I got a chance to get this piece over to AOL this past week once the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case.
I know that for all Black Republicans, there was a sense of "here we go again" upon hearing that Justice Clarence Thomas was the one that forwarded the case to the other justices for review.
At some point, it does make those on the outside wonder about how politics really goes down. Things intended to build and create often get used for non-intended means. Sadly, the political tool that we have before us is abused much like anything else that we have created with our hands. Hammers build great structures and, yet, have been used differently as well.
With lawsuits, a new administration, an economic crisis, and two wars, it looks like the political buzz - and all that comes with it (including abnormal charges, explosive claims, and corruption at the highest levels of government) - will be humming for a good while in America.
Claim it. It's yours. Let's make it better - together.
I give a perspective on what the Republican Party needs to do in order to not only win elections moving forward, but to find a way to represent the 21st century America whenever its members are elected into office.
The writing process is fun for me. Believe it or not, it is a combination of a lot of reading of current events, reading political philosophy, analysizing pertinent statistics, and talking to people like you.
People talk about political science in school and approach politics as a science during campaign time, but often we fail to understand that politics is nothing without people. Without involving people in politics, we fail as a community.
Even for Democrats that may disagree with some of what my article says, we must come together and agree on this:
If the politicos don't come together at this crucial, hear the people that they represent, and work together in a synergetic effort, we are going to continue to struggle.
As for me, I'll continue to put my pen to the paper to try and put some light on the issues.
Each day, leaders within the African-American community work within the neighborhoods, schools, and churches with the focus being to improve the conditions that Black children and families find themselves in currently. By addressing this effectively, they understand that all communities can find a heightened level of resources - money, talent, and safety - because we maximize our collective potential.
Each year, the best and brightest gather in order to hold "the State of the Black Union" in order to assess the latest developements within America in order to find sound solutions to apply that incorporate a proactive approach that can connect from the grassroots to the general assemblies and government.
If I am able to get out to the event this year, I will find it very interesting to hear and engage the speakers and forum participants. Although Black America can "claim" its first African-American president, Black America will also be at a point where we are still in crisis mode - not only from the issues of poverty, under-education, crime, and early death within our communities, but also from the economic and civic crises that impact all Americans at this point.
With a young, conversative perspective, I feel that I can articulate a different perspective into that conversation in February if I attend. This perspective is one that reflects the majority of Americans, an important factor to incorporate as we continue to uplift Black America to a point where diversity is the spice of our melting pot, not just the ingredients that we notice as we cook along.
Sometimes, we have to represent more than ourselves, knowing that our one voice is merely the union of many voices presented by one person.
It was fun being that to date, so hopefully I can continue to be that "one person", although, really, it's never just one person. It's all of us.
A letter to President elect 0bama from Mr Chuck Noris
Dear President-elect Obama:
First, congratulations on your victory. The historical magnitude of your presidential win is nothing short of stupendous and a colossal fulfillment of the American dream (an achievement embedded long ago in the equality clauses of the Declaration of Independence). Your life has served and will serve as an example to countless millions, and I pray that you will live up to that honorable position and responsibility.
Now that Democrats have a virtual monopoly over our land, with control of the White House, both houses of Congress, a majority of gubernatorial positions, state legislatures, the courts, the news media, the unions and the entertainment and educational fields, it would be relatively easy for you to rule as king, casting liberal edicts in any direction. But now will come your biggest test: Will you be able to lead the other half of the country that doesn't agree with your vision, views and policies?
It's no big surprise that I don't see politically eye-to-eye with you. Actually, I stand in stark opposition to most of your politics. Still, even in our differences, I realize that we must learn to work together if we are to see our country get back on track. After Election Day, I asked myself, despite the outcome, how can I work for our new president to help better America? Then the thought occurred to me, the first question that should be answered is: How will you work for me? After all, it is "We, the People" of the Constitution for whom you are employed, correct?
So I outlined a few ways you might begin to gain the respect of those who oppose you and show that your campaign pledges to bridge the divides were not empty promises to get you into office. And these requests I make are based upon the inaugural oath you will make on Jan. 20, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." No doubt these won't be my only suggestions through the years, but they serve as a good beginning:
1. Use and cite the Constitution. If that constitutional oath ("preserve, protect and defend") is the central duty of your job description, then I would assume we will be hearing often from you about exactly how you are doing just that. There is no replacement for strict adherence, application and defense of the Constitution. And it's high time that presidents quit tritely reciting the presidential oath only to abandon its tenets when they enter the Oval Office. You should be publicly quoting from the Constitution as often as a preacher quotes the Bible to his congregation – at least weekly. If you take this oath and challenge seriously, you will limit the powers of federal government, reduce taxes (for everyone), encourage the freedom of religion and expression (even in the public square) and stand up for such things as our right to bear arms. The American public and the government have lost their grip on the content and role of the Constitution, and, if you choose, you can help to re-educate and model its usage for them.
2. Protect American life. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." Those are powerful and enlightening words – "first and only legitimate object of good government." Of course, such a role was created and secured in the very fabric of our nation – in the Declaration of Independence. The commitment to protect life should serve as a basis to all you do, even as a foundation for your national defense strategy or to protect human life from the womb to the grave. I'm sure the first of your secret briefings this last week on our global security threats have opened your eyes some to the extensive onslaught of our enemies. Don't allow your pride, partisanship, personal bias or political abilities to ever jeopardize the safety of Americans lives. As commander in chief, you are called to preserve American life. Quite frankly, that is why I'm surprised that a man like you, who professes to fight for minorities, would not recognize the clear value of a human life in the womb. Federal law should not decree the sacrifice of one human life for the preference of another. Both lives should be protected. Otherwise what do Jefferson's 1809 words mean? As president, you are called to protect (not destroy) human life – it is the "first and only legitimate object of good government.
3. Learn from the mistakes of your Democratic predecessors. I'm referring specifically to presidents Carter and Clinton. Despite how many trumpet their accomplishments today, they learned big lessons at our expense about international diplomacy and economic recovery. Carter's diplomatic naïveté, combined with his overly altruistic belief that America's enemies can be won by a smile and handshake, ultimately gave rise to Ahmadinejad's Iranian regime. Furthermore, Carter's handling of our economic affairs also led to the highest interest, inflation and unemployment rates in history. You were only a young man, I realize, but I respectfully wonder if you know of those lessons, or might be doomed to repeat them? You can increase the taxes of individuals who make more than $200,000. You can impose the same on companies and corporations. But don't believe for a minute that they aren't even now making plans and moving their monies into overseas accounts. Any businessman knows that such tax increases will trickle down to employees, shareholders, consumers or further tempt them to take their productivity abroad where costs are lower. And what will be the effect on our economy? Isn't it obvious? And don't forget this: Bush is only partially to blame for our economic woes. Remember, it was the Clinton administration in 1999 that was the primary contributor to our Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae subprime fiasco (and subsequent Wall Street bailout need), by extending billions of mortgage loans to those who wouldn't or couldn't ever pay them back. Though gloating over his end-term budget surplus, Clinton paved the path through his government backing of millions of toxic mortgages to low income households – all of which would turn into gargantuan balloon payments years down the road that would bankrupt corporations and lead to our economic recession.
4. Lead more from the center. It's been pointed out by countless pundits. Your track record is clear. You have one of the most liberal records in the Senate. You've had the liberty of voting and fighting for an agenda "from the left," as you've tried to persuade state and congressional constituents to do the same. But if you continue to lead our country down a more liberal road, you will follow the peril of Clinton as well. He stepped into office and initially tried to lift the ban on gays in the military and extend abortion rights, only to prompt the creation of a more-balanced and strong Republican Congress in the 1990s. Don't underestimate the resurrecting power of the conservative voice. You observed in Tuesday's election how three states across this union voted to protect marriage in their constitutions (the 28th, 29th and 30th states to do so – California, Arizona and Florida). We will be watching how you lead Pelosi and Reid. We will be observing those you select as candidates for Supreme Court justices. The election is over. No more promises. No more words. You might work well in a team, but this time you don't have congressional members to hide behind. You're on your own – leading the pack – and the whole country is watching. Especially me. So make sure you lead more from the center.
There is one thing I will be specifically doing for you, as you carry the weight to lead our nation. I will be praying for you. As the scripture says, "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone – for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." You have my word – I'll be praying.
Not that I'm sad about Election Night 2008 or anything like that...not with me counting away from last Tuesday and all :-)
I will say - I was very disappointed that Mayor Pat McCrory was not elected our next governor on Tuesday night. I know that many of us in the Charlotte region feel that way. Now that he is not going to be moving to Raleigh, I guess that the question in hand really is what will he do next? I wish that I could tell you and I wish that I had the answer to the question; (they ARE exclusive of each other, after all.)
More importantly than the election is this:
Today is Veterans Day. We need to make sure that we are cognizant of the sacrifices that fellow Americans made for us. It's not just about the dead. It's about the experienced: those that experienced being away from their families during birthdays, holidays, and special days (graduations, first steps, etc.) We need to show them love.
What we need to reclaim in America during this New Change Era is our ability to support and love our troops expressively while, if desired, simultaneously criticizing our politicians making decisions that we disagree with. What does the direction of Presidents Clinton and Bush have to do with my buddy Webb Moore, a 30-something husband that has served in combat zones since the early 1990s? Or my buddies Rafael Candelario and Dalmaar Weekes (from my Davidson days...or, more accurately, my Davidson, Part I days), folks that served overseas (including Iraq) away from family and friends? Or my brothers Daniel Freeman, Rod Barnes, and William Crews, men that served in the military overseas as well?
That's right - not much of anything. Men and women that are brave enough to serve our country listen to the direction that they are given. They do their best to meet the objectives, with the ultimate goal being our safety.
We gotta show them love for that alone.
I can't imagine the amount of bravery it must take to be on the wrong side of a weapon voluntarily, willing to give it all for people that I don't know personally.
So, for me, today is a day when I will make it a point to say "thank you" to them - both here and elsewhere. I'm going to make sure that my points of contention with politicians don't translate into disconnection with the neighbors around us that choose to be heroes amongst us.
THis is Susan Rice who did an Opps saying that her Candidate IS NOT READY... oh BTW, Susan Rice is the former CLinton State Dept official who refused Ben Laden capture 4 times prior to 911... even though he was under indictment. SHe was roasted by the 911 commission as one of the reasons 911 happened
CONTACT: Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr. President, LEARN NE 866-242-4997 201-704-9325 cell
WHAT MARTIN LUTHER KING CALLED EVIL, BARACK OBAMA CALLS GOOD
By Rev. Clenard H. Childress, Jr.
I had the pleasure of meeting Gianna Jessen earlier this year at "Walk for Life San Francisco." Gianna's vibrant energetic personality is therapeutic. Engaging her in conversation is a sure cure for anyone struggling with personal demons of fear and insecurity! Gianna is a sure and certain candidate for receiving the 'against all odds' award. Challenges are not new to Gianna. She was scheduled for a saline solution abortion while she was in her third trimester in her mother's womb. After being burned alive for approximately 18 hours, she survived! Her mother gave her up for adoption and the saline solution caused her to develop cerebral palsy. Challenged by death, desertion, and disease, she prevailed and is one of the most sought after anointed gospel vocalists of our time.
Gianna survived, but if a certain Illinois Senator would have had his way, she would have never received medical attention after the botched abortion. Senator Barack Obama heard the story of babies like Gianna who were surviving abortions but were being left to die in dirty laundry closets at Christ Hospital in Chicago but did nothing on their behalf. As well, the profession which takes the Hippocratic Oath to preserve and save life, ignores struggling infants in desperate need of assistance. Naked, helpless, and in extreme pain, they receive no assistance, no doctor to aid, and no mother to care. Barack Obama, after hearing of these brutal, calloused acts of mans inhumanity to man, voted to allow this heinous, barbaric behavior to continue. Barack Obama voted three times against protecting these born alive victims.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised when we look at his consistent anti-infant voting record. The wife of the senator, Michelle Obama, has written letters supporting partial birth abortion. The Obama's are advocates and supporters of Planned Parenthood with full knowledge of their racist practices against African-Americans. I cannot fathom how any person, or leader of conscience, would support a candidate that not only willfully promotes an institution of such racist origin, but embodies their value system. It's despicable and unconscionable.
In his speech at the Planned Parenthood Fund raiser, Barack Obama recalled how the first 'Margaret Sanger Award' went to Martin Luther King. To those of you that know of Margaret Sanger, you are aware this was an attempt to put a 'Black face' on her plan to initiate sterilization and abortion in the African-American community. Just as it is with Barack Obama, the vast majority of Americans did not know of Sanger's radical views on race and government; they did not know of Sanger's associations with Adolph Hitler, Paul Stoddard and members of the Third Reich. Margaret Sanger fooled a lot of people with her deception; so is Barack Obama.
Since Barack Obama had the "audacity" to bring up Martin Luther King, let's look at my favorite portion of Kings prophetic "Letter from a Birmingham Jail..."
"There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being 'disturbers of the peace' and outside agitators. But the Christians pressed on in the conviction that they were 'a colony of heaven' called to obey God rather than man. Small in number they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be 'astronomically intimidated.' By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide."
Martin Luther King points to a people of Christian faith that demanded an end to infant killing. In Rome in their declining years, it became law that upon the birth of your newborn child, if you didn't like the color of their eyes, the texture of their hair, the complexion of their skin, you could by law lay your child by the side of the road to die. The law further stated, anyone touching your child to give aid would be put to death. The newborn child was to be left to die! The early church under the threat of death scooped those children up and raised them as their own. Martin Luther King called not giving children "left by the side of the road" receiving no aid, evil! Barack Obama calls it a good thing. 80% of Americans call partial birth abortion, evil, while Mr. and Mrs. Obama call it a good thing.
St. Augustine said, "An unjust law is no law at all." I would say, "Far worst than the unjust laws are the persons who would vote to elect candidates who support unjust laws."
The article below was written by syndicated columnist,
Thomas Sowell, a black man. He wrote it in a humorous way
this past week in a column titled 'Random Thoughts'
and published it in newspapers nationally, so maybe you've already seen it.
If not, be my guest:
Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain. After long and serious thought, I have decided to endorse Senator John McCain for President. I have always voted for the person and have not voted for anyone because some political party was telling me who I should vote for. We all know the choices by now and, that said, I do believe that the process of selecting a chief executive is deeply flawed. The words 'money' and'special interests' come to mind, among many others.
Here's the way I see it: Barack Obama, you are a fine public speaker. You are also an extremely liberal Senator from the State of Illinois , which has a long and rich history of political corruption of the first magnitude. You are indeed a child of that system.
You have finally insulted my intelligence far beyond my capacity to tolerate your insults. It has nothing at all to do with your skin color. As a matter of fact, it would be so COOL to finally have an African-American for President. What a great statement that would be to the entire world that we are indeed the greatest country on earth! But, unfortunately, General Colin Powell is not running, and YOU are NOT the man for this job !
Barack, baby, you want me to believe that you have never heard the sermons of your own pastor, the Right Reverend 'God Damn America ' Jeremiah Wright. It is a matter of record that this has been your church for over 20 years. It is a matter of record that you were married there by this very pastor, and that your children were baptized there. The good Reverend saw fit to visit Khadafy in Libya with you and to give a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan, of all people. We have all now seen excerpts of his sermons all over the airwaves by now. And you have publicly stated that this man IS your 'spiritual mentor.'
BUT, your pastor is NOT the reason I am NOT voting for you. His words were disturbing enough, but it is your own HUGE church congregation, seen jumping, hooting and howling to his words in the background that disturb me the most. And please don't tell me you attended church there and never once heard a 'discouraging word' in the 20 years you attended there. Don't tell me, that in addition to the good reverend, that you are now not havinganything to do with all those other people seen hooting and howling out in the audience in t he background of his fiery tirades. Even Oprah Winfrey got disgusted and walked out on your campaign. I am no Oprah fan, but still she did the right thing.
Now you look me in the eye and ask me to believe that you never heard such language in all the years you attended there! This is like me telling you that I attended dozens of Klan rallies and never once heard the 'N' word. Yep. And Bill Clinton 'did not inhale'. Yes, Mr. Obama, we all have friends who have said stupid things that embarrassed us, but NOW you have asked me to believe something that is so incredibly stupid that you are telling me that I am just stupid enough to believe you. THAT is the main reason that I will never vote for you.
I am deeply sorry, that in a country teeming with enormously talented African Americans who would make a good President, that the political system has chosen YOU. You are a pathetic and plastic excuse for an American, who will not even salute the Flag during the Pledge of Allegiance. God forbid you ever get near the Oval Office.
Which leaves us with Senator John McCain. John, you are a flawed man. You are a bit old, a bit looney, and you have a notoriously bad temper. This perfectly qualifies you, in my humble opinion, to lead us for the next eight years. I WANT your trembling hand on the nuclear button.
Think about it. We have Kim Jong IL, Chavez and Ahmadenijad all running around like lunatics, threatening America and threatening to plunge the world into nuclear Armageddon. We have Putin and the Chinese blustering and rattling their sabers at us. I want John McCain in the Oval Office and I want him to be really ticked off at all these other nut jobs around the planet.
John, once you are elected, I want you to go into the Oval Office and throw one of your perfect FITS. Jump up and down and throw something through a plate glass window. Rip the drapes down and foam at the mouth a bit. And I want the whole thing on camera so that Ahmadinejad can see it. I want ALL of these 'world leaders' to lay awake at night and to break out in a cold sweat every time they think of messing with the United States of America .
I want the nuclear button sitting right next to the alarm clock on your night stand. I want pictures of this to be sent to Iran , Russia , China , Venezuela , Cuba , Libya , Syria , Pakistan ,and those other dopes in the sheets, the Saudis.
On the domestic front, poor John did try and reach across the aisle to the opposition in a desperate effort to compromise and to get the Congress to do something. You may not agree with his efforts, but at least he TRIED. For all his efforts, all he got handed to him was his head in a basket. The liberals are ticked at him and the conservatives are ticked at him. Just my kinda guy.
One heartbeat from the Oval Office. Finally. John McCain knows on a most personal level what it is to suffer horrible torture for years and to see others die, right in front of you, for their love of America . When you ask him about it, he will tell you that what he did was 'nothing special. ' Even more incredibly, he states that ANY American who truly loves his country would do exactly the same as he did in that situation. You and I will have a hard time believing that, but the real point is that John McCain believes that about the 'average American,' and that, dear friends and neighbors, is why I will cast my one poor ballot for on election day for John McCain --
I am positive McCain will win with 11 percent still undecided, but IF the worst happens.
What will happen to the USA in 4 years. Besides the Judges he puts on the court who have a habit of Stealing you vote and overturning the will of State legislatures and votes, he just might make things worse. But at least he cant blame the GOP any more.
What I am facinated about is that an Obama WhiteHouse will mean that all Minority voters will no longer have the Jessie Jacksons and Al Sharptons to go to when they feel they are being held back. The State of Black America can no longer be the State of Handouts, poverty, hate the Man, and victimhood. No more sitting at the corner Liquour store or creating 90 per cent of the murders in certain citys, or having 8th grade edcation for 70 per cent of the kids, or having 80 percent of children born out of wedlock.
Hey, they cant say the Man is holding them down when they are NOW the man,
You know that might be worth an Obama win..... too bad it wont happen. I might consider voting or Obama just to never see the corrupt shake down black leaders be put out of business.... NOT.
The order and memorandum 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.
Various accounts, details and ambiguities from Obama’s childhood form the basis of Plaintiff’s allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter … and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff’s opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama’s cover-up.A judge’s attitude toward the factual foundation of a plaintiff’s claims is an essential factor in understanding just who indeed has standing to sue. The question running to the heart of the standing doctrine is whether or not the plaintiff indeed has a personal stake in the outcome of the otherwise justiciable matter being adjudicated. As has been discussed before many times here at America’s Right, 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.
In this case, Judge Surrick’s attitude toward the evidence presented by Berg to support his allegations figures in heavily because, while there is a three-pronged test to standing in itself, there is no definitive test by which the court can determine whether a certain harm is enough to satisfy the first element of that three-pronged test by showing true injury-in-fact. Traditionally, it hasn’t taken much to satisfy the need for an injury-in-fact, but as the plaintiff’s claimed injury is perceived as being more remote, more creative, or more speculative, the injury-in-fact requirement becomes more difficult to satisfy.
As it were, much of Berg’s basis for injury-in-fact could be considered threatened injury–he felt that the country was at risk for “voter disenfranchisement” and that America was certainly headed for a “constitutional crisis”—and, while threatened injury can certainly be injury enough to satisfy the injury-in-fact element, such satisfaction depends upon the threat being perceived by the judge as being not too creative, speculative or remote.
When it came to Philip Berg’s personal stake in the matter at hand, Surrick compared his action with those of Fred Hollander—the man who, earlier this year, sued Sen. John McCain in New Hampshire on grounds that, born in the Panama Canal Zone, he was not a natural born citizen—and held that Berg’s stake “is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters.” The harm cited by Berg, Surrick wrote, “is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”
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.Judge the 34-page memorandum. In one such instance, Surrick noted that Berg had misinterpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in asking the court to permit him to amend his complaint. The first amended complaint was deemed admitted by Judge Surrick on grounds that, under FRCP 15(a), a party can amend once so long as it’s done before being served with a responsive pleading and that [just as I had not-so-confidently suggested] the motion to dismiss filed on Sept. 24 by Obama and the DNC was not a responsive pleading. Because Berg perceived the motion to dismiss as a responsive pleading and was waiting on the court to grant or deny the motion for leave to amend, he did not serve the additional defendants added in the amended complaint. This, too, was noted by Surrick.
Berg’s attempts to distinguish his own case from Hollander were deemed by Surrick to be “[h]is most reasonable arguments,” but his arguments citing statutory authority were said by the judge to be a venture “into the unreasonable” and were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.” All in all, the judge wrote, it was the satisfaction of the injury-in-fact requirement which was the problem. Berg’s harm was simply too intangible. …regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election. Intangible or not, Berg said, we have a case where "an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate's eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure."
In fact, the motion to dismiss and motion for protective order filed by Barack Obama and the DNC were not only proper but also an expected maneuver by the defense attorneys. The very idea behind such motions is to foster the adjudication of the matter with minimal damage to the named defendants, and both are measures used more often than not. Still, Berg believes there is more to it.
"While the procedural evasions may be proper," Berg said, "it only makes me believe more that we were correct in the first place, that Obama does not have the documentation we've requested."
While the evidence presented by Berg was largely circumstantial, the attorney says that he is learning more about this narrative--and about the Democratic Party nominee for president--with each passing day. For example, regardless of whether it could be attached to the proceeding as it goes through the appellate process, Berg said, he is in possession of a native-language audiotape of Sarah Obama, Barack Obama's paternal grandmother, stating on the day of the last presidential debate that her famous grandson was indeed born in Kenya, and that she was present in the hospital for his birth.
"The tape is in the native language there," Berg said. "I will release it as soon as translation is confirmed by affidavit, and we are waiting on affidavits from contacts over here and in Kenya."
Berg, nonetheless, is disappointed by Surrick's decision and will issue a press release today detailing his plans to appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.
"This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg said. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States--the most powerful man in the entire world--is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"
Obama: Most Secretive Democratic Presidential Candidate Ever
By: David A. Patten
Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign says his campaign will bring a new level of honesty and transparency to the White House. Obama proudly touts that he and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, passed a law requiring more transparency via a public database of all federal spending.
But when it comes to offering the public documents about his own public and private activities, Obama’s record for openness gets an "F" grade.
During the heated Democratic primary, Obama complained of the Bush White House being “one of the most secretive administrations in our history” and chided Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.
Ironically, Obama, just days away from possibly being elected president, continues to stonewall a growing chorus of information requests for documents about his legislative, personal health, education, financing, and background -- leaving many voters to cast ballots based on incomplete information.
And serious questions about his past continue to swirl as Election Day looms, fueled in part by his own campaign’s refusal to make relevant documents available.
And the press, usually banging at the door for candidates to make “full disclosure” is strangely quiet about Obama’s stonewalling.
A Newsmax survey of key Obama aspects of Obama’s public and private life continued to be shielded from the public.
Among the examples:
Obama has released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hands, released what he said was his complete medical file totaling more than 1500 pages. After criticism on the matter, last week the Obama campaign also released some routine lab-test results and electrocardiograms for Obama. All test results appeared normal, but many details about his health remain a mystery.
Obama has refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois, and has been unable to produce correspondence, such as letters from lobbyists and other correspondence from his days in the Illinois state senate. There are also no appointment calendars available of his official activities. “It could have been thrown out,” Obama said while on the campaign trail during the Democratic primary. “I haven’t been in the state Senate now for quite some time.”
Obama has not released his client list as an attorney or his billing records. Obama has maintained that he only performed a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June. But he has not released billing records that would prove this assertion.
Obama won’t release his college records from Occidental College where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia.
Obama’s campaign refuses to give Columbia University, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Such transcripts would list the courses Obama took, and his grades. President George W. Bush, and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry, all released their college transcripts. (McCain has refused to release his Naval Academy transcript.)
Obama’s college dissertation has simply disappeared from Columbia Universities archives. In July, in response to a flurry of requests to review Obama’s senior thesis at the Ivy League school, reportedly titled “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament,” Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told NBC News “We do not have a copy of the course paper you requested and neither does Columbia University.”
The senator has not agreed to the release of his application to the Illinois state bar, which would clear up intermittent allegations that his application to the bar may have been inaccurate.
Jim Geraghty of the National Review has written extensively about Obama’s unwillingness to release records related to clients he represented while he was an attorney with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill, and Gallard. Obama was required to list his clients during his years in the Illinois senate. “Obama listed every client of the firm,” Geraghty reported, making it impossible to discern which clients he represented.
Obama has never released records from his time at Harvard Law School.
Obama also has not disclosed the names of small donors giving $200 or less to his campaign. An exception to the finance-reporting laws exempts the campaign from reporting those who donate less than $200, but that law never envisioned the more than $300 million that has been raised by Obama in small amounts. The Republican National Committee has released its small donors, as well as McCain’s, on a public database.
On several occasions, the Obama campaign has offered to provide additional information to reporters if they have specific questions or issues. And in some cases, it has done so.
When Internet rumors began to fly that perhaps Obama was born outside the United States, for example, the campaign released images of a birth certificate that verified his birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii. When that led to suggestions the birth certificate had been altered, the campaign again responded, allowing reporters to examine the actual birth certificate, complete with raised seal. (In late July, according to FactCheck.org, a researcher uncovered an announcement of Obama’s birth in the August 13, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser).
Such instances of cooperation pale, however, compared to the many unanswered questions surrounding Obama, such as the financing of his education, and requests for the complete release of all donors to his campaign.
Of course, candidates are often reticent to disclose any information that opposition researchers could use against them.
But Politico.com notes that the Obama’s failure to share documents is “part of his campaign’s broader pattern of rarely volunteering information or documents about the candidate, even when relatively innocuous.”
The hue and cry from the media for disclosure usually forces candidates to release sought after documents. But the press has largely acquiesced to Obama’s stonewalling.
Our beautiful soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin is the best future leader for this nation, not Senator Barak Obama. Our beautiful soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin is also would be better at leading our nation in the future after a McCain Presidency than Senator Barak Obama would be in leading our nation in the future starting in January 2009. There are great reasons our soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin would be a better future leader than Senator Barak Obama. The greatest reason for our soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin's is ideology. Our soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin is conservative in that she is pro life, marriage, guns, low taxes, low government spending, small government, unintrosive government, traditional and judeo Christian values, Bible reading and prayer in our public schools, and military spending. Senator Barak Obama is a liberal who is anti every thing that I have described that our soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin is pro about or for. A second reason that our soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin is superior is because of experience. As a governor she has two years of executive administrative governing experience that Senator Barak Obama does not have. A final reason that our soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin is superior is because of political accomplishments. When our soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin came to office she accomplished 3 major things which are as follows: she showed great leadership in the 3 following areas: government reform, the state budget and the economy, and wise use of natural resources. She reformed government by standing up to the big oil companies by breaking up the monopoly on power and resources. She insisted on competition and basic fairness which ended the control that the oil companies had on the state, and thereby returning control of the state back to the people. She also stood up to the special interest and lobbyist, and produced major ethics reform. She lead well in the state budget by generating a surplus which came about by vetoing a half billion dollars of wasteful spending, ending the abuses of earmark spending by congress, and by getting rid of the private jet, the chef, and the chuffer. Economically under her leadership she brought about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. She also suspended the state fuel tax, and when oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, she sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged - directly to the people of Alaska . On natural resources she has shown great leadership by beginning a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence. When the last section of the pipeline is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart. Senator Barak Obama has done nothing, so please vote John McCain for President and give to our beautiful soon to be Vice President Sarah Palin the opportunity that she deserves leading the nation into the future after a John McCain presidency. When our soon to be Vice President does lead the nation as President after a John McCain presidency,she will be the greatest President that we have ever had. Finally she is smarter than Senator Barak Obama
'Smears' About Obama Largely True
Monday, October 20, 2008 9:32 PM
By: Lowell Ponte
The Obama campaign says its candidate is a victim of “smears” — and has even created a Web site to fight such attacks.
But a Newsmax investigation finds many of the so-called smears are largely based in truth — and the Obama campaign uses half-truths, clever language, and ad hominem attacks to spin the facts.
Obama’s www.FightTheSmears.com focuses mainly on anti-Obama messages being repeated on the Internet and talk radio, the only media where Obama's ideological allies are not dominant.
These "smears" and the Obama rebuttals are often framed in lawyerly language that leaves much wiggle room in the candidate’s answers.
FightTheSmears.com also makes no attempt at objectivity, describing Obama’s critics as “pushing misleading research and distorted claims” because they are “ideologues” busy “spreading a ‘pack of lies’ about Barack.”
In a section of the site titled, “Who’s Behind the Smears?” visitors can see a chart naming seven groups and six individuals with lines that suggest multiple, sinister connections between them.
The people and groups named are real and are members of Washington’s small but conservative sphere of power and influence. The Obama conspiracy chart links all of these conservative individuals and groups back to the critics who dogged the “Clinton 1992 Campaign.”
This may come as something as a surprise to Hillary Clinton, as many of the “smears” against Obama first surfaced during her heated primary contest with him.
Newsmax reviewed 10 random claims and related rebuttals posted on Obama’s ever-changing FightTheSmears.com to gauge their veracity. Here’s what we found:
Claim No. 1: Obama's campaign is funded by the rich, big corporations and foreigners.
“Barack Obama was the only major presidential candidate this year to completely reject contributions from The Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs that have dominated our politics for years,” the Obama site says of the persistent online criticisms of its fundraising.
“Instead, this campaign has been owned by the more than 3.1 million everyday Americans who have donated in small amounts.”
Not so, according to campaign finance records. Nearly half of the $600 million raised by Obama to date has come from wealthy donors and special interests. Obama's allies months ago dropped their ad linking Republican rival “Exxon John” McCain to Big Oil after it came to light that Obama had taken far more money from Exxon-Mobil than McCain.
“The Obama campaign has complied fully with federal election law,” claims the Obama site, “including donor eligibility and contribution disclosure requirements.”
However, one giant loophole the politicians wrote into the law allows contributions in amounts of $200 or less with no donor identification. Obama claims that $300 million in campaign funds was given by these small donors, and he won’t release their names and addresses.
McCain has released his whole donor database, including those who have contributed less than $200.
Critics argue that the other half of Obama’s campaign haul — the part not raised from big corporate donors and special interests — came in a small flood of anonymous donations that might be foreign or corrupt, or both.
Claim No. 2: Obama has had a close, ongoing relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
The Obama site acknowledges that its candidate and Ayers ”served on the board of an education-reform organization in the mid-1990s,” but maintains most stories about the links between Obama and Ayers are phony or exaggerated.
It does not mention that Obama and Ayers worked together on the board distributing millions of dollars with the aim of radicalizing Chicago schoolchildren.
Nor does the site acknowledge that Obama kicked off his first political campaign in the living room of Ayers, the former Weather Underground leader. (Obama is currently saying it was not the first event. There is no dispute that one of Obama’s first political events in his first run for public office was held in Ayers’ home.)
There is also no dispute the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon the Capitol, the home of a New York Supreme Court justice, and a police station, among other targets. FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated the group, has recounted Ayers teaching him how to make bombs and saying, “In the revolution, some innocent people need to die.”
“Smear groups and now a desperate McCain campaign are trying to connect Barack to William Ayers using age-old guilt by association techniques . . .” says the Obama Web site.
Actually, McCain and Obama critics are questioning why Obama would continue to associate with a man who, as recently as 2001, said he did not do enough and wished he had bombed more.
Conservatives also note that if Ayers had bombed abortion clinics, the liberal media would brand him a pariah forever. What does it tell us about the liberal media’s and Obama’s judgment and values that they see nothing wrong with embracing unrepentant terrorist Ayers today?
Claim No. 3: Obama takes advice from executives of troubled mortgage backer Fannie Mae.
“John McCain started smearing Obama about non-existent ties to Fannie Mae in some of his deceptive attack ads,” says FightTheSmears.com. The site downplays connections between Obama and two former heads of the giant mortgage-backing institution — James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines — whose corruption played a key role in the current financial crisis.
But an editorial in the Aug. 27, 2008, Washington Post described Johnson and Raines, as “members of Mr. Obama’s political circle.”
Raines advised the Obama campaign on housing matters. Obama chose Johnson to select his vice presidential running mate. But because neither are advising Obama today, this Web site’s present-tense claim that he “doesn’t [not didn’t] take advice from Fannie Mae execs” is technically, if deceptively, true.
Johnson also reportedly helped raise as much as $500,000 for Obama’s campaign.
And despite Obama’s lack of seniority in the U.S. Senate, he pocketed more than $105,000 in political contributions, the third-highest amount given to any lawmaker, directly from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama’s Web site leaves all this unmentioned.
Claim No. 4: Obama has close ties with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a group suspected of massive voter registration fraud.
Obama’s site says the candidate was never an ACORN employee and that ACORN “was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive [Obama] ran in 1992.”
In defending Obama, the site resorts to smearing former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell — calling him a “discredited Republican voter-suppression guru” — for daring to fight the vote fraud so often associated with operatives of ACORN, among the largest radical groups in the United States.
As Newsmax has documented in ["Clever Obama Tries To Bury ACORN Past,"] Obama’s Web site is attempting to deceive when it says Obama was never “hired” to work as a trainer for ACORN’s leaders. In fact, he did the work for free from at least 1993 until 2003.
ACORN spokesman Lewis Goldberg acknowledges in the Oct. 11, 2008, New York Times that Obama trained ACORN leaders. And Obama worked as a lawyer for ACORN.
As to heading up Project Vote in Illinois, Obama said during a speech to ACORN leaders last November, "[When] I ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack-dab in the middle of it.”
Veteran journalist Karen Tumulty described Project Vote in the Oct. 18, 2004, issue of Time magazine as “a nonpartisan arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now” after interviewing its national director.
The co-founder of ACORN, former Students for a Democratic Society official Wade Rathke, described Project Vote as one of ACORN’s “family of organizations.”
Over the years, ACORN and its front groups, like the one Obama ran in Illinois, have registered more than 4 million voters. When authorities in Virginia checked ACORN registrations, it found that 83 percent were fraudulent or had problems. This, in theory, could mean ACORN may have created the opportunity for stealing more than 3.3 million votes in this November’s election, a margin far wider than that by which Obama is likely to win.
Claim No. 5: Obama has shown only wavering support for individual gun-ownership rights.
“During Barack’s career in the Illinois and United States Senates, he proudly stood to defend the rights of hunters and sportsmen,” says Obama’s Web site, “while doing everything he could to protect children — including his own two daughters — from illegal gun violence.”
But the National Rifle Association, it continues, “is distributing a dishonest and cowardly flyer that makes confrontational accusations and runs away from verifying them.”
Actually, the NRA does a meticulous job of laying out documentation, as Newsmax reported in September ["NRA to Fight Obama Over Gun Rights Flip-Flops,"] to show that Obama has supported handgun confiscation; the handgun ban in Washington, D.C.; a virtual ban on high-powered rifle ammunition; and many other draconian restrictions on Second Amendment rights.
If elected, wrote the NRA, Obama “would be the most anti-gun president in American history.”
Claim No. 6: A fervent supporter of abortion rights, Obama supports late-term and partial-birth abortions.
The Obama Web site dismisses such criticism as the work of “radical anti-abortion ideologues running ads against Barack.”
But as an Illinois state senator, Obama voted repeatedly against legislation to protect infants who, during a late-term abortion, were “born alive.” Such protection, he has argued, already exists in Illinois; it does, but is subject to the abortionist’s decision whether such an infant has a good likelihood of survival.
Nurses have reported instances in which surviving aborted babies were left by abortionists to die without water, food, or warmth.
Obama’s Web site notes that even the Republican author of one of these bills, former state Sen. Rick Winkel, has written that “none of those who voted against [his bill] favored infanticide.”
True, but Obama’s site does not quote the rest of Winkel’s statement: “[T]heir zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.”
Obama has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record according to NARAL Pro-Choice America; his rating from the National Right to Life Committee is zero.
How extreme is Obama on this issue? In the U.S. Senate, he has voted against bills that would prohibit minors from crossing state lines for abortion without parental notification.
"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama has said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
Claim No. 7: Obama showed little interest or support for American combat troops during his overseas visits.
Doubts about Obama’s true support for the military cropped up during a campaign trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe.
A widely circulated e-mail, penned by Army Capt. Jeffrey S. Porter, described Obama's visit to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan: “As the Soldiers lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off . . . He again shunned the opportunity to talk to soldiers to thank them for their service . . . I swear we got more thanks from the NBA basketball players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from [Obama].”
Porter later recanted, sending a follow-up e-mail that said, in part: “After checking my sources, information that was put out in my e-mail was wrong.” He did not specify which information was wrong, leading Obama skeptics to suspect that this officer has been disciplined by his superiors.
Heading home, Obama touched down in Germany, where he “was scheduled to visit the American hospitals at Ramstein and Landstuhl.” But as The Washington Post reported, Obama “canceled the trips after being told by Pentagon officials that he could only visit in his official capacity as a senator, not as a candidate” and could not have his visits with hospitalized soldiers videotaped by the media.
Prominent liberal mainstream media reporters such as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell rushed to defend Obama, saying that the press had never planned to cover his visits to military sickbeds. But Obama canceled both visits and used his free time instead to shoot hoops, with the media recording his best shots.
Claim No. 8: Barack Obama is a Muslim.
FightTheSmears.com states bluntly that Obama is a Christian, not a follower of Islam.
In fact, Barack Hussein Obama’s Kenyan father was raised Muslim, though he reportedly was not religious.
His mother divorced and remarried another man, a Muslim from Indonesia. As a youngster in Indonesia, Barack Obama attended two schools and was registered at both as a Muslim. He received religious instruction in both schools as a Muslim, including studying the Quran. According to a childhood friend, Obama occasionally attended services at a local mosque.
It’s important to note that Obama’s Web site does not say he was never a Muslim. But in the past, Obama’s site and FightTheSmears.com did make the claim Obama was never a Muslim. Since that claim is obviously false, it is no longer used.
Obama says he became a Christian in his late 20s. He now describes himself as Christian. Until recently, he spent two decades as a member of a Chicago United Church of Christ congregation that embraces Black Liberation theology. Somewhat like the Roman Catholic liberation theology of Latin America, the Chicago UCC church preaches elements of neo-Marxist class warfare. It combines these radical socialist elements with black racialism.
Claim No. 9: As president, Obama would raise taxes dramatically for most Americans.
Millions of Americans recognize that Obama is likely to raise taxes. But like a good conjurer, who tricks you into watching his right hand while doing things with his left, the Obama Web site assures readers with a red herring.
The Illinois senator will not tax your water, as claimed in some fringe e-mails, FightTheSmears.com maintains.
What Obama will do, however, is tax businesses and capital gains more heavily, even though America already has the world’s second-highest business taxes.
“Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases” said former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at the 2008 Republican National Convention. “They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they’re just going to tax businesses! So unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline . . . or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small business, don’t worry. It’s not going to affect you.”
During his campaign, Obama has promised to raise various taxes that will fall on most economic classes, including the dividend tax, the FICA tax cap, the capital gains tax, the estate tax, and new taxes on gasoline.
He also called for the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which will automatically raise taxes on most Americans. By letting the Bush cuts expire, Obama would produce a $2 trillion tax increase that some economists predict will rumble through the already weakened economy like an earthquake.
Claim No. 10: Obama was born outside the United States and is ineligible for the presidency.
The Obama Web site dismisses the claim that the candidate was born anywhere but in the United States as “completely false” and “groundless.”
As proof, the Obama’s campaign has produced a “certificate of live birth” from Hawaii indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II was born Aug. 4, 1961. Critics, however say the document could have easily been forged and is not a substitute for a certified birth certificate.
No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site.
Skeptics note that Obama’s “Father’s Race” is identified on this document as “African,” a geographic and modern politically correct term rather than a 1961 racial designation. The standard term used on American birth certificates until the U.S. Census changed it in 1980 would have been “Negro.”
Former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, Philip J. Berg, a Democrat with mixed credibility (he has supported conspiracy theories involving 9/11), has filed a lawsuit to force Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate. According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States.
If that is true, Obama could be constitutionally ineligible to be president.
This is very important, please take the time to read it.
This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'. I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and
