every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan 5 Atl, 360, 364, 54 Conn. 39 (citing Rawle Const. U. S. p. 86). See also Lynch v Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 584, 2 Kent, Comm. (9th Ed.); McKay v Campbell (U. S.) 16 Fed. Cas. 157; Field Int. Code 132, Morse Citizenship § 203.

Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases, West Pub., p.4664

Uncle Creepy is full of it.

Aside from not realizing that this is a computer-generated certification of live birth (yeah, he's a real expert), he's wrong about the entries on the "CITY, TOWN OR LOCATION OF BIRTH" uhm, "line."

Those entries (HONOLULU, OAHU, HONOLULU) all line up internally, line up with each other horizontally, and line up with all other entries vertically.

http://obama2.com/wp-content/uploads/Barack-Obama-Birth-Certificate-small.jpg

And hey, look ... the formatting is exactly the same as those other Hawaiin C'ns of Live Birth posted on the Internet! For instance:

http://www.valeehill.net/genealogy/documents/doc_decosta_pat_birth.jpg