Obama has a history of engaging in the same wheeler dealer politics that took down his friend Gov. Blagojevitch!

Photobucket At today’s news conference President Elect Obama was forced to respond to the mounting questions regarding contacts his transition team had with Obama’s former longtime political friend, the disgraced Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevitch. Obama called on the Governor to resign and insisted that his staff would release records relating to any contact they may have had with Blagojevitch.

Obama’s name and that of his advisers are mentioned dozens of times in the criminal complaint against Blagojevitch and it strains credulity to believe that none of the Chicago people such as incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who along with Obama worked on Blagojevitch’s campaigns, had any contact with him on this important subject.

Obama went on to say that:
“There’s a view of politics that says you go in for sacrifice and public service, and there’s a view of politics that says this is a business, and you’re wheeling and dealing, and what’s in it for me.”

Earlier Obama stated that the wheeling and dealing brand of politics was “a violation of everything this campaign has been about.” Really? We’re supposed to believe that the most massive fundraising operation of all time didn’t have it’s fair share of pay for play the Chicago way?

Only time will tell just how much of the $750 million Obama raised for his presidential campaign was raked in using the Chicago way. What we do know is that the convicted slum lord Tony Rezko, who was a key player in Blagojevitch’s schemes (see the criminal complaint), was also intimately linked to Obama and raised funds for his campaigns. The infamous real estate deal surrounding Obama’s home purchase after he became a U.S. Senator being the most obvious example of funny business. There is even a question as to whether Governor Blagojevitch’s wife Patti, a real estate agent who worked for Rezko, might have had a hand in that suspicious deal.

Guilt by Participation

Our liberal friends like to point at such obvious negative connections and claim they represent nothing more than an attempt by Obama’s critics to suggest guilt by association. Mention any of these Obama related scandals and they cover their ears.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, John Fund draws our attention to this:

What remains to be seen is whether this episode will put an end to what Chicago Tribune political columnist John Kass calls the national media’s “almost willful” fantasy that Mr. Obama and Chicago’s political culture have little to do with each other. Mr. Kass notes that the media devoted a lot more time and energy to investigating the inner workings of Sarah Palin’s Wasilla, Alaska, than it has looking at Mr. Obama’s Chicago connections.

And yet Obama’s participation in the Chicago way has already left evidence that he was no different. He may not have reached the volume of corruption that Blagojevitch did, but it would appear he know exactly how to play the game. As a U.S. Senator Obama made over $750 million in earmark spending requests. Of these, at least two directly benefited organizations to which his wife and campaign contributor had a vested interest:

In among [Obama’s earmarks} was a request for $1 million in federal funding in 2006 for a new pavilion at the University of Chicago Hospitals, where his wife, Michelle Obama, was a vice president at the time.

That same year, Obama requested $8 million in funding for “High Explosive Air Burst Technology” made by General Dynamics, a military contractor with close ties to a major fundraiser.

Obama’s Illinois Finance Chairman, billionaire James S. Crown, a longtime Obama supporter who has raised at least $200,000 for his presidential campaign, is a director of General Dynamics, and his family has a large investment in the company. The request ultimately resulted in $1.3 million in funding for the project.

It’s important to note that after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, his wife Michelle’s salary at the hospital more than doubled. When asked about that, an executive at the hospital said: “she’s worth her weight in gold.”

The house deal and earmarks for his wife’s hospital and a major fundraiser are just two examples. I invite readers to share others by leaving a comment with a link to the source.

If Obama Can’t Clean UP His Own House…..

Our liberal friends are suggesting that we have to take Obama at his word that he played no part in the senate seat for sale scandal. That unquestioning attitude might have worked in the “news” media during the campaign but it won’t wash now.

If Obama can’t even clean up the mess in his home state what makes people think he can clean up Washington or handle difficult foreign policy challenges like the Iranians?

At some point it won’t be enough to take Obama at his word. Words and speeches are fine up to a point. But when you have to produce results, a press release won’t cut it!

Print This Post Print This Post
This entry was posted on Thursday, December 11th, 2008 at 12:17 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

84 comments so far

bill-tb
 1Reply to this comment  

As failed President FDR found, it a whole lot easier to sell the idea of make-work jobs than it is to deliver long lasting lower unemployment. If it weren’t for WWII, the world may still be in FDR’s depression.

BTW, FDR was a Democrat.

December 11th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Steve Rowland
 2Reply to this comment  

Well listen to the pot calling the kettle black…..

President-elect Barack Obama has distanced himself from the Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, who has been arrested on corruption charges Link to this video

The governor accused of trying to sell Barack Obama’s seat in the Senate faced growing pressure to resign yesterday as the president-elect called on him to step aside.

The call from Obama came as Rod Blagojevich turned up for work as usual 24 hours after the FBI arrested him at his home and accused him of setting a new low in corruption for his haggling over the price of a Senate seat.

Blagojevich, a Democrat, was released on bail later on Tuesday.

“Under the current circumstances, it is difficult for the governor to effectively do his job and serve the people of Illinois,” Obama’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said in a statement.

It was the most expansive statement to date from Obama on the scandal, which yesterday widened beyond the figure of Blagojevich to Jesse Jackson Jr, a son of the civil rights leader, who wanted the president-elect’s old Senate seat.

A lawyer for Jackson, a congressman and ally of Obama, acknowledged that he was the man identified as Senate Candidate 5 in the FBI wiretaps. Senate Candidate 5 is the only one of the contenders for Obama’s seat alleged to have acted improperly, news reports said yesterday.

Jackson was adamant he had done nothing wrong.

Read the rest here:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/11/usa-congress-obama-illinois

Yeah, thats what they are saying in the UK, but again for a reality check, read “The Case Against Barack Obama”, by David Freddoso. He was telling it like it was/is months ago.

“The Audacity of Audacity” is Hussein Obama’s next project if he can get his ghost writers lined up.

December 11th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Tom
 3Reply to this comment  

Someone needs to make a flow chart with pics. of all the suspicious people Obama since he was born that he has ties to and their ties - so on down the line. I think it would be very interesting.. Get to work you “geeks.”

December 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Missy
 4Reply to this comment  

This blog has been writing about Obama and his ties to corrupt Chicago pols for quite some time. Lot’s of sources, lots of information.

Start the flowchart:

http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/01/political-corruption-behind-barack_06.html

http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-elected-illinois-democratic.html

But, but, he’s clean, he’s a reformer, hope, change. Idiots.

December 11th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Real American Patriot
 5Reply to this comment  

Obama will come out of this untouched.. you watch Mike.
You are only dreaming if you think otherwise.

December 11th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Lorraine
 6Reply to this comment  

Yeah Real American Patriot: The only reason he will is that he takes a bath in teflon every night. If this had been a Republican I guarantee you they would have had him tried and convicted already…but they (the MSM) goes to great lengths to protect their wonder boy. And that is why I am so damn frustrated.

December 11th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Hard Right
 7Reply to this comment  

MSM=DNC Propganda Wing

December 11th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Lorraine
 8Reply to this comment  

Amen Hard Right…Amen

December 11th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Craig
 9Reply to this comment  

“Obama will come out of this untouched.. you watch Mike. You are only dreaming if you think otherwise.” (Real American Hater)

Sure because American haters like you protect this vicious crook. You are just as guilty and corrupted as THE ONE. I can’t believe you are an American… are you a radical Muslim? Or a black men that hates white people? Or are you just insane? I still cannot believe that some idiots voted for a liar, a manipulator, a cheater, a crook, a flip-flopper and a fraud.

December 11th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Tom
 10Reply to this comment  

I don’t agree with thought he can do what he wants and get away with it . America is too big a county with too many honest people to let this stand too much longer. At some point the wheels will fall off his wagon.

December 11th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
 11Reply to this comment  

Tom: The NY Times did a nifty interactive online chart that shows the links between various Chicago pols and money men. You click on one guys name to see how he links up with the others:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/12/09/us/20081209_corruption.html

Interestingly, the Times left one name off the list and it just happens to be the name at the very center of all of this… Guess who?

December 11th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
A Typical Patriot
 12Reply to this comment  

I believe BHO will come out of this on top too, but not because he is not involved. It will come down to what is the definition of “no contact”.
Also the law in today’s world protects the crooks not the victims.

December 11th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Craig
 13Reply to this comment  

Obama works with the 3D’s method: Deny, Delay and Destroy.

December 11th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Real American Patriot
 14Reply to this comment  

Fox NOISE …. news with a republican slant

December 11th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
 15Reply to this comment  

Every original post on this blog about Obama since the election has been about some sort of shocking expose. You guys are working overtime to catch him in the act of confirming your worst suspicions. I mean, really, can’t you find a single thing (say an appointment) that you would applaud, or at least respect? How about a discussion of his national defense team?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-national-security-bios2-2008dec02,0,2084556.story

And what’s the evidence of any wrongdoing? You’d think there would be truckloads, the way the accusations are flying. But no, it’s simply speculation and supposition, e.g.

We’re supposed to believe that the most massive fundraising operation of all time didn’t have it’s fair share of pay for play the Chicago way?

Only time will tell just how much of the $750 million Obama raised for his presidential campaign was raked in using the Chicago way.

I’ll tell you how the money was “raked in.” None of you would know it, because you aren’t on Obama’s world record email donor list. I am. I continue to get an average of one email soliticition, every other day, from David Pflouffe, Obama’s campaign director. These are great solicitation pieces, telling useful and interesting news, and making a special pitch for a special event. For example, when they were having that “register and vote at the same time” program going on in Ohio, I got an email telling me about it, with a link to a news story, and a plea for a $25 donation to pay for drivers to get the new voters transported, registered, and voted.

They continue to ask for donations. Can never have too big a war chest. But this is true democracy in action. George Will praised it as such. The median Obama donation was 85 dollars, which is, coincidentally, exactly what I gave. You can’t possibly raise $750 million from fat cat donors, at fundraising dinners, which is the quaint way that the GOP still does it. One of the reasons that Obama ran such an effective campaign is that he didn’t have to spend inordinate time going to irrelevant states getting money out of rich donors, who are, in any event, limited in the amount they can donate. The way you raise $750,000,000 is to have a donor list of more than 3,000,000 (these are not 3,000,000 “prospects” but 3,000,000 people who actually donated) and bombard them with emails and get them to cough up an average of $250 apiece (median of $85 apiece). Next time around, this is the way that Sarah Palin will raise her money. And you’ll see how effective (and how much more democratic/small “d”) it is.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

December 11th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
 16Reply to this comment  

Rather an exaggeration, Larry. Actually, Scott has posted both for and after the election extensively on how Obama would be Bush III by necessity… something I’d say most of us agree with.

December 11th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Craig
 17Reply to this comment  

“You guys are working overtime to catch him in the act of confirming your worst suspicions” ( Guess who said that? Larry W. of course)

And you Larry W. you are working overtime to try to justify your idiot voting for THE ONE. This is what we call PROJECTION.

RUH-ROH…RAHM EMANUEL CONTINUES TO DUCK QUESTIONS ON HOT ROD
“Blagojevch was caught on tape saying that he wanted the Obama advisor in question to know what Blagojevich wanted in exchange for the Jarrett appointment.” Blagojevich said, “He asks me for the fifth CD thing, I want it to be in his head.”
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/

OBAMAGATE: THE COVER-UP CONTINUES
“Disgusting and corrupt, all of it. Obama is playing the typical lawyer game with evidence. “You don’t have direct evidence, therefore I am innocent” For him and others to use the euphemism “We are appalled” is strictly designed for public consumption to quell the rising tide of suspicion and connection to the corruption.
And why does the news media still insist on calling the people involved for the senate seat “candidate #1, #2, etc to #5, when their identity is now known? ”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/obamagate-the-c.html

December 11th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
 18Reply to this comment  

Larry: You sound a bit desperate to me.

On other threads you defended Obama by suggesting that all the character questions which continue to swirl around him were nothing but “guilt by association.”

Here I have documented guilt by participation and instead of responding to that clear evidence of corruption you launch on a tangent in a transparent attempt to distract readers.

Obama didn’t raise $750 million dollars by emailing you and likeminded Obamatons. You know it and I know it.

It’s about time you started to take Obama’s oh-so-evident flaws seriously if you want to preserve a modicum of credibility.

December 11th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Craig
 19Reply to this comment  

This Democrat Party of yours seems to be corrupte all from inside out. Read this:

… AND IN NEW-YORK, MORE SENATE SEAT PURCHASING POWER

“A confidant of Mr. Kennedy says the senator has been working the phones, trying to build support for his niece’s Caroline appointment.
You would think that with the recent events in Chicago, that Uncle Teddy would cut the crap and let the Governor of New York pick who he wants as Hillary’s replacement. But nope. It’s not to be. Teddy wants to help finish off New York and turn it into another Massachusetts. But most of all, he wants his ego correctly stoked before he dies. He wants the Kennedy name to be Forever entrenched in American politics.

And how does he do that? Well he’s Paying To Play, just like Chicago, only with more finesse. Just like the rest of our entrenched Senators, he is accustomed to making things happen the way he wants them to be. As the polls go, the people of NY do not prefer her or her ability to get a nice pile of dirty money from people who don’t even care about New York…”
http://uppitywoman08.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/and-in-new-york-more-senate-seat-purchasing-power/

December 11th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
 20Reply to this comment  

“The heart of machine politics is deal making and deal making is a political tradition in Illinois. You give nothing away. Everything is traded. Everything is a deal and that’s how this state has operated from the very beginning.” (Paul Green, director of the Institute for Politics at Chicago’s Roosevelt University) LINK

Patrick Fitzgerald should be feeling like Eliot Ness right about now. Taking on the “Mob” mentality in 21st century Illinois parallels Ness’s late 20’s adventure of bringing a furniture dealer named Alphonse Capone to justice.

So far, President-elect Barack Obama, (who emerged from the cesspool of the Chicago Machine) has been tip-towing through the tulips avoiding the apparent associations that shaped his political career.

December 11th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
 21Reply to this comment  

Rovin: It’s perfectly clear to everybody but Larry the enabler that Obama’s toe has tripped on more than a few of those tulips in the Chicago cesspoll.

His Chicago Political mentor Emil Jones, the former Chicago sewer inspector (yes, he really was) sure did teach him well.

December 11th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Craig
 22Reply to this comment  

Obama is a con artist and everybody knows it, except a few brainwashed fans.

BARACK, THE AMAZING MR. OBAMA
By Marl S Mcgrew

Excerpt:

“… Barack Obama may just win his place in history as the greatest con man of all time. A hundred million people believed him and spent 600 million dollars to get him “elected” to the highest office in America, without ever knowing if he is or is not eligible to even run as an American citizen.

Every con man walking free or in jail is an articulate speaker. Who would give their trust to a man who could not use the right words to convince his targets to trust him? Articulate speaking is no way to judge or rate the integrity of a person.

Every con game uses three ingredients against the target: Sell the dream. Push the greed button. Stress urgency.

Obama sold the dream of hope and change so desperately wanted by the American voters. He pushed the greed button by promising to take from the rich to give to the poor. And he stressed urgency by himself and his wife telling voters to vote early. Another final nail in the coffin a con man uses against his targets is “The Jack Call”. After your sucker has committed himself to buying your offer, but has not sent the check, the con man calls him with “Good news!!!” and constantly re-sells his target until the check has cleared and the funds are in the con man’s bank account.

The non-existent Office of the President Elect is the Jack Call. The constant news shots of his “involvement and concern” in national and world issues are the repeated Jack Calls.

It remains to be seen if Barry Sotero, Barack Obama or whatever his name is, is appointed President by the Electoral College.”

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/106778-0/

December 11th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Craig
 23Reply to this comment  

LEGAL NOTICE

Excerpt:

“Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department have been involved in an investigation of crime and corruption in Chicago and IL, sometimes referred to as “pay for play.” This investigation and subsequent prosecutions has been methodical and well executed. The initial focus was on Tony Rezko and his trial and conviction that evolved out the testimony of Stuart Levine who had been wiretapped.

Multiple indictments and arrests have developed from the Rezko trial leading up to the recent arrest of IL Governor Rod Blagojevich. All of the people indicted or arrested out of the investgation have one thing in common. Connections to Barack Obama. It has been believed for months that Rezko would talk and that Blagojevich and/or Obama was next. It is now time to indict Barack H. Obama.

The names of Blagojevich and Obama were mentioned regularly during the Rezko trial. Since Blagojevich and Obama were not on trial at the time, much information known about them was withheld. To understand this fact simply read the Criminal.

Complaint against Rod Blagojevich. It is apparent that much more is known about Barack Obama and that he is next in line to be indicted.

Since Barack Obama is attempting to sneak through the election process with a great many legal questions clouding his past and since the American public needs and depends on the Judicial Branch of government to protect it from criminals and imposters, I Citizen Wells, on behalf of the American public, ask that Mr.Patrick Fitzgerald or any authorized employee of the US Justice Department, present Mr. Barack H. Obama with an indictment and/or Criminal Complaint at the earliest possible moment, with time being of the essence. The Electoral College meets next week and it is imperative that we do all that is in our power to prevent a constitutional crisis in this country.”
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/

December 11th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
 24Reply to this comment  

“I Citizen Wells, on behalf of the American public, ask that Mr.Patrick Fitzgerald or any authorized employee of the US Justice Department, present Mr. Barack H. Obama with an indictment and/or Criminal Complaint at the earliest possible moment, with time being of the essence. The Electoral College meets next week and it is imperative that we do all that is in our power to prevent a constitutional crisis in this country.”

Craig: Such action would cause a constitutional crisis, not prevent one. And it’s not going to happen.

Debbie Schlussel has a which confirms my earlier suspicion that Fitzgerald purposely played the timing of this to avoid damaging Obama:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/12/federal_sources.html

It’s all the more reason to appoint a special prosecutor. Especially so if Fitzgerald hasn’t questioned Obama who is still a private citizen or any of his aides who do not yet have the power and constitutional position of the White House to hide behind.

December 11th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Hard Right
 25Reply to this comment  

Craig and Mike, I told you Larry is in deluded mode. He is desperate to believe that obama is the savior and no amount of proof to the contrary will change that. In fact, any attempt to convince him otherwise will only drive him deeper into denial.
Like I said, when obama flops he will blame everyone but obama.

December 11th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
 26Reply to this comment  

You’re correct of course H.R. And I don’t suppose I would mind so much except that Larry poses as some sort of objective commenter which is anything but true.

His credibility has been seriously undermined and I expect that as further skeletons tumble from Obama’s closet we will see it erode further.

Would it be too callous to set up a pool and take bets on when he finally cracks altogether?

December 11th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Craig
 27Reply to this comment  

Mike, I think it is the reverse. You see SCOTUS does not have the guts to remove Obama because he is ineligible for POTUS. It would look like a racist thing to do and cause a riot in the country. But if they can indicted him with corruption before he is sworn in, not so many of his fans will mind. Nobody wants a corrupt POTUS. So I think that this could be their way out. This Blago arrest wasn’t a coincidence in time.

December 11th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
 28Reply to this comment  

Okay, I don’t think anyone needs “defending” here that can’t defend themselves. But have to speak up on what I think are some blanket misconceptions.

I see a huge difference between some of the less than analytical Obama faithful and Larry. He has been one of the first Obama (via vote) supporters that has outright stated that Obama’s presidency is all about “Obama” and his legacy. And this is a fact that affects his every decision… including what tie to wear, or how to hold his head and what background in a photo op. Larry, while we don’t agree, doesn’t put blinders on with Obama. He’s just banking that he’s going to be ruled by the left of center liberal norm throughout his tenure of one term.

Nothing truer could be stated. Obama is consumed with Obama. He said anything to the electorate to get the job. And now that he’s got it, he’s going to follow the yellow brick road of fame and wise (aka safe) advice. That is, if you can find it in the Clintonista leftovers in this world of multiple crises.

Think what you want, of course. But I see a huge difference between Larry and those more entranced with “that one”… for example. Jan/sanjay, Erika/voter, or David/David101/Jasmine.

December 11th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
 29Reply to this comment  

Craig, INRE your comment:

You see SCOTUS does not have the guts to remove Obama because he is ineligible for POTUS. It would look like a racist thing to do and cause a riot in the country.

I’m not sure if you understand how our court system works. But a review by the SCOTUS of Berg’s case will only address if the lower court’s decision was correct. Meaning, the federal courts threw Berg’s case out for standing… had nothing to do with the content of his argument.

Asking the SCOTUS to review the case does not mean they look at his content. They are only looking at whether the decision to throw the case out for standing is upheld… or not. If it isn’t, it goes back to to the lower courts for the content.

Therefore the SCOTUS is not deciding whether Obama is eligible. Only if a private citizen has standing to bring such a suit against a candidate’s birth status.

INRE you “picture” comment… frankly I wouldn’t want anyone analyzing my photos. For every good one, you can find about 3000 bad ones… And I have no idea what his photo has to do with anything.

December 11th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
 30Reply to this comment  

Yes Mata, I read the mash note he wrote to you in your latest post. I’m sure he’ll consider the debt paid. Is this the FLopping Aces version of pay for play?

Larry insisted that questions about Obama’s character were guilt by association. It’s proven to be guilt by participation so of course Larry tries to change the subject.

You wouldn’t let that pass and I’m sure you don’t expect me to as well.

It’s entirely possible that good ole Lar will have a meltdown when he realizes how he has been fooled. But if you want to suggest it is crass to set up a pool and take bets on the date you may be right (or not).

Craig: Not sure I agree that nobody wants a corrupt prez. Most of these Obamatons could care less. Even if they knew, which most of them do not, that Obama has these ties to a sewer of corruption in Chicago my bet is that they would say “so what?”

December 11th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Hard Right
 31Reply to this comment  

True, he is anything but objective. When he said something to the effect that he thinks obama will go on to be one of our greatest presidents, it’s clear rational thought has died. Mike, I’m betting September 2009. Maybe a little callous, but I think he can take it. Warview has already snapped, tho.

December 11th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
 32Reply to this comment  

LOL! Mike, this isn’t a quid pro quo. I don’t agree with Larry’s assertations about “every post” being some sort of a hit piece, and we constantly do battle on the financial/housing crises causes.

All I’m saying is that Larry has been on record about his lukewarm support for Obama since the beginning. Search his earliest comments and you’ll get a refresher course. He was betting that Obama was lying in his campaign just to win from the beginning, and would end up being a virtual puppet and slave to a quest for a legacy to die for.

Thus far, Larry’s prediction that Obama would “govern from the center” are correct. I’m not surprised… nor think this is an earth shattering prediction… as Obama’s not “governing” anything but when to change the roll of toilet paper in his bathroom right now. And the ultimate proof of that pudding truly lies down the road a couple of years.

I’m only saying that Larry is the one Obama voter I’ve heard here that has seen Obama’s vanity, and has rolled the dice on that vanity for his administrative behavior. That’s completely different than being a’swoon, ya know. His support has an element of cynicism that I haven’t seen in many others.

December 11th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Craig
 33Reply to this comment  

Mata, INRE to your #29 post:

OK, but then it means that SCOTUS doesn’t believe that the lower court will do their job, so they prefer an indictement of corruption for Obama so he will not reach the White House… it is more secure this way. SCOTUS sure do not want an impostor for POTUS.

INRE your # 28 post:

We always knew that Obama only cared for himself, Larry is only acting like a parrot. Oh Obama will be famous, no doubt. He will be known for the greatest con man of history. And don’t kid yourself , don’t believe a moment that he is moving center or right. This is only “The Jack Call”.

“After your sucker has committed himself to buying your offer, but has not sent the check, the con man calls him with “Good news!!!” and constantly re-sells his target until the check has cleared and the funds are in the con man’s bank account.
The non-existent Office of the President Elect is the Jack Call. The constant news shots of his “involvement and concern” in national and world issues are the repeated “Jack Calls.”
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/106778-0/

See my post #22

December 11th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
 34Reply to this comment  

Craig.. INRE

Mata, INRE to your #30 post:

OK, but then it means that SCOTUS doesn’t believe that the lower court will do their job, so they prefer an indictement of corruption for Obama so he will not reach the White House… it is more secure this way. SCOTUS sure do not want an impostor for POTUS.

No, that is not the way the SCOTUS works. They do not, and CANNOT deal with the specifics of a case. They deal with the decision of the courts in appeal.

Had the lower courts found Berg’s arguments invalid, and ruled in favor of Obama’s attorney’s… saying he was eligible, the SCOTUS could address that. That is not what the federal court ruled. They ruled only that the lawsuit was dismissed for standing.

Therefore, that is the ONLY issue the SCOTUS can address… whether Berg has standing. Nothing more. Nothing less. Period. They will not address Obama’s elibility in this ruling. Only whether or not a US citizen has the standing to challenge a candidate for POTUS’s birth… a subject, I might add, I find intriguing.

BTW… just because I understand where Larry is coming from, and separate him from the David/Jasmines of the world, doesn’t mean I agree with him. I’m well aware what Obama is doing right now. Where Larry and I differ is he believes Obama will continue on that path. I think, if Obama sees his opening after midterms to implement more serious socialist policies - and the economy to support it - he’ll jump on it like a horny toad at a Saturday honky tonk.

December 11th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Craig
 35Reply to this comment  

Mike,

I agree his thugs wouldn’t, but the ones who didn’t know anything about him will probably mind.

Mata,

Watch out for Larry, it is clear that he needs a friend here. I hope flattery will get him nowhere and that you will see thru him. He is a manipulator of facts, reality and people just like Obama. Remember: Like attrats like. And don’t forget to read my post #34

December 11th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Hard Right
 36Reply to this comment  

The problem with Larry’s claim that obama has moved to the center is that I’ve shown he hasn’t. Yes obama is all about obama…..and obama’s beliefs. He believes America is a racist country and MUST be forced to change in a way he approves of. That includes socialism.

His mother was a marxist, his “uncle” Frank was a member of the USA Communist party. In college he made it a point to associate with the far left radicals. He hooked up with Ayers. He made it a point to attend Khalidi’s going away party. He attended a church that preached hate against whites and and black liberation theology. He voted very far left through out his public service. The man is a far left stooge.

December 11th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Hard Right
 37Reply to this comment  

he’ll jump on it like a horny toad at a Saturday honky tonk.

Now that’s a vivid image. Thanks for the laugh.

December 11th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
 38Reply to this comment  

Mata and Larry sitting in a tree……K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

First comes love, then comes marriage.

Then comes Mata pushing Larry in a baby carriage!

December 11th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
 39Reply to this comment  

HR, allow me to clarify. I certainly believe Obama is Marxist at heart. However I also believe that Obama’s first concern is Obama and his legacy.

He has no more chance of maintaining the nation’s “love” if he rushes to socialist/Marxism full throttle. Therefore he sneaks into position with a moderate liberal position. In this way, he doesn’t feel he will jeopardize the 2010 midterm progressive power in Congress.

If he succeeds in looking “moderate” to the public, keeps the DNC empowered in all branches past midterms, he can then make a far more drastic socialist move in policies… provided the economy can handle it. He is about power. He is about being loved and revered. He can not do either if he takes a hard left turn in the first 100 days…. or even first 18 months. It has to be a gentle and controlled turn.

If he was foolish enough to try hard left, he’d be despised by most of the country within months. Ain’t gonna happen.

December 11th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
 40Reply to this comment  

Thanks for the ballad, Mike… haven’t felt “pre-teen” aged in heaven knows how long… LOL

December 11th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Craig
 41Reply to this comment  

Mata you are not being clear.

You say: Had the lower courts found Berg’s arguments invalid, and ruled in favor of Obama’s attorney’s… saying he was eligible, the SCOTUS could address that.

But then you also say: Therefore, that is the ONLY issue the SCOTUS can address… whether Berg has standing. Nothing more. Nothing less. Period.

I do not follow you. Which one of these two statements is right?

December 11th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Hard Right
 42Reply to this comment  

Mata, you read my mind. Light reading I know, but you read it all the same. Obama was taught by Ayers who learned from Alinsky. Alinsky said that to turn America communist or even deeply socialist, they could NOT openly declare that as their goal. They would have to achieve their ends by means of stealth.
If you look, you can see that obama has placed the instruments of socialist change into positions of power. Chu is the latest example. When he turns them loose we will be screwed. Larry does not want to see that or how obama is anything but a moderate.

December 11th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Craig
 43Reply to this comment  

“He is about power.” Right on the dot Mata. His goal is to destroy capitalism in America. He will then be the most famous person in the world for having destroyed USA. His ambition is not restrained to the USA, his ambition his worldwide. He is now playing the ” Jack Calls”. Did you read my # 33 post?

December 11th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
 44Reply to this comment  

Craig, the SCOTUS does not “retry” a case. Maybe that will say it better. They only review the decision of the lower courts, making sure it is not antithesis to precedents and Constitutional law.

SCENARIO ONE (make believe): Berg’s case was presented, as was the defense. The US federal court ruled in favor of the defense (Obama & sundry other plaintiffs) that Obama was indeed eligible. Berg did not prove his case, and appeals it to the High Court.

In this scenario, the SCOTUS can review the facts of the case as the decision of the court was based on whether or not the content fit with precedent law. This is not what happened with Berg.

******************

SCENARIO TWO (the real deal): Berg’s case was dismissed.. thrown out. Had nothing to do with whether Obama was, or was not eligible. It was thrown out because the judge decided Berg did not have the “standing” as a private citizen to bring the lawsuit to court at all. Therefore, forget the argument for or against eligibility. Not even an issue.

This is the reality. All SCOTUS can look at is if the federal court was correct to throw out Berg’s suit because of standing. Nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility.

December 11th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Craig
 45Reply to this comment  

Mata,
So who will prove Obama eligibility if the lower court do not want to look at the case? Will your country let this impostor ruled the States? An illegal alien ruling the States even tho it is against the Constitution? What kind of a country is this? No one has the right to ask him to prove is eligibility? Gee, you might as well be in a dictatorship country, I see no difference.

December 11th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Craig
 46Reply to this comment  

Mata,

Did you read that article written by Edwin Vieira that I have posted on another thread here: Pleadint the 5th amendment?

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues.

Here is an excerpt:
I was saying that Obama could not plead the 5th.

IN THE SHADOW OF NEMESIS

“… In the interest of expediting the process, the custodians of records in Hawaii would also be subpoenaed to testify and to produce all relevant documents subject to their control. To be sure, Obama himself might invoke a privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment as the grounds for refusing to testify or to disgorge inculpatory papers. But custodians of public records in Hawaii or elsewhere throughout the United States have no such privilege. And no Hawaiian or other law of the States or the General Government purporting to make those records “confidential” can frustrate the Sixth Amendment.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin186.htm

December 11th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
 47Reply to this comment  

Craig, if the SCOTUS rules that Berg, as a citizen, has standing, the federal courts will have to take up Berg’s arguments about Obama’s eligibility. Their dismissal will be over turned. I do not anticipate this happening. As I’ve said a few times, the only one I can see that may address Obama’s eligibility will be Alan Keyes lawsuit, as he was another candidate in the election.

It is somewhat disconcerting that the common citizen doesn’t have standing for examining and challenging a candidate’s eligibility status. Haven’t a clue why, and it baffles some minds I know that are more legal savvy (as laymen) than mine.

However, as is our way, all suits wind their way thru the judicial food chain. If Keyes’ loses his argument in the lower courts, he can appeal his way all the way up to SCOTUS. But it does cost a pretty penny, and many who lose in the lower courts abandon their appeal process. It takes cash to stand up for your legal rights.

And yes, I read your link.

December 11th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
 48Reply to this comment  

Craig, INRE your comment about Obama not being able to plead the 5th. This still comes down to the lawsuit even being heard for it’s content. Obama has not had to plead the fifth, as the only suit with any finality in the lower courts dismissed it without hearing the arguments. Make sense yet?

BTW, the SCOTUS is still mulling (last I knew) the “writ of certiorari”… which is the legal term for a request for review. In other words, they haven’t even decided if they would review the case at all.

December 11th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Craig
 49Reply to this comment  

Mata, you have to read this, it is from the same guy who is not a 2 of spades, he really knows Constitutional law. After reading it, tell me what you think about it.

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN
By:Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

Oupst… I had the wrong address, I corrected it now.

December 11th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Craig
 50Reply to this comment  

Mata, Mike, Curt, anyone, please read my post #49 that contains information you guys don’t even know about. This is the perfect article about constitutional law that I have ever read. So please read it and tell me what you think of it. It is a MUST.

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN
By:Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

December 11th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
 51Reply to this comment  

Craig: That boat sailed a long time ago and there is nothing that will come of that issue.

It just isn’t going to happen.

There are a million good reasons to find Obama objectionable that might actually resonate with the American people.

That’s just not one of them.

December 11th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Craig
 52Reply to this comment  

Mike, it is clear that you haven’t read the article linked in my post #50. Please do.

December 11th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
 53Reply to this comment  

I didn’t read the whole article Craig. I don’t have to. It’s not an issue that’s going to go anywhere.

December 11th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Craig
 54Reply to this comment  

Mike, since you are not interested in this matter, maybe someone else will be. From that article, here is a few consequences of having an illegal POTUS:

- If he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces.

- Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them.

- Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].”

- Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.

- if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.

- Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.

In this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”

This WILL NOT GO AAY, Mike! All the blogosphere is talking about this except here on this moderate site. They will never stop till they get the TRUTH even after he is sworn in.

December 11th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
 55Reply to this comment  

Craig: It isn’t that I am not interested in it. I’d like to see Obama’s real birth certificate too. But the fact is that the issue is a non starter. Obama will not be prevented from taking the oath of office on January 20th because of this story.

But thanks for insinuating I am a moderate. I’ll keep that handy next time one of these lefties accuses me of falling off the rightwing.

December 12th, 2008 at 8:17 am
 56Reply to this comment  

Craig, I don’t know what you want me to take away from Vieira’s article that’s new. Nor is there anything in there I disagree with. But it changes nothing. Only a higher court can reverse the federal judge’s dismissal of Berg by saying Berg does have standing as a citizen. As I said, I doubt they will do that… right or wrong interpretation, I can’t see it happening.

Secondly, Vieira’s correct that the onus (or burden) of proof is on Obama’s shoulders. But that’s only true if the arguments are heard and the dismissal reversed. Until a lawsuit, with standing, is in the courts to argue, there is no burden on Obama. Period.

His attorneys can choose to provide the proof and stop it all (which they aren’t), argue that it’s frivolous, and move for dismissal (apparently that’s the direction), or… they comply the court decides to hear the arguments for both plaintiffs and defense.

Obama will not be stepping down from POTUS-elect, nor is he required to step up to the plate with the proof of birth at this time because *the Berg case was dismissed*.

December 12th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Craig
 57Reply to this comment  

Mata and Mike,

You do not understand. This is a big thing, it is all over the blogosphere and people will not let go. After he is sworn in, it will never stop, people want the truth. There is proof somewhere and some people know about it and it will eventually be known. Obama is making a lot of enemy right now, and someone will turn against him and present the truth. Your country will be in big trouble with no POTUS at his head. He will be able to do nothing like Viera explained in his article… and I have copied some of the consequences in my post #54.

And like Vieira says:

“If the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.”

And you both still think that this is not a problem, a big issue? I do not understand you. Do you have a Constitution or not? Do you believe in it or not? So why are you not doing something about it instead of accepting that nothing can be done? Is that what Americans calls MODERATES? People who surrenders that easily? Gee, I cannot believe this.

Vieira says:

“In this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and MUST DEMAND, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”

December 12th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
 58Reply to this comment  

Craig: I understand that this is a big issue on some blogs. However, in my opinion it’s not a story that has any legs.

There are dozens of issues that I think stand a better chance of making the case against Obama.

December 12th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Craig
 59Reply to this comment  

“There are dozens of issues that I think stand a better chance of making the case against Obama.” (Mike)

Sure there is many reasons why Obama should not be POTUS: Corruption, lying, manipulating, flip-flopping, unexperince, etc. But NONE is bigger than his eligibility to be POTUS. You have to follow the Constitution if you still want to have one. At least this issue is the easiest one of all. Either he is eligible or he is not. It can be proven in 2 minutes. All it needs is sufficient people to ask for it, they are in their right to demand that, and one of the Judicial Court will have no other choice than to ask Obama for it. All the other dozen of reasons are much harder to prove.

BTW, this thing is bigger than you think on the blogosphere… it is everywhere, on Democrat blogs and on Republican blogs. It is worlwide now, they write about this in international blogs. NO WAY this issue is going to go away… NO WAY! Look for yourself, the whole world is waiting to see if you Americans will let Obama get away with your Constitution.

Africa
http://deathby1000papercuts.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-birth-certificate-lawsuit-african.html

Israel
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12993.htm
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=1584
http://www.israelforum.com/blog_article.php?aid=1758974

United Kingdom
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/slidingbye/blog/2008/11/18/obamas_birth_certificate_debacle__origin_earth_

Canada
http://les7duquebec.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/obama-constitutionnellement-inadmissible-a-la-presidence-americaine/

France
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/amerique/obama-en-guerre-contre-la-calomnie_515976.html

Etc.

December 12th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Craig
 60Reply to this comment  

I will try to posted it one more time. It is so frustrating when you get stuck in spam.

“There are dozens of issues that I think stand a better chance of making the case against Obama.” (Mike)

Sure there is many reasons why Obama should not be POTUS: Corruption, lying, manipulating, flip-flopping, unexperince, etc. But NONE is bigger than his eligibility to be POTUS. You have to follow the Constitution if you still want to have one. At least this issue is the easiest one of all. Either he is eligible or he is not. It can be proven in 2 minutes. All it needs is sufficient people to ask for it, they are in their right to demand that, and one of the Judicial Court will have no other choice than to ask Obama for it. All the other dozen of reasons are much harder to prove.

BTW, this thing is bigger than you think on the blogosphere… it is everywhere, on Democrat blogs and on Republican blogs. It is worlwide now, they write about this in international blogs. NO WAY this issue is going to go away… NO WAY! Look for yourself, the whole world is waiting to see if you American will let Obama get away with your constitution.

Africa
http://deathby1000papercuts.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-birth-certificate-lawsuit-african.html

Israel
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12993.htm
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=1584
http://www.israelforum.com/blog_article.php?aid=1758974

United Kingdom
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/slidingbye/blog/2008/11/18/obamas_birth_certificate_debacle__origin_earth_

Canada
http://les7duquebec.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/obama-constitutionnellement-inadmissible-a-la-presidence-americaine/

France
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/amerique/obama-en-guerre-contre-la-calomnie_515976.html

December 12th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
 61Reply to this comment  

Craig, INRE:

Sure there is many reasons why Obama should not be POTUS: Corruption, lying, manipulating, flip-flopping, unexperince, etc. But NONE is bigger than his eligibility to be POTUS. You have to follow the Constitution if you still want to have one.

You still don’t get it. Wish I could sit your french speaking tush down in front of some expresso and/or french bordeaux and do a one on one. Alas… not going to happen.

We *are* following the Constitution. When you have a beef with a legal matter (in this case eligibility), your Constitutional recourse is the US judicidial system. Now you’ll just have to wait until all the cases run their course. And that doesn’t happen overnight.

And you may be sure of his eligibility, but here in the US we have the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty (at least we’re supposed to, but not always, eh?). In this case, what Obama is definitely guilty of is dodging the evidence bullet. That’s all we know. And until a case gets to a judge who is required to hear it, and can’t dismiss it for sundry side reasons, that’s all we’re going to know. So chill on this… it’s not going to be a headline overnight. And frankly, I don’t want to spend the next months discussing this over and over.

Facts are this: Obama is President-elect. Any lawsuit that his lawyers can’t beat down with a motion to dismiss, he will have to answer to in a US court of law. And that’s whether he’s in his first few days as POTUS, two years in, or beyond depending on specific statutes of limitations. You’re just going to have to be patient, and stop beating this unconscious horse. With no new news, it’s just a non story. Period.

Latest on Berg is his request to SCOTUS for an injunction to delay the Electoral vote was denied. He filed that Dec 8th. Yawn… expected. That action is separate from other issues INRE his case before the SCOTUS. The blind lady of justice is not quick to action.

December 12th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Craig
 62Reply to this comment  

“Wish I could sit your french speaking tush down in front of some expresso and/or french bordeaux and do a one on one.” (Mata)

That would be nice, I would love to meet you. If you ever come to Montreal on your bike (lol), be sure to get in touch with me, I would sure invite you for an expresso or a glass of wine. It would be fun.

Ok, Mata. Then we will wait. There is 18 law suits filed in the country regarding this issues. So if they are slow, it still doesn’t matter whether he gets sworn in or not, this issue will never die till the population gets the truth. Let’s wait. The truth will eventually come out , it always does. And then you will get rid of this impostor.

December 12th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
blast
 63Reply to this comment  

MataHarley

Facts are this: Obama is President-elect. Any lawsuit that his lawyers can’t beat down with a motion to dismiss, he will have to answer to in a US court of law. And that’s whether he’s in his first few days as POTUS, two years in, or beyond depending on specific statutes of limitations. You’re just going to have to be patient, and stop beating this unconscious horse. With no new news, it’s just a non story. Period.

I agree completely.

December 12th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
 64Reply to this comment  

Craig: You may think this is a huge issue but I don’t see it.

I haven’t heard more than two words about it on talk radio or Fox News. If there was the slightest hint that this story had legs and was worth pursuing Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and others would be all over it.

I know there are blogs that are all over it but why put some huge amount of energy into something that wont’ go anywhere?

Isn’t that exactly what the Obamatons would hope we do?

I’d rather invest my time in some areas that I think will be more fruitful to the cause.

Now that we have that cleared up, can we get back to the topic here? There was some news about this today but I haven’t had time to blog it because I was responding to these other matters.

December 12th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Craig
 65Reply to this comment  

No problem, Mike. But INRE the silence of the MSM on this matter, why does it surprises you? They have done this thing for 2 years thru the election, the real facts were only on Internet. Besides, Fox News was told recently not to talk against Obama, remember? But the MSM in other countries are talking about it..

December 12th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
 66Reply to this comment  

Craig: I’d hardly call Rush Limbaugh a willing participant in a msm coverup. Same goes for Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly who may do TV shows at Fox but also have their own radio programs and are under no editorial control whatsoever.

December 13th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Craig
 67Reply to this comment  

Mike, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly can not do what they want on their own radio shows since they work at Foxnews who told them to stop talking against Obama. If they would do it, Fox would fire them.

December 13th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
 68Reply to this comment  

Craig: Rush doesn’t work for Fox News.

And Sean Hannity and Bill O”Reilly are totally independent on their radio shows and don’t even have to clear their television material with anyone.

Fox would never fire their most popular hosts no matter what.

December 13th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Craig
 69Reply to this comment  

I don’t agree Mike. Fox and all MSM have been told to shut up about it. Fox cannot have Hannity and Reilly if they don’t shut up on their radio shows. You are already in a fascist country where everybody has to shut up on MSM, thanks to Obama. Fox is a prostitute for compelling to shut up on this matter… so they would fire them very easily… this is what prostitutes do.

December 13th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Craig
 70Reply to this comment  

Mike, Limbaugh is also a prostitute. See these to links:

Rush Limbaugh Suggests Obama’s Hawaii Trip Was About Fake Birth Certificate
http://www.zimbio.com/Rush+Limbaugh/articles/103/Rush+Limbaugh+Suggests+Obama+Hawaii+Trip+Fake
Rush Limbaugh Flips to Obama
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/05/08/rush-limbaugh-flips-to-obama/

On the following video, O’Reilly says: UNLESS there is a Massive fraud in Hawaïi, his birth certificate is good.

But we all know his birth certicate is a massive fraud from Hawaïi… why do you think Obama went to Hawaïi to seal his BC… and spent almost a million $ so no one could see it?
Back stage conversation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT1SXCQgv2A&eurl=http://www.mofopolitics.com/2008/11/21/video-bill-oreilly-on-obama-birth-certificate-controversy/

And for Sean Hannity, here is this link:
Per Mod Ruling: The ONE, the ONLY Obama Birth Certificate Thread
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1027681&page=1978

December 13th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
 71Reply to this comment  

Craig: Rush Limbaugh is the voice of modern American conservatism. Some people may not take it kindly that you would refer to him as a prostitute.

I have told you that this story has no legs. It’s a dog that won’t hunt. It’s not going anywhere. It’s a non starter.

Rush, Sean and O’Reilly know that. They aren’t going to waste all their time and effort on it.

Again, I would remind you that the topic of this post is the very real live wire that Obama, Emanuel and Axelrod are dancing around. Would you rather have us drop that and go chasing this wild goose birth certificate story through the woods?

If you feel so passionately about this issue then compose a reader post and submit it to Curt. If he decides to publish it then have that serve as the forum here for that issue.

Right now, this non starter of an issue is serving as a distraction away from the one politically threatening Obama scandal that might actually amount to something.

December 13th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Craig
 72Reply to this comment  

Mike, you are the one who is perpetuating this BC matter by your response to me. All I am saying is that all three, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Hannity where all talking about it before they were ask to shut up. These are facts and you have to accept them. That’s all I am saying but you keep contradicting the facts.

No, I do not want to write a thead on this matter, my English is not good enough and besides there is thousand of blogs that speak about it and I get tons of information from them on this BC issue. I particulary like Texasdarlin blog, the best political blog award of 2008. Great bloggers there, each post as one or two fascinating links that I read. But I only post here.

December 13th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
 73Reply to this comment  

Craig: I keep contradicting these “facts” because they are not facts.

No one tells Limbaugh to shut up. And the same is true for O’Reilly and Hannity.

There is just NO STORY HERE.

December 13th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Craig
 74Reply to this comment  

Mike, we will have to disagree on this one. I brought you the facts with links that these 3 were talking about the birth certificate before they were told to shut up. They are in my comment # 70.

But I did make an error on Limbaugh, on the second link that I give you in post #70: Rush Limbaugh Flips to Obama. I read it too fast. That was in the primaries when he was going for Hillary and then switched to Obama. So I guess he is not a prostitute after all, he is still on our side. Ouf! That would have been awful. But he now shuts up for the BC.

December 13th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
 75Reply to this comment  

Craig: Despite what you may think, neither O’Reilly or Hannity have ever been shut up on any subject this one included. Even if Rupert Murdoch personally told them to lay off they would not.

Now, can we get back to talking about something that isn’t a fantasy?

December 13th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Craig
 76Reply to this comment  

So why were they always talking about it and now they don’t?

December 13th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
 77Reply to this comment  

I don’t recall it ever being a top story with any of them and I watch and listen to them all on a daily basis.

December 14th, 2008 at 9:22 am
 78Reply to this comment  

Craig, Mike’sA is correct. The Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and O’Reilly radio shows are all syndicated. They program their own material, and live or die on ratings alone. The radio networks that buy their syndicated shows have no say in their content. You can “disagree” with Mike all you want, of course. But you are unaware of how syndication works.

Any of the networks are free to drop any of the shows at will. If, however, the ratings are good, and they are usually packaged (as Rush is with Dr. Laura usually), they are fools to do so. They don’t care about content, but volume of listeners…. because big audiences attract the advertisers.

O’Reilly and Hannity’s cable news shows may or may not have some limitations as it relates to legal risk. However the networks do not play “producers” with their segments.

Now… if you’ve come to your erroneous conclusion just based on the notion that - if they aren’t talking about the Obama birth certificate that they must be censored - then you can go back and revisit my comments about how this is a non-story until the courts actually make a notable decision in any of the sundry cases. And they, like me, or sick to death of discussing something that is still a ways into the future as to it’s outcome. There are other more pertinent and expedient issues to be addressed. Waiting for a lawsuit to make news is like watching grass grow. It took six years for the SCOTUS to deal with the RKBA in Heller. But you didn’t find it in the news everyday until then, right?

December 14th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Craig
 79Reply to this comment  

Well Mata, you are right, I don’t really know how your Network works. But here in Canada you could be sure that everyone would be talking about it, night and day, if this had occurred here in our country. We do not wait for the Court to decide, we make sure that the Court knows that we care deeply about this matter; so we talk a lot about it and hope that it will finally influence the Court’s decision to act quickly and to give us an honest answer, because we believe that WE the people deserves one.

December 14th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
 80Reply to this comment  

That’s okay, Craig. I would confess considerable naivety about Canadian issues, so you’d run circles around me there.

Here, even tho the issue may be “cared” about, indicated by the level of discussion, the courts act on one thing only (again, in theory…)… interpretation of the law. The way the three branches of power in is the US is set up is:

Congress/legislature: creates the laws (with veto power by POTUS), and controls the US budget appropriation/spending

Judicial: interprets the laws - but only when they are challenged in a court of law. They do not read Congressional legislation before it is passed and let them know if it’s unConstitutional. Nothing happens until it’s challenged. And no amount of public opinion is supposed to hold sway.

Administrative/POTUS: (includes law enforcement) enforces the laws

Thus, in reality, Congress can pass a bill with unConstitutional authority. The POTUS can sign that bill into law, and that law is enforced until someone challenges the law in a court. Meaning, of course, that your Constitutional rights must be violated in order to file a lawsuit. You can’t file a lawsuit just because you believe a law is unConstitutional without having been “wronged”, so to speak. Sometimes you can, however, solicit an Attorney General opinion on a law without having a lawsuit.

At that point, the judicial system examines the law for interpretation. A lower court can find it Constitutional, and the plaintiff can appeal to higher courts, working his/her way to SCOTUS. That’s the dead end of the judicial road.

The SCOTUS deals with lower court decisions, and all that was involved in their decision. That’s why the “no standing” argument in Berg is what they will address… because that was the only decision made by the lower courts.

Does this help?

December 14th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Craig
 81Reply to this comment  

“Does this help?” (Mata)

Yes a bit. But am I still stunned. I was sure that the only thing in USA that was important to the judicial was your Constitution.

I cannot believe that a POTUS has the right to hide his birth certificate and get away with it. Why doesn’t the Court ask him his BC to be sure he is eligible? He could be a Kenyan Muslim for all we know. No ones knows where he comes from because he hides it and pays lawyers millions dollars to hide it. Something is very wrong here, for sure. Why does the Supreme Court let him get away with that? This is what I don’t understand. Never mind how the Justice fonction, just tell me why they won’t ask for his birth certificate and I will be happy. I am really stunned and cannot believe that he will get away with it. If he does, then tell me why you have a Constitution if you can bypass it so easily? If the Court cannot do anything, can the FBI or CIA do something about it and ask for poofs? There must be someone in the States that can stop this fraud… because it sure looks like a fraud, a massive fraud.

P.S.: If McCain… no, not Mccain, he doesn’t have the guts, but let’s say Hillary Clinton would have file a law suit in the court to get Obama’s BC, would the Supreme Court have also reject her case ?

December 14th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
 82Reply to this comment  

Craig, slow down and think for a minute. The court system does not enforce, they interpret laws. They are not the entity that qualifies individuals for public office.

If someone… like Hillary… filed a lawsuit as Keyes and Berg, etal have, it does not start out with the Supreme’s. It starts in the lower courts, depending on the district and jurisdiction where the lawsuit was filed.

The Supreme’s have not rejected anything yet that I know of except the injunction Berg requested on Dec 8th. I do not know if they have refused to do a review (or writ of certorari) of the lower court’s decision to dismiss.

And who knows what they would have done with a Hillary lawsuit because it depends on the brief filed, and the arguments used. What you do not know, or do not present, isn’t used as an argument in a court. They don’t fill in the blanks for you. So your brief must be complete, hopefully stocked with evidence, and compelling.

December 14th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Craig
 83Reply to this comment  

Thanks for your patience Mata.

“They don’t fill in the blanks for you. So your brief must be complete, hopefully stocked with evidence, and compelling.” (Mata)

This is the way I would do it:
I would just ask them if they or anybody else have ever seen Obama BC? They would have to say NO, since he has never presented it to no one yet. That is a proof: NO ONE SAW IT, not even the Court. And then, I would say that Constitution stipulate that a POTUS has to be born citizen with no dual citizenship. And I would ask them if they have seen some proof of that he is a born citizen with no dual citizenship? They would of course say no. So I would just ask them to get one. That’s it that’s all. How easier can it get?

Let’s face it, who can take Obama word on that? He is such a pathological liar.

December 14th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
gaetano
 84Reply to this comment  

Isn`t it amazing how many closet doors Mr.Obamma has? One after another just keep opening.
Thats what I call “BEING ABOVE THE LAW”.Now we all know that Obamma has conned the world, and the government is to embarassed to face the fact that our security isn`t worth a damn,BUT, when it comes down to WHO PUT OBAMMA INTO OFFICE,there is no such thing as being above the law.The people that put him in, will take him out,and I don`t mean the voters.You must remember,Obamma comes from chicaco,and that should simply expain whats going to happaen to him.Ask the Kennedys, what happens to the ones that fu%% with the wrong people. I wonder why Ted Kenndy is keeping his mouth shout.

January 5th, 2009 at 4:18 am

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

Email me if your comment is caught in spam

If you find your posts being held for moderation, sign up at OpenID and login using that. This will avoid moderation.