Posted on 03/16/2009 10:08:22 AM PDT by pissant
Southern California attorney Orly Taitz has emerged as a constitutional heroine in the fight to establish – albeit late – whether Barack Obama is even legally eligible to serve as president of the United States.
On Friday, she took the bold step of presenting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts with a WND petition of some 330,000 names calling on all controlling legal authorities to do just that.
And she did it before 800 people at the University of Idaho where he was speaking.
I have to tell you, this lady is rapidly becoming one of my heroes.
This question of eligibility is quite a story – or, should I say, non-story.
Anyone who dares mention it is now demeaned as a "birther."
I'll accept the title, if a "birther" is anyone who believes the Constitution really means what it plainly says about the president needing to be a "natural born citizen."
The insults won't stop me or WND from covering this issue as we have throughout the campaign and since the election. It's not going away – not until we see the complete birth certificate instead of the certification of live birth, and get some answers to questions of obviously growing concern to millions of Americans.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Well if you know he applied as a foreign student then just pony up the evidence you have that supports it and show us all to be frauds. You can do that, can't you?
Obama claims to have been born at Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/02/Sen_Barack_Obama_Democrat_of_Illinois/UPI-33901225647000/
How do you know the name of his birth hospital? Do you work for the family?
Every news source other than UPI says Kapiolani. That includes the Hawaii papers, which I would trust more than mainland paper to accurately document events in Hawaii. His half-sister also says Kapiolani. As far as I know, not a single member of his family has said it was Queens.
Someone at UPI screwed up. It happens. Journalists make mistakes. About and Snopes aren't news sources. They just quote news sources. They probably got their information from that same UPI article, which was mistaken.
I just phoned Posey’s DC office and they were very nice
I could not find any reference that pre-dates the UPI story, and UPI itself doesn't give a source. It's not surprising, though, since UPI generally practices rather sloppy journalism.
.
0bomo keeps all his essential documents hidden. The flip side is he sends his goons to get his opponent’s divorce records opened up
0boma is hiding something on his BC. Not sure what it is. Could be that he’s a bastard? Who knows
You call that critiquing a misleading ad? What kind of leftist stooge are? Factcheck uses the fat, lying cadaver Ted Kennedy to assure readers that his ammo ban, which Ears voted for, was not what the NRA claimed it was. I take it you know very little about guns and ammunition.
Factcheck also did not bother to quote Obama's past very well. Instead relying largely on his claims during the campaign. One look at this quote from Audacity of Dope should be enough to tell any thinking person what a gun-grabbing, lying sack of poop Obama is.
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
or this from his debate with Alan Keyes...
I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
There are lots more, sparky. And for you to defend Factcheck as evenhanded is the height of absurdity. Then the proof in the pudding was selecting the racist, gun grabbing POS Holder as AG.
Sorry that "kicked the bucket" is offensive to your well trained Politcally Correct ears. In the rest of America, it is common jargon.
BTW, post 190 demonstrates what a left wing organization Annenburg really is, beyond all doubt. Though, undoubtedly, your KOS buddies see it differently.
Yes. The NRA ad was somewhat misleading in places, but no more than most political ads, and I think factcheck was pretty objective in critiquing it.
Factcheck uses the fat, lying cadaver Ted Kennedy to assure readers that his ammo ban, which Ears voted for, was not what the NRA claimed it was.
They quote Ted Kennedy, but they also clearly acknowledge that it is possible that the bill could be interpreted by future administrations to ban hunting ammunition in the future:
"We grant that it is a theoretical possibility that some future administration could interpret Kennedy’s language as banning common hunting ammunition, despite Kennedy’s clear statement of intent to the contrary."
They realize the NRA has a point, and they admit it. Of course, they add:
"But we judge the likelihood of that to be vanishingly small, given the outcry that would surely follow."
I happen to disagree with that statement. However, they are very clear that it is their judgment, not a fact. As far as presenting facts goes, it's difficult to find anything to criticize in the article.
Factcheck also did not bother to quote Obama's past very well. Instead relying largely on his claims during the campaign.
Actually, that's not true at all. Did you even bother to read the factcheck article? They do in fact bring up many statements Obama made in the past.
They didn't quote his debate with Keyes, but they do aknowledge that the NRA ad is correct on Bambi's position on so-called assault weapons:
" It states Obama's positions on concealed weapons and on semi-automatic 'assault weapons' reasonably accurately."
They even put "assault weapons" in scare quotes! Do you know of a single lefty organization that acknowledges that the legal definition of "assault weapon" is arbitrary?
On the whole, I'd say the factcheck piece is a pretty even-handed, objective analysis of the NRA's ad. It acknowledges where the ad is accurate, and it identifies places where it is misleading. I don't agree with all of the factcheck piece, but in terms of presenting facts, I can't find much fault with it.
Now in your small, ultra-partisan mind you are probably going to claim I'm a gun-grabber because I agree with some of factcheck's criticism of the ad. You would, of course, be wrong, as I am an NRA supporter.
I realize people like you cannot fathom the possibility that supporting an organization does not mean having to defend every single ad it purchases or agreeing with every single thing it says. But such is life. Subtlety is not your forte, I know.
Did you go to college? If so, demand a refund.
Analysis: Fact-Checkers Fall Short in Criticizing NRA's Anti-Obama AdsBy John R. Lott, Jr.
Guns have become an important issue for Barack Obama’s campaign. Starting around the Pennsylvania primary, Obama and his campaign surrogates began strenuously assuring gun owners that he supports gun ownership, and it appears to be paying off. A poll in August showed that John McCain led Obama among hunters by only 14 percentage points, just about half the 27-point lead that President Bush held over John Kerry in 2004. If McCain had a similar lead, he would be ahead in most polls, particularly in many battleground states.
This past weekend, Joe Biden, campaigning in southwest Virginia, called any notion that Obama wanted to take away people’s guns “malarkey.” Montana's Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, previously told reporters that Obama "Ain't ever going to take your gun away." Obama regularly makes similar statements -- at least about rifles and shotguns.
Yet, the NRA, which has given the voting records of both Obama and Biden an “F” rating, has a quite different view, and has started a $15 million ad campaign to warn people about what it regards as Obama’s and Biden’s records. One mailer from the NRA says, "Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history."
Critical news stories have been run on the NRA’s ads in the Washington Post, FactCheck.org, CNN, and many other places. ABC’s Jake Tapper and CBS’s Brian Montopoli posted stories that merely stated what the NRA ads said.
The Washington Post describes its own Fact Checker report as giving the NRA “spot three out of four Pinocchios for its claims that Obama would take away guns and ammunition used by hunters.”
The Dallas Morning News describes FactCheck.org as saying that “NRA ads and mailers that say Obama wants to ban handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense are false.”
CNN labeled the ads as “Misleading” and claimed that “While Obama has supported some measures to limit gun rights, he has backed nothing on the scale suggested in the ad.”
Brooks Jackson, who authored the FactCheck.org piece with D'Angelo Gore, was extremely upset about the NRA ads. Jackson told FOX News: “They are lying. This is what they do. This is how they make their money. Do these people have no shame? They are just making this up. I just wish that they would tell the truth.” He said that their ads were “one of the worst examples of lying” that he had “ever seen.”
But what are the facts? Were the NRA ads this bad? How accurate are the fact checkers? FactCheck.org, which is regularly relied on by FOX News, had the longest critical discussion of the ads. Here is a review of their most critical comments.
"Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns" -- FactCheck.org writes that this is “false,” because of a 2003 statement from Obama that “a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable.” They discount an earlier 1996 candidate survey where Obama says that he supports such a ban primarily because it was older than the 2003 statement. While they don’t mention another statement from 1998 where Obama supported a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic guns (a ban that would encompass the vast majority of guns sold in the U.S.), they presumably also discounted that for the same reason.
But Obama has come out for handgun bans as recently as this past February. ABC News’ local Washington, D.C., anchor, Leon Harris, asked Obama: "One other issue that's of great importance here in the district as well is gun control ... but you support the D.C. handgun ban." Obama's simple response: "Right." When Harris said "And you've said that it's constitutional," Obama again says "right" and is clearly seen on tape nodding his head "yes."
A statement to the Chicago Tribune by Obama’s campaign the previous November stated that, "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." It doesn’t help that the Democratic Party National Platform this year supports the Chicago gun ban.
Obama also served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, probably the largest private funder of anti-gun and pro-ban groups and research in the country. In total, the foundation gave $18.6 million to approximately 80 anti-gun efforts while he was on the board. For example, $1.5 million went to the Violence Policy Center, which puts out such claims as “Why America Needs to Ban Handguns.” During Obama’s time with the foundation, not a single donation was made to any group that supported individuals’ rights to own guns.
But there is much more evidence that Obama supported handgun bans. As will be discussed below, there is legislation he supported in the Illinois state senate that would have banned over 90 percent of gun stores in the country and eliminated gun stores in most states.
Brooks Jackson told FOX News that “I believe that [Obama] supported striking down the D.C. gun ban. That is what he said that he believed.” In addition, he said that the ad was “clearly discussing a national ban, not local bans. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. It is just an amazing lie.”
Regarding Obama’s work with the Joyce Foundation, Jackson said, “You are an academic? You are asking about the Joyce Foundation? What does that have to do with anything? You would have failed the freshman college logic test.”
"Barack Obama opposes my right to own a handgun for self-defense" -- FactCheck.org rewrites this slightly to read: "Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense" and labels this statement as “false.” Their evaluation of this claim focuses solely on a 2004 vote Obama made in the Illinois state senate. An Associated Press article described the vote this way: "He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation."
FactCheck.org claims that the vote was merely over creating a “loophole” for letting people violate local gun ban ordinances. Yet, it is hard to look at this vote and the facts in the previous section and not see a pattern that Obama favors rules that ban handguns. He voted against any rules that would weaken the Chicago handgun ban, and if you support a handgun ban, it would seem obvious that you oppose those same people using handguns for self-defense.
"Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting" -- FactCheck.org acknowledges that Obama voted for a bill that would “expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition,” but labels this statement as “false.” Their evidence is a statement by the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ted Kennedy, that the bill “is not about hunting.”
But here is the problem with Kennedy’s claim. The bill banned ammunition that “may be used in a handgun” and can penetrate the “minimum,” type 1, level of body armor, which only protects against the lowest-powered handgun cartridges. Any center-fire rifle, including those used for hunting or target practice, can penetrate this “minimum” armor. There are handguns that can fire these rifle rounds, so the bill’s language of banning ammunition that “may be used in a handgun” would be met.
In addition, FactCheck.org ignores other information. Obama said in a 2003 questionnaire that he “support[ed] banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons.” The rifles banned under the so-called assault weapons ban used such standard ammunition as .223 and .308 caliber bullets, the same ammunition used commonly in hunting rifles.
When asked about these arguments, Jackson told FOX News, “Have you looked at the legislation? You have to look at the legislative history. This is just an amazing lie put out by them.”
"Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment" -- FactCheck.org claims that this statement is “unsupported” because Obama hasn’t explicitly stated that he would appoint judges using such a litmus test. Indeed, I can find no record of Obama ever being asked if he would use the Second Amendment as a litmus test, but Obama has been very clear about what types of Justices he would and would not appoint to the Supreme Court.
Obama has said that he “profoundly disagree[s] with [Clarence Thomas’] interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." He has also been critical of Antonin Scalia, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Together these four justices provided four of the five votes to strike down the D.C. gun ban, with Scalia writing the majority opinion.
On the other side, Obama has pointed to Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer as models for the type of people he would appoint to the court. Those justices provided three of the four votes that argued that there was no individual right to own a gun, and Breyer wrote one of the dissenting opinions.
When asked about whether Obama’s statements about what judges he would appoint could explain the NRA’s concerns, Jackson said that it “doesn’t inform [Jackson’s] view. . . . He hasn’t said that he would appoint people who didn’t believe in the Second Amendment.”
*[ Side note : Obama appointed Eric Holder to the Attorney General of the United States. Holder signed an amicus brief in the D.C. vs. Heller case that supported the D.C. gun ban and claimed that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right.]
"Mandate a Government-Issued License to Purchase a Firearm" -- FactCheck.org takes Obama’s statement when asked about licensing and registration of gun owners that, "I just don't think we can get that done,” as evidence that the NRA’s claim is "misleading." FactCheck.org concedes that Obama has clearly supported licensing handguns, but argues that there is no evidence that Obama supported licensing for rifles and shotguns. Yet, it fails to mention the Illinois Firearms Owners Identification (FOID) Card that serves as a license that Illinois residents must have to buy any type of firearm.
While a state senator, Obama clearly supported the licensing system. He voted to make it illegal for anyone to possess a firearm without a FOID card even when they were in direct supervision of someone with the card, and he voted against lowering the age for people to be eligible for a FOID card from 21 to 18. To Obama, these votes clearly indicate that the FOID card was a license to use the gun just as much as one needs a driver’s license to drive on public roads.
"Increase Federal Taxes on Guns and Ammunition by 500 Percent" and "Close Down 90 Percent of Gun Shops in America" are classified as “uncertain” because even though Obama has indeed supported these policies in the past, FactCheck.org was unable to get the Obama campaign to state what his current position was on these issues. Yet, it is hard to see how FactCheck.org could even raise questions about the NRA ads on these points since Obama clearly held these positions in the past and has never said that he has changed his mind on them. The very fact that the Obama campaign would not issue any statement disowning these previous positions would seem to imply that Obama still supported them.
"Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history." -- FactCheck.org ends its analysis by questioning whether this “pretty tall statement” is justified and ends with a quote that Obama says that he has “always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms.” Yet, this is the same candidate who months earlier supported a ban on guns as constitutional and who refused join the other 55 Senators who signed the friend of the court brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down the D.C. gun ban. While previous candidates, such as Al Gore, have supported licensing and registration, no presidential nominee for a major party has ever supported such widespread bans on guns and ammunition.
Jackson said that “Obama agrees with the NRA on this issue (that the Second Amendment is an individual right). They should just accept it rather than lying about it.” He noted that “Obama had to accept all sorts of abuse for coming out and saying this. It was the brave thing for him to do. He had to endure all sorts of abuse – claims of going back and forth on the issue, that he was vague on the issue.”
Obama campaign representative Bill Burton told FOX News that "These ads are just complete crap." When Megyn Kelly asked "Has [Obama] ever supported a ban on handguns? . . . And he never has?" Burton said flatly "no." He added that "All the points in these ads are just flatly false."
The Washington Post analysis only discusses two issues: the Kennedy ammunition ban and the 500 percent ammunition tax. On the Kennedy bill, the Post makes the same mistake as FactCheck.org. Regarding the tax, the Post doesn’t deny that Obama held that position, but points out that the legislation Obama supported was in 1999 and that it is not clear what guns would have their ammunition taxed. CNN’s discussion appears unwilling to admit that Obama has supported large-scale bans on gun ownership.
Here are some excellent articles on FactCheck's Obama bias :
and here :
Here's David T. Hardy's brilliant article : Obama and the Attempt to Destroy the Second Amendment ( dealing with Obama's work with the Joyce Foundation ).
And even more here : Damnum Absque Injuria
Brooks Jackson has his nose so far up Obama's ass that it isn't even funny...
But the Obama skid marks, like curiosity, don’t believe that factcheck are leftwing operators. She must be in academia.
Born in Hawaii, or Nairobi, then naturalized to Indonesia or somewhere like that. Who cares; he’s the same doofus or genius, depending upon who you talk to. What is not amusing is that his college/grad school admissions records and everything else interesting (scandalous) were not scoured by the mainstream but already you (generically)were amused by all the lawsuits. You must have even more doctorate degrees than me. OK.
If he was born in Hawaii then your case is lost - he's a natural born citizen and qualified for the presidency.
...already you (generically)were amused by all the lawsuits.
Very much so.
You must have even more doctorate degrees than me. OK.
Don't have a one. Don't need it to see the humor in all this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.