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

Common Sense Regarding The Bailout

Common Sense Regarding The Bailout

Rule One: If you reward bad behavior, you get bad behavior.

In the news this week and probably in the weeks to come is the financial mess that threatens the U.S. economy. I sincerely hope that all parties (Congress, Wall Street, & Taxpayers) will take just a little time to consider the common sense lessons that most of us know to be true. The most important rule in shaping behavior is that if you reward bad behavior you will get more bad behavior.

Once we look past the spin the election and media are putting on this issue, we will find common sense pointing to a clear violation of the basic rule about rewarding bad behavior.

For years and years, bankers relied on time honored rules concerning the lending of money for purchasing houses. These rules included the following:

· Never lend more than a borrower can afford to repay;

· Never lend 100% of the value of the home because it important for the borrower to have a financial stake in the purchase and if home value goes down in the short term the banker’s risk will remain secured; and,

· If a loan has any possibility of remaining as a bank asset, make damn sure the first two rules are followed.

The current financial mess clearly stems from numerous legislative actions that effected the latter of these guiding principles in mortgage lending. Historically, risk to the mortgage lender and to the borrower (the possibility of losing equity) had kept this system secure and rolling along for years.

Congress, a few decades ago, decided to tinker with the system and the result was that risk was shifted from where it belongs. The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 and bankers who might have wanted to expand were effectively required to make numerous loans in neighborhoods where the property values were less stable (more risk) and to borrowers who were less likely to be able to repay these loans (more risk). More and more regulations were passed by Congress that further added to this change in the amount of risk that banks were exposed.

Under this Act, bank expansions could be held up by complaints from community groups such as ACORN. This gave such groups enormous leverage to threaten and extort lenders into make riskier and riskier loans.

Then in came Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac buying up the questionable loans (sub-prime) and encouraging more and more lending in unstable areas, to borrowers of questionable means. Fannie and Freddy then bundled up the risky loans and resold them on the world market. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac had rewarded the banks’ bad lending practices by assuming their risk. The banks seeing their risk disappear were freed of the historic check on bad lending practices – LOSS. You know the rest of the story.

Well actually, many will buy into the spin that Sen. Obama and the Democratic leadership are trying to put out – that all of these problems lie at the feet of the Republicans and their not wanting regulation. This is blatantly a distortion of the facts.

If fact, Republican leadership has for the past couple of decades have tried to reign in Fannie Mae’s and Freddy Mac’s irresponsible manipulation of the financial markets. In 2005, Sen. McCain was a co-sponsor of legislation that would have, most likely, prevented this crisis. However, this legislation was blocked by Democrats. Understandably, the media has been reluctant to give Sen. McCain the credit he deserves given that they are wholeheartedly supporting Sen. Obama.

Sen. Obama’s guiding principle of “Obama First” will not allow him to tell voters about the real story of Democratic responsibility for this crisis. Additionally, Sen. Obama has extensive ties to those who led Fannie Mae on its path to fiscal crisis and to ACORN, a group that put incredible pressure on lenders to make risky loans.

The shift in risk away from lenders primarily resulted from Democratic policy initiatives aimed at getting more home ownership in minority neighborhoods. However well intentioned, these initiatives are a root cause the financial crisis we are now facing. Congress was incompetent by not being able to recognize the predictable consequences of their interference with this industry.

So what does common sense tell us about the need for a bailout?

First of all, there is plenty of blame to go around:

• Congress created the shift of risk that occurred and rewarded the bad lending practices by allowing the purchase these loans by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
• Bankers should have held fast to their understanding of sound lending practices and tried harder to resist Congress’s drive to riskier loans.
• Groups like ACORN insisted that banks make loans to borrowers who lacked the ability to repay these loans.
• Borrowers should have resisted making loans that they were unlikely to be able to repay.
• The media should have alerted the voters about the real situation at Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
• Voters should have voted out the people who caused this financial mess years ago.

Second, the House of Representative did a good thing voting down the bailout.

“The American people rejected this bailout and now Congress did likewise,” said U.S. Rep. Mike Pence

Many times legislation that is enacted is such haste will be susceptible to serious defects and inclusion of hidden provisions.

Third, a bailout that rewards bad behavior will get more bad behavior on the part of business. Executives of banks that are involved in this bailout should not be rewarded with golden parachutes. Groups like ACORN must not receive any benefits under any bailout or rescue package. Borrowers who were not misled by lenders and those who were involved in buying homes for investment purposes should take their loss and move on. Members of Congress who encouraged, facilitated and/or concealed the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac should resign or be voted out of office. A non-partisan investigation should be required to investigate the failure of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac; and those who are guilty of wrong doing should go to jail. This is common sense.

Forth, any rescue package must require transparency and sound lending practices.

“It is now imperative that Congress come together and develop a response to the crisis facing our financial markets that reflects the American people’s belief in personal responsibility and fiscal discipline.” — Rep. Mike Pence, Republican.

Fifth, any package that is passed should not result in a Federal takeover of the financial industry. It is clear that the government and politics is the main culprit in the story of financial collapse and it should not be trusted to manage this industry in a responsible manner. Something along the lines of the extension FDIC insurance and loans to banks would be preferable. (After the Enron mess, Congress hastily required that assets be valued to market and this good intentioned regulation has exacerbated the current situation. When valued at today’s market, mortgages look worthless.) Allowing banks to value their assets in terms of what the market will be some time in the future could take some pressure off the markets and each individual bank’s portfolio. Politicians are not financial experts and many times they pass regulations that do more harm.

U.S. Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, declared that the bailout might put the nation on the “slippery slope to socialism.”

Sixth, voters should be told the real story by the media.

Unfortunately, voters and tax payers will not be able to trust the media to provide accurate information. This election cycle has resulted in creating a media cheerleading section for Sen. Obama and Democrats. The media is refusing to look at any issue that may reflect badly against Sen. Obama.

The Media’s behavior thus far has been 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? 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? Will they look into the allegations made in Berg v. Obama that he is not eligible to be President? Probably Not.

In conclusion, it is clear that something needs to be done soon. However, whatever is done must be based on facts and common sense; and not politics.

Jeff Schreiber- Berg v Obama Update- Comment by Zach

This is from Jeff Schreiber:

Monday, September 29, 2008

Berg v. Obama Update — Monday, September 29

Berg to File Opposition to Obama’s Motion to Dismiss Today

By the end of the day today, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg will file an Opposition and supporting Brief in response to the Motion to Dismiss filed by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee with regard to the underlying August 21, 2008 suit filed by Berg which contends that Obama is not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of president of the United States.

The Motion to Dismiss filed by Obama and the DNC last Wednesday–available for view and download HERE–made two distinct arguments: First, that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Berg has no standing to file suit and, secondly, that Berg’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Among other authority cited by Obama and the DNC in support of the first defense was Hollander v. McCain, a recent case from New Hampshire in which the court held that Fred Hollander, asserting the claim that Arizona Sen. John McCain was ineligible for the presidency based upon his birth in the Panama Canal Zone, lacked standing to sue. In that case, the court cited several factors in its decision:

1. Regardless of McCain’s eligibility for the presidency, his candidacy did not constitute a “restriction on voters’ rights” as it did not preclude Hollander or anyone else from voting for another candidate in the New Hampshire primary.
2. The “generalized interest of of all citizens in constitutional governance” was not enough to claim harm.
3. Hollander failed to allege that any harm was indeed proximately “traceable” to McCain’s alleged unlawful conduct.
4. McCain was “unquestionably an American citizen.”

Berg is quick to distinguish Hollander. First, he says, Obama’s candidacy for the presidency in the general election prevents citizens from voting for Hillary Clinton despite her 18 million votes received in the primary election. Second, the harm Berg suffered is particular to him because he has been denied the constitutional right to cast his ballot for an eligible candidate. Third, his claims of injury can indeed be traced to Obama’s unlawful behavior, his “failure to disclose information to which American voters are entited.” And finally, the defendants have failed to show, as mentioned by the New Hampshire court in Hollander, that Sen. Obama is “unquestionably an American citizen.”

“If you take a closer look at the factors used by the court to decide Hollander v. McCain,” Berg said, “Those very same factors clearly come down in favor of me having standing in this case.”

There are a number of other avenues by which Berg could address the argument that he lacks standing.

First, he says that the failure of the Federal Election Commission and the DNC to investigate Barack Obama and his campaign, which has fraudulently taken in more than $400 million all the while knowing that he cannot serve as president, runs afoul of 5 USC §702, which states, in relevant part, that “[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.”

Second, pursuant to 2 USC §437(d), the Federal Election Commission has the power to, among other things, require documentary evidence relating to the execution of its duties and conduct investigations and other mechanisms expeditiously and to report any apparent violations to law enforcement authorities as deemed appropriate. The agency, Berg says, has breached its duty to remedy any wrongdoing with regard to the political process.

“We’ve brought these issues to the attention of the DNC and the FEC but they’ve refused to take any action whatsoever to protect voters in this country,” Berg said. “Voters have donated $400 million to a candidate who fraudulently seeks the presidency.”

Furthermore, Berg plans to argue that he has standing under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(b), which states that whenever the loss of citizenship is at issue with regard to a civil action presumably such as this, the burden of proof is placed on the party bringing the action–in this case, Berg–to establish the claim by preponderance of the evidence.

“Every country has its own laws,” Berg said. “In one of his books, Obama wrote that his stepfather went back to Indonesia from Hawaii a little while before Obama and his mother did. When he finally got there, all the friends and relatives were out to meet him, the stepfather called him his son, and he was already registered in school.”

“We have the school registration papers,” Berg said, referring of course to the Associated Press-verified record from Obama’s school in Indonesia which shows his name as “Barry Soetoro,” his citizenship as Indonesian and his religion as Islam. “To be registered, the stepfather had to acknowledge that Obama was his son. For Obama to be acknowledged as his stepfather’s son, he had to become a natural born citizen of Indonesia.”

That’s right, Berg said “natural born citizen of Indonesia.” I asked him if his argument that Obama became a natural born Indonesian without being born there somehow weakened his argument that the Illinois senator wasn’t a natural born U.S. citizen because he was born in Kenya. He cited Article II of the Indonesian Constitution, which states that an adopted child–with the adoption severing the child’s relationship with the birth parent in question according to Indonesian law–is given the same status as a natural born child.

Interestingly enough, Berg also cites a case I had brought to his attention and asked him about, something we had read in school a while ago. Though Federal Election Commission v. Akins was a case which has nothing to do with citizenship–it questioned whether or not the American Israel Public Affair Commitee (AIPAC) could be considered a “political committee” under the Federal Election Campaign Act–the thing that struck me about it was the Court’s treatment of the plaintiffs. The Court, in that case, was concerned with “informational injury.” When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s action, the court stated the following:

…Continue Reading Here

Comment – Still the MSM is boycotting this story.  Thanks to Jeff Schreiber for all of his work regarding this matter.  Too bad Hillary doesn’t join in this suit.   She certainly has standing.

Obama’s campaign is shameful. 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? Will they support Rush Limbaugh against Sen. Obama’s smears? Unfortunately, the answer is No.

By Mark Impomeni, In WH Meeting, Obama Muddied Waters – Comment from Zach – Media spin is spinning truth out the window.

This is from AOL News:

In WH Meeting, Obama Muddied Waters

By Mark Impomeni
Sep 26th 2008 6:30PM

Media reports are emerging from sources inside the White House meeting between the Administration and Congressional leaders of both parties. Contrary to the narrative Democrats are pushing, that Sen. John McCain’s presence at the negotiations slowed the process down, reports are that it was Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership that interjected partisan politics into the negotiations over a financial bailout of Wall Street. Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) conspired with allies inside the Treasury Department to ambush minority Republicans at the meeting, causing the talks to devolve into a partisan shouting match.

According to a source in the Obama campaign, Sen. Obama was provided with advance notice of an alternative financial rescue package being crafted by House Republicans through a campaign fundraiser and current employee of Goldman Sachs, Treasure Secretary Hank Paulson’s former employer. Obama was also made privy to Secretary Paulson’s concerns about the Republican plan. Republicans no doubt intended to present the plan at the White House meeting, which was billed as a negotiation. But Democrats opened their presentation by turning the floor over to Sen. Obama, who proceeded to attack the Republicans at the table using Paulson’s notes on the Republican plan, foreclosing on any possibility of constructive negotiations being conducted.

Sen. McCain, on the other hand, did not take a high profile role at the White House meeting. He did not take a position on either the Administration’s proposal, or the House Republicans’ alternative. Rather, he listened to all sides, and spent the remainder of the evening in shuttle diplomacy between House and Senate Republicans, searching for a way to find common ground in their positions.

Democrats have been busy criticizing Sen. McCain’s role in the negotiations today, with Sen. Harry Reid saying that there was an agreement, “until you know who came to town.” But that statement is patently false. There was no agreement yesterday that included House Republicans, as the Obama campaign and Sen. Reid claim. The Republican present at the meetings prior to Sen. McCain’s arrival, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) said at the time that he was not authorized to agree to anything on behalf of the House GOP. And since Speaker Pelosi has stated that she will not bring a bailout bill to the floor without protecting her flank with Republican support, no deal was possible.

Democrats and the Obama campaign are trying to spin the failure to reach an agreement last night on Sen. McCain, and at the same time trying to accuse McCain of bringing presidential politics to the negotiating table. But that spin does not match the reality of what happened in the White House Cabinet Room last night. There is no more nakedly political act than taking action to cause a breakdown of negotiations, as Sen. Obama did in concert with Democratic leaders and Secretary Paulson, and then blaming the other side for the consequences.

End of Article-

Political spin, media spin, character spin, ethics spin – the media is making sure that the Obama narrative is the only narrative to reach the voters. Media spin is spinning truth out the window.

Obama’s campaign is shameful. 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? Will they support Rush Limbaugh against Sen. Obama’s smears? Unfortunately, the answer is No.

The Obama Bradley Effect Complexity

The Obama Bradley Effect Complexity (Repost)

(Race is only a small part.)

In politics and polling there exists a phenomenon known as the “Bradley Effect”. It came in to being during the 1982 campaign of Tom Bradley, a black politician, who was running for Governor of California against George Deukmejian, a white politician. The polls leading into the election showed Bradley with a lead, as did the exit polls. However, once in the ballot booth, many voters pulled the lever for the white candidate. Deukmejian won the election. Voters had told pollsters one thing and when push came to shove, they did another.

In this election, even though pollsters are attempting to compensate for the Bradley Effect through sly questioning, some are saying that scope of the effect could reach as high as 5 – 10 percent of potential voters. Unfortunately, this is being attributed solely to Obama’s race. I would like suggest that if we have a variance between the polls and the vote count, the cause will be much more complicated than simply race.

I think there are probably no less than five considerations that may give rise to some degree of deception on the part of voters.

Race

I’m sure that there will be a small portion of the voting public that will not vote for Senator Obama because he is black and may lie to avoid being thought of as racist. (The real racists are probably already reflected in the polls.) Thankfully, in this day and age, this will represent only small percentage of the population because most people are beyond race as a reason to exclude someone from elected office. However, my worry is that the media and the black community may see or try to portray any difference between polling and the actual numbers as being completely about Obama’s race. That would be a shame, because such a portrayal would almost certainly be a misrepresentation of the actual situation.

So what are the other possibilities that could show up as a difference between polling and actual votes?

A Tarnished Republican Brand

The media, the left, and the Republican Party itself have been extremely effective in damaging the Republican brand. The media with its obvious visceral dislike for President Bush takes every opportunity to shape the news in the least favorable light towards the Republican Party; and, their vilification has worked. In some circles, instead of thinking of Republicans as the party of small government, integrity, fiscal responsibility, national security and state’s rights; they are thought of big spending, big government, morally bankrupt, war mongers. Even though, the vast majority of Republicans in their personal and public lives remain true to the highest principles of what it means to be Republican, the public image (mis)portrayed daily in the media over the past dozens of years is the one the general public sees. This vilification has been so relentless that it is easy to imagine some Republicans saying they would vote for Sen. Obama so maybe the media and pollsters might give them absolution. However, once in the voting booth, their heart of hearts may kick in and they will not be able to pull the level for such an inexperienced, naïve, corrupt, unpatriotic politician who will move the United States towards socialism.

The Blue Dog and Conservative Democrats

This will be a group from which I expect some volatility come Election Day. Democrats who consider themselves part of the center politically may be somewhat hesitant to tell a pollster that they will not be voting for Senator Obama, the Democrat. When the Blue Dogs actually face the choice in the voting booth of surrendering the Democratic Party to the extreme left wing or waiting another 4 years for a better option, we may see many pull the lever for Senator McCain.

Former Clinton Supporters

As someone who considers themselves an Independent, I’ve had the recent opportunity to get to know several Clinton supporters and I have been pleasantly surprised by their thoughtfulness, civility and compassion. I met these folks when I started blogging just a few months ago in support of Larry Sinclair’s right to have his allegations against Sen. Obama heard and investigated by the media. (The media continues to avoid doing their jobs.) As a result, it is not hard for me to imagine former Clinton supporters who are Democrats with a capital D having a hard time telling a pollster that they would not be supporting the Democratic nominee. However, when they get in the voting booth I imagine many will be thinking back and remembering the disrespectful treatment Ms. Clinton received from Sen. Obama and the media.

The media turned on Sen. Clinton before our eyes and Sen. Obama went so far a to flip her a bird while pretending to scratch his nose. I would bet you a dollar to a donut that both of the Clintons will be voting for McCain no matter what they say publicly.

Through this blogging experience, I have also observed first hand the cult like brutality and nastiness of Obama’s internet thugs who patrol the internet trying to quell opposition. They have released opposition blogger’s sensitive personal information, social security numbers, identities, caused blogs to be shut down, and have made other serious threats, including death threats against Mr. Sinclair. Consequently, I am very concerned that Sen. Obama will give these thugs and people like Rev. Wright, William Ayers, Farrakhan, etc. legitimacy.

The Media’s Unbridled Support and Their Creation of Superstar Status for Senator Obama Implies that the Election is Already Won

As unfortunate as it is, some people want to be perceived as being on the winning side. So at this stage, when a pollster asks Mary and Tom who they are voting for – if they are insecure and/or approval driven, they may just say Obama because media is supporting him and they believe he will win. However, once they’ve made their public declaration for Obama, they are safe. In the privacy of the voting booth, common sense will have an opportunity to rear its marvelous head and require them to vote against Obama because of all the unanswered questions about his life and experience. The questions the media have tried to down play, not report and/or cover-up. The sounds of the hate speech from the Senator’s spiritual advisor, Rev. Wright, will come thundering against the curtain. All the allegations of corruption circling around Tony Rezko and his friends will put an odor in the air. The images of the Senator befriending a Pentagon bomber, William Ayers, may raise again the issue of just how patriotic is this man. The total unfairness of the media’s fawning over Senator Obama may tweak the conscience of the voter and urge him or her to say no to the liberal media’s malicious tampering. The allegations of Larry Sinclair that he and the Senator did cocaine and engaged in consensual gay sex in 1999 will beg the questions: When did he stop using drugs? If the Senator is not faithful in his relationship with Michelle, how faithful will he be to America?

The Idea of Being a “Progressive” Seems Appealing at First Glance

Lastly, the thought of a Progressive making steps towards something better seems attractive. However, when one really looks at what it means to be a “Progressive” it should make most American’s recoil. This political ideology has its roots in the early part of this century with President Wilson. What it is really about is the idea that they, “The Progressives”, have evolved to a place of understanding and enlightenment about what is best for all of us. The people that I have encountered who truly buy into this ideology are many times closed minded and condescending because they do believe that they know best. Senator Obama’s statement about rural American being bitter and clinging to their guns and religion totally reflects the “Progressive’s” view of most of us. Further, Progressives unfortunately do not hold the Constitution in as high of regard as most Americans because they believe it was written in time long past – for a time long past; and now, it can and should be changed or interpreted as needed to facilitate their goals.

However, I can easily see how some voters might want to be identified as progressive; because, you know, it’s progressive and Obama’s progressive so they will vote for him because everyone must want to progress. The closer the election gets, I can only hope that these people will discover just how destructive Senator Obama’s agenda will be to our economy, security and founding principles. No. Regrettably, I think they will probably vote just as they told the pollster because once they progress how can they not progress, because Obama says he progressed and everyone must want to progress. I think these people probably make up the cult.

As anyone can see, I am not a supporter of Senator Obama. However, my non-support is entirely because of his policies and what I have discovered about him; and has absolutely nothing to do with his race. In my opinion, Senator Obama should lose this election because he is not the best person for the Presidency of the United States.

However, if Senator Obama does lose, I do sincerely hope that all people will consider the possibility that many factors may have contributed to any differences between the polls and the actually votes. As much as some may want it to be, race is not that big a deal today.

Thank God.

End of Article