About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinburgh had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier: 'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.' 'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.' From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to lose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years' 'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning The 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000 Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100K residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country.
Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...'
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase. If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Sen. Obama, Stand and Deliver!
Frank Salvato
The recent ruling by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick dismissing the lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s citizenship, brought by former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Democrat county chair Phillip Berg, presents the genesis of a Constitutional Crisis. While Barack Obama’s refusal to satisfy the citizens’ request to validate his citizenship illustrates his unbridled arrogance and that of his campaign and supporters, it also exposes the fact that politics, at the hands of political opportunists and ideologues, has usurped the legitimate execution of the supreme law of the land; the United States Constitution.
Make no mistake. I do not support Barack Obama in his quest for the presidency. I find his political ideology to embrace a one-world ideology borrowing heavily from the Marxist-Leninist dogma. But, if in fact he is a legal and naturally born citizen of the United States of America, if he thoroughly satisfies the requirements as set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, then I will defend his right to be placed on ballots across our nation. My concern is not partisan, it is constitutional.
Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution reads:
"No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
In what may come as a surprise to many, the Federal Election Commission does not have authority to verify whether or not a presidential candidate has satisfied the constitutional requirements set forth for candidacy.
The FEC’s mission statement reads:
“In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.”
So, a singular question becomes self-evident; what entity requires proof be filed of a candidate’s satisfaction of the constitutional requirements needed to become President of the United States?
In Marquis v. Reed, one of the eight lawsuits filed in an attempt to verify that Barack Obama is indeed eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, Steven Marquis takes a different tract than Berg. Marquis challenges the Washington State Secretary of State, Samuel Reed, to verify Obama’s eligibility.
In this lawsuit Marquis establishes:
“As we do not have a federal ballot per se, Washington State, through the office of the Washington State, Secretary of State creates its own ballot and supervises the same, electing electors to represent our choice for the Office of President...and presents a state question within this Court’s jurisdiction.”
Still, while establishing that the States, rather than the federal government, have jurisdiction over their individual election processes, it still doesn’t quest for the answer to the self-evident question of what entity requires proof be filed of a candidate’s satisfaction of the constitutional requirements needed to become President of the United States? Instead, it adds to the immediacy of the question and brings to the forefront a more refined question; is there an entity that verifies a candidate’s satisfaction of the requirements?
Examining the State of Illinois’ State Board of Elections Amended 2008 Candidate’s Guide, issued in May of 2008, it appears that the Illinois State Board of Elections doesn’t verify a candidate’s eligibility beyond requiring:
1) A Statement of Candidacy – This form (I use the FEC form as it encompasses everything in the Illinois form) requires each candidate to provide his name, address, party affiliation, office sought, the state and district of the contest, a designation of a principle campaign committee, the designation of other authorized committees and a declaration of intent to expend personal funds. Lastly, it requires a potential candidate to “attest” that he or she is “qualified for the office specified.” At no place in the official guide or paperwork is a birth certificate or other form of verification of natural born citizenship required.
2) A Loyalty Oath – Ironically, this is optional.
3) Receipt for filing a Statement of Economic Interests – This is not required for Federal Office or political party offices.
4) Completed Nominating Petitions – These petitions must be correctly filed out, notarized and contain a sufficient number of original signatures as set forth by the election commission.
Being familiar with the election process in Illinois, I then examined my country board of election’s requirements. Their requirements deferred to the requirements of the State of Illinois.
Again, the question remains, is there an entity – whether on a federal, state, county or municipal level – that verifies a candidate’s satisfaction of the requirements set forth by the US Constitution for holding the office of President of the United States?
In Judge Surrick’s ruling, he declared that Mr. Berg “lacked standing” to bring the lawsuit to the court. He stated that the harm cited by Berg was “too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.” This ruling is a slap in the face to every citizen of the United States.
The U.S. Constitution begins with:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
It does not begin with “We the Government...” or “We the Judiciary...” and for good reason. The United States government is empowered and created by We the People; the citizens. The U.S. Constitution belongs to the people not to the government. In fact, the Constitution was created to limit government’s ability to employ tyrannical governance. It is squarely within the citizen’s purview to protect and defend the US Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. This notion is called civic responsibility and it is our duty as citizens to pro-actively defend our Charters of Freedom. It is for this reason, among but a few more, that the Constitution is written in the First Person.
Barack Obama could defuse this situation by presenting his original vaulted birth certificate, thus satisfying his obligation to the American people to provide proof he meets the requirements for holding the office of President of the United States as set forth in Article II, Section 1. But I doubt he will. He has the luxury of having partisan judicial activists – tyrants – acting on his behalf, usurping the authority of the Constitution.
But the larger more serious Constitutional Crisis remains: it would appear we have no system in place for verifying a candidate’s eligibility for holding the office of President of the United States – or any other federal or state office for that matter. We have no system, but for relying on a partisan and politically hijacked Congress, for making sure that those running for elected office satisfy the requirements as set forth by those who loved our country enough to die for its creation.
This cannot stand.
Sen. Obama, stand and deliver! Answer the demand of the American people; those you say you so want to serve. Do the honorable thing and present your citizenship to the citizenry. Should you dare to be so arrogant as to dismiss the American people by usurping the Spirit of the U.S. Constitution, you will be solely responsible for the societal divide created by your inaction. You, Sen. Obama, will be solely responsible for bringing this Constitutional Crisis to bear.
We stand on the brink of a Second Great Civil War. Let’s see just how much Sen. Obama really loves our country.
The recent ruling by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick dismissing the lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s citizenship, brought by former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Democrat county chair Phillip Berg, presents the genesis of a Constitutional Crisis. While Barack Obama’s refusal to satisfy the citizens’ request to validate his citizenship illustrates his unbridled arrogance and that of his campaign and supporters, it also exposes the fact that politics, at the hands of political opportunists and ideologues, has usurped the legitimate execution of the supreme law of the land; the United States Constitution.
Make no mistake. I do not support Barack Obama in his quest for the presidency. I find his political ideology to embrace a one-world ideology borrowing heavily from the Marxist-Leninist dogma. But, if in fact he is a legal and naturally born citizen of the United States of America, if he thoroughly satisfies the requirements as set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, then I will defend his right to be placed on ballots across our nation. My concern is not partisan, it is constitutional.
Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution reads:
"No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
In what may come as a surprise to many, the Federal Election Commission does not have authority to verify whether or not a presidential candidate has satisfied the constitutional requirements set forth for candidacy.
The FEC’s mission statement reads:
“In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.”
So, a singular question becomes self-evident; what entity requires proof be filed of a candidate’s satisfaction of the constitutional requirements needed to become President of the United States?
In Marquis v. Reed, one of the eight lawsuits filed in an attempt to verify that Barack Obama is indeed eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, Steven Marquis takes a different tract than Berg. Marquis challenges the Washington State Secretary of State, Samuel Reed, to verify Obama’s eligibility.
In this lawsuit Marquis establishes:
“As we do not have a federal ballot per se, Washington State, through the office of the Washington State, Secretary of State creates its own ballot and supervises the same, electing electors to represent our choice for the Office of President...and presents a state question within this Court’s jurisdiction.”
Still, while establishing that the States, rather than the federal government, have jurisdiction over their individual election processes, it still doesn’t quest for the answer to the self-evident question of what entity requires proof be filed of a candidate’s satisfaction of the constitutional requirements needed to become President of the United States? Instead, it adds to the immediacy of the question and brings to the forefront a more refined question; is there an entity that verifies a candidate’s satisfaction of the requirements?
Examining the State of Illinois’ State Board of Elections Amended 2008 Candidate’s Guide, issued in May of 2008, it appears that the Illinois State Board of Elections doesn’t verify a candidate’s eligibility beyond requiring:
1) A Statement of Candidacy – This form (I use the FEC form as it encompasses everything in the Illinois form) requires each candidate to provide his name, address, party affiliation, office sought, the state and district of the contest, a designation of a principle campaign committee, the designation of other authorized committees and a declaration of intent to expend personal funds. Lastly, it requires a potential candidate to “attest” that he or she is “qualified for the office specified.” At no place in the official guide or paperwork is a birth certificate or other form of verification of natural born citizenship required.
2) A Loyalty Oath – Ironically, this is optional.
3) Receipt for filing a Statement of Economic Interests – This is not required for Federal Office or political party offices.
4) Completed Nominating Petitions – These petitions must be correctly filed out, notarized and contain a sufficient number of original signatures as set forth by the election commission.
Being familiar with the election process in Illinois, I then examined my country board of election’s requirements. Their requirements deferred to the requirements of the State of Illinois.
Again, the question remains, is there an entity – whether on a federal, state, county or municipal level – that verifies a candidate’s satisfaction of the requirements set forth by the US Constitution for holding the office of President of the United States?
In Judge Surrick’s ruling, he declared that Mr. Berg “lacked standing” to bring the lawsuit to the court. He stated that the harm cited by Berg was “too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.” This ruling is a slap in the face to every citizen of the United States.
The U.S. Constitution begins with:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
It does not begin with “We the Government...” or “We the Judiciary...” and for good reason. The United States government is empowered and created by We the People; the citizens. The U.S. Constitution belongs to the people not to the government. In fact, the Constitution was created to limit government’s ability to employ tyrannical governance. It is squarely within the citizen’s purview to protect and defend the US Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. This notion is called civic responsibility and it is our duty as citizens to pro-actively defend our Charters of Freedom. It is for this reason, among but a few more, that the Constitution is written in the First Person.
Barack Obama could defuse this situation by presenting his original vaulted birth certificate, thus satisfying his obligation to the American people to provide proof he meets the requirements for holding the office of President of the United States as set forth in Article II, Section 1. But I doubt he will. He has the luxury of having partisan judicial activists – tyrants – acting on his behalf, usurping the authority of the Constitution.
But the larger more serious Constitutional Crisis remains: it would appear we have no system in place for verifying a candidate’s eligibility for holding the office of President of the United States – or any other federal or state office for that matter. We have no system, but for relying on a partisan and politically hijacked Congress, for making sure that those running for elected office satisfy the requirements as set forth by those who loved our country enough to die for its creation.
This cannot stand.
Sen. Obama, stand and deliver! Answer the demand of the American people; those you say you so want to serve. Do the honorable thing and present your citizenship to the citizenry. Should you dare to be so arrogant as to dismiss the American people by usurping the Spirit of the U.S. Constitution, you will be solely responsible for the societal divide created by your inaction. You, Sen. Obama, will be solely responsible for bringing this Constitutional Crisis to bear.
We stand on the brink of a Second Great Civil War. Let’s see just how much Sen. Obama really loves our country.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Where is Obama's Birth Certificate and Why Doesn't He Produce It?
This is a long read, but well worth your time.
Joan Swirsky
Four years ago, when I had just about completed the lengthy legal and financial vetting process required by the U.S. government to place my then-92-year-old-mother in a nursing home, I was asked to produce her birth certificate as “proof” of her citizenship. While she was born in America, had voted in every election for untold decades, and paid her taxes religiously, that wasn’t good enough to qualify my elderly mother –deaf, legally blind, and confined to a wheelchair – to be admitted to the facility I had chosen for her near my home. Frankly, I didn't think finding my mother's birth certificate was possible, given the fact that she had been born in a farmhouse in Storrs, CT, along with nine of her 10 siblings, to parents who didn't speak English. Despairing that she would never be "qualified" to receive the care she desperately needed, I set about to find the document, which I was sure had vanished in the unreliable record-keeping of 1913.First I called an official in Hartford, the capitol of Connecticut, who recommended that I call the Storrs record-keeping office. That took two minutes. Next I called the Storrs office and was told to call another number. That took two minutes.When I called the third number, I explained to the woman who answered the phone that I was "asking something impossible." I gave her my mother's first name and her father's last name.Within four minutes, she said, "Here it is!" She had found my mother's birth certificate, and it surprised me when I learned my mother's "real" first name and "real" last name had changed significantly as she and her family became Americanized.When I expressed my amazement, the woman said: "That's nothing...we're routinely asked to find birth certificates from the 1800s, and we do that all the time!"Total time it took me to find my mother's 1913, born-in-a-farmhouse birth certificate: 10 minutes.WHERE IS OBAMA'S?To this date, Barack Obama has refused - or been unable - to produce an authentic birth certificate that attests to the fact he is eligible to run for office. He has had more than the two-years of campaigning for the presidency of the United States to do this, but failed.Why is this important? Because the Constitution of the United States expressly forbids anyone born on foreign soil to run for the highest office in our land.You would think that Obama would have volunteered the "proof" of his eligibility within a nanosecond of entering the race. But here we are, less than two weeks away from the election, and Americans still don't know if Obama is an American!While Obama's camp submitted a supposedly authentic birth certificate to the far-left blog Daily Kos, it was found to have been a photo-shopped version of the birth certificate of his half-sister, who was actually born in Hawaii, as Obama claims he was. While this glaring omission in Obama's eligibility to become the most powerful man on earth mystified some and rankled others, a few people - clearly alarmed at what they considered a stealth candidate's attempt to dance his way around the Constitution and venture into the realm of criminality - took action.
SLEUTH #1The first sleuth was lawyer Philip J. Berg, a Democrat from Pennsylvania and an undisguised Hillary fan. Last August, Berg - a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania and one-time candidate for both governor and senator - filed a lawsuit in Federal Court (Berg v. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083) seeking a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction against Obama, alleging that the first-term Illinois senator did not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States. Berg's suit was based on Obama's failure to answer satisfactorily the question of where he was born. Was it in Hawaii, Kenya, or Indonesia? Was his legal name Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro (his stepfather's surname), Barry Obama, Barack Dunham (his maternal grandparents' surname), or Barry Dunham?Among the other questions Berg raised were the authenticity of the name Obama used on his Illinois Bar Application and his possible allegiance to other countries. Details of the case, including direct quotations, are found on Berg's website: http://www.obamacrimes.com/ . "Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Senator Obama's lies and obfuscations," Berg said. "He clearly shows a conscience of guilt by his actions in using the forged birth certificate and the lies he's told to cover his loss of citizenship. We believe he...supported this belief by his actions in hiding his secret, in that he failed to regain his citizenship and used documents to further his position as a natural born citizen...His very acts prove he knew he was no longer a natural born citizen. We believe he knew he was defrauding the country or else why use the forged birth certificate of his half sister?...If the DNC officers and/or leaders had performed one ounce of due diligence, we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament...from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship through an oath of allegiance at age eighteen [18] as prescribed by Constitutional laws."The net result of Berg's efforts was that, on September 9, both Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a joint motion for a Protective Order to Stay Discovery pending a decision on the Motion to Dismiss his lawsuit. In other words, to make Berg's lawsuit go away!Berg said he was "outraged, as this is another attempt to hide the truth from the public; it is obvious that documents do not exist to prove that Obama is qualified to be President." The joint motion, Berg asserted, was a concerted effort to avoid the truth by attempting to delay the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama meets the qualifications to be President. He said it is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States. Simply stated, Obama "is unable to produce a certified copy of his Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist."An e-mail friend of mine, a lawyer, stated: "What has boggled my mind about this case is that Berg simply waited for a court order to compel the production of the birth certificate, when he could just as easily have served a subpoena on the Hawaii County Clerk or County Recorder - or whoever is the custodian of records in Hawaii - to produce the original birth certificate for examination by an expert forensic-document examiner to produce certified copies to the Court, the Plaintiff, and the Defendants, which would have shifted the burden to Obama to quash the subpoena - and if he filed a motion to quash the subpoena to produce his own birth certificate, that would sure as hell tell us that he has a lot to hide.
"SLEUTH #2Also in August, longtime Obama nemesis Andy Martin - a Chicago journalist, lawyer, author of the bestseller, "Obama: The Man Behind The Mask," and executive editor or http://www.contrariancommentary.com/ - filed a suit in the Court of the First Circuit State of Hawaii (08-1-2147-10) against the Republican governor, Linda Lingle, and the director of the Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Martin's suit alleged that the defendants had refused to provide a copy of the requested, certified copy of the birth certificate of Senator Obama "attested to by the State and not a `certificate' which is posted on a website and which has been debunked as possibly having been altered.""It is axiomatic," Martin's suit said, "that the birth certificate of a presidential candidate is a document of crucial public concern and significance."Failing both his petition and an initial "emergency motion," Martin filed his second emergency motion this month (-1-2147-10 BIA) "for an Order to Show Cause (`OSC') directing the defendants...on or before October 22, 2008...at a hearing before this Court why the relief requested by the Plaintiff should not be granted...This lawsuit does not involve complicated or disputed facts.""Why is Barack Obama obstructing access to his birth records?" Martin asks. "Along with his obstructing access to college records and other essential information about his past? I want to see a certified copy issued by the State of Hawaii, not one issued by the State of Obama... Interestingly, we think we also know now why he has virtually imprisoned his white grandmother and refuses to allow her to appear in public?"Numerous conservative journalists, talking heads and bloggers have addressed Obama's fitness to be president, questioning his: * Reed-thin résumé.* Stunning lack of concrete legislative accomplishments (both in the Illinois legislature and the U.S. Senate). * Long-time close relationships and associations with Marxists and anti-American militants like Frank Marshall, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Phleger, Khalid Rashidi, et al. * Failure to provide transcripts of his years at Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School. * Failure to provide any more than a one-page "report" from his medical doctor about his health status. * Rationale for flip-flopping on every major issue - economic policy, domestic policy, foreign policy, et al - during this campaign. The sleuthing continues. According to Berg, Martin, and a number of other sources, Obama was really born in the Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombassa, Kenya at 7.24 PM on August 4, 1961, a birth that was documented by a certificate with an embossed seal that displays the name of the hospital, as well as witness signatures. In addition, if these reports are accurate, his grandmother in Kenya, as well as his brother and sister, claim they were present during Obama's birth in Kenya. GRAMMY DEAREST Now - belatedly - that the net is closing in on Obama, and the suspicions, as many have alleged, are that he is a Trojan Horse for Islamic interests, or a Manchurian Candidate, or a total fraud - Obama has seemingly discovered an interest in his ailing grandmother. Yes, that Grammy who he so facilely threw under the bus during the early days of his campaign. He is now so worried about Grandma Dunham - the woman who raised him but strangely didn't attend his nomination - that he is taking a few days off from his intense campaign to visit this ailing widow. Or could his strangely-timed trip to Hawaii really be to "clear up" the sticky case of his missing birth certificate? I live in New York, where it is not uncommon for BIG payoffs to influence people to come up with "the goods." A half-a-million here, a dire threat there, often influence people to do things - like perjure themselves, produce phony documents, et al - that they would never do under less "pressured" circumstances. If the magic document doesn't appear, it is possible, and entirely legal, that Obama could be removed from the ballots in states that are questioning his eligibility. According to a recent article in The Daily Herald in Everett, WA, a civil action was filed in Washington State Superior Court against Sam Reed, Secretary of State, demanding that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama be removed from the ballot in Washington unless he can provide verification of his status as a United States citizen. The citizen who filed the suit, Steven Marquis, asked that Reed verify - by looking at "original or certified verifiable official documents" - that Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States and eligible to serve as president, and that the office do so by Election Day. Like others investigating the matter, Marquis said that answering the unanswered questions about Obama's eligibility and background would "preclude a constitutional crisis and likely civil unrest" that would arise if information about Obama's ineligibility came to light after the election. EXPLOSIVE PRESS RELEASE This week, on October 21, 2008, Mr. Berg released the result of his investigation. In a startling press release, he has announced that "Obama & DNC admit all allegations in Berg v. Obama."In his release, Berg explained that "by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions...the DNC `ADMITTED' that Obama is "NOT QUALIFIED" to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate."Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed "ADMITTED." Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.
According to Berg, Obama - by default - admitted to every charge the lawyer made, among them:1. I was born in Kenya. 2. I am a Kenya "natural born" citizen. 3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii. 4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me. 5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya.
The list includes 56 admissions.
The DNC's admissions, which number 27, include that:1. They nominated Barack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President. 2. They have not vetted Barack Hussein Obama. 3. They did not have a background check performed on Barack Hussein Obama. 4. They did not verify Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States. 5. Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya. For the entire list, go to: http://www.obamacrimes.com/ WHAT HAPPENS NOW?Interest in this case is understandably intense. Berg's website has already received over 55 million hits. But predictably, the overwhelmingly liberal media has yet to pick up on this story, as if ignoring a story that has profound implications for our Republic and for the potential of a Constitutional crisis is less important than discussing Sarah Palin's wardrobe.It's possible that all the states that are working on obtaining Obama's birth certificate will simultaneously remove him from the ballot at one time. It's also possible that, failing to produce the birth certificate, Obama will voluntarily step aside, leaving a breach through which Hillary will walk.Meanwhile, as legal challenges proceed at warp speed, and Obama's lawyers scramble to avoid the Scandal of the Century, one thing remains intractably the same: Obama still has not produced proof of his eligibility to run for office.Joan Swirsky is a New York-based journalist and author who can be reached at joansharon@aol.com
Joan Swirsky
Four years ago, when I had just about completed the lengthy legal and financial vetting process required by the U.S. government to place my then-92-year-old-mother in a nursing home, I was asked to produce her birth certificate as “proof” of her citizenship. While she was born in America, had voted in every election for untold decades, and paid her taxes religiously, that wasn’t good enough to qualify my elderly mother –deaf, legally blind, and confined to a wheelchair – to be admitted to the facility I had chosen for her near my home. Frankly, I didn't think finding my mother's birth certificate was possible, given the fact that she had been born in a farmhouse in Storrs, CT, along with nine of her 10 siblings, to parents who didn't speak English. Despairing that she would never be "qualified" to receive the care she desperately needed, I set about to find the document, which I was sure had vanished in the unreliable record-keeping of 1913.First I called an official in Hartford, the capitol of Connecticut, who recommended that I call the Storrs record-keeping office. That took two minutes. Next I called the Storrs office and was told to call another number. That took two minutes.When I called the third number, I explained to the woman who answered the phone that I was "asking something impossible." I gave her my mother's first name and her father's last name.Within four minutes, she said, "Here it is!" She had found my mother's birth certificate, and it surprised me when I learned my mother's "real" first name and "real" last name had changed significantly as she and her family became Americanized.When I expressed my amazement, the woman said: "That's nothing...we're routinely asked to find birth certificates from the 1800s, and we do that all the time!"Total time it took me to find my mother's 1913, born-in-a-farmhouse birth certificate: 10 minutes.WHERE IS OBAMA'S?To this date, Barack Obama has refused - or been unable - to produce an authentic birth certificate that attests to the fact he is eligible to run for office. He has had more than the two-years of campaigning for the presidency of the United States to do this, but failed.Why is this important? Because the Constitution of the United States expressly forbids anyone born on foreign soil to run for the highest office in our land.You would think that Obama would have volunteered the "proof" of his eligibility within a nanosecond of entering the race. But here we are, less than two weeks away from the election, and Americans still don't know if Obama is an American!While Obama's camp submitted a supposedly authentic birth certificate to the far-left blog Daily Kos, it was found to have been a photo-shopped version of the birth certificate of his half-sister, who was actually born in Hawaii, as Obama claims he was. While this glaring omission in Obama's eligibility to become the most powerful man on earth mystified some and rankled others, a few people - clearly alarmed at what they considered a stealth candidate's attempt to dance his way around the Constitution and venture into the realm of criminality - took action.
SLEUTH #1The first sleuth was lawyer Philip J. Berg, a Democrat from Pennsylvania and an undisguised Hillary fan. Last August, Berg - a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania and one-time candidate for both governor and senator - filed a lawsuit in Federal Court (Berg v. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083) seeking a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction against Obama, alleging that the first-term Illinois senator did not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States. Berg's suit was based on Obama's failure to answer satisfactorily the question of where he was born. Was it in Hawaii, Kenya, or Indonesia? Was his legal name Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro (his stepfather's surname), Barry Obama, Barack Dunham (his maternal grandparents' surname), or Barry Dunham?Among the other questions Berg raised were the authenticity of the name Obama used on his Illinois Bar Application and his possible allegiance to other countries. Details of the case, including direct quotations, are found on Berg's website: http://www.obamacrimes.com/ . "Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Senator Obama's lies and obfuscations," Berg said. "He clearly shows a conscience of guilt by his actions in using the forged birth certificate and the lies he's told to cover his loss of citizenship. We believe he...supported this belief by his actions in hiding his secret, in that he failed to regain his citizenship and used documents to further his position as a natural born citizen...His very acts prove he knew he was no longer a natural born citizen. We believe he knew he was defrauding the country or else why use the forged birth certificate of his half sister?...If the DNC officers and/or leaders had performed one ounce of due diligence, we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament...from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship through an oath of allegiance at age eighteen [18] as prescribed by Constitutional laws."The net result of Berg's efforts was that, on September 9, both Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a joint motion for a Protective Order to Stay Discovery pending a decision on the Motion to Dismiss his lawsuit. In other words, to make Berg's lawsuit go away!Berg said he was "outraged, as this is another attempt to hide the truth from the public; it is obvious that documents do not exist to prove that Obama is qualified to be President." The joint motion, Berg asserted, was a concerted effort to avoid the truth by attempting to delay the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama meets the qualifications to be President. He said it is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States. Simply stated, Obama "is unable to produce a certified copy of his Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist."An e-mail friend of mine, a lawyer, stated: "What has boggled my mind about this case is that Berg simply waited for a court order to compel the production of the birth certificate, when he could just as easily have served a subpoena on the Hawaii County Clerk or County Recorder - or whoever is the custodian of records in Hawaii - to produce the original birth certificate for examination by an expert forensic-document examiner to produce certified copies to the Court, the Plaintiff, and the Defendants, which would have shifted the burden to Obama to quash the subpoena - and if he filed a motion to quash the subpoena to produce his own birth certificate, that would sure as hell tell us that he has a lot to hide.
"SLEUTH #2Also in August, longtime Obama nemesis Andy Martin - a Chicago journalist, lawyer, author of the bestseller, "Obama: The Man Behind The Mask," and executive editor or http://www.contrariancommentary.com/ - filed a suit in the Court of the First Circuit State of Hawaii (08-1-2147-10) against the Republican governor, Linda Lingle, and the director of the Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Martin's suit alleged that the defendants had refused to provide a copy of the requested, certified copy of the birth certificate of Senator Obama "attested to by the State and not a `certificate' which is posted on a website and which has been debunked as possibly having been altered.""It is axiomatic," Martin's suit said, "that the birth certificate of a presidential candidate is a document of crucial public concern and significance."Failing both his petition and an initial "emergency motion," Martin filed his second emergency motion this month (-1-2147-10 BIA) "for an Order to Show Cause (`OSC') directing the defendants...on or before October 22, 2008...at a hearing before this Court why the relief requested by the Plaintiff should not be granted...This lawsuit does not involve complicated or disputed facts.""Why is Barack Obama obstructing access to his birth records?" Martin asks. "Along with his obstructing access to college records and other essential information about his past? I want to see a certified copy issued by the State of Hawaii, not one issued by the State of Obama... Interestingly, we think we also know now why he has virtually imprisoned his white grandmother and refuses to allow her to appear in public?"Numerous conservative journalists, talking heads and bloggers have addressed Obama's fitness to be president, questioning his: * Reed-thin résumé.* Stunning lack of concrete legislative accomplishments (both in the Illinois legislature and the U.S. Senate). * Long-time close relationships and associations with Marxists and anti-American militants like Frank Marshall, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Phleger, Khalid Rashidi, et al. * Failure to provide transcripts of his years at Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School. * Failure to provide any more than a one-page "report" from his medical doctor about his health status. * Rationale for flip-flopping on every major issue - economic policy, domestic policy, foreign policy, et al - during this campaign. The sleuthing continues. According to Berg, Martin, and a number of other sources, Obama was really born in the Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombassa, Kenya at 7.24 PM on August 4, 1961, a birth that was documented by a certificate with an embossed seal that displays the name of the hospital, as well as witness signatures. In addition, if these reports are accurate, his grandmother in Kenya, as well as his brother and sister, claim they were present during Obama's birth in Kenya. GRAMMY DEAREST Now - belatedly - that the net is closing in on Obama, and the suspicions, as many have alleged, are that he is a Trojan Horse for Islamic interests, or a Manchurian Candidate, or a total fraud - Obama has seemingly discovered an interest in his ailing grandmother. Yes, that Grammy who he so facilely threw under the bus during the early days of his campaign. He is now so worried about Grandma Dunham - the woman who raised him but strangely didn't attend his nomination - that he is taking a few days off from his intense campaign to visit this ailing widow. Or could his strangely-timed trip to Hawaii really be to "clear up" the sticky case of his missing birth certificate? I live in New York, where it is not uncommon for BIG payoffs to influence people to come up with "the goods." A half-a-million here, a dire threat there, often influence people to do things - like perjure themselves, produce phony documents, et al - that they would never do under less "pressured" circumstances. If the magic document doesn't appear, it is possible, and entirely legal, that Obama could be removed from the ballots in states that are questioning his eligibility. According to a recent article in The Daily Herald in Everett, WA, a civil action was filed in Washington State Superior Court against Sam Reed, Secretary of State, demanding that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama be removed from the ballot in Washington unless he can provide verification of his status as a United States citizen. The citizen who filed the suit, Steven Marquis, asked that Reed verify - by looking at "original or certified verifiable official documents" - that Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States and eligible to serve as president, and that the office do so by Election Day. Like others investigating the matter, Marquis said that answering the unanswered questions about Obama's eligibility and background would "preclude a constitutional crisis and likely civil unrest" that would arise if information about Obama's ineligibility came to light after the election. EXPLOSIVE PRESS RELEASE This week, on October 21, 2008, Mr. Berg released the result of his investigation. In a startling press release, he has announced that "Obama & DNC admit all allegations in Berg v. Obama."In his release, Berg explained that "by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions...the DNC `ADMITTED' that Obama is "NOT QUALIFIED" to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate."Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed "ADMITTED." Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.
According to Berg, Obama - by default - admitted to every charge the lawyer made, among them:1. I was born in Kenya. 2. I am a Kenya "natural born" citizen. 3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii. 4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me. 5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya.
The list includes 56 admissions.
The DNC's admissions, which number 27, include that:1. They nominated Barack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President. 2. They have not vetted Barack Hussein Obama. 3. They did not have a background check performed on Barack Hussein Obama. 4. They did not verify Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States. 5. Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya. For the entire list, go to: http://www.obamacrimes.com/ WHAT HAPPENS NOW?Interest in this case is understandably intense. Berg's website has already received over 55 million hits. But predictably, the overwhelmingly liberal media has yet to pick up on this story, as if ignoring a story that has profound implications for our Republic and for the potential of a Constitutional crisis is less important than discussing Sarah Palin's wardrobe.It's possible that all the states that are working on obtaining Obama's birth certificate will simultaneously remove him from the ballot at one time. It's also possible that, failing to produce the birth certificate, Obama will voluntarily step aside, leaving a breach through which Hillary will walk.Meanwhile, as legal challenges proceed at warp speed, and Obama's lawyers scramble to avoid the Scandal of the Century, one thing remains intractably the same: Obama still has not produced proof of his eligibility to run for office.Joan Swirsky is a New York-based journalist and author who can be reached at joansharon@aol.com
Friday, October 17, 2008
Quote of the Day
“You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.”
Melanie Phillips
Spectator UK
Melanie Phillips
Spectator UK
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Liberal Rage, two forms, one party; Democrat!
Here's a video of a pro McCain march in Manhattan, as well as an article about the vandalism of our local GOP headquarters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI
Vandals strike York County GOP headquarters
By Matt Garfield, The Herald Online
Vandals spray-painted the words “Republican means slavery” on the door of the York County GOP campaign headquarters overnight Friday.
Party volunteers called police after discovering the message when they arrived at the office on Rock Hill’s Oakland Avenue. The vandals also stole about 45 candidate signs from the front yard and spray-painted over a banner that carried a picture of Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Their messages included lettering and symbols sometimes used by gangs.
The culprits could face charges on petty larceny and damage to property, said Rock Hill police Sgt. Roderick Stinson. No one appears to have entered the office.
Whether it was teenagers playing a prank or adults looking to make a political statement, the nature of the message reflected racially charged hostilities that have flared around the country in recent days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI
Vandals strike York County GOP headquarters
By Matt Garfield, The Herald Online
Vandals spray-painted the words “Republican means slavery” on the door of the York County GOP campaign headquarters overnight Friday.
Party volunteers called police after discovering the message when they arrived at the office on Rock Hill’s Oakland Avenue. The vandals also stole about 45 candidate signs from the front yard and spray-painted over a banner that carried a picture of Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Their messages included lettering and symbols sometimes used by gangs.
The culprits could face charges on petty larceny and damage to property, said Rock Hill police Sgt. Roderick Stinson. No one appears to have entered the office.
Whether it was teenagers playing a prank or adults looking to make a political statement, the nature of the message reflected racially charged hostilities that have flared around the country in recent days.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Questions of Character, NoBama's Radical Pals
By Charles Krauthammer
Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.But associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque, and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate.McCain has only himself to blame for the bad timing. He should months ago have begun challenging Obama’s associations, before the economic meltdown allowed the Obama campaign (and the mainstream media, which is to say the same thing) to dismiss the charges as an act of desperation by the trailing candidate.McCain had his chance back in April when the North Carolina Republican Party ran a gubernatorial campaign ad that included the linking of Obama with Jeremiah Wright. The ad was duly denounced by the New York Times and other deep thinkers as racist. This was patently absurd. Racism is treating people differently and invidiously on the basis of race. Had any white presidential candidate had a close 20-year association with a white preacher overtly spreading race hatred from the pulpit, that candidate would have been not just universally denounced and deemed unfit for office but written out of polite society entirely.Nonetheless, John McCain in his infinite wisdom, and with his overflowing sense of personal rectitude, joined the braying mob in denouncing that perfectly legitimate ad, saying it had no place in any campaign. In doing so, McCain unilaterally disarmed himself, rendering off-limits Obama’s associations, an issue that even Hillary Clinton addressed more than once. Obama’s political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber — even a repentant one — he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he “didn’t do enough.”Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright’s angry racism or Ayers’ unreconstructed 1960s radicalism? No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with — let alone serve on two boards with — an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the “old politics” — of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in Chicago in the service of his own ambition. Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama’s core beliefs. He doesn’t share Rev. Wright’s poisonous views of race nor Ayers’ views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond. Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright’s pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse. Do you? Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not.
Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.But associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque, and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate.McCain has only himself to blame for the bad timing. He should months ago have begun challenging Obama’s associations, before the economic meltdown allowed the Obama campaign (and the mainstream media, which is to say the same thing) to dismiss the charges as an act of desperation by the trailing candidate.McCain had his chance back in April when the North Carolina Republican Party ran a gubernatorial campaign ad that included the linking of Obama with Jeremiah Wright. The ad was duly denounced by the New York Times and other deep thinkers as racist. This was patently absurd. Racism is treating people differently and invidiously on the basis of race. Had any white presidential candidate had a close 20-year association with a white preacher overtly spreading race hatred from the pulpit, that candidate would have been not just universally denounced and deemed unfit for office but written out of polite society entirely.Nonetheless, John McCain in his infinite wisdom, and with his overflowing sense of personal rectitude, joined the braying mob in denouncing that perfectly legitimate ad, saying it had no place in any campaign. In doing so, McCain unilaterally disarmed himself, rendering off-limits Obama’s associations, an issue that even Hillary Clinton addressed more than once. Obama’s political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber — even a repentant one — he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he “didn’t do enough.”Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright’s angry racism or Ayers’ unreconstructed 1960s radicalism? No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with — let alone serve on two boards with — an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the “old politics” — of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in Chicago in the service of his own ambition. Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama’s core beliefs. He doesn’t share Rev. Wright’s poisonous views of race nor Ayers’ views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond. Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright’s pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse. Do you? Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Watch the ad NoBama's tring to get banned
His goon squad is threatening TV networks and stations. Watch it before it's pulled
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=158353
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=158353
Biden Tells 14 Lies During Debate
Amanda CarpenterFriday, October 03, 2008
Senator Joe Biden lied at least 14 times during the vice presidential debate according to those counting at John McCain’s presidential headquarters.
Tucker Bounds, a spokesman from GOP presidential candidate John McCain’s campaign said in a statement, “"Joe Biden graduated from his trademark verbal gaffe to outright lie in tonight’s debate.”
McCain’s blogger-in-chief Michael Goldfarb chronicled the 14 lies HERE.
On the foreign policy front, Biden challenged Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin when she said Barack Obama’s pledge to meet with any foreign leaders, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without precondition “goes beyond naivete and goes beyond poor judgment.”
Biden lectured Palin, “That's just simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad.” During the YouTube Democratic primary debate last July Obama was asked if he would meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without “precondition” during his first year in office.
“I would,” he replied.
Biden appeared to attack Obama for making that very statement in August 2007. While Biden was challenging Obama for the Democratic nomination for president Biden said he would not support such a pledge. “Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president?” he said in an appearance at the National Press Club. “Absolutely positively no."
Five of the lies Biden told were related to tax and energy votes. During the debate Biden adamantly claimed McCain voted the same way as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama did on a vote to raise taxes on those making $42,000 a year. The legislative record shows McCain was not present in the Senate for either of those votes and is recorded as “not voting.”
The RNC also takes issue with Biden’s assessment Palin supports a “windfall profits tax” and Biden’s claim McCain voted against alternative energy 23 times. The independent Factcheck.org has previously stated when Obama and other Democrats made similar charges about the 23 votes “they’re overstating the case.”
The other lies detailed by Goldfarb were related to Biden’s characterization of McCain’s healthcare plan, stances on bank deregulation and the $700 billion financial bailout that recently passed the Senate.
Senator Joe Biden lied at least 14 times during the vice presidential debate according to those counting at John McCain’s presidential headquarters.
Tucker Bounds, a spokesman from GOP presidential candidate John McCain’s campaign said in a statement, “"Joe Biden graduated from his trademark verbal gaffe to outright lie in tonight’s debate.”
McCain’s blogger-in-chief Michael Goldfarb chronicled the 14 lies HERE.
On the foreign policy front, Biden challenged Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin when she said Barack Obama’s pledge to meet with any foreign leaders, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without precondition “goes beyond naivete and goes beyond poor judgment.”
Biden lectured Palin, “That's just simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad.” During the YouTube Democratic primary debate last July Obama was asked if he would meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without “precondition” during his first year in office.
“I would,” he replied.
Biden appeared to attack Obama for making that very statement in August 2007. While Biden was challenging Obama for the Democratic nomination for president Biden said he would not support such a pledge. “Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president?” he said in an appearance at the National Press Club. “Absolutely positively no."
Five of the lies Biden told were related to tax and energy votes. During the debate Biden adamantly claimed McCain voted the same way as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama did on a vote to raise taxes on those making $42,000 a year. The legislative record shows McCain was not present in the Senate for either of those votes and is recorded as “not voting.”
The RNC also takes issue with Biden’s assessment Palin supports a “windfall profits tax” and Biden’s claim McCain voted against alternative energy 23 times. The independent Factcheck.org has previously stated when Obama and other Democrats made similar charges about the 23 votes “they’re overstating the case.”
The other lies detailed by Goldfarb were related to Biden’s characterization of McCain’s healthcare plan, stances on bank deregulation and the $700 billion financial bailout that recently passed the Senate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
