In for a Penny, in for a Pound – Media Viciousness and Obfuscating the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” – The BOPAC Report

The BOPAC Report:

ChiBama Politics -

We are family and we get to choose who's we! Chibama Politics

In for a Penny, in for a Pound – Media Viciousness and Obfuscating the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

(It’s a “Fukino” Teachable Moment)

Yesterday, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, chose to weigh in on the Obama “Natural Born Citizen” controversy again.  This time Dr. Fukino went much further than she had before. This time Dr. Fukino held herself out as a Constitutional Law Expert by declaring that Mr. Obama is a “Natural Born Citizen.”  I was very surprised by her new statement considering the Supreme Court of the United States has never fully delineated the meaning of the term, “Natural Born Citizen”.

In Minor v. Happersett, decided in 1874, 6 years after the adoption of the 14^th Amendment to Constitution, the Supreme Court expressly recognized that doubts (unanswered questions) concerning who is a “Natural Born Citizen” remain and that the Court must look outside the Constitution for its meaning because the phrase is not defined within its boarders.  These doubts remain today (Wong Kim Ark, 1898 notwithstanding, see here). Much to our current chagrin, the facts in Minor did not require the Court to address the unresolved “Natural Born Citizen” issues; so usual, the Court chose not to do so. That is really unfortunate for us. The Court could have saved millions of Americans tons of stress today had they, with perfect 20/20 foresight, simply addressed just a few possible situations.

Supreme Court in Minor stated:

..The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts…

So what can we learn from Minor v. Happersett? Contrary to what the media would have you believe, the decision in Minor v. Happersett illuminates several key considerations/unknowns regarding who can be a “Natural Born Citizen” that make today’s eligibility controversy an important and legitimate “legal issue” for millions of Americans; and especially, for those in the military who follow the “lawful orders” of the President. Speaking only for myself (though I suspect the same is true for the vast majority of others; especially attorneys, veterans, and military personnel), this has never been a “birther issue”, a “sore loser issue” nor a “racial issue”, it is and has been a legal issue.

And speaking of this as a legal issue – Anyone reading just the quoted paragraph from Minor v Happersett carefully and thinking about it would likely come away with several of the following insights:

1 – There is a difference in meaning between the terms “Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen”. The Supreme Court would not have said, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”

2 – It is necessary to look outside the Constitution to gleam the framers’ intended meaning. “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar…” Note: one such reference with which the framers would have been familiar is The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758) by Emmerich de Vattel. See the work of Leo Donofrio for a more complete explanation of who can be a “Natural Born Citizen.” (Linking to Mr. Donofrio’s site just now, I discovered he is also writing about Dr. Fukino today I’ll read it later.)

3 – Given that Minor was decided 6 years after the adoption of the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution, using a 14^th Amendment argument to make Mr. Obama a “Natural Born Citizen” seems disingenuous. If the 14^th Amendment had been intended to modify the meaning of the term “Natural Born Citizen”, it would have mentioned it.

4 – There is no doubt that a person born to two “Citizens” of the United States in the United States is a “Natural Born Citizen.” “… there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” This is the “first” situation the Court was talking about.

5 – The possibility has not been ruled out (reading the above paragraph) that a person born outside the U. S. to parents who are both U.S. Citizens is not a “Natural Born Citizen”. This is similar to the McCain situation. This question certainly deserves clarification. My gut says such a person would be a “Natural Born Citizen” as long as there are not multiple citizenship possibilities involved.

8 – There is doubt that a person born in the United States to parents, one or both of whom are not “Citizens”, can be a “Natural Born Citizen”. “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Again the issue of multiple citizenships/allegiances arises..

7 – Given the situation above (6), there would be doubts that a person born outside the United States “without reference to the citizenship of their parents” can be a “Natural Born Citizen.”

8 – The Supreme Court in Minor (6 years post 14^th Amendment) did not resolve these doubts. “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

9 – Therefore, even if Obama was born in Hawaii, his eligibility to serve as President has not been resolved, as his father was not a “Citizen” and multiple allegiances could be in play. (Kenya/Indonesia/Adoption/British Law)

As you can see – there are questions, legal questions, legitimate questions, important questions that affect not only Obama, but could affect the political ambitions of people of every party. (I’m thinking about Bobby Jindal, but I don’t know his history.)  It is past time for clarification from the courts.  Who is a “Natural Born Citizen”?

Why did the framers use the term “Natural Born Citizen” instead of the basic term “Citizen”? I believe it was to try, as best they could, to maintain the highest level of certainty that the person occupying the Oval Office would not have divided loyalties to other countries and would have a deep understanding of America values.  I think it was important to them then that the leader of America would not have a conflicted vision when looking out for America’s interests. I think it would be important to them now.

The situation in America today clearly shows that the framers of the Constitution were right in requiring an elevated level of citizenship in order to serve as President; and they were surely aware that, such systems are not fool proof. The framers did the best they could do and now it’s up to the Courts to keep that protection in place.

In my last article, I said as an example: “We would not want an arsonist to be able to become a fireman. If a person does not have a clean record regarding arson, he or she should not be allowed to be a fireman.  It’s not a guarantee that a fireman with no criminal record of arson is not an arsonist, but it’s a step that gives an added measure security.” These measures are entirely about trying to ensure the strongest allegiance to the Constitution and the United States possible. Citizenships are only indicators of allegiance, the red flags, and the criminal records.  Just to be clear, it’s not about xenophobia – it’s about non-conflicted allegiance. (I can hear the media spin now.) But, sometimes even people with all the right papers still want to destroy America. I’m not saying Obama has all the right papers, as that remains to be seen.  I’m saying the framers did their job. The rest, it’s up to a free and responsible media to do with proper diligence to keep all the arsonists out of the house.  It’s their job to discover the hidden agendas, the vulnerabilities, the warts.

And I am saying that wouldn’t it be less likely that Obama would be trying so hard to dismantle America and her economic systems, to be replaced with a socialist style system; trying so hard to cut our defenses; trying so hard to alienate our friends and embolden our enemies, and trample our Constitution had he not been so exposed to his fathers’ loyalties and connections in Kenya and Indonesia? Ordinga? Had he not been so exposed to the close circle of radicals his family was involved with? Had he not been so exposed to their loyalties to socialism? Had he not be so exposed to their loyalties to anti-American sentiments? Is there a reason he’s so hostile to Israel? Aren’t all these symptoms of a President with a “conflicted vision” (or worse) when looking out for America’s interests? I hope you all remember the media was completely absent about all this, AWOL, running from and covering up anything critical of Obama during the election. They were running from William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Gov. Blago, Rev. Wright, Farrakhan, the socialist mentor who was a pedophile – Frank somebody, questions about Obama fund raising, lack of patriotism, and ACORN. (Ask Larry Sinclair about how many media people approached him.) They didn’t look for the hidden agendas, the vulnerabilities, the warts. I guess now since they were in for a penny then, they might as well be in for a pound.

When I see the media and others viciously attempt to portray those (especially military personnel) with legitimate questions and concerns about Obama meeting the Constitutional requirements to serve as President of the United States as “fringe”, “zombie birthers”, “right-wing kooks”, “tin-foil hat wearing people”, “fictional nonsense“, “nut jobs” or any other derogatory terms; I find it very troubling.  Don’t people (right, left or center) realize what we are losing when we make it an offense to ask questions in America?

As I watch Lou Dobbs continue to be vilified daily by Obama supporters, I wonder if there are any arenas in America politics where differences can be resolved with civility.  Lou Dobbs has been a respected member of the press for decades.  But let him make one statement that does not conform to the group speak of the left; he is immediately eviscerated in the public square.

I find myself asking, why did Dr. Fukino feel compelled to expand her original statement from October 2008 to include a place of birth for Obama and a legal term describing him as a “Natural Born Citizen”?  Why is she crawling out on this limb?  For months the media has been misrepresenting her October statement to include both assertions as fact. Was crawling further out necessary? Was pressure applied?  Why was pressure applied? Is the pressure directed at U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, presiding judge in Dr. Orly Taitz’s case Alan Keyes, et al. v Barack H. Obama, et al., who has indicated that he will hear this issue on the merits? Is it to the Judge in Kerchner v. Obama? Is it pressure to back off or be ruined?

Here’s Dr. Fukino’s original statement:

For Immediate Release: October 31, 2008 08-93

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

Obviously, she could have stated that Obama was born in Hawaii then, but she didn’t. Why not?  Not quite comfortable?

Here’s Dr. Fukino’s statement from yesterday:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”

This is a very different statement from the one in October 2008.  Additionally, it has been reported that Dr. Fukino denied CNN President Klien’s recent statement that CNN had investigated and found that the originals of Obama’s birth certificate had been discarded in 2001.  Does anyone wonder why the media is not trusted? Why politicians are not trusted? And they keep doubling down with more misinformation – in for a penny, in for a pound.

CNN got caught spinning this time.  But let me be clear (as Obama says), the media in general is always spinning, riding their BOcycles.  Obama is spinning.  Robert Gibbs is trying to spin.  Is Dr. Fukino also spinning? By including the phrase “Natural Born Citizen”, it certainly seems so.

All of the players appear to be involved in trying to obfuscate and blur the meanings of the terms “Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” to shape public opinion and to make it unacceptable to ask questions critical of the Obama Administration.  In for a penny, in for a pound! I do believe people will eventually see through this slight of hand trick and start paying more attention.

They say that everything has a good side. It’s probably true here too. With the media’s exaggerated negative reporting and spin, regular people are more likely to recognize it for what it is and look for places expressing the rest of the story. I bet Lou Dobbs’ ratings have gone up.  When the media takes tones that are unbecoming for professional reporters and journalists; and resorts to name calling, more people read articles like this one. When they make it personal with name calling, people ask why?  That’s a real good question.

Whatever the answer is – it’s when I get to try to explain that this eligibility issue is really just a legal issue, albeit one of great consequence.  It’s when people try to find Dr. Orly Taitz on internet radio explaining her positions.  It’s when the lawyers such as Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio, Apuzzo, Stephen Pidgeon and many others find the opportunity to explain the legal issues and why they matter.

It sure would be nice if the media could refrain from hurling insults, do their jobs, and aid in finding out why Obama is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep so many relevant documents secret.  It sure would be nice if the media were in for a penny and in for a pound for our freedoms.

Oh well, I’ll dream on about that.  But please remember, this is an important issue.  Important to millions of Americans, important to the health and well being of our Constitution and it is vitally important to the members of our military.

Media Mischief, the Obama Eligibility Issue and the “Dispositive Fact” – The BOPAC Report

The BOPAC Report:

Article About Eligibility Issue -

We are family and we get to choose who's we! Chibama Politics

Media Mischief, the Obama Eligibility Issue and the “Dispositive Fact”

Last week, the media was forced into reporting on the Obama birth-certificate/eligibility issue.  It had little choice because respected CNN Journalist Lou Dobbs had the audacity to suggest that Obama should produce his long-form birth certificate to put to rest the doubts of millions of Americans who believe Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as President.  Immediately and predictably, much of the reporting from the main stream media was in the form of vicious attacks, seeking to discredit Mr. Dobbs and others looking for clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Obama is or is not a “Natural Born Citizen” entitling him to serve as President of the United States.  Left-wing bloggers and those in the media who have been carry Obama’s water this past year circled the wagons, and calls that Lou Dobbs be fired rang out. I have to salute Lou Dobbs for his courage and sense of ethical responsibility in addressing this issue at all. Of all the CNN commentators, Lou Dobbs is the one who consistently tries to be fair to all sides.

Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times reported that “CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers at the cable news network Thursday night that the supposed controversy regarding the legitimacy of President Obama’s birth certificate is a “dead” story.”  The article went on to report:

…The website TVNewser reported today that Klein sent an e-mail to staffers of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” just as the program went to air, informing them that CNN researchers had determined that Hawaiian officials discarded all paper documents in 2001. A long-form birth certificate with details about the doctor who delivered Obama no longer exists, they reported. The shorter Certificate of Live Birth noting Obama’s birth on Aug. 4, 1961, that has been made public is the official record.

“It seems to definitively answer the question,” Klein wrote, according to TVNewser. “Since the show’s mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead — because anyone who still is not convinced doesn’t really have a legitimate beef.”…

Whether or not the assertion that Obama’s long form birth certificate has been destroyed is true, the action by Mr. Klein was clearly intended to get Lou Dobbs to stop rocking the boat and move on.

It seems to me that if the facts are as Mr. Klein says, serious reporters and investigators would be turning over every stone to try to find the truth.  Serious reporters would be going to Kenya; talking to administrators, faculty, and students at all the colleges Obama attended to discover if he talked about his birthplace, applied/registered as a foreign student or received aid as a foreign student; they’d be looking at his past travel and what passports he carried; and they would be seeking the information provided on Obama’s Illinois Bar Application.  One would think that an innocent person sitting in the Oval Office would quickly provide all information necessary to put to bed this troubling “eligibility issue”. Obama has not. (George Bush or Bill Clinton would have, I’m sure.) In fact, Obama has spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (some say 1 to 2 million) trying to keep the past hidden. Thank you, Lou Dobbs, for having the courage to ask the simple question – Where’s the Birth Certificate?

I seriously long for the good old days, when if a reporter or CNN President said something, there was a better than 50% chance it was true.  Unfortunately, regarding the “birth certificate issue” most reporters today are intentionally misstating the facts.  In many of today’s news stories, the headline or body of the story will say something like “birthers don’t believe Obama is a Citizen” or “of course Obama is a Citizen” or “Lou Dobbs believes Obama is a Citizen”.  Such statements are intentionally misleading and are included to portray those asking questions as ridiculous tin-foil hat wearing fools. As Mr. Dobbs has quickly learned, there is a price to be paid for asking questions that might impugn the Obama narrative. (Larry Sinclair was certainly taught this lesson.)

It seems the media is reading from the same playbook. They have somehow decided that if they can blur the meanings of terms “Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen”, the general public will not look deeply into the issue because the answer is so obvious, and it will go away.  I guess they hope that any time the issue comes up in conversation there will be a knee jerk reaction causing someone to say: That’s stupid, of course Obama is a Citizen, only a fool would think such a thing.

Ridicule is effective, but it won’t deter those who have seriously looked at the allegations and the “common sense” circumstances that compel further inquiry.  Why has Obama not provided his school records, Illinois bar application, long-form birth certificate, passport information, etc., if he doesn’t have anything to hide?  Why has he spent such enormous sums of money on lawyers to keep these documents hidden?  Common sense says there’s something here.  Common sense also says that if these allegations are true, this would be biggest fraud perpetrated against America in her history. Too far fetched?  Did you see the news about authorities arrest 44 in N.J. corruption case (2 lawmakers, 3 mayors, and rabbis accused)? (Mostly, Democrats as far as I can tell.)

The media playbook conveys the understanding that it’s important to blur the definitions of Citizen and Natural Born Citizen because it goes to heart of the matter, the legal and common sense notions of “dispositive facts”.  If this is true, then everything else is false or doesn’t matter. Period! Then anyone who raises such questions is a fool. Obama is a Citizen and of course he is eligible is what the media wants people to believe.  This is pure media mischief, dishonesty, and treachery through and through.

Here’s what people need to know. Even accepting as “fact” that Obama is a Citizen of the United States, it is not a “dispositive fact” that would determine the outcome of the “eligibility issue”.  There are many ways to become an American “Citizen”.  How one acquires “Natural Born Citizen” status is determined solely by the Constitution of the United States.  “Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” are NOT synonymous terms. It is the Law (Constitutionally required) that every person holding the Office of President must meet the “Natural Born Citizen” test, which was meant to provide an added measure of presumed allegiance to the United States and her Constitution.  (For example: We would not want an arsonist to be able to become a fireman. If a person does not have a clean record regarding arson, he or she should not be allowed to be a fireman.  It’s not a guarantee that a fireman with no criminal record of arson is not an arsonist, but it’s a step that gives an added measure security.) As Obama says, “let me be clear”, one can be a Citizen and NOT be a “Natural Born Citizen.”

The flip side of this coin – if Obama is found not to be a “Natural Born Citizen”, it would be the “dispositive fact” that would determine the outcome of the “eligibility issue”. Obama could not be President.

So, which type of “Citizen” is Obama?  Real reporters would be turning over heaven and earth to find out.  The American reporters are turning over heaven and earth to cover it up.

Dispositive Fact – Jural facts, or those acts or events that create, modify or extinguish jural relations. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition

Is Obama a “Natural Born Citizen”? It is the one question that must be answered.

There is no middle ground. If Obama cannot serve as Office of the President of the United States, then all appointments (Holder, Sotomayor, Czars, etc.) made by Obama are invalid; as well as any laws, acts or treaties entered into.  If Obama cannot lawfully hold the Office of the President of the United States, all “orders” issued to the United States Military are “unlawful orders”.  This last point is why I am so thankful that it appears that Dr. Orly Taitz’s eligibility case will be heard on the merits. Every soldier has a legal responsibility to  follow only orders that are “lawful”.  Given that burden, every soldier must have a right to be certain of Obama’s authority.

When I look at what Obama has done, is doing and/or proposing regarding Obamanomics, ObamaCare, taking over the auto industry, taking over banks, corrupting Inspector Generals’ independence, the unwillingness to audit the Fed., his unjust treatment of Inspector General Walpin, his lack of transparency, his appointment of an army of Czars circumventing Congress, his appoint to the Supreme Court, his appointment to head Science,  Gitmo, abortion, eugenics, trans-nationalist ideologies, trampling on State’s rights guaranteed under the 10^th Amendment, his assault on the Second Amendment, Homeland Security looking at returning Veterans as Terrorists, ACORN, national security, the Census, his treatment of the Cambridge police, and Cap & Tax; it sure looks to me like an arsonist trying to burn up the Constitution of the United States and replace it with some sort of Socialist manifesto.

If Obama is going to cause the destruction of America and Israel, I at least want to know that he was constitutionally empowered as a “Natural Born Citizen” serving as President of the United States to destroy us.  I hate to think all this could have been prevented by some state official somewhere doing their job and asking to see proof that Obama was eligible to run for office. That never happened.

Americans Might Want To Heed the Admonitions of The Past Regarding Election

Americans Might Want To Heed the Admonitions of The Past

We are quickly approaching the day when the direction of America will be decided. Will America follow a course steeped in ideology tempered by history or will she follow a course steeped mainly in ideology? Will the electorate be aware that these are America’s choices? Probably not, looking at the current polls, it appears that this election will be based mostly on faith and hope for change. If informed reason were being applied, the poll results would most likely be different.

One can easily draw the distinction between Senators McCain and Obama based on ideology tempered by history verses ideology alone by looking closely at their lives.

A person I admire, Oprah Winfrey, once said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” I think this is sound advice that proves true 99 percent of the time. America has seen Sen. McCain through many years and he has remained a consistent and dedicated public servant. Early in his career in the military he probably held strongly to some sort of ideology that grew out of the cold war. Maybe it involved the concepts of good forces prevailing over unjust forces. Just as the Vietnam War grew out of the cold war and threw light on the realities of conflict; the Vietnam War experience threw light on Sen. McCain’s own view of life.

When I look at Sen. McCain, I see a man who understands that core principles are what you are and they must not change simply because a situation changes. A severely battered John McCain had had an opportunity to leave his prison in Vietnam before other prisoners who were more senior, but he refused. Sen. McCain looked the immigration issue in America with compassion and tried to find a practical solution, an action that brought him condemnation by many. Sen. McCain warned of the financial nightmare that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac abuses were causing; but the Democrats in charge chose to ignore his advice. Many times Sen. McCain has reached across the aisle, pragmatically, to try to find solutions to America’s problems.

Sen. John McCain is a man of core principles and the one he holds most dear is “Country First”. I believe him because as Oprah said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” Whatever ideology Sen. McCain may have held as a younger man has been tempered by his own history and America’s history into a commitment to put the interests of America above his own. This is the America voter’s choice of ideology tempered by history.

When I look at Sen. Obama, I see a man who has burst on the scene and captured the imaginations of millions. Surprisingly, supporters seem to have developed an incredibly strong attachment to the idea of Obama and what they perceive that means; so strong, in fact, that it boarders on religious faith. Many issues that would have sunk any other politician have disappeared in the mist. The Senator’s backers appear more preoccupied with his rhetoric of the future than anything about the past, any past, including Sen. Obama’s. The past is cliché, boring, out of date, damaged goods with no place in today’s world. However, Albert Einstein might have a little different view of the past. He has said, “The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion”. I think Albert Einstein would consider Sen. Obama’s past just as important as the man being presented today.

Given the relative lack of leadership experience of Sen. Obama, reason would seem to dictate that his past should be even more important as a predictor of his future actions. However, in the politics of the day, the Media has assumed the role of advocate and obscurer for Sen. Obama’s campaign. Americans, who are trying to make a reasoned decision, are therefore having a very difficult time discerning what information is truthful and accurate; and what is not. What are the facts? This is a very real question in the minds of many voters. Quills drawn, the Media’s theory is that Obama is the one who must lead America. To support their vision, the Media does as Einstein, in a different context, counseled; “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”

Sen. Obama has been relentlessly pounding the theme that McCain equal four more years of George Bush, a narrative that has been sold in lockstep with the Press and Democratic Party leadership. One would think that common sense could see through the sales pitch, but it hasn’t. The Press has been constantly bashing President Bush for going on eight years. (I suspect mostly because they think he’s stupid, inarticulate and beneath them.)

Many of the America’s newly registered voters are younger; and therefore, they may be more susceptible to the myths of the Media. Apparently, their minimal life experience hasn’t given most of them much of an accurate barometer or enough common sense to judge fact from fiction. “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen” another truism from Einstein’s repertoire that is at play here. The anti-Bush prejudice is raging, gathering steam, and Sen. McCain has been unjustly caught up in it web.

One other fact that the Media has attempted to distort is that somehow the current financial crisis was the result of the mean old Republican attempts to deregulate everything in sight. This is just another collection of prejudice reinforced by the Media that it is untrue, especially for Sen. McCain. He was one of the leaders in the efforts to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac; unfortunately, his efforts were blocked by the Chris Dodds and Barney Franks of the Democratic Party.

Where does Sen. Obama stand on the economy? He has stated and restated a desire to redistribute the wealth in America. This is exactly the wrong approach. Even a basic level of understanding about economics would act as a bar against trying to tax our way out of the current financial crisis. You don’t damage (over tax) those who are creating jobs and wealth for America and Americans. Regrettably, somehow too many Americans today have become accepting of the notion that the world (well the Federal Government) owes them a living and that wealth should be redistributed more ‘fairly’ to them.

The history of the ‘Great’ Depression clearly reveals that the measures implemented by government to overcome it were the reasons that the Depression became ‘Great’. Almost everyone recognizes that a thorough knowledge of the past is critical if we are not to repeat the mistakes of yesterday. However, I don’t think Sen. Obama understands it quite that way. Higher taxes and too much Federal intervention are not what the American economy needs today. As much as he hates to hear it, Sen. Obama’s economic ideas reek of socialism. We need to get back to the ideas of American innovation and personal responsibility.

Sen. Obama has been hailed as a superior intellect and amazing orator. But, who is he? What is his past? Who were those that stimulated and helped to form his thinking and beliefs? Sal Alinsky? Is he the same person today that he has been for the past 20 years?

A man is known by the company his mind keeps.
Thomas Bailey Aldrich

How much has the media allowed us to know about the depth of the relationships Sen. Obama had with William Ayers? Sen. Obama said he was just a guy in his neighborhood.

How much has the media allowed us to know about the depth of the relationship with Frank Davis? Andy Martin raises some interesting questions about this relationship.

How much has the Media allowed us to know about the depth of the relationships with Father Michael Pfleger, Minister Louis Farrakhan, and Rev. Wright? Aren’t these all company Obama’s mind kept? Are the ideologies encapsulated by many of Sen. Obama’s past associates very far from those espoused by Socialists and Marxists?

A man is known by the company his mind keeps.
Thomas Bailey Aldrich

How much has the Media allowed us to know about the relationship with Tony Rezko and his associates? Are the ideologies encapsulated by Tony Rezko’s actions those of corrupt politics?

A man is known by the company his mind keeps.
Thomas Bailey Aldrich

How much has the Media allowed us to know about the alleged relationship with Larry Sinclair?

To date, Sen. Obama has disavowed most of these people and/or their statements and actions. How much weight should Americans give to such a disavowal?

Should we accept the revelation of Rev. Wright?

“He’s a politician. I’m a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. Those are two different worlds. I do what I do, he does what politicians do.”

Or should we follow Oprah’s direction?

“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”

Common sense and reason tell me to listen to both Oprah and Rev. Wright in Sen. Obama’s case. Sen. Obama, at the very least, has shown an incredible naiveté concerning his past associations and their impact on his reputation.

Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation. It is better be alone than in bad company.
George Washington

Common sense and reason also implies that if Sen. Obama were the man he is portrayed as, there would be a line of people from his past standing, waiting to tell his story. The story of how Sen. Obama became such a partisan divide bridge builder, such a healer, such a patriot, such a reconciler, such an economist, such a negotiator, such a defense strategist would all be stories I would like to hear.

Who from Sen. Obama’s past is standing or waiting to tell his story?

What is the Media not telling America about Sen. Obama’s relationship to ACORN?

How many other scandals and allegations are there just from our view? Are there some yet unknown scandals being hidden by the Media? What about the Berg v. Obama lawsuit that is challenging Sen. Obama’s eligibility to hold the Office of the Presidency? What about the other lawsuits is several states? What about the validity of Sen. Obama’s birth certificate? What about all the allegations set forth in Berg v. Obama? What about the allegations that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya? Why is that not news? What would happen should he win the election and then be found to be ineligible to hold office? What about the questions about the allegations about Obama’s past and/or current Indonesian citizenship? What about Sen. Obama’s alleged membership in a Socialist organization, New Party? What about Sen. Obama’s extreme views on abortion? What about the allegations that Sen. Obama violated provisions of the Logan Act during his last trip to Iraq and during the run-up to the Kenyan elections?

There is so much about Sen. Obama that Americans don’t know. Some people are choosing to ignore the reasonable inferences from Sen. Obama’s past, some people don’t care and some people are not informed or misled by Obama’s campaign and the Media. The mainstream Media has done a grave disservice to America in 2008. The full consequences of Sen. Obama becoming President, under so many clouds as are set forth above, cannot be fully predicted or prepared for.

Therefore, it is critical that Americans take this election seriously and start considering the numerous allegations facing Sen. Obama before November 4^th.

Nine-tenths of wisdom is being wise in time.
Theodore Roosevelt

In conclusion, America needs to take a breath and give another American voice a few moments of consideration.

The words spoken by Benjamin Franklin:

To follow by faith alone is to follow blindly

&

Hear reason, or she’ll make you feel her

The End

zachjonesishome.wordpress.com

Voter’s, Obama, Will o’ The Wisp, Change, Confounding Voter’s Perceptions

America’s Attachment to the Idea

of Change is the Perilous

“Will o’ The Wisp” That’s

Confounding Voter’s Perceptions

The phrase will o’ the wisp has be used to describe one, metaphorically speaking, who is holding so tightly to a goal that they doggedly follow any hints of it, oblivious to what lies unnoticed right under their noses. One of many descriptors is the image of a peasant farmer following a lantern light off in the distance, held by a mythical creature, whereupon the farmer winds up deep in the marsh. The farmer’s focus on the light is such that he becomes unaware of his surroundings; and waiting in the darkness, the consequences of blindly following the creature’s light stand ready to appear.

This is what seems to be happening in the 2008 Presidential election. Many voters are so attached to the idea of “change” or “change from” that they are not noticing information that is critical for sound decision making concerning their votes. It’s the information that gives hints of what consequences lay in the darkness and for the future. For these voters, the election is about solely about change; and therefore, thoroughly analyzing new information as it comes available is not necessary. “Change” is the goal, the lantern light, the treasure and they can see it just there.

This year Sen. Obama has been ordained by the media as the only way to that goal. Normally most voters would be constantly reviewing and searching for information about an unknown candidate; but not this year. Normally the media would be diligently searching for information that would give voters a glimpse of a unknown candidate’s character; but not this year. Unfortunately, the media has relinquished their traditional role as the source of reliable (true) information this year. This year, the media has assumed the role of advocate and protector. (Consider what has happened when an average citizen confronted Sen. Obama. The media immediately circled the wagons and brought their resources to bear in an effort to destroy Joe the Plumber’s credibility.)

When it comes to recognizing truth, I believe half of what I see and very, very little of what I read. With today’s media so clearly taking sides regarding this election and regarding most issues, what I read must be scrutinized to discover what facts are facts, what’s the real context, what facts are omitted, where opinion is stated as fact, what is implied as fact, what is credible, what is the author’s bias. As a voter, I’m not willing to blindly follow a party’s or a newscaster’s version of truth. It’s difficult and time consuming work. The critical questions for me are: Am I as fully informed as I can be? Am I putting my country first and my own self-interests second?

Regarding Sen. Obama, instead of providing real information for voters to use to judge Senator Obama’s character, intentions, believes, and actions; the media continues to feed voters a ‘fairy tale’ that paints the Senator as new, pure, wise, a messiah, the bringer of Hope and Change. I know the media won’t like this, but they ARE the peasant farmer blindly following the mythical creature who carries the lantern into the marsh because they too have lost their objectivity.

I can’t just blame the media for this phenomenon. It IS the responsibility of every voter to investigate and try to find out as much as they can about the candidates. The will o’ the wisp is the mantra of “change” this year. Change is the goal for voters. I do agree that Sen. Obama will bring the most change if he is elected; however, the change he brings has the possibility of seriously damaging America’s economy and future. Regrettably, many voters appear to be looking for a type of change that changes how much they can take from the government. The federal budget ballooning, the degradation of the concept of personal responsibility, the effect on others as the economy sputters doesn’t seem to matter to those who would vote on the basis of what they might get. These voters are not considering what consequences might be in the darkness on the marsh.

Obama’s wanting to “spread the wealth around” is textbook socialist economic policy. It does have a strong appeal to those Americans who would rather take from others and not earn for themselves. Unfortunately, it does seem as though American is becoming a “what’s in it for me” country. History has shown us over and over that raising taxes on businesses and those who create jobs (especially during an economic downturn) results in less revenue for government, less growth in the economy, fewer jobs being created, less incentive to take risks that lead to innovative solutions for problems. Why would we want to go there? Senator Obama’s change would not result in any betterment of the situations of American families. Obama’s change would result in a further slowing of our economy and the concurrent lost of jobs and benefits. The “what’s in it for me” voters would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

When I pull the lever on Election Day, I will be fully aware of what voting means. It means that I have tried to best of my abilities to ascertain who my selectee is, what they believe, where they will take the country, what their character is, and what will be the likely consequences if my candidate prevails. In the end, I believe that America will deserve the consequences of this election, good and bad. If America, an informed America, wants to go down the road of socialism with an inexperienced, minimally vetted candidate; so be it. I however will not voluntarily be on board for such a journey.

If voters and the media were not so intoxicated by the idea of change, change they have to have, they would likely be paying attention to all of the skeletons in Sen. Obama’s closet.

They would be looking closely at Sen. Obama’s past associations with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Pastor Michael Pfleger, Bernadine Dorn, Minister Louis Farrakhan, and William Ayers. They would be looking into Sen. Obama’s connection to ACORN, the organization that is up to its ears in voter fraud. They would be looking into Sen. Obama’s connections to the crisis in the U.S. financial system through the actions, policies and political contributions regarding Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. They would be looking into the allegations of Larry Sinclair, who says that he and Sen. Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual sex in 1999. They would be looking into allegations concerning Sen. Obama’s campaign’s involvement with censorship and intimidation against those who oppose Sen. Obama – (Stanley Kurtz for example). They would be looking into Sen. Obama’s extreme views concerning abortion, some would say infanticide. They would be looking into the allegations set forth in Berg v. Obama that challenge whether Sen. Obama is even eligible to hold the Office of President of the United States. They would be looking into the allegations that Sen. Obama violated the Logan Act during his last trip to Iraq and during the elections in Kenya that left more than a thousand people dead.

In conclusion, it is my belief that this is the most important election in my lifetime. It will hurt me deeply if America is destroyed by such a naïve and short sighted phenomenon as is the “Will o’ the Wisp” that the bumper sticker of “Change We Can Believe In” has set in motion.

Larry’s assault on media bias and Sen. Obama’s “fairy tales” that he is telling America. Sunday, October 5, 2008

Larry Sinclair is continuing to get his story out on Sen. Obama’s campaign trail. Mr. Sinclair is dogging the Senator at Chicago and Trinity United Church Of Christ asking the Senator where is was and what was he doing on the dates that Larry says that he and Sen. Obama were doing cocaine and having consensual gay sex. Everyone needs to stay tuned to Mr. Sinclair’s most excellent adventure trying to break through the media’s wall of See No Obama Scandals, Hear No Obama Scandals, Speak No Obama Scandals. Go to: http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/ to keep up Larry’s assault on media bias and Sen. Obama’s “fairy tales” that he is telling America. (To quote President Clinton)

I hope Mr. Sinclair will be extremely careful today.  CitizenWells reports that Mr. Sinclair will try to attend a service at Trinity United Church of Christ. This is the church that Sen. Obama and his family attended for many years and from where America heard “God Damn America” spewing from the Rev. Wright’s pulpit.  I hope Larry Sinclair will be treated well by the members of Trinity United Chruch of Christ.

It seems that Larry Sinclair is already receiving threats regarding his proposed visit.

The media is once again AWOL regarding this story and any other negative issue that may cause Obama to stumble. 2008 is the year American Journalism died.

Larry’s assault on media bias and Sen. Obama’s “fairy tales” that he is telling America.

Larry Sinclair is continuing to get his story out on Sen. Obama’s campaign trail. Mr. Sinclair is dogging the Senator at Chicago and Nashville asking the Senator where is was and what was he doing on the dates that Larry says that he and Sen. Obama were doing cocaine and having consensual gay sex. Everyone needs to stay tuned to Mr. Sinclair’s most excellent adventure trying to break through the media’s wall of See No Obama Scandals, Hear No Obama Scandals, Speak No Obama Scandals. Go to: http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/ to keep up Larry’s assault on media bias and Sen. Obama’s “fairy tales” that he is telling America. (To quote President Clinton) Maps of Mr. Sinclair’s adventure are on his site.

This is from Larry Sinclair:

I WILL BE LEAVING THIS AFTERNOON FOR CHICAGO/NASHVILLE

I will be leaving shortly for Nashville with a brief stop in Chicago, IL. The schedule and route has changed slightly for maximum impact. It is important to be in Nashville on Monday.

This story will be reported by way of the local media markets. Here is the link to The Grand Rapids, MI WSNX FM 104.5 interview from the Obama event on Thursday. http://www.wsnx.com/cc-common/podcast.html

Larry Sinclair’s Excellent Adventure on Sen. Obama’s “Fairy Tales” Campaign Trail

Larry Sinclair is continuing to get his story out on Sen. Obama’s campaign trail. Mr. Sinclair is dogging the Senator at Grand Rapids today asking the Senator where is was and what was he doing on the dates that Larry says that he and Sen. Obama were doing cocaine and having consensual gay sex. Everyone needs to stay tuned to Mr. Sinclair’s most excellent adventure trying to break through the media’s wall of See No Obama Scandals, Hear No Obama Scandals, Speak No Obama Scandals. Go to: http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/ to keep up Larry’s assault on media bias and Sen. Obama’s “fairy tales” to America. (Just to quote Bill Clinton.)

Stay Safe Mr. Sinclair!!! Good Luck! Zach

Thursday, October 2, 2008

SENATOR OBAMA AND OBOTS DON’T LIKE IT!

Obama Buses in Supporters for Grand Rapids, MI Event.

Barack Obama told his supporters a week or so ago to “Get in their face…”, but it seems Senator Obama and his supporters do not like that advice when people “Get in their face…”

This morning I went to the Obama rally at Calder Plaza, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Now let me do something that Barack Obama cannot do, let me be fair and say that not all of the Obots were rude and foul mouthed, but make no mistake about it, most were. One teenager, or maybe twenty-something guy was encouraged by his own mother to tell me to “F— Off” and more.

The Obots hated that while Barack Obama was speaking I was about 200 feet away calling him on the mega phone asking him to answer the question, “where were you on Nov 6 & 7, 1999 and what were you doing?” They did not like that I was yelling on the mega-phone asking Barack Obama who was Larry Sinclair? In fact the Obama campaign was so unnerved, but did not want the Secret Service involved, so it took a little while before the Grand Rapids Police came and asked me to go with them and for my ID.

The Grand Rapids Police were respectful at all times, but also were clearly being used to silence the mega-phone. According to GP Police, I could not use the mega-phone because I did not obtain a permit, and the Obama Campaign did! I am now looking into the claim that a permit is required to use a mega-phone. The Police did run a warrant check on me and told me simply that if I was to use the mega-phone again, it would be confiscated and I would be ticketed. I then returned to the WSNX 104.5 FM interview on the reporters phone. http://tiny.cc/xC1jx

Meanwhile, I was on a live radio interview with WSNX 104.5 FM radio in Grand Rapids while calling on Barack Obama to answer three simple questions. It was while on the phone with WSNX 104.5 FM that the Police asked me to go with them. I was trying to return the Radio reporters cell phone but wasn’t allowed to until he had to tell the Police it was his phone I was on.

In leaving the event I asked a WOODTV reporter, “why is it that you guys refuse to report the truth about Obama?” She replied, “we try to report the truth but it is our producers that say what does or does not get reported.”

Continue Reading

Who Will Be Sleeping In The Lincoln Bedroom In An Obama Whitehouse?

Who Will Be Sleeping In The Lincoln Bedroom

In An Obama Whitehouse?

This is a serious question that has again captured my attention. This time it is in reaction to what almost everyone sees – a media blatantly refusing to report on legitimate issues and distorting anything or anyone who stands in the way the Obama election efforts. The Senator’s past and the people who are close to him, the influences in his life, the experiences that shaped his thinking, those who have shaped his feelings for America, those that have shaped his religious views and values – they are critically important to know or predict where Sen. Obama might take America.

When I look at how the media has given Sen. Obama a complete pass on his past controversies and current allegations that are still out there, hidden from the public, I shudder. When I look at how the media and Sen. Obama have not allowed the general public to fully know or understand what his relationships and associations are really about, I shudder.

When Sen. Obama attempts to conceal his relationships and their importance, by making statements that require us to suspend our disbelief, I shudder. How could anyone stay in a church for 20 years, have his children baptized there, be married there, stand and clap, sit in the pews and still not understand the hatred and racism of Rev. Wright, his minister and spiritual mentor? How can anyone truly believe him?

How can anyone believe what the Senator says about the people he has distanced himself from?

· Minister Louis Farrakhan. When he hired for his staff, Jennifer Mason and Cynthia K. Miller, who are members of the Nation of Islam.

· Rev. Wright – the former preacher for a church the young Obama needed to belong to in Chicago to further his career. That’s not the Reverend Wright I knew was Obama’s response. After Sen. Obama threw him under the bus, Rev. Wright noted that Obama was distancing himself because Obama is a politician and that’s what a (Presidential) politician needs to do.

· Pastor Michael Pfleger – whose radical ideas and preaching are well known in Chicago went under the bus. Not the Pfleger I knew.

· Bernradine Dorn and William Ayers – Senator Obama sat on a board with Ayers, gave lectures with him, and went to his house for his blessings upon entering politics in Chicago. Ayer’s and Dorn’s group bombed the Pentagon. Obama has denied a close relationship. New evidence is now showing a much deeper relationship with William Ayers. (See Stanley Kurtz’s work)

· And Tony Rezko. He raised money for Senator Obama’s political career, gave him a sweetheart land deal, introduced him to influential people, and most likely taught Sen. Obama a lot about corrupt politics in Chicago. Rezko went under the bus after Obama minimized the relationship. There might be new information coming out about this relationship now that Mr. Rezko is apparently singing to the Feds in hopes of reducing his possible jail time.

So what I know is that Senator Obama learned his lessons about Chicago politics well. When it was time to throw someone, anyone, a church, a grandmother, under the bus to advance his political career; he did it with prose and ease.

Also what I know is that people in Chicago understand that politicians say and do the things that politicians believe they need to say and do. Rev. Wright’s comment that Obama was distancing himself from himself because Obama is a politician and that’s what a (Presidential) politician needs to do – clearly reflects this understanding.

So what is my fear? If Senator Barrack Obama finds himself in the White House, then it is entirely possible (likely) that all of the people mentioned above will be welcomed back into Senator Obama’s life. The Senator said that he could no more disown Rev. Wright than he could disown the black community? This leads to my questions:

Will we see Rev. Wright, Pastor Michael Pfleger, Pentagon bombers Bernradine Dorn and William Ayers, Minister Louis Farrakhan and corrupt Tony Rezko and his associates, staying in the Lincoln bedroom?

Will ACORN, an organization involved in causing the current financial crisis and numerous instances of voter fraud, have a seat at his table?

And lastly, will the American Tax Payers be forced to endure the ultimate humiliation by being required to foot the bill for pampering and honoring Louis Farrakhan and the Brothers of Islam, for honoring Senator Obama’s racist pastors, for honoring Pentagon bombers and terrorists, for honoring (and possibly pardoning) the Senator’s corrupt contributor Tony Rezko and his associates? At this late date, it appears very possible. Therefore, it is imperative for voters to look closely at Sen. Obama’s actions, companions and friends.

Those of us who have closely observed the Senator’s campaign and the Media’s support fully realize just how unfair the playing field is for Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin.

How much attention has been given to the ongoing federal lawsuit challenging Sen. Obama’s eligibility to be President (Berg v. Obama)? The answer is very little.

How much attention has been given to Larry Sinclair’s allegation’s that he did cocaine and engaged in consensual sex with Sen. Obama in 1999? The answer is very little.

How many reporters have been dispatched to Chicago to vet Sen. Obama? The answer is very few.

How many reporters are looking into the new allegations concerning massive amounts of illegal campaign contributions coming into the Obama campaign? Not many.

How many reporters are seriously looking at Sen. Obama’s connections to ACORN and the failure of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac? The answer once again is very few.

How many reporters are looking for people who can tell Obama’s story? I’m not sure anyone can without damaging Senator Obama. The media is not looking for them.

Who are the people endorsing Sen. Obama? Many of those who want our destruction.

Ask yourself about the feeding frenzy the media is engaged in regarding Gov. Palin.

Regrettably, it appears that 2008 will be noted as one of America’s worst years for journalism.

Mr. Obama’s “deregulation” trope may be good politics, but it’s bad history and is dangerous if he really believes it.

The following appeared in the Wall Street Journal and it quotes Bill Clinton regarding the narrative put forth by Nancy Pelosi and her friends.  It seems that Mr. Clinton does not believe the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 had anything to do with the current crisis.  I would refer you to my previous article Common Sense Regarding The Bailout which lays the blame at the feet of Chris Dodd and the Democratic administrators of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act and groups like ACORN who Sen. Obama is so tightly connected.  I agree with the writer when they say, “Mr. Obama’s “deregulation” trope may be good politics, but it’s bad history and is dangerous if he really believes it.”

Bill v. Barack on Banks

Clinton instructs Obama on finance and Phil Gramm.

A running cliché of the political left and the press corps these days is that our current financial problems all flow from Congress’s 1999 decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that separated commercial and investment banking. Barack Obama has been selling this line every day. Bill Clinton signed that “deregulation” bill into law, and he knows better.

In BusinessWeek.com, Maria Bartiromo reports that she asked the former President last week whether he regretted signing that legislation. Mr. Clinton’s reply: “No, because it wasn’t a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter.

“But I have really thought about this a lot. I don’t see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn’t signed that bill.”

One of the writers of that legislation was then-Senator Phil Gramm, who is now advising John McCain, and who Mr. Obama described last week as “the architect in the United States Senate of the deregulatory steps that helped cause this mess.” Ms. Bartiromo asked Mr. Clinton if he felt Mr. Gramm had sold him “a bill of goods”?

Mr. Clinton: “Not on this bill I don’t think he did. You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can’t possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I’d be glad to look at the evidence.

“But I can’t blame [the Republicans]. This wasn’t something they forced me into. I really believed that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term investment.”

We agree that Mr. Clinton isn’t wrong about everything. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed the Senate on a 90-8 vote, including 38 Democrats and such notable Obama supporters as Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dick Durbin, Tom Daschle — oh, and Joe Biden. Mr. Schumer was especially fulsome in his endorsement.

As for the sins of “deregulation” more broadly, this is a political fairy tale. The least regulated of our financial institutions — hedge funds — have posed the least systemic risks in the current panic. The big investment banks that got into the most trouble could have made the same mortgage investments before 1999 as they did afterwards. One of their problems was that Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns weren’t diversified enough. They prospered for years through direct lending and high leverage via the likes of asset-backed securities without accepting commercial deposits. But when the panic hit, this meant they lacked an adequate capital cushion to absorb losses.

Meanwhile, commercial banks that had heavier capital requirements were struggling to compete with the Wall Street giants throughout the 1990s. Some of the deposit-taking banks that were allowed to diversify after 1999, such as J.P. Morgan and Bank of America, are now in a stronger position to withstand the current turmoil. They have been able to help stabilize the financial system through acquisitions of Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, Merrill Lynch and Countrywide Financial.

Mr. Obama’s “deregulation” trope may be good politics, but it’s bad history and is dangerous if he really believes it. The U.S. is going to need a stable, innovative financial system after this panic ends, and we won’t get that if Mr. Obama and his media chorus think the answer is to return to Depression-era rules amid global financial competition. Perhaps the Senator should ask the former President for a briefing. END of ARTICLE

Comment:  This is the biggest financial failure in history and the media is mainly putting forth the Obama/Pelosi narrative.  Nothing will be said against Sen. Obama.  The media is going to Wasilla and N. Vietnam, but won’t go to Chicago to do any serious investigation.

The Media’s behavior is shameful. What about the allegations that Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual gay sex with Larry Sinclair in November of 1999?   Will the MSM stop taking sides in the election and do their jobs? Will they investigate Mr. Sinclair’s allegations?  Will they dig into Obama’s past as hard as they have jumped on Sarah Palin and her 17 year old daughter? Will they look deeply into Obama’s relationships with William Ayers, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, Acorn, and all the rest? Will they look into the Democratic involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac failures? Will they call Sen. Obama to task for his possible violation of the Logan Act?

From RBO- What Caused Our Economic Crisis? Burning Down The House

This is from The Real Barack Obama:

Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis? (Update: Lobotobots at work)

September 26, 2008

The following was mercilessly stolen from Uppity Woman (the thief who stole it from Bill at the Patriot Room, who got it from Moe Lane at RedState). Be sure to not only watch all the way to the end of this fast-paced video, but take the time to follow the links back to those who have already commented on it. It’s verrrrry educational.

You are also encouraged to copy this video, post this video, email this video, spread this video far and wide — Now — Today — Often — as quickly as you can.

Read Uppity Woman’s No Credit? No Stable Income? No Down Payment? No Problem! Let’s Do It Again Suckers!. Uppity advises — watch the video …

You will learn the sequence. You will learn a LOT about Barack Obama and his penchant for Social Engineering too.

UPDATE — Lobotobot ALERT 09/30 15:00 pm ET: YouTube has now taken down not only the first version of the Burning Down the House video produced by TheMouthPiece, but has also taken down versions 2 (9/27) and 3 (9/29).

RBO just received an email notice that it was now available at VodPod, but that version has been removed as well.

Here’s a link that is still working; another one here; here; and here. It’s also uploaded at JibJab.

RBO will keep an eye on this developing situation brazen stupid attempt at censorship by the Lobotobots.

Source Articles / Graphs

A huge “hats off” to Sage Mountain, who “looked up each and every article and graph” and provides links “to all of the information presented in the video except a couple of graphs.” Domhead has links here, as well.

Explanation / Debunking

See an explanation for the removal of the first version at American Thinker as well as The Officious Intermeddler’s debunking of the music copyright infringement issue.

Pelosi: No Fannie/Freddie “witch hunt”

The Prowler at American Spectator reports September 30, 2008:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered her Majority Whip, Jim Clyburn, to essentially not do his job in the runup to the vote on Monday for the negotiated Wall Street bailout plan, according to House Democrat leadership aides.

[snip]

Pelosi and her aides have made it clear they were not going to “whip” or twist the arms of members who did not want to vote, but they also made no effort to rally any support for a bill they attempted to hijack over the weekend.

Further, according to House Oversight Committee staff, Emanuel has received assurances from Pelosi that she will not allow what he termed a “witch hunt” to take place during the next Congressional session over the role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played in the economic crisis…

Continue Reading