By The following is a YouTube piece found on American Thinker. It poses a simple question of where Obama was born. It seems like no big deal — except that Obama supposedly doesn’t want to release his birth certificate to a Federal judge. This is awful late in the race to bring this question up. It is supposedly raised by a life-long registered Democrat – Philip Berg, a lawyer and former deputy Pennsylvania State Attorney General. (Further comments on Berg actions at www.obamacrimes.com.) Despite all claims to being non-partisan, the video is a definitely anti-Obama.
It is such a simple question of where was Obama born, but it is an important question as the US Constitution says you must be a NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN in order to be President. Supposedly Mr. Berg has filed a Federal suit for Obama to provide proof of his birth — but Obama and the Democratic National Committee have filed a motion to dismiss. It seems so frivilous — why not just show the Federal judge the birth certificate? McCain who was born in Panama to parents in military provided his birth certificate. Obama has not. For such an important question, why won’t Obama and the DNC simply show the birth certificate to the Federal judge and end the nonsense? It does not compute.
The speaker goes on to say Obama’s school record from Indonesia showed him under his step-father’s name as “Barry Seotoro” with religion as “Muslim” and citizenship as “Indonesian.” The video claims that if he was given Indonesian citizenship and then came back to the US, he may now be a NATURALIZED CITIZEN — and ineligible for Presidential office. What is this hocus-pocus? Is this true?
The video mentions documents that Obama didn’t release. I can see why Obama might not want some to be shown because “politicized” information can be culled from them. Remember the George W Bush fuss over his reluctance to release his ANG records when he first ran? A pro-McCain email making the rounds has a larger list of unreleased Obama documents — which surprised me. It’s interesting that Obama had a lot of other school records “not available” — and it is claimed by the video that they could show his true citizenship.
But this leads to an interesting question. What if Obama were found NOT qualified to run as the video claims — but which I find highly unlikely — and wins the election. He’s disqualified by the Constituion, but who gets to be the Prez? Does Biden become the Prez?
10:23 am on October 18th, 2008 1
*Yawn* Looks like Swiftboat II: the Kenyan-born Muslim Who Consorts with Terrorists is a box office dud. President Obama. Get used to it. The long national nightmare will soon be over.
Reply
11:12 am on October 18th, 2008 2
Obama released his birth certificate. These nutty right wing sites just ignored it because they know their base won’t read a “liberal” site. A neatly, perfectly controlled demographic.
Reply
1:40 pm on October 18th, 2008 3
These scare tactics have lasted for 8 years and the witch hunt will finally be over soon. Those right wing Emails are being done by the samew people who tried to impeach Bill Clinton for having a sexual act performed on him while we flourished as a nation. They better be glad that the democrats are not as petty as them because they actually have reason to call for the current sitting president to be impeached. For depleting our financial/military reserves and spending like a drunken wretch is reason even for him to be impeached.
Reply
1:42 pm on October 18th, 2008 4
Soprry, that last sentenced read out sort of awkward.
Reply
1:45 pm on October 18th, 2008 5
Soprry,lol, forgot the first rule of posting is not doing so while filled with emotion.
Reply
2:35 pm on October 18th, 2008 6
The video does bring to light a serious question(s).
If it was posted on a liberal site, then I am sure some enterprising person would have already passed it around.
I for one want to see it in an unadultered original.
Just think of the scandal to both the U.S. & the POTUS position if it comes up after the fact…
Reply
2:57 pm on October 18th, 2008 7
I am confident that the Democratic party vetted its presidential candidate much more carefully than the Republicans did their VP choice. That is why I am completely ignoring this sequel to Swiftboat, and thankfully, US voters are, too.
Reply
4:05 pm on October 18th, 2008 8
Regardless, I would be in favor of discarding the natural-born citizen rule. It’s rather anachronistic and unfair at a time when immigrants hold or have held many important positions all over the country, in business and government (Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Arnold Schwarzenegger…)
Reply
4:45 pm on October 18th, 2008 9
I agree with Korea Beat that it is probably time to change the constitution to allow immigrants to run.
Sonagi I don’t think this is swiftboating. This Berg guy is a life long Democrat and a Hillary Clinton supporter, which leads me to believe this whole thing is probably coming from the Clintons instead of the Republicans. If Obama is out that opens the doors for the Clintons.
http://www.americasright.com/2008/08/obama-sued-in-philadelphia-federal.html
Also yes Obama’s birth certificate has been posted online before. However, the birth certificate on his webpage and on Fact Check.org have also been disputed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIsQJNTvlUE&feature=related
Like Kalani I am wondering why Obama doesn’t just show the judge his birth certificate and end this like McCain did when people questioned whether he was eligible.
Reply
5:28 pm on October 18th, 2008 10
@ 8 & 9
Correct me if I am wrong, but there may have been a good reason why being a natural born U.S. citizen was placed in the Constitution as a requirement for presidency of the United States. It helps alleviate the possibility of a conflict of loyalties. I once worked with a natural born Korean citizen who later became a Canadian citizen. During the course of a conversation one day, she stated that her loyalties were first and foremost with Korea; although, she now held Canadian citizenship.
Reply
5:33 pm on October 18th, 2008 11
-I am relieved that the people who write on this post had nothing to do with framing the Constitution of the United States.
Let me give an example
- I was born in country “X”. I loved playing there with all my friends, going to school, listening to stories told by all the well respected elders. When I was 10, my father jerked me away from all of that and moved to the USA. The reason was never clear to me, but I know all I had in my home country is now gone. I never forgave my father and I hate the USA. I hate the USA so badly, I will do anything to harm it. I think I’ll run for president.
- This is only one reason the founding fathers wrote that little clause into the US Constitution. So don’t ever think you are going to change it – you don’t think clearly -
- However, I doubt with all the immigration to the US from these shit-hole countries that are muslim, the US will exist as we know it today in 50 years(I use to say 100)
Reply
7:10 pm on October 18th, 2008 12
Obama has never denied being a muslim so this point seems mute. As long as one parent was an American citizen it does not matter where he was born.
Reply
8:17 pm on October 18th, 2008 13
Err, Obama has often said that he is a Christian. Here for example.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/two-questions-f.html
Reply
8:29 pm on October 18th, 2008 14
“However, I doubt with all the immigration to the US from these shit-hole countries that are muslim, the US will exist as we know it today in 50 years(I use to say 100)”
C’mon, we Americans can do better than this.
Actually, Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world by population, and it’s a beautiful, magical place with wonderful people on the whole.
I wonder if Obama himself picked up some of his own magic from the years he spent there early in his life.
Reply
8:30 pm on October 18th, 2008 15
Now you can go back to questioning the moon landing:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Reply
8:36 pm on October 18th, 2008 16
BAEKSU: “…and it’s a beautiful, magical place with wonderful people on the whole…I wonder if Obama himself picked up some of his own magic from the years he spent there early in his life.”
Exactly!
Reply
8:43 pm on October 18th, 2008 17
I have seen too many persons from other countries, or even those born in the U.S., but indoctrinated in their parents ideoligies of their native countries, even in the military, that have placed their allegiance to other countries over the one that they had citizenship in…America.
Our forefathers placed the “Natural Born” citizenship phrase in the constitution for good reason and it will remain.
Way too many peoploe have caled for a revision of our constitution for their own sakes…I say let it be and live with it, or seek greener pastures.
Reply
8:45 pm on October 18th, 2008 18
From the video and other documents shown there are some serious questions raised about Obama’s legitimacy…what is he afraid of?
Personally…I do not think he is qualified to be the POTUS…forget everything else.
Reply
8:55 pm on October 18th, 2008 19
GI @9 brings up a good article that showed the origin of this suit started in Aug 2008 before Obama was nominated — and was a definite ploy to keep him from being nominated by the Hillary Clinton faction. (Source: American Right.)
But why continue with the suit if this was simply a one-stop ploy to derail the nomination? Why is Berg continuing the pursuit of the Federal court decision AFTER OBAMA WAS NOMINATED? (NOTE: In comparing the article GI cited with the video, it appears that some facts have changed slightly showing the video is a later version — though the main impetus remains the same.)
I have google on this topic with morbid interest — somewhat like viewing doctored freak photos in the National Inquirer. You know it’s b.s., but its fun to look at.
Some of the arguments on the Hawaii birth certificate to me are plausible. (1) FOR OBAMA: The claim that two birth certificates appear for Obama is plausible. In 1961 when Obama was born the Hawaii State seal was on the birth certificate, but the new copies of birth certificates do not have the seal as everything was placed on microfilche — then computer files. Both documents could be real. (2) AGAINST OBAMA: At the same time, it is possible that Obama could have been born in Kenya and registered after-the-fact in Hawaii. I registered my daughter’s US embassy birth certificate in Hawaii to reflect that she is “part Hawaiian” — a special category in Hawaii and immediately makes her registered under the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. It was all after-the-fact. Registering a birth after-the-fact in Hawaii is possible. Remember that citizenship is passed only if the parent is above age 19 — and Obama’s mother was 18 at the time when she gave birth to Obama. Thus it would have been important to register Obama’s birth in the US to ensure his citizenship.
However, there are other claims that the birth certificate that Obama used on his website was a forgery. There were claims that he actually used his half-sister’s certificate — and claims that “experts” could read “Maya Kassandra Soetoro” on the document when it was subjected to close scrutiny. (Source: Israel Insider.) Again no followup — no great outcry and no further stories after August. CONCLUSION: This was typical political mudslinging — ala Hillary Clinton Democratic politics. If this was proven true, this would have gotten very messy as some Federal statutes on forgery of government documents, fraud, etc. get involved.
But on 15 Oct, Michele Obama stated, “My husband was born in Hawaii and adopted by his step father, does that make him unpatriotic; she asks”, on a direct telephone to African Press International. “When API told her that our online news media was only relaying what the American Bloggers and other media outlets had discovered through their investigations, Mrs Obama was angered and she came out loud with the following: “African press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view,” and she went to state that, “it is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband’s face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by His step father. The important thing here is where my husband’s heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that My husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner; says Michelle Obama on telefon to API.”
(Source: African Press: October 15, 2008.)
If true that Obama was ADOPTED by his step father, then the next question arises of whether Obama is a NATURALIZED CITIZEN. In other words, if he was adopted outside the US and then returned to the US, he would possibly fall into the category of NATURALIZED CITIZEN as his citizenship was Indonesian for four years. That he was a minor at the time, could also mean that he had dual-citizenship until he reached the age of majority.
CONCLUSION: Interesting side topic that needs further information, but most likely not a big deal. It is interesting that Michele Obama called anyone who wants to investigate this Obama citizenship issue “racist” — something that makes reporters say, “Thou protesth too much” and whets their appetites to start nosing around.
Well, gotta do some important stuff like pack up the grill and head to the stream with the dogs. Much more important things.
Reply
9:05 pm on October 18th, 2008 20
The comments on this are quite an eye-opener. I found myself smiling at the bitter rage, hate and the “just don’t have a clue” effect. Forgot what the thread was about!
I hope BO is elected sometimes. I fear we deserve him.
I vote Country First, but if BO is my next C/C I will laugh so very loudly.
Reply
9:36 pm on October 18th, 2008 21
Oh…forgot to add Snopes link on this subject for more info on this mixed up subject.
Snopes.com: Citizen
Reply
10:25 pm on October 18th, 2008 22
Look at it from the view of Hillary and her large number of supporters.
If Obama is elected, Hillary’s next presidential shot will be eight years in the future when she will be 69 years old.
If McCain is elected, she has a much better chance to become president in four years.
This is likely Democrat-on-Democrat Swiftboating.
For a number of reasons, from currently untrustworthy polls to likely Republican vote manipulation, I am of the opinion McCain will be the next president.
This can be tastefully debated for the next couple of weeks.
Reply
10:28 pm on October 18th, 2008 23
@ 12
“…As long as one parent was an American citizen it does not matter where he was born.”
Really? Let’s see. In reality, I’m an American born on American soil, my wife is a Korean national, and my son was born on Korean soil. Once again, correct me if I am wrong; my understanding is that my son will not be able to run for president of the United States because he was born on foreign soil. I’m a busy man, so I do not desire to do any further research on the issue. Perhaps someone out there blog world can set me straight on the issue.
Reply
10:43 pm on October 18th, 2008 24
Yes Obama is a muslam. Soon all Americans will be Muslam too.
Reply
11:14 pm on October 18th, 2008 25
“just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by His step father…”
Wow…just what we need in the White House…some racist Biatch suffering from an “All of those White M/Fs are out to get us” syndrome.
I do hope everyone who votes for them will remember that when it becomes obvious…
Reply
2:48 am on October 19th, 2008 26
More F.U.D.
A commonly used competitive tactic popularized by the likes of Microsoft in the ’80s and ’90s. When you have nothing of substance to offer the pubic at a decision point, the ploy is to de-legitimize you competitors by instilling Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about them.
That’s where this campaign seems to be right now. Good luck with that.
Reply
5:11 am on October 19th, 2008 27
My absentee ballot is already in the mail so none of this stuff will affect my choice. My googling has turned up some interesting things I didn’t know before.
I now understand that what Mr. Berg wants is NOT simply a birth certificate but what is called a “Certificate of Live Birth” (COLB) in his Federal suit. So what’s the problem? Obama place his COLB birth certificate on his website in 2008. It is the non-state seal copy from Hawaii. It states that Barak Hussein Obama II was born on 4 Aug 1961 at 7:24 am in the City and County of Honolulu, Oahu to mother (maiden name), Stanley Ann Durham, and father, Barak Hussein Obama. It does NOT state the hospital.(Source: Obama: Hawaii COLB.
SO WHAT’S THE BEEF? Just show the COLB and case closed, right? Well, not quite.
(1). Berg didn’t mention in his video that he demanded a “jury trial” in his suit so he could maximize the publicity. This is why the Obama/DNC want the case to be dismissed.
(2). Berg further claimed in the suit the COLB on Obama’s website is a forgery that belongs to Obama’s half-sister “Maya Kassandra Soetoro” born in 1970. Supposedly three forensic experts deduced it was a forgery. (Source: Court Document: para 35.)
To me, to disprove Berg’s allegation is simple. Simply send a letter to the Registrar Office requesting another copy of the COLB. Give a power of attorney to a Hawaii representative pick up the document in full sight of waiting reporters. The process takes ten minutes — atleast that was how long it took me to get my copy (after a 20 minute wait in line). Let the reporters take all the photos they want. End of all claims of forgery. So why doesn’t he do that?
That’s the problem!!!
Another revelation to me!!! Now I know that Obama actually traveled to Pakistan on his Indonesian passport when he was 20 years old. This means that he did not take the allegiance oath when he was 18 to renounce the Indonesian citizenship when he reached the age of majority. Now I understand why his school records of that time period are “not available.” (Source: Court Document: para. 33.)
We now know that Obama was once an INDONESIAN citizen with an INDONESIAN passport and used it to travel to Pakistan at age 20. He wasn’t a kid — he was an ADULT when he passed himself off as an INDONESIAN. Interesting, huh? But a hell of a thing to find out a month before the election!!!
Berg alleges that Obama was perhaps born in Kenya and then had the birth registered in Hawaii. This far-fetched accusation may not be so far-fetched.
(1) Supposedly internet reports state that the Kapiolani and Queen’s Hospitals records in Hawaii show no record of Ann Durnham/Obama giving birth to a child on 4 Aug 1961. However, there is a “regsistry of birth” on or about 8 Aug 1961 in the public records office. All of this is internet hearsay.(Source: Court Document: para 19.) (SITE NOTE: This implies that the birth was registered after-the-fact.)
(2) Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal published an article on 9 Jun 2008 stating the GOP Dirty Tricks Department sent a research team to Mombasa, Kenya in Feb 2008 and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan Citizen and his mother, a U.S. Citizen. At the time of Obama’s birth in 1961, Kenya was a British Colony. (Source: Court Document: para 20-21 and Wayne Madsen: Online Journal.) (3). Under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Obama became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963. (Source: Court Document: para 23 and Media Matters: re: Andy Martin.)
My question is why hasn’t the GOP Dirty Tricks Machine released this info if it is true — what are they waiting for?
Another interesting fact I learned. Obama has a WHITE grandmother that is living. I didn’t know that. One only sees the Kenya grandma, Sarah Ogwel Onyango, proudly saying this and that about her grandson, but Obama doesn’t mention his white granny, Madelyn Durnham, 84. Just ran across that fact in perusing some articles in the ravings of rabid anti-Obama critic Andy Martin. But it turns out that it is true!!! Madelyn Durnham claims to be too sick to give interviews and has stayed in the shadows. For his part, Obama doesn’t talk about her. (Source: Obama’s WHITE grandma.)
Is there reverse-discrimination in the form of being ashamed of one’s WHITE roots? Can’t have the first BLACK President running around with his WHITE granny in the background, can we?
But let’s face it. What we are discussing here is more or less simply an intellectual exercise. The election campaigns are winding down and people have already made up their minds. Unless this latest birth thing explodes, everything is over except the ballot counting.
Reply
5:30 am on October 19th, 2008 28
If one parent, in your case you, is a natural born American citizen (and apparently according to K over 18), and meets the minimum number of years for US residency your children will be American citizens. Of course you have to go through the paperwork at the US embassy. Being born on “American Soil” is not a requirement. As pointed out earlier S. McCain was not born on US soil. As for Obama’s religious beliefs, Muslims believe a lot of the bible, and believe that Jesus was a great prophet but just don’t believe he was the Christ. And I think everyone knows that the Arabs and the Jews are “first cousins” with the split coming with Sarah and Hagai. The main difference between Muslims and Christians is the belief by one group that you can earn your way to Heaven through your good works and the other group believing that you can only obtain salvation as a “free gift” through faith. I understand that his father was a Muslim – I wonder what faith, if any, his mother and grandparents (both sides) profess. Could it be possible to eclectically accept parts of each parent’s belief?
Reply
6:39 am on October 19th, 2008 29
Half-right. Catholics and some other Christians believe that the expression of faith through good works opens the door to heaven.
RE: Swiftboat II – Democrats can Swiftboat, too, and the origin of the rumors probably comes from within the Clinton camp. I’ve not seen or heard of any tangible evidence that Obama’s mother was ever in Kenya, nevermind at the time of Obama’s birth. The burden is on the rumormongers to prove Obama was not born a US citizen, not on the Obama camp to disprove the rumors. Innocent till proven guilty.
Reply
9:01 am on October 19th, 2008 30
Listened to a DEMOCRATIC internet radio program, No We Won’t — a pro-Clinton site that has turned into “Democrats for McCain.” Mr. Berg was on the show taking questions.
He stated that the judge of his case is a REPUBLICAN — not a Democrat as anticipated. This surprised him and he stated the judge was known as a fair man who wrote many of his own rulings. But the big news was that the documentation ruling is expected NLT this WEDSNESDAY, 22 Oct.
Surprisingly, he stated that he believes the Republicans already have much of the documents but are planning to release them in late October — two weeks before the election. He felt that this was a mistake and they should be released now if they have them.
Obama/DNC filed a motion to dismiss using the logic that Berg does NOT have a personal interest in the issue — but he states he as a voter does have an interest. A ruling on this is also expected NLT Wednesday.
The Obama/DNC have filed for PRIVACY on the documents meaning that they not be disclosed until AFTER the election. A ruling on this will be also be made NLT Wedsneday.
His website that has been up for 5 weeks at http://www.obamacrimes.com has had 30,000,000 hits so far — so there is a lot of interest in this issue. There is a new video on the site that he was promoting.
Berg explained that Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 at a time when US citizens were prevented from going to Pakistan. Thus his use of the Indonesian passport has other problems associated with it other than his citizenship.
Berg also commented that the Obama camp refusal to release his medical records, college school records (that could potentially show Obama claiming to be Kenyan or Indonesian to get student grants, etc. is a travesty. He blamed the US media for refusing to vet the candidate after 20 months of campaigning.
Berg was also soliciting funds as the costs are going to go up if the case goes up to the 3rd Circuit Court and then the Supreme Court.
Reply
9:23 am on October 19th, 2008 31
In related news, Colin Powell just endorsed Obama on Meet the Press. Do you seriously think a former Secretary of State would make such an endorsement if the above allegations had any merit whatsoever?
Reply
9:58 am on October 19th, 2008 32
In addition to what Baeksu wrote, Obama raised $150 million in September. Just a few quotes from the NPR piece:
“Barack Obama raised more than $150 million in September, a stunning and unprecedented eruption of political giving that has given him a wide spending advantage over rival John McCain.”
“Campaign manager David Plouffe, in an e-mail to supporters Sunday morning, said the campaign had added 632,000 new donors in September, for a total of 3.1 million contributors to the campaign. He said the average donation was $86.”
I know there’s still time left, and one shouldn’t get to hubristic, but this race seems effectively over.
Reply
10:25 am on October 19th, 2008 33
Collin Powell has always been one of those leaders I could look up to — a military statesman. I have to agree with Powell’s comments on the direction of the Republican Party of its shift to the right that makes me feel uneasy as well. I also feel queasy about the Republican party “terrorist” campaign and Muslim linkage ideas. I don’t like this kind of mudslinging as it took away from the real issues that the American people wanted to hear about. Americans want to hear someone with vision — and in this McCain has not come across as one with the vision we need for today’s problems.
Collin Powell chose Obama for all the right reasons. Obama’s rhetorical skills and his ability to motivate and provide charismatic leadership with an inclusive view are very attractive points. However, that was Collin Powell and each American will make his own choice.
My trouble is that I’m no longer enamored by charismatic rhetorical skills after Bill Clinton — a man who has phenomenal oratory skills. I no longer give those attributes such high points any more. Kennedy and Reagan made me feel good about being an American. That’s what I looked for. Obama doesn’t give me that warm fuzzy — and unfortunately, neither does John McCain. Obama is a great orator, but I only hear empty platitudes — nothing. Others may have felt his “vision” — but I only saw a politician promising a chicken in every pot. Obama does not inspire me…and all I see is an ambitious politician. At least with McCain, I feel that I can trust his words — and be comfortable with his leadership style.
However, as I said long ago — along with others on this blog — I was not all that enamored with McCain in the first place, but in my opinion he was the better of the two choices. I respect Collin Powell’s opinions but it does not change what I — and others — stated before. Given the two Presidential candidates, I basically ended up voting for the party that was closest to my values. I am a liberal Republican in the same vicinity where Powell stands — and understand where he is coming from. But I chose to stay with the Republicans. Though I too don’t like the right shift of the party — but I fear the left shift of the Democrats even more.
In this election, you see a lot of folks jumping sides. Just like the Democrats for McCain, you’re going to find Republicans for Obama.
Like Powell, I had great hopes for Palin but when she started into that terrorist spiel — I like Powell — dropped her a few notches. Powell questioned McCain’s judgment in chosing her and I can see why. She should have been burning the midnight oil trying to brief up on the issues so she wouldn’t look like a damn fool with her Katie Corrik (?) interview. She’s gotten better, but she needs to get up to speed faster — and I expected more from her. However, unlike Powell, I don’t put the experience factor at the top of my list as I have faith she can grow into the position — though she needs to be hitting the briefing books everynight. We just have to make sure that McCain doesn’t croak. (Oh, BTW since Obama won’t release his medical records, what assurances do you have that he doesn’t have a condition where he is going to croak tommorrow?) Yada, yada, yada, yada.
Reply
11:25 am on October 19th, 2008 34
[...] … http://www.semissourian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20... • Found on Yahoo! Search Video Hoax? Obama?s Citizenship Questioned Oct 18, 2008 … It is supposedly raised by a life-long registered Democrat ? Philip Berg, a [...]
11:47 am on October 19th, 2008 35
Collin Powell has been given opportunity and positions in both the military and the government, but I personally do not know of anything he has done that really stands out. Therefore, his indorsement carries little weight.
Reply
6:18 pm on October 19th, 2008 36
“In related news, Colin Powell just endorsed Obama on Meet the Press. Do you seriously think a former Secretary of State would make such an endorsement if the above allegations had any merit whatsoever?”
King Baeksu, that’s an interesting concept. Are we talking about the same Colin Powell who endorsed invading Iraq even though allegations of WMDs had no merit whatsoever?
Just askin’.
Reply
8:33 pm on October 19th, 2008 37
JAFO, from what I know Powell didn’t want to make that speech before the UN Security Council, but he did it at Bush and Cheney’s insistence, and only after the Bush Admin. agreed to to make significant changes regarding the hyped up evidence of WMDs. In any case, he was being a classic company man, or military man, by being loyal to his Commander-in-Chief.
In the case of his endorsement of Obama, no one’s forcing him to do it and remember he’s a Republican so he’s certainly following his own path at the moment. I also think he could easily make one phone call to check up on Obama’s background and find out all he needs to know. After the Iraq fiasco, do you think he wants to further tarnish his reputation, or rather do you think this is a chance for him to help rehabilitate himself before the eyes of the nation? Could that be the real motivation here?
Remember that Obama was against the Iraq War from the start, and wants to end if ASAP.
Reply
8:52 pm on October 19th, 2008 38
Off-topic:
@36 — Does the 550 metric tons of “yellow cake” uranium finally shipped out to Canada from Iraq in Jul 2008 fall under the category of WMD? This is the low-grade uranium that key people denied existed in Iraq. (MSNBC.)
Also I thought Powell was against going into Iraq without a viable exit plan in place. He also was against the idea of nation building. However, he was confronting the neocons and lost his battle.
Reply
6:07 am on October 20th, 2008 39
As far as Powell I recommend everyone read the book War and Decision and you will have a different opinion of Powell.
The book is based off of emails, memos, articles, transcripts, and personal accounts from Douglas Feith who was the undersecretary of Defense.
The State Dept. was on board with regime change, it was just the method and timing they disagreed with. Here is what Dick Armitage told NY Times reporter Michael Gordon for example:
Like I said State wasn’t against the war, they just had a different vision of how to do it.
Also if you read the book you can see the case to emphasize WMD’s at the UN was actually Powell’s idea. DOD wanted him to emphasize terrorism, human rights, and WMD’s. Powell wanted to focus the presentation on WMD’s because he wanted to produce an Adlai Stevenson effect. Emphasizing only WMD’s would prove later to be a costly mistake in terms of US creditability.
Reply
6:19 am on October 20th, 2008 40
Reading Kalani’s prior comment, if Obama had to actually appear in court to present the certificate then I could understand why he is reluctant to do so.
Also people here are still assuming that this is a Republican dirty trick when all the evidence points to a Clinton dirty trick IMO.
Personally I believe this is a lot to do about nothing and hope that is what it is because if Obama is disqualified for some obscure reason the partisanship anger in the country would be off the charts. Heck I wouldn’t be surprised if it might cause riots.
Reply
6:23 am on October 20th, 2008 41
Found an interesting post on Berg who has instigated this suit on America’s Right from Aug 2008. Berg may have some liabilities dealing with credibility.
“Philip Berg has an employment and service history which, on its face, insinuates credibility. He did serve as Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, held various positions in local Democratic party leadership, and ran for office on several occasions.”
“Philip Berg, despite his history as a public servant, has credibility problems. First, he apparently adheres to the idea that the United States government was behind the attacks on September 11, 2001. … Second, his ethics have previously been brought into question. Should this lawsuit go forward, those looking to protect Barack Obama will have no problem bringing forth these issues, all the while ignoring Obama’s own questionable actions, associations and practices. …”
(Source: America’s Right.)
Berg goes on to try to explain his credibility problems in another interview with Jeff Shreiber on America’s right on 23 Aug 2008 at http://www.americasright.com/2008/08/q-with-phillip-berg.html. Unfortunately, Berg comes off looking very shaky.
Anyway — we’ll see what turns up on Wednesday, 22 Oct when the court is supposed to make a ruling on documentation. Some are thinking that the judge may stall his decision on this lawsuit till past the election; while some think the suit will be dismissed for lack of standing. There are also some who think — or should we say hope — that the judge will rule in favor of Berg for expedited discovery of the documents.
BUT THE MADNESS IS GROWING!!!!
Now there are now currently THREE lawsuits questioning the eligibility of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to serve as president of the United States — (1) Berg’s; (2)an action filed in Washington State Superior Court last week and (3) one filed on 17 Oct in a Hawaiian state court. The Washington lawsuit was filed by a Steven Marquis. The Hawaii lawsuit was filed by a rabid anti-Obama critic (and “Chicago muckraker” in his own words), Andy Martin.
THIS IS STARTING TO LOOK LIKE A CIRCUS OF CLOWNS!!!
Reply
8:31 am on October 20th, 2008 42
GI, here’s a good, concise backgrounder on Powell’s speech at the UN:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
Click on Part 1, Chapter 14.
Cheney and Libby tried to feed him a prewritten speech about WMDs and terror links that Powell rightly called BS on. He then went back to the NIE to rewrite the speech himself, and asked Tenet to verify everything in it that he used — which Tenet did, despite the fact that CIA had serious doubts about such sources as the infamous Curveball at the time.
The previous chapter also indicates that right before the UN speech, some of Powell’s advisors advised him to resign to protest the march to war in Iraq, but Powell thought that by staying on in the administration, he would be more able to push the need for diplomatic engagement, which Bush, Cheney and the neocons clearly weren’t interested in.
Reply
10:15 am on October 20th, 2008 43
It has recently been reported here in the Chicago newspapers that “Chicago Muckraker” Andy Martin:
1. is a law school graduate,
2. was not admitted to the Illinois bar because of unspecified emotional (for want of a better term) issues, that therefore he was not qualified to practice law,
3. and is quick with a lawsuit.
Savor the confusion.
Reply
12:24 pm on October 20th, 2008 44
@19 — Comments allegedly made by Michele Obama about “racists” to the African Press International (API) has been disclaimed by Michele Obama. The API is supposedly going to release tapes of the conversation. Another one of those have to wait for proof — and by that time, the story will have died.
Reply
5:23 pm on October 20th, 2008 45
Today’s New York Times seems to agree with my take on Powell’s primary motive for endorsing Obama:
“In siding with Mr. Obama, who from the start was an opponent of Iraq, he seemed to be making a clear break with the more hawkish elements of the Republican Party and signaling an effort to reshape how he is judged on the war.”
The same story also echoes my earlier warnings on this site about the neocons surrounding McCain’s campaign, Randy Scheunemann in particular:
“Mr. Powell, who is of the pragmatist camp and has been critical of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war, was said by friends in recent months to be disturbed by some of the neoconservatives who have surrounded Mr. McCain as foreign policy advisers in his presidential campaign.
“The McCain campaign’s top foreign policy aide is Randy Scheunemann, who was a foreign policy adviser to former Senators Trent Lott and Bob Dole and who has longtime ties to neoconservatives. In 2002, Mr. Scheunemann was a founder of the hawkish Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and was an enthusiastic supporter of Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi exile and Pentagon favorite, who was viewed with suspicion and distaste at the State Department during Mr. Powell’s tenure.”
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/us/politics/20powell.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin
Reply
8:23 pm on October 20th, 2008 46
King Baeksu the PBS link is pretty much word for word what is in Feith’s book with less background information. The CIA was initially tasked to present the case and the deputy director of the CIA John McLaughlin came to the Pentagon to present the draft presentation.
Rumsfeld actually thought the presentation was thin, “not at all compelling”. Rumsfeld was concerned with the WMD evidence because of a memo he wrote on October 15, 2002 which he called the Parade of Horribles where he speculated Iraq may not have WMD. However the CIA would not give Rumsfeld any info on their intelligence sources due to concerns about protecting their agents.
Rumsfeld lost influence when Bush decided to give the presentation to Powell to present. Wolfowitz lobbied Cheney to present a more balanced presentation among three topics: Terrorism, Human Rights, & WMD.
Cheney made his recommendation to Powell, but Powell didn’t want to present a more balanced case because he disagreed with them and instead championed flimsy WMD evidence that he got from the CIA which Tenet assured him was solid even though it wasn’t. He did this like I stated before because he felt the WMD argument would give his brief the Adlai Stevenson effect. Why wouldn’t he think that when Tenet is telling him the WMD evidence is a slam dunk?
Also like I stated before the State Dept. supported removing Saddam, they just had different timing in mind to execute an attack on Saddam. Now you see a lot of revisionist history going on saying that the State Dept. never supported removing Saddam when there own words show they did.
There was plenty of blame to go around with the CIA, State, DOD, Congress, and the White House and the State Dept. is not blameless for what happened.
Reply
9:15 pm on October 20th, 2008 47
GI, thanks for the info — I’ll have to check out Feith’s book when I have more time.
I was never in favor of the war and in fact Powell’s actions here are consistent with the manner in which he handled other problematic historical episodes, such as the My Lai massacre (which he evidently helped to white wash during his internal Army investigation) and Iran-Contra (which he claimed unconvincingly to have no prior knowledge of). This pattern suggests that loyaty to the institution that he is part of is more important for him than anything else (which is either good or bad depending on your POV, I suppose). At the same time, he has displayed a remarkable ability to maintain a generally positive reputation despite such questionable personal ethics. In a word, he’s a highly skilled politician more than anything else.
That said, his endorsement of Obama is nothing but a plus for the Obama campaign, despite whatever misgivings I may have for him personally, given his very high favorability ratings among the U.S. public.
Reply
5:34 am on October 21st, 2008 48
Powell sounds like a whore who will sleep with the highest bidder. The timing, along with the current polls, of his indorsement looks like a safe bet on his part that the democrates will win. Our military machine seems to reward and advance whore type officers with no backbone and will say what they think others want to hear. I recall General “Westy” in his book, A Solider Reports, state that as a military officer he never voted and indicted that may be a good thing for military officers. Of course, he also took it in the gut for Johnson with the body count issue.
Reply
6:07 am on October 21st, 2008 49
Supposedly, Barack Obama will be suspending his campaign for a few days so he can fly to Hawaii to visit his grandmother, Madelyn Durnham, 84, who has suddenly fallen ill. To do so in the last stages of his campaign must mean her condition is serious. My condolences to the Obama family.
Some really snide Republican bloggers say it is to attempt to fix this birth certificate fiasco in Hawaii. However, the big news is that it seems the Obama/DNC MAY have just shot themselves in the foot by not responding to the allegations of Berg within a 30-day period.
The following is from America’s Right (21 Oct 2008) on this circus of litigation. It stated:
“According to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party upon whom requests for admissions have been served must respond, within 30 days, or else the matters in the requests will be automatically deemed conclusively admitted for purposes of the pending action.” Well, Obama and the DNC did NOT respond in time — and this will lead to some serious consequences for Obama and the DNC.
Because Obama and the DNC did NOT respond in time, Berg will file two motions in district court in Philadelphia: (1) A motion requesting an immediate order deeming his request for admissions served upon Barack Obama and the DNC on September 15 admitted by default, and (2) A motion requesting an expedited ruling and/or hearing on Berg’s motion deeming the request for admissions served upon Obama and the DNC admitted.
What this means is that “procedurally” Obama and the DNC just admitted that all the allegations made by Berg were true. Berg states, “”It all comes down to the fact that there’s nothing from the other side,” Berg said. “The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. He admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States.”
However, there may be other things going on. America’s Right states, “There are, however, several options for Barack Obama and the DNC at this point. The first, and most obvious, is the argument that pursuant to Rule 26(f), a request for admission may only be served after the conference for the purpose of planning discovery detailed under that rule, and therefore the 30-day time limit on Berg’s request has not yet begun. Here, though, Berg could feasibly argue either that the request for admissions is not a true discovery mechanism and is actually meant to streamline the future need for discovery, or that the defendants’ acknowledged service of the request in their October 6 motion for protective order and failed, at that time, to specifically object or answer. The second option for the defense, still easily foreseen, is that Obama and the DNC could file a motion to withdraw admissions which have been deemed admitted. In order to file a motion to withdraw admissions deemed admitted by default, a party must show (1) “good cause” regarding why there was no response and (2) that such a motion to withdraw would not cause undue prejudice to the plaintiff. Here, Berg could contend that Obama and the DNC failed to meet those standards, that they cannot show “good cause” for failing to answer or object, and that withdrawing the admissions would cause undue prejudice.”
THIS IS GETTING TO BE A VERY OBSCENE LEGALISTIC GAME.
Reply
2:23 pm on October 21st, 2008 50
UPDATE (21 Oct 2008): In Berg’s suit, the Federal Election Commission filed a “motion to dismiss” in the alloted time — unlike Obama and the DNC. FEC maintains that Berg fails to meet the minimum requirements of standing.
(Source: America’s Right.)
Reply
7:08 pm on October 21st, 2008 51
UPDATE (22 Oct): @19 Michele Obama’s “white racist” comments. African Press International (API) is having “ongoing discussion” with FOX NEWS for release of the tapes — with the aim being before the 4 Nov elections. No cash is involved and API claims handling and turnover of the tapes is imminent. Michele Obama has denied making the comments.
Chief Editor Korir stated: “API will make use of Legal Representation in the US when finalising the hand-over of the tapes and on any legal matters that may arise after the contents of the tapes become public.” (TIE IN TO BERG CASE: Berg has been contacted as to legal representation.)
“Now that the release of the tapes is imminent, as soon as an agreement is reached, API hopes that those who finally gets access to its contents will use them wisely, in a way that brings the American people closer to one another despite their political allienation and to be above racial behaviour and work together for a better United American Nation. API does not wish to see the information from the tapes being misused by those who may wish to satisfy their own interests and achieve a particular aim.”
“The release of the tapes will take place without costs to any one. The negotiation between API and FOX NEWS bears no sign of money involved and that has been API’s wish all along.” (Source: API.)
Reply
8:10 pm on October 21st, 2008 52
Kalani, how’s the air down there in the rabbit hole?
Reply
9:00 pm on October 21st, 2008 53
Reply
6:12 pm on October 22nd, 2008 54
UPDATE: (23 Oct) Republican political Blog Texas Darlin along with more and more bloggers are commenting that the API tapes is a HOAX. It is taking too long for the tapes to be released and Berg’s role in this is being questioned. Berg is still saying the tapes are forthcoming “shortly.” (Source: http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/open-message-to-african-press-international/)
There are rumors that Berg’s case will be ruled on — for good or bad — on 23-24 Oct. This is only hearsay from courthouse sources. Many are saying the case will be dismissed, but the majority are HOPING that it will bring results. In the meantime, Berg has continued to appear of talk shows — ie G.Gordon Liddy’s. However, the mainstream media continues to shun this story. (Source: http://www.americasright.com/)
THE MADNESS GROWS…
The FIFTH suit for documents is to be filed in Virginia on 23 Oct. This time they are filing against the State Election Board to try to get around the “standing” rule (rule that states the plaintiff has no standing to file a lawsuit and allowing for a motion to dismiss).
Andy Martin filed his suit for revealing the Obama birth certificate with the Hawaii Supreme Court. Suit names Gov Lingle and Dept of Health head as litigants. On 22 Oct he filed for a motion for expedited discovery with the Supreme Court. He will return for New York on 24 Oct — the same time Obama is to leave Hawaii.
5-MINUTES OF FAME CAN BE DAMAGING IF YOU TALK TO OBAMA!!! ASK JOE THE PLUMBER.
I noticed in my googling that something keeps popping up. Anyone who has said controversial things about Obama or is an opponent of Obama on public radio/TV gets an entry in Wikipedia — as public entries can be made without documentation.
The latest is Joe the Plumber. He asked a question of Obama, became a part of the McCain campaign ads, and had an interview with Diane Sawyer. What’s disturbing is that the Wikipedia entry digs into his personal life and even showing he has a tax lien on his house — that he may not know about. They (people unknown) assassinated him in public. THE ENTRY IS PROTECTED SO NO OTHER ENTRIES (CORRECTIONS) CAN BE MADE. I agree the high-profile anti-Obama folks might come under scrutiny, but its scary that an average Joe gets his life publicized because he asked a question of a politician. Check it out for yourself by googling “Wikipedia Joe the Plumber”.
Others Wikipedia entries for high-profile Obama critics are FOX News Radio Host Sean Hannity gets his credibility bashed on Wikipedia because he interviewed Andy Martin, rabid Obama nemesis, and other alleged incidents attacking his credibility. Google “Wikipedia Sean Hannity” for yourself. As to Philip Berg, google, “Wikipedia Natural-born Citizen.”
Reply
6:28 pm on October 22nd, 2008 55
Hey, Kalani,
You had better hope Obama not only skirts any lawsuits but also gets elected by the expected landslide.
If he loses, especially in a questionable election like the last two, the nation-wide street riots are going to make Rodney King’s riots look like a church picnic.
That would be a great excuse for martial law and a few more years of Bush while things settle down.
If you think this is a joke, poke around on the web and notice what police departments are preparing for nationwide.
Reply
6:55 pm on October 22nd, 2008 56
DESPERATION IS NOT A WINNING STRATEGY.
THE BLOSSOM TURD HAS RUN UP AGAINST A MASSIVE CHICAGO BRICK WALL.
MY FRIENDS, SUCK IT UP AND START PREPARING FOR 2012!
Reply
7:54 pm on October 22nd, 2008 57
JAFO,
Wrote a reply that didn’t take. In essence, I agree with you that IF Obama lost because he was ineligible, there would be rioting in the streets — but not only by blacks, but by general America. The issue would be that the institutions (government agencies (Congress, federal and state), mainstream media, political parties) will have failed the American people in protecting them from such fraud. The consequences are mind-boggling.
However, if Obama loses in the election, I don’t think there will be riots — only bitter legal battles — much worse than the Florida fiasco.
I’m still paying attention to this documentation angle because it is so basic. It deals with a question that all should ask themselves: Is it better to (1) protect the institutions at all costs even if an ineligible President under the Constitution is elected; or (2) allow the truth to come out at all costs? It is that in a nutshell — and I continue to wonder why Obama just doesn’t put an end to all this nonsense by PUBLICLY SHOWING THE DOCUMENTS TO DISCREDIT HIS ACCUSERS. His reluctance is what is causing all this hullabaloo.
The fact is is that as we speak, the election is basically over. The Democrats have urged early voting and those undecideds will probably not have an impact. The media is stating that with McCain so far behind in the polls there is no way that he could ever win. Thus all we’re doing is waiting for the election results. Baeksu is right according to the polls — but it ain’t over until the fat lady sings.
Reply
8:54 pm on October 22nd, 2008 58
Kalani,
I suspect that Obama, like Bush, will use unnecessary blanket secrecy to dilute attention from things that are necessary to cover up. It has become a bipartisan political tactic.
I would disagree that an Obama loss would not cause riots. In fact, an Obama WIN might cause riots in the way that a sports victory has in the past. The African-American community is greatly expecting the media creation of Obama to win.
Worse, what happens if Obama wins and some right-wing redneck vetos the election with his deer rifle?
White-bread Biden would be the president and Compton would burn.
Reply
9:49 pm on October 22nd, 2008 59
“The African-American community is greatly expecting the media creation of Obama to win.”
Balderdash. Obama will win because of his superior, well-organized ground strategy. That’s how he beat Clinton in the primaries. That’s how he’s winning numerous traditionally red-leaning “battleground” states (at this point it doesn’t even matter if he loses Florida or Ohio because he owns so many other swing states). McCain’s ground campaign is sparse and pathetic in comparison.
Surely you military folks can appreciate the importance of an effective ground campaign in ultimately winning any war.
Ultimately, the professor has proven to be a more effective military strategist than the old fighter pilot. That’s why he will win, end of story.
Reply
11:54 pm on October 22nd, 2008 60
Two reasons Obama will win. 1) People are so tired of Bush that the Republicans couldn’t win even if they were able to reincarnate Ronald Regan. 2) Obama reneged on his pledge to accept public financing and has massively outspent the McCain camp.
Reply
3:04 am on October 23rd, 2008 61
“The African-American community is greatly expecting the media creation of Obama to win.”
Which part was balderdash? The expectations or the media creation part?
It is not in dispute that the media has covered Obama more favorably than McCain or Hillary. While there are a number of reasons for this, the substance-less, manufactured media hype that brought Obama rock star (or savior) status allowed him to bring in massive contributions.
He has spent this money in a campaign of overexposure which keeps him looking fashionable and relevant. This, in turn, brings in more money. Quite a cycle.
It is no coincidence that much of this money has been returned to the media companies which have given him such favorable coverage through expensive advertising.
We had an unknown politician; a product of one of the most corrupt political machines in the country. The media pushed him into front-runner status, skirting around any hint of scandal, while hacking away at Hillary for every minor misstep.
Contrast this with a media de-creation. The media sunk Howard Dean’s campaign over an enthusiastic yell. If the media focused on Obama’s disrespect for the Pledge of Allegiance (or many other things) with the same vigor, it would be McCain vs. Hillary right now.
Obama might win. People are sick to death of Bush. But, on election night, all good intentions aside, many may think seriously if Obama, his wife and the people he surrounds himself with see America the same way they do. Despite mind-numbing media attention and glorification, Obama is very much an unknown. Many people’s idea of the real Obama is based on popular hype reinforcing wishful thinking.
McCain is a creep but he is an understandable creep to a majority of Americans. Even without a last-minute Republican dirty trick, that may mean something when it comes down to actually casting a vote.
We should discuss this more as, in two weeks, there will actually be a real answer given to many of these questions and statements.
Reply
3:36 am on October 23rd, 2008 62
“Which part was balderdash?”
The media creation part. You seem to forget the media thrashing Obama experienced during the Democratic primary (caught between Hillary on the left and Fox News et. al. on the right). You’re rewriting history if you think he’s gotten some sort of free ride here. In fact, he survived his trial by fire and came out stronger as a result (his speech on race in Philadelphia was the ultimate jujitsu move that left Hillary eating dust).
Meanwhile, it can be argued that the McCain myth is itself a media creation (see the recent Rolling Stone expose on his dubious military career, for example, which has been ignored by the MSM). More to the point, McCain’s lack of a solid ground game means he must rely on endless media diversions and shenanigans to keep his campaign afloat. It’s McCain who relies on the media most of all (hence his Palin pick, which was a pure media-marketing move that totally backfired). Of course, Obama needs the media, too, but it’s only one of several factors. For example, he’s got something like ten times the field offices of McCain in certain states, and the Dems have registered record numbers of voters this year. Getting out the vote is ultimately what really counts.
I like to think that Obama’s positive, bipartisan message of hope and change is what has resonated most across the board and across the nation. That wasn’t something “created” by the media. Obama simply used the media to get that message across to voters. For Obama the media has been a tool not an end in itself, unlike the basic McCain strategy.
So far, I’d say the Obama approach is working impressively well.
Reply
4:10 am on October 23rd, 2008 63
OK, maybe I exaggerated a bit — it may be only 4 or 5 to 1:
“McCain ‘gives up’ on Colorado as Obama calls time-out to visit sick grandmother”
“Obama’s lead in Colorado is a more modest 5 points, according to the RealClearPolitics poll average. But he has a huge advantage over the Republican in organisation, with 51 field offices in Colorado, compared with a dozen for McCain.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/22/uselections2008-johnmccain-colorado-barackobama
Reply
7:27 am on October 23rd, 2008 64
Update (23 Oct): Andy Martin is a complete whack job!!! He now claims that Barack Obama’s REAL father was Frank Marshall Davis, a black poet who was rediscovered in the 1960s Black Culture revival. This Andy Martin is completely insane — Davis was born in 1905 so he was about 55 in 1960, but married to a socialite at the time. (Google Frank Marshall Davis) Davis was supposedly Obama’s mentor — and I have no idea who Martin could make such an absurd claim without proof. Martin made this allegation in a news conference in Hawaii. THIS IS THE LAST UPDATE I WILL POST ON THIS NUT JOB…
On the API tapes on Michele Obama’s “racist” statement, Fox News denied that they were in “negotiations” with API. There is now more credence to the tapes being a hoax…and Berg’s comments that the tapes would be heard “shortly” is looking shakier and shakier.
Berg filed for a SUMMARY JUDGEMENT — meaning the court makes a determination without going to trial on 22 Oct. Still no word from the judge, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, who was rumored to be coming down with an order and memorandum on Thurs or Friday.
Reply
8:09 am on October 23rd, 2008 65
Kalani, in related news, Aleister Crowley may very well be the grandfather of George W. Bush:
http://www.cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/04/george-w-bush-barbara-bush-and.html
Reply
9:08 am on October 23rd, 2008 66
UPDATE: HOLY CRAP!!! THIS NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED QUICK!!!
THE RULING IS OUT — AND IT IS AGAINST OBAMA STATING THAT HE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/27/
In part it reads: “ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P.56(c) is GRANTED. This Court Declares Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein Obama a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry Soetoro is not a “natural born” or “naturalized” United States citizen and in ineligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States. The Democratic National Committee is hereby enjoined from naming Barack Hussein Obama, et al as the Democratic Presidential Candidate on the ballot and both the Democratic and Barack Hussein Obama, et al are enjoined from any further campaigning on behalf of Barrack Hussein Obama, et all for Office of the Presidency. It is an ORDER of this Courth that Barack Hussein Obama’s et al name be removed from any and all ballots for the Office of the President of the United States.”
“It is further ORDER of this Court; Defendants are to pay Plaintiff $48,300.00 representing all fees and costs associated with this suit to date.”
Document undated and unsigned (Hon R. Barclay Surrick, United States District Court Judge, For the Eastern District of PA)
THIS NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED IMMEDIATELY.
As I said before, if true, I fear for the welfare of the institutions of the United States of America. The consequences of a fraud of this magnitude is incomprehensible.
Reply
9:17 am on October 23rd, 2008 67
UPDATE: BACK OFF — THIS IS NOT THE SUMMARY JUDGEMENT.
Note that I stated it was unsigned and undated. Another blogger pointed out that it is the procedure to provide the page as a “convenience” for the judge to sign off on if he agrees.
CALM DOWN…BACK OFF…NO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS ISSUED!!!
STILL WAITING.
Reply
6:48 pm on October 23rd, 2008 68
How about this?
It is claimed there are three reasonably tasteful pictures of Obama’s mother posing without clothes. It sure does look EXACTLY like her, too.
Google for photos. I think the Spam filter ate my link.
This should have little bearing on the election but available photos of the president’s mother posing with her arse in the air kinda adds something to the office, don’t you think?
I’m just glad that George W. Bush didn’t pioneer this territory.
McCain should counter this with some 25 year-old photos of Cindy.
Reply
7:07 pm on October 23rd, 2008 69
Before this ridiculousness goes on, I have a few common sense questions?
How does a person become a U.S. senator, much less a nominee for president of the U.S. without a thorough verification of his basic background by the resources of INS, and the State, Justice, and DHS Departments under control of the opposition party?
What does that say about the state of national security we were promised after 9/11?
It reminds me of the almost daily, wild-eyed reports of Colonel David Hunt, a man of ‘credible sources’ on Fox News, in the early days of the Iraq War of having found the elusive WMD.
Get over it. If this is what’s left for the anti-Obama campaign, it has long since moved from being funny to sad.
Reply
8:42 pm on October 23rd, 2008 70
For military members on this site, the Old Grey Lady (NYT) lays out what’s at stake re. national security in today’s endorsement of Obama:
The American military — its people and equipment — is dangerously overstretched. Mr. Bush has neglected the necessary war in Afghanistan, which now threatens to spiral into defeat. The unnecessary and staggeringly costly war in Iraq must be ended as quickly and responsibly as possible.
While Iraq’s leaders insist on a swift drawdown of American troops and a deadline for the end of the occupation, Mr. McCain is still taking about some ill-defined “victory.” As a result, he has offered no real plan for extracting American troops and limiting any further damage to Iraq and its neighbors.
Mr. Obama was an early and thoughtful opponent of the war in Iraq, and he has presented a military and diplomatic plan for withdrawing American forces. Mr. Obama also has correctly warned that until the Pentagon starts pulling troops out of Iraq, there will not be enough troops to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, has only belatedly focused on Afghanistan’s dangerous unraveling and the threat that neighboring Pakistan may quickly follow.
Mr. Obama would have a learning curve on foreign affairs, but he has already showed sounder judgment than his opponent on these critical issues. His choice of Senator Joseph Biden — who has deep foreign-policy expertise — as his running mate is another sign of that sound judgment. Mr. McCain’s long interest in foreign policy and the many dangers this country now faces make his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska more irresponsible.
Both presidential candidates talk about strengthening alliances in Europe and Asia, including NATO, and strongly support Israel. Both candidates talk about repairing America’s image in the world. But it seems clear to us that Mr. Obama is far more likely to do that — and not just because the first black president would present a new American face to the world.
Mr. Obama wants to reform the United Nations, while Mr. McCain wants to create a new entity, the League of Democracies — a move that would incite even fiercer anti-American furies around the world.
Unfortunately, Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, sees the world as divided into friends (like Georgia) and adversaries (like Russia). He proposed kicking Russia out of the Group of 8 industrialized nations even before the invasion of Georgia. We have no sympathy for Moscow’s bullying, but we also have no desire to replay the cold war. The United States must find a way to constrain the Russians’ worst impulses, while preserving the ability to work with them on arms control and other vital initiatives.
Both candidates talk tough on terrorism, and neither has ruled out military action to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But Mr. Obama has called for a serious effort to try to wean Tehran from its nuclear ambitions with more credible diplomatic overtures and tougher sanctions. Mr. McCain’s willingness to joke about bombing Iran was frightening.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=opinion
Reply
9:47 pm on October 23rd, 2008 71
I want goverenment-mandated health care, government handouts (i.e. cheese), and government controlled redistribution of wealth!!! Who should I vote for?
Reply
10:17 pm on October 23rd, 2008 72
“I want goverenment-mandated health care, government handouts (i.e. cheese), and government controlled redistribution of wealth!!! Who should I vote for?”
Well, if you’re a Wall St. fat cat, vote for the two “mavericks.” Talk about your tax dollars hard at work!
Reply
1:32 am on October 24th, 2008 73
King Baeksu, where to start?
The Bailout, and the crisis that instigated it, is a perverse example of politics, greed and corruption.
It is not, however, the fault of the two “mavericks” or even, entirely, of the Republican party. There is plenty of blame to go around.
The crisis arose from the Clinton administration getting poor people (minorities) into houses. This is not a bad thing as a sense of ownership reduces many problems created by poor people with nothing to lose.
As is frequently the case with government-getting-involved projects, it was taken advantage of by everyone involved. In a web of shared and dependent goals, it was designed that way. The system was based on reward without risk for Wall Street. Government-backed loans left the bankers with the profits and the taxpayer with the bills for default. With this system in place, the result was foreseeable years ago. Many did.
The Republican party, including McCain, tried to get the rules tightened on government-backed Fannie/Freddie loans but were blocked by Democrats in congress, supposedly in the interests of protecting poor and minorities.
McCain spoke on the floor of the senate in 2005 in favor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 which would have prevented the crisis that triggered the Bailout. Look up what he said.
Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd and Democratic Congressman Barney Frank refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Coincidentally, Senator Christopher Dodd was the number one recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
It is interesting to note that Barack Obama was the number TWO recipient of Fannie/Freddie money. That’s right. Number TWO. Draw your own conclusions.
Obama only came in a close second place because he received his money for only 4 years rather than Dodd’s 19 years.
Still want to blame the “mavericks”?
(Another presidential candidate, John Kerry was #3.)
Now, has Obama learned anything from this?
Well, look up the scandal-plagued history of these three (Democratic) Fannie Mae executives who received millions in bonuses even as Fannie was collapsing.
Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director
James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale
Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general.
Raines is advising Obama on housing policy. Johnson was appointed to head Obama’s vice presidential selection committee. Gorelick has been mentioned as Obama’s attorney general cabinet appointment.
Where is the Hope and Change?
The Mainstream Media has been amazingly quiet on all this to protect their media creation but all of this information is openly available with a simple Google search from websites that are reasonably credible. You can also find most of this information from primary sources or even in the Mainstream Media with the dots left intentionally unconnected.
I stand by my statement that Obama is a media creation and is being protected by the media at this time.
(If one were to wear a tinfoil hat, one might think this was all some right-wing Republican plot to get a golden boy liberal minority Democrat elected only to watch him melt down into a Nixon-style disgrace. That would keep the minorities, liberals, Democrats and maybe even women, at bay for at least a generation.)
Reply
4:47 am on October 24th, 2008 74
As you know, I’ve said here that according to the media, everything is over because of Obama’s lead in the polls. Everyone has pretty much made up their minds so as far as the campaigning, it is all over except the election.
However, I’m curious since the AP/Yahoo poll has it 44-42 percent and Gallop has it 49-47 percent in favor of Obama last I checked a week ago. Given the “margin of error” factor, things are “statistically tied” — using Rush Limbaugh’s words. JAFO’s assertion of “media creation” seems to be reflected by AP commentary of how the people are “souring” on McCain, while their own polls do not substantiate their comments.
Again, my statement is that it ain’t over till the fat lady sings.
Reply
6:09 am on October 24th, 2008 75
JAFO, who was in charge of the Presidency, the Senate and House from 2000-2006? The GOP. Are you going to blame the current financial crisis on the fact that the Dems have had control of Congress for the past two years (while being unable to break Republican deadlocks on votes), despite the fact that the financial crisis was beginning to appear exactly two years ago?
The first big problem was the Bush admin’s decision along with Greenspan to keep interest rates artificially low in the post-9/11 period, forestalling a necessary corrective recession and delaying the inevitable until now — and making things much worse. The subprime fiasco was directly related to low interest rates and was the product of lax regulation when the GOP was in charge.
It’s true that Clinton signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act at the end of his presidency, which also led to many of the problems that have caused the current financial crisis, but the repeal was authored by Phil Gramm (a key McCain economic advisor) and was passed by Republican controlled-Congress in 1999. Add onto this Bush’s $3-trillion war in Iraq and irresponsible tax cuts during the same period, and you have a perfect storm of Republican incompetence — which, once again, the Democrats will have to clean up since the GOP no longer even understands what “fiscal responsibility” actually means anymore.
Reply
6:52 am on October 24th, 2008 76
Speak of the devil:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27357412#27357412
Reply
7:01 am on October 24th, 2008 77
“It is interesting to note that Barack Obama was the number TWO recipient of Fannie/Freddie money. That’s right. Number TWO. Draw your own conclusions.”
Greenspan himself disagrees with this particular talking point:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27357412#27352004
Reply
7:32 am on October 24th, 2008 78
JAFO, sorry for the continued links, but here is a breakdown of the financial crisis including a writer for the Wall Street Journal, and not once do they talk about Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. They do, however, heap considerable blame onto Greenspan and his ideology of market fundamentalism:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27357412#27342682
Reply
2:51 pm on October 24th, 2008 79
It Ain’t Over Till the Fat Lady Sings.
On this blog, we have been hearing people proclaiming an Obama landslide — and many polls are also predicting this. But an AP article stated, “Polls are snapshots of highly fluid campaigns. In this case, there is a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points; that means Obama could be ahead by as many as 8 points or down by as many as 6. There are many reasons why polls differ, including methods of estimating likely voters and the wording of questions.”
Thirty-six percent (36%) of voters have already cast their ballots or plan to vote early this year. That figure includes 37% of Obama supporters and 35% of those for McCain. Forty-nine percent (49%) of African-American voters say they will be voting early. Voters not affiliated with either major party are far less likely to vote early than partisans.
Bottomline is that it’s still anybody’s race down to the wire. However, the odds-on favorite is Obama with an 86 percent likelihood of winning — that is if he doesn’t trip over his tongue or some horrendous revelation doesn’t comes about. Recent AP and CBS polls are giving rise to feelings amongst McCain supporters that the race is tightening up in the last weeks.
Berg has promised the release of the API tapes this weekend — but there is much skepticism. There is also the wait for a ruling for a Summary judgement in the Obama citizenship case — where McCain supporters logically expect a dismissal for lack of standing, but hope fervently for a positive ruling. Die-hard Republicans keep praying for the “October Surprise.” Unfortunately, it hasn’t happened yet.
=========================================
AP poll: Candidates running nearly even — Neck-and-neck results are a departure from many recent national polls (23 Oct)
The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch. (SITE NOTE: Differs from RealClearPolitics.com — ABC News/Wash Post 10/19 – 10/22 Obama +11)
The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as Republican-leaning voters drifted home to their party.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27324419/
====================================
CBS Poll: McCain, Obama Tied — McCain Closes Eight-Point Gap From Poll Taken Last Weekend (24 Oct)
The presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain is now even at 42 percent, according to a new CBS News poll conducted Monday-Wednesday of this week. Twelve percent are undecided according to the poll, and one percent said they wouldn’t vote. This is in contrast to a poll conducted last weekend, where the Obama-Biden ticket led McCain-Palin by eight points, 48 percent to 40 percent. (NOTE: These numbers conflict with RealClearPolitics.com — CBS News/NY Times 10/19 – 10/22 Obama +13)
McCain has also closed the enthusiasm gap some with Obama, but it still exists. Fifty-five percent of Obama’s supporters are enthusiastic about their choice, and now so are 35% of McCain’s. Last weekend, just 25 percent of McCain’s supporters were enthusiastic about him, compared to 67 of Obama’s supporters.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/opinion/polls/main4416798.shtml
==========================
Bloomberg says the Obama lead shrinking in some polls
AP Poll at 44 to 43 percent — compared to 7 point lead for Obama in September.
George Washington University poll down to 2 point edge for Obama — down from 7 point lead in mid-October.
IDB/TIPP tracking survey has the margin for the Democrat narrowing to 1 point from 5 points at the start of the week.
New York Times-CBS News, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal/NBC, and Gallup show Obama either holding or expanding his lead over McCain. The average of 14 national polls taken between Oct. 16 and Oct. 22 is just over 7 percentage points, according to data compiled by Realclearpolitics.com. The gap has increased steadily since mid- September.
Obama leads McCain in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to a Quinnipiac University poll. The three states combined have 68 electoral votes and have played a central role in recent elections. Obama is ahead by 5 percentage points in Florida, 14 points in Ohio and 13 points in Pennsylvania, the surveys, conducted Oct. 16-21 found. The Florida and Pennsylvania polls have a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, while the Ohio poll has an error margin of plus or minus 2.7 points.
A New York Times-CBS News poll released today showed Obama leading McCain by 52 to 39 percent among probable voters.
The CNN polls found Obama ahead by 5 percentage points among likely voters in Nevada, 4 points in North Carolina and Ohio, and 10 points in Virginia. McCain leads in West Virginia. The CNN state polls have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for surveys in Nevada and Ohio and 4 percentage points in the other three states.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGFXShU78.wU&refer=home
============================
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for 24 Oct shows Obama attracting 52% of the vote while John McCain earns 45%.
The 24 Oct’s results mark the 29th straight day that Obama’s support has stayed between 50% or above 52%. During that period, the number voting for McCain has stayed in the 44% to 46% range every day and the gap between the candidates has ranged from four to eight percentage points.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama while 53% say the same about John McCain. Those figures include 41% with a Very Favorable opinion of Obama and 26% who are that enthusiastic about McCain (see trends). Seventy-six percent (76%) of Democrats have a Very Favorable opinion of Obama. Just 54% of Republicans have a Very Favorable opinion of McCain.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
=======================
RealClearPolitics.com shows polls having Obama clearly in lead by 7.8 points — increasing his lead since mid-September.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
Rasmussen Reports 10/21 – 10/23 Obama +7
Gallup (Traditional)* 10/21 – 10/23 Obama +5
Gallup (Expanded)* 10/21 – 10/23 Obama +7
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 10/21 – 10/23 1203 LV 2.9 51 41 Obama +10
Hotline/FD 10/21 – 10/23 766 LV 3.5 50 43 Obama +7
GWU/Battleground 10/19 – 10/23 Obama +3
IBD/TIPP 10/19 – 10/23 Obama +4
CBS News/NY Times 10/19 – 10/22 Obama +13
ABC News/Wash Post 10/19 – 10/22 Obama +11
FOX News 10/20 – 10/21 Obama +9
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/17 – 10/20 Obama +10
Associated Press/GfK 10/16 – 10/20 Obama +1
Ipsos/McClatchy 10/16 – 10/20 Obama +8
CNN/Opinion Research 10/17 – 10/19 Obama +5
Pew Research 10/16 – 10/19 Obama +14
Reply
6:15 pm on October 24th, 2008 80
Kalani, you’re leaving out an important factor.
Most polling in the US is still limited to landline phones.
Meanhwile, many younger voters who only use cellphones are leaning towards Obama and the Democratic ticket.
Thus, all the polls you refer to above probably under-represent Obama’s present advantage.
By how much, we cannot be certain, but no doubt the fat lady already knows!
Reply
7:59 pm on October 24th, 2008 81
I remember what an avid Republican once told me about a Democratic free concert sponsored a few years back to attract the younger voters. The concert was a packed house, but come election day, the young voters did not seem to turn out as expected. Thus the statement that young folks will drive three hours and stand in line for two hours for a free concert, but won’t spend ten minutes to vote.
Read in some articles that the expected youth turnout of the Democrats anticipate may not be as strong as predicted. However, they did not have any stats to go along with it.
One can only say, we’ll see.
Reply
11:50 pm on October 24th, 2008 82
King Baeksu,
Leading questions and selective editing by a left-leaning talking head is not a terribly convincing case-builder.
Please, no more mind-numbing video links where it takes 6 minutes of anti-Republican rhetorical questions and sarcastic smirks to present a few sentences of slanted information.
Greenspan didn’t agree or disagree that Obama had any part of the Meltdown. He was never asked.
What you have been led to perceive as clearing Obama from any involvement was Waxman’s immediate misdirection by asking Greenspan if the cause of the Meltdown was Freddie/Fannie. Greenspan replied that it was a contributory factor and not the main cause. (He actually blames global demand for mortgage backed securities.)
This clever questioning by Waxman gave the impression that Obama was not involved.
In reality, “In the summer of 2005, a bill emerged from the Senate Banking Committee that considerably tightened regulations on Fannie and Freddie, including controls over their capital and their ability to hold portfolios of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities. All the Republicans voted for the bill in committee; all the Democrats voted against it.”
Obama voted against it.
Despite this vote, Obama claims he wrote a letter to the Treasury Secretary putting himself on record that subprime loans were dangerous and had to be dealt with. He knew there was a problem yet covered his behind while taking no action against the wishes of his large financial contributors.
This is not fresh leadership. This is the type of favor-returning and political maneuvering that the Media tells me Obama will Change.
Without question, Obama is a clever politician. But he is not the Hope or Change that the Media is trying to sell to me.
Obama is owned. In a very short time, he has taken a lot of favors to achieve the position he is in. He will return those favors with your tax dollars if he is elected. He already has. In 4 years of being in the senate, he has requested almost a BILLION dollars in earmarks (pork). Some of Obama’s earmarks have gone to friends and family. Others have gone to pay back financial and political supporters. As president, I feel his spending style will be no different.
In his entire career, McCain has requested zero earmarks. Just so you know.
Now don’t get me wrong. I am not against Obama because I am a McCain supporter. I can write equally scathing reviews of his dismal performance as a human being as well as the failure of the Bush cabal and the abomination that the Republican party has become. My dislike of Obama is not partisan.
The biggest problem with Obama goes back to my statement that he is a media creation. Like many fads, I feel he is being pushed on the public by the media. He is being advertised like a flashy, substandard product; hyping an engineered image and playing on emotion rather than giving details and technical specifications so the buyer can decide what’s best.
When a real product, from the latest “blockbuster” movie to New Coke, is over-hyped in this way you just know it is going to suck even if you and all your friends talk endlessly about it in anticipation, silently hoping that just this one time it will be good.
Media over-hype is a warning sign as their interest in me buying their product is generally not in my best interest.
The more I research about Obama the more I believe this is the case with him.
Reply
12:47 am on October 25th, 2008 83
Did my comments get censored?
I belive in freedom of speech.
OBAMA IS NO BRAHMIN!
Reply
12:49 am on October 25th, 2008 84
In America, to the democrat, if you call yourself a brahmin, the democrat will follow you. The democrat are like so many sheep. The sheep will follow the wolf.
Reply
1:01 am on October 25th, 2008 85
JAFO, you are confusing cause and effect. Everyone is blaming Greenspan now for the low interest rates that led to the housing bubble, his promoting ARMs and failing to help regulate the out-of-control derivatives market. It was low interest rates and the bundling of subprime mortgages into securities that caused some banks including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lend to some lower-income borrowers who should never have tried to buy a house in the first place; but when you are talking about a $500 trillion derivatives market, a trillion or two trillion dollars worth of lower-income mortgage defaulters is peanuts, and again has nothing significant to do with either the cause of the housing bubble, or its collapse. That’s why Greensapn himself said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not a primary cause of the financial crisis; the primary cause was the tsunami of easy credit that allowed rampant investment risk and lack of governmental regulation — which is absolutely Republican responsibility since they were in charge when all of this happened.
Your description of Obama as a media creation reminds me of how Bush was falsely repackaged and sold to the public as some sort of folksy cowboy, as well as his own selling of the Iraq war to the American public. Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and was never a “cowboy” until 1999 when he bought his ranch in Crawford specifically to promote a certain image during this run for the Presidency, and which locals in Crawford saw through very quickly. All politicians are owned to a certain extent, but at least Obama is not pretending to be something he’s not. Bush pretended to be a “compassion conservative” when he ran in 2000 and that was a lie; Obama is running as an agent of change and I am certain that change will be coming as soon as he gets into the White House.
Reply
1:18 am on October 25th, 2008 86
The “King” is strutting like a peac0ck, in his Obama suit made with proud African fiber. Yet those who open their eyes can clearly see that the “king” is wearing no cloth.
Obama is without substance. He is empty. He is null and void.
Yes change will happen. Your schools will turn to madrases, your women will be covered from head to toe in black fabric. Freedom, in the land of the free will end. He will turn the USA into an islamic nation.
Reply
1:22 am on October 25th, 2008 87
Update (25 Oct): NO RULING FROM JUDGE SURRICK TODAY.
Lawsuits now in EIGHT states. The latest suits have been filed in state and federal courts in Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Washington, California, Florida, Georgia, New York, and Connecticut to compel Obama to release his birth records.
The birth certificate issue now getting increased publicity at Newsmax.com on 24 Oct. The Web site snarkybytes.com has produced a vault copy of a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth from 1963, issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. [See the vault copy — Click Here.] Check out snarkybytes’ vault copy and compare it to the copy on Obama’s site (Click Here … big difference. The vault copy has the same information as my birth certificate copy — though mine was from the Territory of Hawaii being an old-timer. The missing information will answer a slew of questions that Berg, conservative bloggers and nuts (like Andy Martin) have been raising.
According to Newsmax.com, “Lawyers for Obama and the DNC did not return calls for comment on the current status of the case, or explain why the Obama campaign did not simply put to rest the whole controversy by releasing the birth certificate that Obama apparently cherished as a teenager.” This is the same question I asked on 18 Oct when I posted this item here. Obama and the DNC continue their silence.
Reply
2:08 am on October 25th, 2008 88
Do you know…
Al-Takeyya?
This alows a devout muslem to lie in order to win the holy war.
Do you know about this? It is permissable for Obama to lie, in order to win the presidency. Once he is leader of the free world, he will force everyone to be a muslem too.
Dear reader, do you love freedom and Jesus? Obama will take that away with the stoke of a pen.
Remember Hitler was freely elected. Mussolini was elected too.
Reply
2:50 am on October 25th, 2008 89
blog owner. Please do not censor my last comment. Your readers need to knw about the real Obama.
Reply
3:34 am on October 25th, 2008 90
Obama is a cunning forger. Obama needs to answer some quesions!
Where was he really born.
What is his true intent and real goal of being president.
What sect of islam does he follow.
Wire him up to a lie detector. I think he is a sleeper cell.
Reply
7:02 am on October 25th, 2008 91
@88, 89, 90 — Being a Muslim is irrelevant. This is America if you didn’t notice. It doesn’t matter if you are a Irish Catholic, English Episcopalian, Japanese Buddhist, Thai Thewada Buddhist, or whatever as long as you’re an AMERICAN. All that Muslim nonsense is irrelevant.
People can claim all they want about the forgery — but all the people like Tech Dude who stated the Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth was a forgery have disappeared. Until an accredited laboratory says it’s a fake, there isn’t much credibility going in this departmetn. Thus far, nobody in the Republican camp seems to want to spring the coin to have this done. PROOF IS ON THE PLAINTIFF AND I HAVEN’T SEEN IT YET.
HOWEVER, the information contained in the Vault Copy of the Hawaii Birth Certificate contains the information that will prove or disprove all the allegations. The only problem is that Obama doesn’t want to release it.
Please stop the fanatical rantings — it doesn’t help the conservative cause to learn the truth.
Reply
8:44 am on October 25th, 2008 92
UPDATE: (25 Oct) JUDGMENT OF BERG SUIT OUT!!!!
The order came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg’s lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.
Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations. A plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress.
So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that’s completely up to Congress to decide.
If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.
Berg, disappointed by the decision, plans to appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.
This action was predicted in Daily Jot by Bill Wilson in an article, “DNC and Obama Attorneys: Voters Have No Constitutional Right To Challenge Ineligibility Of Presidential Candidates” (Source: Daily Jot.)
With this ruling, it most likely that the other suits in the remaining SEVEN states will also be tossed out for “lack of standing.”
THUS AMERICA WILL NEVER KNOW IF OBAMA IS REALLY A CITIZEN OR NOT — AND IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT — WELL, TOUGH!!!
(END OF MY POSTS ON THIS SUBJECT)
Reply
9:20 am on October 25th, 2008 93
I’m glad it got tossed out. Could you imagine what would happen if Obama was disqualified? All hell would break loose and we don’t need it. Let the guy with the best campaign win.
All hell could break loose on election night anyway judging by the articles I have been reading about both sides mobilizing teams of lawyers to scrutinize votes and eliminate ineligible voters in key battle ground states. You would think that after the debacle in 2000 we would have had our voting system fixed and it is still messed up.
Reply
10:03 am on October 25th, 2008 94
But Jon, you missed the key point completely.
Everyone has been talking about certain people being responsible for vetting the candidates — DNC (Diane Feinsteing); Federal Election Committee; State Election Committees; Congressional committees, etc. etc.
The fact is that NO ONE IS SPECIFIED TO VET CANDIDATES. Osama Bin Laden could show up claim to be a US citizen — and run for President.
There is more. The Federal Election Commission has stated in their motion to dismiss that they are a federal agency and NO VOTER CAN SUE THEM!!! Besides, they stated, we aren’t responsible for vetting candidates. They dole out federal monies to candidates, but they are not responsible for candidates’ eligibility.
Everyone has an excuse.
Judge Surrick made it very plain. The Congress needs to enact legislation to specify exactly who is responsible for vetting a candidate. At this time, NO ONE IS RESPONSIBLE!!!
Everyone who proclaimed that the vetting process had been done was WRONG. All who thought that there was a FORMALIZED AND LEGAL vetting process in effect was WRONG. There is NO legal vetting process since no one has been designated by Congress to perform the vetting process.
That is what is sad about this whole affair. The truth is Barack Obama has NOT been vetted. He most likely is a US citizen, but we will never know as long as he refuses to show his vault birth certificate.
This is a horrendous issue. All the institutions that we thought were protecting the voters simply were not. As such, no one will want to raise this issue — and will want to sweep it under the carpet. The media missed it, the Congress missed it, and John Q. Public missed it.
Whether the DNC and Obama knew before hand is a matter of conjecture — but what remains of Berg’s farcial case is the fact that the voters have no protection against ineligible candidates running for office.
Every American voter has been played for a fool. That is the sad fact. And there’s not a damn thing anyone can do about it at this late date.
Reply
8:10 pm on October 25th, 2008 95
Oh, I forgot to mention that this will be resolved in the same way McCain was recognized as a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN — by act of Congress. McCain was challenged in court in Jul 2008 over his citizenship and the case was dismissed citing the Congressional resolution of Apr 2008. McCain didn’t need it — as he was a military dependent born to two US parents on military assignment for the US government in Panama in 1936. The pieces now fall into place — and notice that Obama and Democrats were the main sponsors of this bill.
Guess who will now get his free pass as a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN? It will be all very legal…and Constitutional.
Below is the McCain resolution.
SRES 511 RSATS
Calendar No. 715110th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. RES. 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 10, 2008
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
April 24, 2008
Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment
April 30, 2008
Considered and agreed to
————————————————————————
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United Calendar No. 715110th CONGRESS2d SessionS. RES. 511RESOLUTIONRecognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.April 24, 2008Reported without amendmentStates.
(Source: Open Congress.)
Reply
11:01 pm on October 25th, 2008 96
If you want to know why the Obama campaign is trouncing the McCain campaign, watch this hilarious debate between campaign managers Rick Davis (McCain) and David Axelrod (Obama) on Fox last week:
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=iVyVhvh1v3k
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yxDVHIP3w&feature=related
Rick Davis starts off defensive, becomes increasingly belligerent, literally talking over Axelrod whenever he speaks, and ends up lying outright about both the results of the Troopergate investigation and his own role as a McCain lobbyist. Axelrod, meanwhile, never backs down but remains cool throughout (a hallmark of the “No drama Obama” campaign motto), takes the high road when given a chance to badmouth Palin over her ethics violation in Troopergate, and keeps returning to the economy whenever he has a chance — the core concern of voters, of course.
No doubt, Davis certainly scored points in the minds of many conservative Fox viewers, but I also have no doubt that many independent and moderate voters would have been immensely turned off by his dishonest and extremely rude and negative performance in this debate.
McCain’s own campaign manager is so out of control here that we wonder how he can manage anything at all.
Reply
11:07 pm on October 25th, 2008 97
[DELETED BY MODERATOR]
We don’t need racist statements here.
Reply
11:13 pm on October 25th, 2008 98
ChimChim just doesn’t get it. Your cute racist jokes may appeal to the far right, but only alientate the remaining 70% of the American electorate.
Sometimes when you find yourself in a deep hole, it helps to stop digging.
Reply
11:30 pm on October 25th, 2008 99
It was sad the way David Axlrod made this into a personal attack on Rick Davis.
Remember my words. When Obama lies, children die.
Reply
11:34 pm on October 25th, 2008 100
No, what was really sad was the way Davis kept whining “You guys started it!” like a little schoolgirl.
Reply
11:37 pm on October 25th, 2008 101
About Kenya! Kenyans are not racist becaue they have multiple wives and Americans should not be forced to do the same!
From MSN Encarta.
Kenyan families tend to be large, and households often include many members of the extended family. Polygyny (the practice of having multiple wives) exists to some extent among all social classes and ethnic groups.
70% of the American electorate do not want the Kenya way of life!! They should not be forced to do that even if they are going to be called “racist”.
Once again your “proud African garmet” is proved to be noting and the “king” is wearing no cloth.
Reply
11:40 pm on October 25th, 2008 102
“like a little schoolgirl.”
Such “cute racist jokes” towards Rick Davis.
Reply
12:03 am on October 26th, 2008 103
ChimChim, let me spell things out for you as simply as I can.
In 1992, the winning mantra of the Clinton campaign was 4 simple words: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
One might think that Obama’s own campaign mantra is the same this time around, but it’s actually slightly different: “It’s the center, stupid.” Obama and his team have assidiously honed and aimed their message with this key voting block in mind, and it seems to be working magnificently.
Meanwhile, McCain’s own campaign mantra can also be summed up in 4 simple words: “It’s the base, stupid.” Well, playing to the base is probably satisfying on an emotional and ideological level, but it’s certainly no way to build a majority coalition.
ChimChim, your comments here all track the McCain campaign mantra, which I’m sure makes you feel better on a personal level, but they’re clearly not the stuff of a winning strategy.
Class is now dismissed. Have a nice day and a pleasant tomorrow!
Reply
12:52 am on October 26th, 2008 104
Four words: Obama lies, children die.
Reply
1:22 am on October 26th, 2008 105
“Obama lies, children die.”
Are you in the U.S. military? If Obama becomes your next Commander-in-Chief, do you think it’s cool to call him a baby-killer? Isn’t there some sort of Code of Conduct covering such libelous statements by service members?
Reply
1:35 am on October 26th, 2008 106
To all readers!
Its true: Obama lies, children die.
audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
obamalies.net/
obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/05/documented-lie-50-obama-claimed-he-had.html
Reply
6:38 pm on October 26th, 2008 107
King Baeksu,
“But Bush ________,” (even when completely true) does not support Obama or refute allegations that he is a media creation with a history of typical politics and shady dealings that go against his media-perpetuated message of Change.
As McCain is a much more known quantity of scumbaggedness, I wish someone could give me a reason to vote for Obama but I can only get emotion-based words like Hope and Change with absolutely no evidence that he is connected to either. The more I look at his history and situation, the more I am convinced he is part of the problem and not the solution. Further, the people around him (who would achieve positions of power) are either known crooks or assorted extremists who do not see America as I do.
King Baeksu, your writing shows you are thoughtful and intelligent yet you have not been convincing as to HOW Obama will make a good president and why his history is unlike the worst of other politicians. You have only echoed the media-created, emotion-based talking points of many blind Obama followers without giving any real substance.
As an undecided voter (undecided who to vote against) I could still cast my vote for Obama because I, too, wish for hope and change. Nobody has yet been able to tell me specifically how Obama will deliver it. The evidence indicated he won’t.
I am certain there are other pro-Obama readers here who can chime in.
Reply
7:46 pm on October 26th, 2008 108
ChickenHead, thanks for your comments. I did in fact address the issue of my support for Obama at length in the Palin thread that went over 350 comments. I am not an uncritical supporter of Obama. Anyone who makes it to the White House, for example, must have the support of corporate interests in the US which is certainly true of Obama, and I have many problems with this (Obama’s questionable embrace of ethanol production is a case in point).
However, let me briefly explain why I think Obama would be a much better choice than McCain.
As a US citizen abroad, I am primarliy concerned with US foreign policy. I believe the past 8 years have been a disaster for US foreign policy, which essentially has been dictated by the neocons. We note that McCain’s top foreign policy adviser is also a leading neocon (Randy Scheunemann, a board member of the Project for the New American Century which pushed for the war in Iraq), and McCain himself seems to be a down-the-line neocon himself, supporting an indefinite US military presence in Iraq, hostile confrontation against Iran in support of Isreal and confrontation with Russia as well. Obama, meanwhile, would represent a more moderate US foreign policy based on dialogue and diplomacy rather than unilateral force. The neocon ideology is bankrupt but McCain does seem to realize this, and for this reason I believe that his ascension to the White House would be extremely dangerous — especially at this moment in history when the US does not have the financial resources to support continued military adventurism abroad.
Also on the foreign affairs front, I believe that the US image abroad is in tatters at the moment, and that an Obama Presidency would be an excellent international PR move for the US. Obama represents a newer, fresher generation in the US characterized by diversity, technological literacy and the sheer energy of youth. Polls indicate that the rest of the world supports Obama by an overwhelming majority. Given the current financial crisis we find ourselves in, the US needs the support of the rest of the world to help us get through it, and I believe the rest of the world will be far more willing to give its support to us with Obama in the White House.
Finally, on the domestic front, I believe Obama’s tax policy is far more progressive than McCain’s (which is heavily weighted in favor of corporations), and I also support his plan for universal health care. I also believe that after 8 years of free-market fundamentalism on Wall Street, is it time to clean house, and that requires radically new poltical leadership. Obama represents an ideology that while certainly not anti-business, is definitely more responsible than what we have seen over that past 8 years.
In my opinion, McCain disqualified himself as a serious candidate with his gimmicky selection of Palin as his VP. I also think that McCain has allowed himself to be controlled far too much by the far right of the Republican Party (hence his selection of Palin), which to me suggests that his leadership ability is not as solid as he would have us think; his failure to muster GOP support for the Paulson bailout plan only underscored this impression. I believe that McCain’s historical moment has passed and that while he may have been a good President in 2000, at this point he may just be too old to handle the job now: he really does look worn out these days on the campaign trail, and we wonder if this helps accounts for his erratic behavior over the past two months. Can he really have the energy to handle an extremely demanding job for the next 4 years?
In short, I believe this election is no contest at this point. Polls indicate that an increasing majority of American voters concur with this assessment.
Reply
10:16 pm on October 31st, 2008 109
King Baeksu,
A intelligent question and an intelligent response. My faith in the Internet is restored.
Your points are all very valid. For this reason, this in not an easy election.
The Neocons have damaged America.
But I worry that what the “rest of the world” wants for America is generally better for the “rest of the world” than for America. Carter might argue that what is best for the world is for everyone to get along and succeed together. His presidency proved that most other leaders are as devious as Bush & Co; and “nice” doesn’t work.
“I believe Obama’s tax policy is far more progressive than McCain’s (which is heavily weighted in favor of corporations)”
As it is, many corporations are fleeing America because of corporate taxes and taking jobs with them. While a popular concept, I’m not sure more taxes on corporations won’t have unintended consequences. As it is, 40% of Americans pay no tax. The biggest burden, both in taxation and over-regulation, falls on hardworking small business owners putting in 80 hours a week to get ahead.
“and I also support his plan for universal health care.”
Everybody promises to change the American heath care nightmare. Nobody delivers. Nobody can deliver in the way they promise. Attractive but empty; not a selling point. (McCain is an equally big liar.)
“I also believe that after 8 years of free-market fundamentalism on Wall Street,”
The problem is that is was NOT free-market fundamentalism. It was the explicit promise of government backing without oversight which allowed the sales and repackaging of risky financial products.
Reward without risk generally doesn’t exist in a true free market. It only existed because of government involvement perpetuated by politicians, such as Obama, who took campaign contributions to keep the system going.
Like most of the recent elections, it is not a vote FOR someone but a vote AGAINST someone else.
Obama and McCain seem to be equally (but differently) repulsive. Obama is a good emotional sell but, in reality, an unknown factor with a lot of baggage that the media has skirted around.
Many people realize this and, regardless of what they say publicly to appear fashionable and in-tune with the media-created Obama fad, will vote for McCain at the last minute.
I still believe McCain will be the next president. I predict limited public unrest. McCain will take the position as the “Unifier” (as opposed to the Decider) and offer Obama an important position which will appease the masses as well as position Obama for another White House run in 4 to 8 years.
These are only guesses. Put them in quotes an re-post them here if I am wrong. I will do it if I am right.
Reply
11:18 pm on October 31st, 2008 110
[DELETED]
Reply
11:26 pm on October 31st, 2008 111
“As it is, many corporations are fleeing America because of corporate taxes and taking jobs with them. While a popular concept, I’m not sure more taxes on corporations won’t have unintended consequences. As it is, 40% of Americans pay no tax. The biggest burden, both in taxation and over-regulation, falls on hardworking small business owners putting in 80 hours a week to get ahead.”
JAFO, thanks for the thoughts. A quick response for now.
I am certain that a huge portion of those 40% do indeed pay taxes: They pay state tax, they pay into social security, and workers’ comp and various other add-ons. And of course that also pay a sales tax whenever they go into a store and buy something.
I believe the bigger problem is not high taxes on corporations, but rather the Wall St. ethos of maximizing profits for shareholders at all costs. My father works as a marketing rep for a very successful health-care equipment maintenance company that was sold a few years ago and then went public. The new directors have driven the company into the ground, fired successful sales reps and aliented other workers all in their quest to squeeze out profits for shareholders. My father ultimately decided that he will move on, even though he is near retirement and finding a new job will be a serious challenge.
Another example is Walmart. They demand such low prices from U.S. based suppliers, and have the power to do so because they order on such a massive scale, that these companies often would have to sell at a loss to meet Walmart’s target purchase prices. Thus, many of these companies have folded and Walmart now buys a huge chunk of its products from Chinese-based suppliers. Sure, the US consumer gets to buy slightly cheaper products at Walmart, but at what real cost? Entire communities in the US have been gutted because of Walmart’s mercenary pricing system, and again, this is all fundamentally driven by Walmart’s need to squeeze profits for its shareholders. Now really, how “patriotic” is Walmart’s basic business strategy when it’s driving U.S. local companies into the ground, and more to the point is the basic problem here corporate taxes?
Anyway, from what I know, Obama is offering all sorts of tax breaks for small businesses. Joe the Plumber certainly would have to pay no higher taxes under Obama’s plan, and I really do wonder how a two-person plumbing company could net over $250,000 a year. Sounds like a lot of hogwash to me.
Finally, the current 35% tax rate on corporate earnings in the US is strictly on paper, because in many cases they are able to shelter earnings from taxation in various ways. Like I said, the bigger problem is the general Wall St. ethos which seems driven primarily by the idea that money can be made not by making or producing real things, but simply by gaming the system. I believe this is a very parasitical mentality and we are reaping the consequences now. If you want to game the system, go to Las Vegas.
It’s time for a whole new economic paradigm in America. Republican-style trickle-down economics has been given a chance to prove that it works, and it clearly doesn’t. I believe the American people are ready to try something different. Obama represents the future, McCain the past. The choice is very simple.
Reply
11:33 pm on October 31st, 2008 112
“Do not trust Osama bin barak”
I hope that you are in the U.S. military, so that when President Obama becomes your new Commander-in-Chief you’ll be able to learn better manners from him.
Reply
11:42 pm on October 31st, 2008 113
Or, when McCain wins then maybe the US military will put you in jail. He will be your new Commander in Chief, and they will teach you better manners. In that case you should shut your mouth now.
Reply
11:47 pm on October 31st, 2008 114
“He will be your new Commander in Chief, and they will teach you better manners.”
Actually, doesn’t he technically work for U.S. citizens and taxpayers like me — as do all military service members?
Anyway, I’m no economist, but even The Economist seems to think Obama is the best choice:
“It’s time”
Oct 30th 2008
From The Economist print edition
America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world
IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.
For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.
Thinking about 2009 and 2017
The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed, though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.
Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country. Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.
At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.
The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.
If only the real John McCain had been running
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.
Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).
The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.
Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.
Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.
So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.
There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.
Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.
It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.
Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.
He has earned it
So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.
Reply
12:50 am on November 1st, 2008 115
[DELETED]
Reply
12:53 am on November 1st, 2008 116
Barack Obama’s ‘lost’ brother found in Kenya
Senator Barack Obama’s long lost brother has been tracked down for the first time living in a shanty town in Kenya, reports claimed.
By Nick Pisa in Rome
Last Updated: 11:52AM BST 21 Aug 2008
George Hussein Onyango Obama, Senator Barack Obama’s long lost brother was tracked down living in a hut on the outskirts of Nairobi Photo: Guy Calaf, Vanity Fair, Italy The Italian edition of Vanity Fair said that it had found George Hussein Onyango Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi.
Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate’s half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender.
“No-one knows who I am,” he told the magazine, before claiming: “I live here on less than a dollar a month.”
According to Italy’s Vanity Fair his two metre by three metre shack is decorated with football posters of the Italian football giants AC Milan and Inter, as well as a calendar showing exotic beaches of the world.
Vanity Fair also noted that he had a front page newspaper picture of his famous brother – born of the same father as him, Barack Hussein Obama, but to a different mother, named only as Jael.
He told the magazine: “I live like a recluse, no-one knows I exist.”
Embarrassed by his penury, he said that he does not does not mention his famous half-brother in conversation.
“If anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related. I am ashamed,” he said.
For ten years George Obama lived rough. However he now hopes to try to sort his life out by starting a course at a local technical college.
He has only met his famous older brother twice – once when he was just five and the last time in 2006 when Senator Obama was on a tour of East Africa and visited Nairobi.
The Illinois senator mentions his brother in his autobiography, describing him in just one passing paragraph as a “beautiful boy with a rounded head”.
Of their second meeting, George Obama said: “It was very brief, we spoke for just a few minutes. It was like meeting a complete stranger.”
George added he was no longer in contact with his mother and said:”I have had to learn to live and take what I need.
“Huruma is a tough place, last January during the elections there was rioting and six people were hacked to death. The police don’t even arrest you they just shoot you.
“I have seen two of my friends killed. I have scars from defending myself with my fists. I am good with my fists.”
Reply
2:12 am on November 1st, 2008 117
“You better listen to him and shut your mouth.”
You talk a lot of smack, don’t you tough guy?
Everyone on this site knows who I am. Why don’t you man up and tell us all who you really are? Only girly-men make anonymous threats online.
Reply
2:30 am on November 1st, 2008 118
Q: What’s the most confusing day in the world?
A: Father’s Day in Obama’s family.
I don’t know if his cartoonishly-stereotypical family situation, from his knocked-up teenage mother and alcoholic father to a shocking host of half-brothers and sisters to an illegal alien relative living on public assistance, will affect the election (or even should) but Zogby has McCain ahead by 1 point.
That’s an interesting development.
Reply
2:55 am on November 1st, 2008 119
JAFO, Obama has written in detail about his family in his memoirs, including his aunt. His Kenyan father abandoned him early on and he was mainly raised by his white grandparents in Hawaii. They are respectable and upstanding citizens by all accounts. I have a cousin in Kansas who has had run-ins with the law. I am supposed to be responsible for his actions, too? Hell, Cindy McCain was charged with illegally purchasing narcotic painkillers using prescriptions written by doctors for the non-profit she founded, American Voluntary Medical Team. And what about Palin being reimbursed at taxpayer expense with per diems as governor while staying at her own home? Is this the kind of road we want to go down?
Polls? Here’s the latest data:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/todays-polls-1031.html
Read it and weep — for joy or sorrow, as you will, of course.
Reply
3:15 am on November 1st, 2008 120
During the 4 remaining days of this election, we will not be surprised by an increased flurry last-minute “shocking revelations” and smears aimed at taking Obama down via the tried-and-untrue instruments of fear and personal destruction. It happened to Kerry in 2004, and to Gore in 2000, but this time the American people have grown too wise to be distracted or deceived so easily.
Bring it on y’all, ’cause this is the final showdown.
Yes, we can!
Obama/Biden ‘08
Reply
11:21 am on November 1st, 2008 121
“I hope that you are in the U.S. military, so that when President Obama becomes your new Commander-in-Chief you’ll be able to learn better manners from him.”
Your bully threats didn’t work for me, but they did work for the blog master.
I will leave the mud cesspool you made. John McCain didn’t buy the election ( Obama spent half a billon $) or bully people. He is what makes America great.
Many people (whom I know, and NO I WONT TELL YOU WHO THEY ARE) spend their entire life dreaming of becoming an American and dream of sharing the same air as such a good man as John McCain.
But you fight so hard to shut up anybody who would disagree with you. It seems so UNAMERICAN.
Reply
6:42 pm on November 1st, 2008 122
“But you fight so hard to shut up anybody who would disagree with you. It seems so UNAMERICAN.”
Uh, not quite. I said you need to get some manners, which was a nice way to say you’re an embarrassing bigot.
Have a nice day!
Reply
9:07 pm on November 1st, 2008 123
“State declares Obama birth certificate genuine”
1 Nov. 2008
HONOLULU (AP) — State officials say there’s no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Friday she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.
Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama’s certificate be handled differently.
She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.
Some Obama critics claim he was not born in the US.
Earlier Friday, a southwest Ohio magistrate rejected a challenge to Obama’s citizenship. Judges in Seattle and Philadelphia recently dismissed similar suits.
SOURCE: ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iw1At-4G1xuE50oXVFRlBPfR3dqgD945OLU00
Reply
3:00 am on November 2nd, 2008 124
@123 Baeksu,
Not quite…
Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Friday she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.
The key word is “holds.” I agree that they hold the birth certificate of Obama — just like they “hold” the birth certificate for my daughter who was born in KUNSAN, KOREA. There are two types of birth certificates involved — the COLB (certificate of live birth) seen on Obama’s website — and the COLB vault copy that contains all the information that everyone wants to know about, but are prevented. The Hawaii vault copy is the type I had to provide to Korea to get my first teaching visa here almost twenty years ago — and the one that I’ve been providing to US and Korean agencies ever since.
Nothing has been proven. Obama has refused to provide the copy. The answer is: We don’t know…and will never know as long as Obama refuses to provide it.
So instead of “Obama is a US citizen” — it is “we don’t know.” Let’s just leave it at that. What’s Obama want to hide?
“Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama’s certificate be handled differently.”
This is a “sort of” answer. On 27 Oct Governor Linda Lingle sealed the records on Obama to prevent anyone — especially reporters — from attempting access. At the same time, the records are protected by a 1949 law that the Department of Health shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. In other words, only Obama or a designee of Obama’s can get the birth certificate.
It’s just that Obama doesn’t want to. Just let it lie…it’s two days from Election Day.
Reply
3:33 am on November 2nd, 2008 125
@123 Baeksu, thought you’d be interested in the updates on the attempts to get the Obama birth certificate. Actions are still in the courts.
1. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — Plaintiff, Philip Berg (Dismissed: Plaintiff has “no standing” — Appeal to Circuit Court/Supreme Court) The chances of Berg succeeding are a snowball’s chance in hell.
However, some things have come out of the case.
a). Judge Surrick revealed that there is NO identified “vetting” source as it is left up to Congress to assign it. Congress has not done so. Instead, the Congress (with Obama, Clinton and Democrats) passed a Senate Resolution 151 that recognized McCain as a “natural born citizen” though he didn’t need it.
b). Federal agencies can NOT be sued by John Q. Voter over this vetting issue. They have no standing.
c). Because of this issue, a legislator in Pennsylvania has introduced legislation that in FUTURE elections the State must ensure proof of citizenship for elections. Expect to see more of this legislation as the loophole exists in most states — unless a judge makes a ruling to set precedent which is unlikely.
2. Seattle, Washington — Plaintiff, Steve Marquis (Dismissed: State has no power to select candidate) The State Atty General stated that they only accept the party’s nomination to place on the ballot. But addressing Marquis’ proposal that Atty Gen Reed get involved, Mr. Even — attorney for the state — said, “I’d much rather have Mr. Obama here to say, ‘Here’s the proof.’ Then it could be decided on merit.” In other words, there is doubt in the vetting process, but no legal way to check it.
3. Honolulu, Hawaii — Plaintiff, Andy Martin (Dismissed: Writ of Mandamus (Obtain Birth Certificate) This was a nut-case. The court basically said what I said @ 124 — only Obama or his designee or tangible relative can get the birth certificate. Martin is a fruit case who after his return to New York stated that Obama’s father was an obscure black poet from the 1950-60s.
4. California — Plaintiff: David Archbold. Status unknown.
5. Florida — Plaintiff: unknown; Supposedly filed on 25 Oct. Status unknown.
6. Georgia — Plaintiff: Tom Terry — Word on 23 Oct from Steve Marquis that to be “before the judge tomorrow” (24 Oct). Status unknown.
7. New York — Plaintiff: Dan Smith — Status unknown
8. California — Plaintiff: David Archbold — Status unknown
9. Richmond, Virginia — Plaintiff: Unknown. A Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed in Richmond, Virginia on Wednesday, October 22 before the Honorable Walter W. Stout III. The Honorable Walter W. Stout III, the chief judge, granted our motion for an emergency hearing and set a briefing schedule. They were required to serve the Board of Elections a copy of the schedule. They had to file the brief and all supporting evidence on 24 Oct. The Board of Elections had until the 28th to file a response. The plaintiff may file a reply on the 29th and the hearing will be held on the 30th at 1:30p.m. Current status unknown.
10. Ohio — Plaintiff: David M. Neal (Dismissed: Insufficient proof with internet allegations) “The onus is upon one who challenges such public officer to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by admissible evidence – not hearsay, conclusory allegations or pure speculation,” Judge Hasselbach wrote in his decision.
11, Michigan — Rumor only of a suit being filed.
Things learned by this “grass roots” movement.
(1) If you let your name be known, your character will be instantly assassinated. Future plaintiffs keeping low profile.
(2) Federal agencies cannot be sued over this issue. Congress cannot be sued. States can be sued — but chances are slim because most states do NOT have provisions to check for qualifications before placing on the ballot. The bottomline is that the parties nominate — though not designated by Congress so the fact is that no party is responsible for vetting the candidate. In effect, NO ONE IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR VETTING CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT.
(3) Because of the situation being discovered in (2), expect to see more legislation in the states AFTER the election (such as in Pennsylvania) to mandate the state ensures that candidate a citizen. This will not be retroactive so this will NOT impact this election.
Reply
3:54 am on November 2nd, 2008 126
This is the straw that broke the camel’s back.
I just saw a video clip where Obama said,
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
WTF? If you have to ask why this is a hideous idea, you do not deserve your American citizenship.
Where is the Change? I thought Bush and the Neocons had the monopoly on fascist internal police tactics.
Now, to protect against “terrorists” we need an internal, militarized security force equal to our military in power and funding?
Until now, I have been irritated at the way the media has promoted Obama as a trendy product through emotion-based wording rather than presenting facts which show Obama to be business-as-usual or worse.
I have felt distrust and skepticism as it seemed I was being sold something rather than given facts that would allow me to make the right choice.
Now I am sure of it.
King Baeksu, I know you are (rightfully) concerned with foreign policy of the next administration. You are probably right that Obama is more likely to get along with the world than McCain.
But how can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who plans moves the United States’ domestic policy in that dangerous direction?
Reply
4:14 am on November 2nd, 2008 127
@119 — Baeksu, this illegal alien relative is not over yet. However, this close to the election, I didn’t think it would be a major impact. At first I observed that the mainstream media was sweeping this under the carpet — such as the Washington Post and other liberal papers using the terminology that she was “living quietly” in the BHA — like “living quietly” in the country. However, I see that it is now getting some msm coverage simply because the funding issue of Obama has turned out to be true — anybody can contribute to Obama worldwide. After the election, we’ll see where this aspect heads.
However, the one feature that Obama claiming that he never knew his aunt was in the states — in the words of the Democrats — sure sounds “fishy.” Can you tell me why the mother (Sarah Onyango Obama) would not inquire of her politically powerful grandson to “take care” of her children in America — especially after she visited Obama in the US for his 2004 Senate swearing in ceremony — and during Obama’s 2006 visit to Kenya. Zeituni admitted she was in touch with her relatives in Kenya via email. She’s computer literate as a computer programmer. Remember that her deportation hearing was in 2004 — the same time Sarah Onyango Obama visited Barack Obama in the US. Seems kind of weak that a mother knowing her daughter and son were in trouble wouldn’t mention it to her politically powerful grandson. What kind of mother wouldn’t try to save her children?
But if Obama says, he didn’t know she was in America, I guess we just have to believe what he’s saying.
Also my question is what happened to his step-uncle Omar Onyango Obama who disappeared after being evicted due to back payments in the rent. Is he an illegal alien too? Is this why the INS has slapped the lid on any questions dealing with immigration?
It’s two days to the elections and the Democrats are blaming the Republicans. I think the first place to look is the place where a lot of us conservatives have been condemning for a while — the main stream media in their infatuation with Obama did NOT do their jobs of investigative reporting. This is why the Italian Vanity Fair found “lost” brother George and the British London Times found Aunt Zeituni and Uncle Omar. The Democrats pathetic attempt to try to even blame it on owner mogul Rupert — who owns a empire — is ridiculous. Blame it on the US main stream media.
Anyway, two days to the election is not enough time to write another expose on Uncle Omar — unless some enterprising FOREIGN newspaper wants to tackle that.
Reply
4:18 am on November 2nd, 2008 128
Kalani, interesting info, but if I had to guess, I’d say that Obama’s people are playing a masterful psy-op game to keep the opposition busy chasing down false trails until it’s too late.
JAFO, I haven’t seen the full speech, but that statement sounds like a perfectly sound critique of the standard neocon line and a sound answer to it. Where in that statement does he mention internal police? Sounds like he was speaking rhetorically to me, and referring to soft power such as diplomacy, education and culture.
In my mind, if you are still unsure, please do go ahead and vote for McCain. It’s way past time to be doing research and forming decisions based on information obtained during the final 72 hours of the campaign.
Good luck and good night!
Reply
4:22 am on November 2nd, 2008 129
PS: Kalani, I’m too lazy to do research now but I remember reading Obama said that he and his aunt had spoken on the phone at least a couple of times within the past two years. We also do not know if she was appealing the rejection of asylum and what the current status of her case is, so the jury’s still out on that account as well. I really would like to know how this information was leaked to the press, actually.
Reply
6:08 am on November 2nd, 2008 130
JAFO, that quote you give refers to Obama’s call to expand national civilian service:
http://www.my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CRHJ
The Drudge Report may want you to believe that Obama has plans to turn America into a fascist police state, but what else do you expect from the Drudge Report? C’mon!
For more info, go to the “Service” section here:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
Economists like Paul Krugman are saying that with consumer spending in the US going down the crapper right now, an ambitious federal fiscal stimulus program is just what the economy needs to spend us out of the recession. Obama’s civilian service plan seems to be well in line with such calls.
Reply
6:26 am on November 2nd, 2008 131
PS: Here is the full speech that Drudge linked to a selective 20 second snippet of (and which JAFO quotes above):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw
It’s always wise to know the source and full context before relying on information to make extremely important decisions.
Obama/Biden ‘08!
Reply
8:04 pm on November 3rd, 2008 132
Half a year ago, Andy Martin, the general of the Obama conspiracy movement, wrote the hit piece titled “Free Obama’s White Grandmother.” I won’t lower myself to repeat his words, but any of you who are following this thread are probably well familiar with them. Here is a taste for those who pretend not to know: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808666/posts
This has been a long, difficult, and often ugly campaign. Sometimes, fortunately or unfortunately, it has exposed somethings about our character many of us have long tried to deny.
Mr. Andy Martin, I don’t know how you are able to breathe within the cesspool that is your life. Enough about him.
Ms. Madelyn Dunham passed away yesterday after a long and probably painful illness. During that time, her grandson, in the middle of a public whirlwind did his best to maintain her privacy.
At first thought, it may be sad that she could not remain long enough to witness him make history. Then again, maybe it is best that she may not be around to see to remnants of hate he must still confront.
RIP, Toots.
Reply
9:49 pm on November 3rd, 2008 133
JoeC, well said!
America has a long and often violently contentious history, but it also has shown a capacity to learn from the past in order to build a better future and rise to greatness.
We are at the threshold of history here, folks. Nobody can deny the profundity of this moment. Obama has shown that not only can he talk the talk, but he can also walk the walk. My friends, he’s earned it.
Yes, we can!
Reply
5:46 am on November 7th, 2008 134
[...] che non era nativo americano e che quindi non era eleggibile. Obama non ha depositato il documento. http://rokdrop.com/2008/10/18/video-hoax-obamas-citizensh... . Per dimostrare che Berg aveva torto e sfatare ogni dubbio, un blog democratico, il Daily [...]
1:21 pm on December 5th, 2008 135
Personally, I don’t care who is President. No politician has ever put food on my table or cut me a pay check. All of them are there simply for their own power and financial gain….you people follow them around like a tail on a dog, constantly in the line of shit and always smelling it. We’ve turned into a celebrity driven nation of people. GET A LIFE!!!!! This country was founded on the notion that politicians have only one purpose and that was to SERVE us, not be the focus and driving force of our lives. Damn! It is embarrassing to read what you have to say and to listen to your uninformed, ignorant dribble. if Obama meets the criteria set out for the President, then he is President. If he doesn’t meet it, then we need to know, so he can be removed. If you don’t protect all aspects of the Constitution, then you can’t expect to have any of the rights outlined in the Constitution. You better wake up. Once you start ignoring parts of the Constitution that may be inconvenient to you, then you will not be able to uphold other parts of the Constitution that someone else sees as inconvenient. Once a tear begins, it is easily propagated through the whole. Before long, you will lose your right to freely express this ignorance you so proudly and freely express.
Reply
7:28 pm on December 5th, 2008 136
Apparently GI Korea has been weaned off allegiance to his nation and its Constitution. He needs to receive his retirement package that he joined the Army for, and allow real American soldiers to take over.
Reply
1:47 am on December 8th, 2008 137
Just for anybody who even cares…and I suspect there aren’t many out there.
Since I last wrote in Nov about the Obama eligibility initiative quite a few things have happened.
The two key dates coming up are Dec 8 (Washington) and 15 Dec (Washington).
The first will be the announcement of the decision by the Supreme Court meeting in conference whether they will review the case of Leo Donofrio before the Supreme Court on 8 Dec. The cases on the eligibility are rapidly increasing in numbers. Philip Berg (PA), Leo Donofrio (NJ), Cort Wortnowski (Ohio), along with others from CA just entered — and other states also heading to the Supreme Court. By my mini-count there were about 25 cases nationwide, but many are not known because they shunned publicity.
Because of the “standing” rule used for dismissals in various states, the Obama eligibility has now enrolled Alan Keyes. former Reagan ambassador and Presidential candidate, to challenge the 55 California electoral votes. This is also headed to the Supreme Court. Ron Paul/Gloria Lightfoot, California write-in candidates in the Presidential election, plus the Constitution Party are plaintiffs on another California suit — and also headed to the Supreme Court.
All of these cases are attacking the Obama eligibility from different angles. On 8 Dec, many of the plaintiffs are showing up at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. One can be assured that there will FINALLY some mainstream media coverage on this issue.
According to the “experts” in the mainstream media, these cases don’t have much chance of being seen before the courts. Sadly, many of conservatives agree, but still hope that the Justices will see that there is a Constitutional issue that needs to be resolved. There is one thing evident — because Obama refuses to show the vault copy of his birth certificate, things are headed for a Constitutional crisis.
The second day to pay attention to is Dec 15. Actions will start on 10 Dec when the challenges for the electoral votes are challenged — both in the courts and appeals to “conscience.” This has a lot to do with how the Supreme Court rules. If the court rules to hold up the Electoral vote until the eligibility question is resolved, things will go one way. If the Supreme court decides to not hear the issue, the state courts will be the battle ground.
For those not aware of the Electoral College, the votes for some states are mandated to be cast on the basis of the election results. Other states are not legally bound to vote according to the election results — but this will only be if the Supreme Court rules against Obama.
Rest assured this Obama eligibility question is NOT going away. Because Obama refuses to release that piece of paper this will be a Constitutional crisis. Even if the Democratic Congress grants Obama “natural born status” by statute after the fact, it will not negate the eligibility question to have been on the ballot in the first place.
Why won’t he just show that damn scrap of paper? Most conservatives think there is something sinister or incriminating on the birth certificate. Obama supporters say this is a lot of huffing-and-puffing about nothing. But none can answer why Obama just won’t show the document — and why he has hired three law firms to defend him nationwide in this matter?
If you’re interested in this kind of political drivel, I have a page at http://kalaniosullivan.com/OsanAB/BarackObama.html. The page is very long and you will have to scroll through a lot of topics to find the Cases Pending section. This page was put together for me to try to sort out the fact from fiction — and not really for others. It covers the birth certificate issue — and Obama’s dual citizenship British/Kenyan and Indonesia. Because there is no proof either way, I felt free to make up my own conspiracy theory — complete with tin-foil hat kits. I cover the issues of his sealed records and why they are important. I also cover the foggy history of the Obama family — and I’m still uncovering facts that don’t jibe with the “official story” that Obama created.
For Obama supporters, you probably shouldn’t look at this page as you will start foaming at the mouth and want to rip my head off.
There is one thing I have found out in trying to find info on Obama on the internet — there isn’t much known about him. Obama has been skillful in creating a romantic story about himself, but the trouble is it starts to fall apart when you start comparing miscellaneous facts. Even now, the mainstream media is waking up to find out there isn’t much there (i.e. Dan Rather). Even his “biography” is a work of “faction” — part fact mixed with fiction — and cannot be relied upon as fact. With all of his records sealed and now the Kenyan and Indonesian governments also sealing their records of the President-elect, looking into the mystery of who Obama really is is a fascinating — atleast for me — task.
Charges are slowly surfacing that his Selective service records (obtained by FOIA) MAY have been altered — and again another “expert” has appeared to say the Obama Certification of Live Birth is a forgery — the bottom line is that these are still in allegation stages and nothing can be proved until certified forensic experts get involved. Conservatives are starting wonder if the Apr 2008 break-in of the passport files (also to McCain and Clinton) originally thought to be a Republican dirty trick — were the actually the work of Obama’s own people to alter the files as two were fired even before investigators could talk to them. Remember that people cannot find a record of Obama having a US passport prior to 2003, but he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 — and as a smoking gun — he traveled to Kenya in 1987 just before he entered Harvard. In 1987, he was past the age of majority and one questions what country’s passport he was using. Hell, everything’s a mystery.
There’s another page where I’m trying to compare Obama’s campaign promises and the reality of assuming power at http://kalaniosullivan.com/OsanAB/BarackObamaPtII.html but it is a work-in-progress — and quite confusing as Obama is flip-flopping on just about everything. I’m having fun watching how all the “predictions” for the positions are NOT coming true — except in the military positions — and are being filled by the “Rainbow Coalition” where ethnicity plays a major role in selection. Again this is only a personal page for trying to understand what this advocate of “social justice” is REALLY up to. Alarmingly for me as a conservative, I don’t like what I’m seeing.
Reply
8:31 am on December 8th, 2008 138
Kalani,
Thank you for your work at keeping up on this. I will paste and forward anything you post here as you have distilled it better than most members of the media.
After years of Bush’s blanket secrecy, one of the few “change”s I was looking forward to in an Obama administration was openness and a higher degree of governmental honesty. So far, no change and no hope.
I believe Obama is a media creation based partially on his vague and fictional past as well as his quick rise to power and the cult-like following based on emotion rather than facts. His seemingly needless secrecy adds to this belief and gives it a more sinister angle.
As the government likes to say, “If you aren’t hiding anything, you shouldn’t be concerned about privacy.”
Funny how limousine liberalism works.
Regardless of what party one supports or what candidate one favors, the Constitution should be held above all. The Bush administration did their best to move down the slippery slope of skirting it. If Obama manages to ignore it in such a blatant way, America moves one large step farther from a free constitutional republic. This should be of concern to all.
Keep up the good work.
Reply
6:17 pm on December 8th, 2008 139
On 8 Dec the U.S. Supreme Court announced it had denied bringing Leo C. Donofrio v. New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells – one of several cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president – before a full hearing. The case was denied without comment. However, Donofrio claims that the important fact was that the Justices at least reviewed the case and that the issues were considered.
Donfrio’s case was originally denied a conference of the judges by Justice David H. Souter, but Justice Clarence Thomas agreed to bring it back for consideration. To go forward, from conference to a full hearing, the case needed the approval of four of the Supreme Court’s nine justices. Donofrio’s case is only one of several filed around the country challenging Obama’s eligibility to be elected president under the Constitution.
But the battle continues. The Cort Wrotnowski V Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State lawsuit that is before the US Supreme Court, has been distributed for conference on 12 Dec. It is still pending as an emergency application resubmitted to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of 2 Dec. Leo Donofrio, whose application for stay was denied believes that the Cort Wrotnowski case has a better chance than his case had. He states it includes a more solid brief and a less treacherous lower Court procedural history because of what Donofrio claims as “misconduct” on the part of a NJ Appellate Division Judge.
Cort Wrotnowski’s case argues the same exact theory as Donofrio – that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was a British citizen at birth. Donofrio saw hope in that Wrotnowski’s case was NOT rejected along with his and was distributed for conference on 12 Dec.
But even if Wrotnowski’s suit meets the same fate as Leo Donofrio’s, there are still the heavy hitter suits of Alan Keyes and Ron Paul waiting in the wings. The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, simply hasn’t ordered it made available to settle the rumors. This issue is not going away peacefully into the night.
Reply
6:22 pm on December 8th, 2008 140
If there is any question that Obama is not a legitimate president, it will make it just that much easier for some whacko “patriot” to assassinate him.
If Obama perpetuates this belief because he doesn’t want to cooperate with upholding the constitution, a lot of people aren’t going to see this as an altogether bad thing.
Reply
6:47 pm on December 8th, 2008 141
“If Obama perpetuates this belief because he doesn’t want to cooperate with upholding the constitution, a lot of people aren’t going to see this as an altogether bad thing.”
Why do you believe that? You seem to be straining to disconnect yourself from your own comments.
“aren’t going to see this as an altogether bad thing.” Does that mean that a whacko “patriot” plot against Obama might be seen as a good thing?
When you say, “a lot of people,” do you mean many or most Americans? Do you believe that because you use the pronoun “we” or “they” in their relationship to you. If it is “they,” why would you believe that about “a lot of” Americans? What are you saying about our character?
Reply
9:02 pm on December 8th, 2008 142
You might be reading too much into what I said, JoeC (or not enough).
There is a lot riding on the solidness of the American Constitution. It protects our way of life. All American citizens, for their own interests, should be vigilant in looking out for anything which weakens or subverts the Constitution.
Like other posters, I am a firm believer in the Rule of Law. I believe any threat to the Constitution should be addressed through legal means within the framework of the Constitution. In most ways, anarchy is worse than a dictatorship.
However, should the Constitution be subverted to the point where its legal mechanisms are no longer able to protect it from further subversion, many people will be sympathetic to extra-Constitutional actions which are committed in good faith with the intention of restoring the power of the Constitution.
Depending on the situation, “they” could become “we” and I could support action which restored the integrity of the Constitution and the American legal system. Anyone who chose to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC” should be of the same opinion.
If American citizens depose a leader who has illegally and unconstitutionally gained power, it says something very good about “our character”.
Reply
11:25 pm on December 8th, 2008 143
By Gawd! What devilish fun. Let’s see how the commoners get out of this dillemma.
Disqualify Barky — reject the messianic President of the World. Every major city teeming with Obamanoids will protest. Race riots. Even the Kenyans will be hopping mad.
“Change” — Yes, we can!
In order to “get along”, commoners will “change” the American Constitution. Constitutional revision after revision will ensue. Arnold — the Terminator — later gets a legal shot at at being America’s dictator.
America’s take-down is assured.
The American colonies return to the Queen. Pathetic rabble, you Americans.
Reply
7:24 am on December 9th, 2008 144
Let me say that there are quite a few folks talking about holding another Constitutional convention if they don’t get their way in the courts. Robert Schultz of We The People Foundation scares the bejeezus out of me. And when I hear about people thinking of taking action into their own hands if Obama is seated, I shudder…
Yes, I believe that Obama has not been truthful about a lot of things — not by lying outright but by omission. But what I feel about him is irrelevant when it comes to the Constitution. Whether I agree with the Supreme Court Justices or not doesn’t matter. They were placed there to make rulings on issues from their lofty perches — right leaning or left leaning whatever it might be. They are part of the checks and balance of the three forces — executive, legislative and judicial.
We must support the Constitution and this nation’s values at all costs. If the Justices in their wisdom say that all the Obama eligibility group don’t have a leg to stand on, I will accept it. Sour grapes and threats of violence is not the way to go. We need to work with the system as it is — that is what makes this country work. This means accepting the ruling of the Supreme Court — though it doesn’t mean that we should stop challenging the rulings in the legal arena.
However, we will also need to close all the loopholes that the Obama folks exploited — and the ones that the courts have thrown in the faces of the voters. We need to work towards assuring that STATE legislation (such as that being introduced in Pennsylvania) is put on the books in each of the 50 states to ensure that the circumstances that occurred in 2008, do NOT occur in 2012.
But I do say that the Obama eligibility group really needs to clean house to get rid of the people that are throwing up so much flack that the mainstream media is discrediting the entire message because of these fruitcakes (i.e. Andy Martin) and zealots (Robert Schultz). What is happening is that the MSM is targetting the messenger, but forgetting about the message. I believe the message is sound and needs to be heard but the MSM is looking for every excuse to kill the message. The easiest way is to execute the messengers in the press — using ridicule and character assasination.
The next one up is Cort Wrontowski from Connecticutt on 12 Dec. And after that we have Alan Keyes/Wiley Drake — and then Ron Paul/Gail Lightfoot/Constitution Party — and then… The court fight is not over.
Reply
8:07 am on December 9th, 2008 145
Here is an interesting read for anyone else following the birth certificate controversy:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2136816/posts
This guy made a good point that all Obama has to do is scan the back side of his certificate of live birth and this whole issue would be null and void because then you can see who signed off on it and see the actual state of Hawaii seals.
I am beginning to wonder though if Obama is allowing this to play out and at the last minute pulls out his birth certificate to greatly discredit all of his conservative critics?
Maybe some of you Obama supporters can come up with a theory of why he doesn’t put this to rest because that is the best one I can come up with.
Reply
9:12 pm on December 9th, 2008 146
The birth certificate issue will never be settled until a certified forensic expert examines the ORIGINAL certificate. Even with the suggestion to see the rear seal ends up with someone saying how do we know it was off Boram’s and not his sister’s?
As to the question on why — both liberal and conservative, Obama and anti-Obama all come up with: “I don’t know.” Obama refuses to answer the question and the mainstream media refuses to confront him.
I know not many people are interested in this stuff, but it is a very simple issue and of immense importance to the future of our nation. Let me state this again:
Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution requires that the president of the United States be at least 35 years of age, have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years, and be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America. There are many unanswered questions about the birthplace and citizenship of Barack Obama, because he has not provided a long-form birth certificate or other proof of his citizenship. No one knows for sure that he fits the NATURAL BORN requirement set forth in Article II, Section 1. Because his other records are all sealed by Obama, no one knows whether he is operating under a legally changed name, was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro, was an Indonesian citizen, and end up questioning whether he is a NATURALIZED CITIZEN.
Look at a copy of the Certificate of Live Birth made available by the Obama campaign, and look at a copy of what a typical 1961 Hawaiian certificate (vault copy) looks like. See how the typical Hawaiian certificate provides all the pertinent information. See how the Certificate of Live Birth gives only the barest of information and will NOT resolve any of the questions of Natural-born or Naturalized citizenship.
Obama could have prevented this entire controversy a few months ago by obtaining a vault copy of his long-form, stamped and authenticated birth certificate from Hawaii and providing it to reporters and the courts to examine and photograph it. He has not done so, has instead retained counsel to avoid presenting the supposedly harmless documentation — and that is the reason the Obama eligibility group continues on.
The Obama eligibility group have asked the courts to suspend the Electoral College vote until such an affirmation can be made.
Any questions?
The best the DNC, State Attorney Generals, State Secretary of States, Federal Election Commission, and anyone remotely related to vetting of Obama will say is that they are not LEGALLY responsible because the Congress never delegated that authority to me. Oh, and you the voter –just shut up because you don’t have any business in this. You only vote for whoever the party tells you to vote for and have no “standing” in this matter.
Meanwhile, the Obama eligibility group — including me — is becoming an embarassment to main conservative media and a pariah to the mainstream media because of a few nutcases (i.e., Andy Martin), zealots (i.e., Bob Schultz) and publicity-seekers with an agenda (i.e., Orly Tatiz). Now all of us who considered ourselves reasonable conservatives with questions are thought of as fruitcakes.
But rest assured the case has ENORMOUS implications. Should it turn out, later, that Obama has been serving as president without being constitutionally eligible to be there, he will be considered a “usurper” and the effect of the laws passed and decisions made during his tenure will be put into question. The US government domestically and internationally will cease to function — all treaties made during his tenure will be suspended, economic agreements will be voided, trade pacts nullified. The military actions that we are involved in will be immediately suspended. The world will come to a screeching halt.
Any questions?
Reply
11:16 pm on December 9th, 2008 147
Kalani,
You hit upon the problem. The media and moderate members of the government are refusing to acknowledge the 500 pound gorilla in the room.
If this continues, the only action taken will be by the tinfoil hat crowd and those with an agenda. Their actions will not be moderate or necessarily “committed in good faith with the intention of restoring the power of the Constitution.”
I’m not sure the world will come to a screeching halt. We have a pretty clear system for presidential succession and congress would work overtime to get everything cleared up. President Biden would probably quickly re-sign documents reauthorizing all of Obama’s actions in his own name (with the addition of pork and questionable laws that could not be enacted in other circumstances).
The biggest fear is that this “crisis”, which almost seems as if it is being manufactured, could lead to very serious changes in our government. Not unlike the Patriot Act which was already written and simply awaiting a crisis to enact, there is certainly a number of pre-prepared Draconian laws awaiting this kind of crisis.
On the other hand, maintaining the System seems to be more important to the ruling elite than specifics. Look at how quickly the controversy of the 2000 Florida results disappeared. It almost seemed as if everyone got together and decided it was better to give it to Bush rather than let a cloud of uncertainty hang over the leadership of the Free World while a court battle raged for months.
Free Ride,
What do you suggest I do to “support and defend the Constitution” in this case? This whole thing is irritating, bordering on uneasy, but I’m not quite ready to dust off my pitchfork and march on Washington.
Reply