From the Washington Post:

U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) hand wrote her legislative fix on a yellow legal pad, which she delivered to the Senate clerk, to ensure that any persons born to U.S. citizens serving in the Armed Services while stationed abroad qualify to become president of the United States.

Obama Backs Law Helping McCain

By Shailagh Murray

FT. WORTH, Texas — Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign announced he would co-sponsor legislation introduced yesterday by his political ally Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill to ensure that John McCain can become president, even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

The issue of McCain’s eligibility was raised in a New York Times article noting the constitutional requirement that a U.S. president be a “natural-born citizen” had never been fully defined.

The McCaskill bill, submitted immediately after she scrawled it onto a notepad on the Senate floor in response to the Times story, would establish the eligibility of anyone born to a U.S. citizen who is serving overseas as an active or reserve members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The Arizona senator’s father was a Navy officer serving in the Canal Zone when McCain was born there in 1936.

“Senator McCain has earned the right to be his party’s nominee, and no loophole should prevent him from competing in this campaign,” said Obama.

Legislative wizards Barack Obama and Claire MCaskill

May Allah preserve us from such preposterous pig ignorance.

Mind you, St. Obama pretends to be a Constitutional scholar.

Of course we have debunked this errant nonsense already. As anyone with an internet connection or a library card can do in a few minutes.

But, still, they has better pass this law through quickly, so as to legitimatize these gentlemen:

Who, alas, were all born on British soil, and we now know, were thereby unqualified to hold the office of the Presidency.

Heck, they weren’t even born to US citizens.

One under-reported aspect of the Democrat primary campaign has been the candidates’ relentless wooing of the homosexual vote.

According to reports in pro-homosexual media outlets, Mr. Obama has recently ratcheted up his efforts, with aggressive ad buys and press releases.

He is now placing this “generic” LGBT ad in homosexual newspapers in Ohio and Texas:

Enlarge

The following is Mr. Obama’s latest missive to the homosexual community. (Weirdly it does not seem to be available anywhere on his campaign website, but several homosexual outlets have it in pdf format):

Open Letter From Barack Obama To The LGBT Community

I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans.

Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I cosponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have cosponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.

Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act DOMA a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.

I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can accord same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception. We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives.

We also need a president who’s willing to confront the stigma too often tied to homophobia that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president. That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone.

If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones and that’s what I’ve done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached.

Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.

Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.

The trouble is what Mr. Obama (and Mrs. Clinton) are calling for is not equality but special treatment.

In fact, Mr. Obama even tries to out-pander Hillary:

Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act DOMA a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.

I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can accord same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

Isn’t that good news? Especially the dream of allowing more homosexual illegal aliens to bring their “spouses” to this country as citizens.

But given Mr. Obama’s self-proclaimed courage on the issue, you have to wonder why he is being so stealthy about this letter and his support for homosexual rights in general.

From the Hillary campaign, via YouTube:

Children

When the call comes at 3 a.m. in the White House, who do you want answering the phone?

We hear you, Lyndon Hillary.

Daisy H-Bomb

1964 LBJ political ad against Barry Goldwater – Loves me loves me not daisy H-Bomb

The glove are coming off.

  Update!

The Obama campaign has responded, via his minions at the New York Times:

Obama Responds to Phone Ad

By Jeff Zeleny

February 29, 2008

HOUSTON – It is, Senator Barack Obama says, “a legitimate question.”

“Who do you want answering the phone in the White House when it’s 3 a.m. and something has happened in the world?”

In a conversation with military veterans here, Mr. Obama responded to the television advertisement that is the talk of today’s political water cooler: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s new commercial stressing her credentials on national security.

“We’ve seen these ads before. They’re the kind that play on people’s fears to try to scare up votes,” Mr. Obama said. “I don’t think these ads will work this time, because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is what kind of judgment will you exercise when you pick up that phone?” …

After the television ad was released today by Mrs. Clinton, the Obama campaign first responded in a conference call with reporters. Advisers weighed whether to have Mr. Obama address it directly. If he did, wouldn’t he be lending credibility to his rival by dignifying it with his words? If he didn’t, would he be ceding ground on national security?

While Mr. Obama has been trying to talk less about Mrs. Clinton and more about Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, aides decided to have him respond directly – and on camera. So he addressed it before beginning a meeting with veterans at the American Legion Post 490 on Old Galveston Road, which sits across from Ellington Field here in Houston.

“The question is, ‘What kind of judgment will you exercise when you pick up that phone?’” Mr. Obama said, speaking over applause from about three dozen veterans and their families. “In fact, we have had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer, George Bush gave the wrong answer, John McCain gave the wrong answer.” …

“I will never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, because it’s a threat that should rally this country around our common enemies,” Mr. Obama said. “That is the judgment we need at 3 a.m.” …

Ironically, the Obama campaign seems to have answered the question:

After the television ad was released today by Mrs. Clinton, the Obama campaign first responded in a conference call with reporters. Advisers weighed whether to have Mr. Obama address it directly. If he did, wouldn’t he be lending credibility to his rival by dignifying it with his words? If he didn’t, would he be ceding ground on national security? …

[A]ides decided to have him respond directly – and on camera.

Oh, my sides. If they have to dither about something this inane, imagine how they would handle the ‘big stuff’?

Not that Mrs. Clinton would do any better.

“I will never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, because it’s a threat that should rally this country around our common enemies,” Mr. Obama said.

The trouble with Mr. Obama is that we can’t be sure if he actually meant to say “rally against our common enemies,” rather than “rally around” them.

And that makes him a very dangerous choice to be President at any time.

From an outraged (at the Islamophobes) Chicago Tribune:

Michelle Obama campaigning in Chillicothe, Ohio for her husband, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Thursday Feb. 28, 2008.

Michelle Obama: name Hussein is ‘the fear bomb’

by Mark Silva

Michelle Obama, who often has decried “the fear bomb” that opponents have used against her husband for his middle name — Barack Hussein Obama — said in Canton, Ohio, today that it is happening again and shows why it’s so important that he wins election as president.

“They threw in the obvious, ultimate fear bomb,” Obama said today of her husband’s 2004 Senate race. “We’re even hearing [that] now. … ‘When all else fails, be afraid of his name, and what that could stand for, because it’s different.’”

The senator’s wife said that rivals use innuendo to play on fears. “Just as they’re saying it now,” she said.

But, she told about 200 supporters this morning at a restored theater in Canton, Obama won despite that “climate of negativity and doubt” in 2004. “We learned, number one, that when power is threatened by real change they will say anything to stop it,” she said. “But we also learned that the American people can handle the truth.”

What America needs, she added, is a “fundamentally different kind of leadership,” one that challenges people to be different, and better to one another. And that, she said to critics who say it is not his time, cannot wait.

“Barack Obama will be the kind of leader we need right now, not in four years or eight years or 12 years,” she said. “We can’t wait to get this right. We need it to happen today.”

Well, it is his name, is it not?

If “the American people can handle the truth,” does that mean we can call him by his full name again? I suspect not.

To be on the safe side, the Obama people need to make up a list of what Mr. Obama can be called. What photos of him can be shown. Which of his friends and advisors we are allowed to mention. And which parts of his past are allowed to be noted.

We don’t want to be accused of fear mongering.

Anything but that.

From the inimitable New York Post:

TRIBES RAGE AT HILL 

By GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent

February 29, 2008 — WASHINGTON – Angry tribal elders in Kenya are calling on Hillary Rodham Clinton to “clear her name” over any involvement in publication of photos of Barack Obama wearing a turban and African garb on a trip to his ancestral homeland.

The leaders are planning a protest in their community today, and are turning up the heat on the US government over the incident.

The photos appeared nationwide after they were published earlier this week on the Drudge Report Web site with a report that they had been circulated by Clinton staffers.

Obama aides blasted the Clinton campaign for “shameful, offensive fear-mongering.”

The pictures show Obama wearing traditional Somalian garb on a 2006 visit to the Wajir region of Kenya, where his late father was born.

“The US government must apologize to us as a clan and the old man,” Mohamed Ibrahim told Reuters, referring to a highly respected tribal elder who is also shown in the photos.

“We have been offended, and we cannot afford to just watch and stay silent.”

He also said it was essential that Clinton “clear her name.”

The Drudge Report said the photos had been forwarded by a Clinton staffer with an e-mail that said, “Wouldn’t we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton]?” …

The photo showed Obama wearing a turban and being outfitted in other traditional clothing alongside Sheik Mohamed Hassan.

“He [Hassan] was the right person to perform any such activity like dressing a visitor like Obama with traditional Somali clothes,” Mukhtar Sheik Nur, another leader, told Reuters.

The elders said if they did not get an apology, they would demand the expulsion of US troops based near the town of Garissa in their region…

This is hilarious, but also sobering.

Anyone who has been following this site knows exactly where Mr. Obama’s ‘Muslim garb’ photo came from and how it came into the public discourse.

And yet we have seen the torrent of misinformation, disinformation and preposterous propagandizing about the photo and why it was posted.

It should be a very troubling lesson for all of us about our watchdog media.

By the way, ask yourself what all of the gentlemen mentioned in the story — Mohamed Ibrahim, Sheik Mohamed Hassan, Mukhtar Sheik Nur — have in common?

Why, yes, they are all Muslims. (Which indeed is also true of the “Somalian garb” of any “Somali elders,” since Somalia is 100% Muslim.)

So why are these Muslim worthies so highly offended at this outfit being (accurately) described as ‘Muslim garb’? Are they Islamophobes?

Also note that the New York Post is using another photo from the historic August 2006 event from another source (EPA) besides the Associated Press.

So it wasn’t just the AP who were covering up for ‘he who cannot be named.’

What else is being hidden from us by our media guardians?

From the DNC’s Associated Press:

NY: Dem fundraiser Norman Hsu pleads poverty — and not guilty

By LARRY NEUMEISTER
Thu, Feb. 28, 2008

NEW YORK — Top Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu will rely on a court-appointed lawyer to defend him against charges that he cheated investors out of millions of dollars and made illegal donations to politicians, including presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Theodore H. Katz appointed Hugh M. Mundy on Thursday to represent Hsu as the 56-year-old clothing-industry entrepreneur made his first appearance in the Manhattan court.

Hsu pleaded not guilty to charges that he violated federal campaign finance laws.

After the brief court appearance, Mundy told The Associated Press that his client had no choice but to rely on a court-appointed lawyer.

“He’s essentially a man with no income or assets. He has no money he can tap,” said Mundy. “His money and assets are alleged to be involved in the charges. He has no access to the money presently.”

Mundy said it was his first day on the case and he did not know how much money was in his client’s bank accounts…

Maybe Mr. Hsu really is broke.

The $35 million Hillary “raised” last month had to come from somewhere.

But what a lesson this is about the Democrat Party’s loyalty to those who have done so much to help them.

From Fox News:

Tennessee GOP Pulls ‘Hussein,’ Obama Photo From Fiery ‘Anti-Semite’ Release

by FOXNews.com

Thursday, February 28, 2008

The Tennessee Republican Party has toned down a fiery press release that included a controversial photo of Barack Obama and blasted the candidate on his stance on Israel. The release was changed after a rebuke from the Republican National Committee.

A GOP official told FOX News that the RNC privately chided the Tennessee Republican Party over the content of its online press release titled, “Anti-Semites for Obama,” which followed the endorsement of Obama by Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan…

“The RNC rejects these kinds of campaign tactics. We believe this election needs to be about the critical issues confronting our nation,” RNC Chairman Mike Duncan said Thursday.

The earlier version of the press release referred to Obama by his full name, Barack Hussein Obama, and included the now widely seen 2006 photo of Obama in African tribal garb.

A check of the Tennessee GOP’s Web site late Wednesday showed both the photo and the reference to Obama’s middle name had been scrubbed from the page…

The statement first drew criticism from the Tennessee Democratic party: “The tone and accuracy of this release unfortunately is what we have come to expect for the Tennessee Republican Party in recent times, and this release is the worst of the bunch,” Tennessee Democratic Party chairman Gray Sasser said in a prepared statement.

“It amplifies misinformation, discredited tall tales, and Internet innuendo to appeal to the worst in people,” Sasser said, accusing the state Republicans of “fear-mongering.” …

Tennessee GOP officials defended their initial release Wednesday and argued that they have a right to use “Hussein” in their literature.

In a statement issued late Wednesday, state GOP officials said their statement “alerting voters that Sen. Barack Obama has foreign policy advisers and endorsements rooted in anti-Semitic and anti-Israel views has been twisted by Democrats who would prefer to scream ‘racism!’ rather than deal with Obama’s real and worrisome record.

“Attempts to put the Tennessee Republican Party at odds with Sen. John McCain regarding our Monday press release and his Tuesday comments are ineffective and vacant given Sen. McCain’s consistently strong record as a defender of Israel.”

From Tennessee Republican Party:

ANTI-SEMITES FOR OBAMA

NASHVILLE, TN – The Tennessee Republican Party today joins a growing chorus of Americans concerned about the future of the nation of Israel, the only stable democracy in the Middle East, if Sen. Barack Obama is elected president of the United States…

*Clarification: This release originally referenced a photo of Sen. Obama and incorrectly termed it to be “”Muslim” garb. It is, in fact, Somali tribal garb, hence, we have deleted the photo. Also, in order to diffuse attempts by Democrats and the Left to divert attention from the main point of this release – that Sen. Obama has surrounded himself with advisers and received endorsements from people who are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel – we have deleted the use of Barack Obama’s middle name.

Bill Hobbs
Communications Director
Tennessee Republican Party
2424 21st Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, Tennessee 37212
Phone: (615) 269-4260
Email: billhobbs@tngop.org

So now the Republican Party is taking its marching orders from the DNC:

The statement first drew criticism from the Tennessee Democratic party: “The tone and accuracy of this release unfortunately is what we have come to expect for the Tennessee Republican Party in recent times, and this release is the worst of the bunch,” Tennessee Democratic Party chairman Gray Sasser said in a prepared statement.

“It amplifies misinformation, discredited tall tales, and Internet innuendo to appeal to the worst in people,” Sasser said, accusing the state Republicans of “fear-mongering.”

And by “clarification” Mr. Hobbs means sniveling obfuscation.

A less cowardly person might have been to ask exactly what misinformation, what tall tales and innuendo are being amplified by an actual photograph of an actual event?

Exactly what fears are being mongered? Are we afraid of the truth?

The photograph in question is from the Associated Press. (Though of course we were the first to bring it to light.) And it is of Mr. Obama in Muslim garb.

The claim that it is the costume of a Somali tribe is a distinction without a difference, given that the population of Somalia is 100% Muslim.

Moreover, it is not the only example of Mr. Obama wearing Muslim garb captured by the shutterbugs of the Associated Press — and then curiously hidden from public view for years. (And we also were the first to bring this photo to light.)

And while we are at it, the lunatic anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan did endorse Mr. Obama. In fact, in his two and a half hour speech in praise of Mr. Obama he even called him “the hope of the world.”

Moreover, back in December, the selfsame Mr. Farrakhan was been given a “lifetime achievement award” by the very man Mr. Obama calls his “spiritual mentor,” his pastor and close advisor, the racist Jeremiah Wright.

And, more amazingly, “Hussein” is indeed Mr. Obama’s middle name. (At least at the moment. In his life he has gone by several names.)

But why bother with such details?

Alas, this is the same spineless GOP that screamed bloody murder about the entirely factual “Swiftboat” ads and other well documented material that helped keep us from getting President Kerry.

Sometimes calling Republicans “the stupid party” does not do them justice. They really are the “born loser party.”

And this year they might just get their wish.

How many times has Mr. Obama told us that he will “reach across the aisle” and end the partisan bickering that has crippled Washington, DC for the last generation?

Indeed, it was the subject of discussion on Fox News’ Special Report last night:

‘Special Report’ Panel on Whether Obama Has the Experience to Unite Our Country

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It is true that I am reaching across the aisle and calling for unity and bipartisanship. That is absolutely true. But I’m doing that knowing who I am and knowing who I fight for and knowing what I stand for.

LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA SENATOR: If you want to change things in Washington, you better be willing to look people in the eye who are normally your friends and say “I can’t help you here.” There’s not much of that going on as far as I can tell with Senator Obama.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BRIT HUME, HOST: But as everybody who’s followed politics in Washington in recent years knows, there has been a lot of that going on with Senator McCain, which explains why he is such bad order [sic], or has been a lot of the time, with conservatives and other Republicans… 

To give you an idea of how well this presentation by Barack Obama of how his bipartisan intentions has gone over, look at this poll number from The New York Times and CBS News.

To the question “Can this candidate unite the country?” Obama — 67 to 25 yes for Obama; McCain, narrowly 51 to 39 yes, Hillary Clinton; 34 percent yes, majority no.

So this is music to people’s ears. They love the talk of unity. The polls all show it and have for years. And Barack Obama is now seen, at least, as the man to do it….

Well, as with so many things, Mr. Obama’s rhetoric does not quite match his record.

For in Mr. Obama’s brief stint as a Senator he has been one of the most partisan politicians there.

From the Washington Post’s Votes Database:

Enlarge

Enlarge

And look at the partisan hacks who just barely beat him out for top honors in the Senate.

Perhaps Mr. Obama will retool his speeches to pronounce that he is 0.6% less partisan than Mrs. Clinton.

But he probably won’t.

That doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.

As in our other article on Mr. Obama’s bi-partisan bona fides, the question arises:

How many times has Mr. Obama told us that he will “reach across the aisle” and end the partisan bickering that has crippled Washington, DC for the last generation?

Well, as with so many things, Mr. Obama’s rhetoric does not quite match his record.

From “Barack Obama on Principles & Values” from at the putatively non-partisan site, On The Issues:

Hopefund PAC donated $500K to Democratic Senate candidates

In 2005, Sen. Barack Obama created Hopefund, a political committee, with the goal of promoting the candidacies of leaders who are committed to changing the course of our nation to ensure the promise of America for future generations.

Already, Hopefund has made contributions to Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2006 and helped raise nearly half a million to help the Democrats take back the US Senate. Our activities will not be limited to the US Senate: Hopefund will be our vehicle to help shape the debate for Democrats around the country.

Candidates

• Daniel Akaka (HI)
• Jeff Bingaman (NM)
• Sherrod Brown (OH)
• Robert Byrd (WV)
• Maria Cantwell (WA)
• Thomas Carper (DE)
• Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY)
• Kent Conrad (ND)
• Dianne Feinstein (CA)
• Edward Kennedy (MA)
• Amy Klobuchar (MN)
• Herb Kohl (WI)
• Ned Lamont (CT)
• Claire McCaskill (MO)
• Ben Nelson (NE)
• Bill Nelson (FL)
• Debbie Stabenow (MI)
• Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)

Of course even Mr. Obama’s slush fund political action committee would be all about “hope.”

But weirdly, he doesn’t seem to be any too proud of his good works these days. For while this information was originally posted at his PAC’s website, HopeFundAmerica.com, “About Barack” Nov 17, 2006, it has since been “disappeared” from the internet.

But the information above can still be found at the link.

Thankfully, the FEC has a record of the rest of the contributions made by Mr. Obama’s noble Hopefund:

Committees And Candidates Supported/Opposed

HOPEFUND INC.
Party: No Associated Party
607 14th Street NW Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005

CONTRIBUTIONS

ALLEN, THOMAS H
VIA TOM ALLEN FOR SENATE
09/25/2007
5000.00
27990913858

ALLEN, THOMAS H
VIA TOM ALLEN FOR SENATE
09/25/2007
5000.00
27990913858

ALTMIRE, JASON
VIA CITIZENS FOR ALTMIRE
06/15/2007
5000.00
27931036261

ALTMIRE, JASON
VIA CITIZENS FOR ALTMIRE
09/27/2007
2500.00
27990913869

BACA, JOE
VIA FRIENDS OF JOE BACA
09/27/2007
4000.00
27990913867

BAUCUS, MAX
VIA FRIENDS OF MAX BAUCUS
09/27/2007
4000.00
27990913869

BEAN, MELISSA LUBURICH
VIA MELISSA BEAN FOR CONGRESS
06/15/2007
5000.00
27931036265

BEAN, MELISSA LUBURICH
VIA MELISSA BEAN FOR CONGRESS
09/27/2007
4000.00
27990913866

BISHOP, SANFORD D JR.
VIA SANFORD D. BISHOP JR. FOR CONGRESS
09/27/2007
4000.00
27990913865

BOSWELL, LEONARD L.
VIA BOSWELL FOR CONGRESS
06/15/2007
5000.00
27931036263

BOSWELL, LEONARD L.
VIA BOSWELL FOR CONGRESS
09/27/2007
4000.00
27990913872

BOYDA, NANCY E E
VIA NANCY BOYDA FOR CONGRESS
09/27/2007
2500.00
27990913854

BRALEY, BRUCE L
VIA BRALEY FOR CONGRESS
06/15/2007
5000.00
27931036264

BRALEY, BRUCE L
VIA BRALEY FOR CONGRESS
09/27/2007
4000.00
27990913859

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS IN DIVERSE GEOGRAPHIC ENVIRONMENTS PAC (BRIDGE PAC)
06/15/2007
5000.00
27931036259

CARDOZA, DENNIS
VIA FRIENDS OF DENNIS CARDOZA
09/27/2007
4000.00
27990913863

CARNEY, CHRISTOPHER
VIA CARNEY FOR CONGRESS
06/15/2007
5000.00
27931036263

CARNEY, CHRISTOPHER
VIA CARNEY FOR CONGRESS
09/27/2007
2500.00
27990913866

CARSON, JULIA
VIA JULIA CARSON FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
09/27/2007
4000.00
27990913869

CLAY, WILLIAM LACY JR
VIA CLAY JR. FOR CONGRESS
09/27/2007
4000.00
27990913868

CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (CBC-PAC)
06/15/2007
5000.00
27931036261

CONYERS, JOHN JR.
VIA CONYERS FOR CONGRESS
09/27/2007
4000.00
27990913860

COSTA, JIM MR.
VIA JIM COSTA FOR CONGRESS
09/27/2007
4000.00
27990913853

CUMMINGS, ELIJAH E
VIA CUMMINGS FOR CONGRESS CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
09/27/2007
4000.00
27990913861

DASKAS, ROBERT JAMES
VIA DASKAS FOR CONGRESS
09/27/2007
5000.00
27990913867

DAVIS, ARTUR G
VIA COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT ARTUR DAVIS TO CONGRESS, THE
09/27/2007
4000.00
27990913855

DAVIS, DANNY K
VIA DAVIS FOR CONGRESS/FRIENDS OF DAVIS
09/27/2007
4000.00
27990913871

DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
01/24/2007
15000.00
27931036262

DONNELLY, JOSEPH S MR.
VIA JOE DONNELLY FOR CONGRESS
09/27/2007
2500.00
27990913860

EDWARDS, CHET
VIA CHET EDWARDS FOR CONGRESS
09/27/2007
2500.00
27990913858

ELLISON, KEITH MAURICE
VIA ELLISON FOR CONGRESS
09/27/2007
4000.00
27990913865

Continue…

From his idolaters at the Associated Press:

Obama slams Bush, McCain on economy

AUSTIN, Texas – Democrat Barack Obama rejected President Bush’s claim that the country isn’t headed for a recession, and slammed the economic policies followed by both Bush and Republican contender John McCain.

Things are getting worse, not better, and the country stands “on the brink of a recession,” the Illinois senator and front-runner for the Democratic nomination said Thursday.

Obama blamed a “failure of leadership” in Washington, implying McCain was part of that failed leadership.

Yes, Mr. Obama is trying to ‘keep hope alive.’ That is, the hope he can talk our economy into a recession.

But unfortunately for our hero it looks like the “let’s have a recession” ship may have already sailed.

Indeed, it would appear that even the Democrat’s lickspittle slaveys in the media are giving up on trying to talk us into a recession.

From Google Trends:

Enlarge

Enlarge

But what a sad state of affairs it is that our Democrat candidates would rather have our country’s economy tank and see people thrown out of work, than not get elected President.

From the former news magazine known as Time:

William F. Buckley: Mandarin of Right-Wing TV

One night in early 1962, William F. Buckley was Jack Paar’s guest on The Tonight Show. At 36, Buckley had been an infant phenom, writing the book God and Man at Yale (he was pro-God, anti-Yale) and an indulgent biography of Senator Joseph McCarthy. But as a TV personality, he was brand, startling new. Buckley pontificated for perhaps a dozen minutes, and when he left, Paar and his accomplice, Hugh Downs, were nearly apopletic — for Buckley, with his daredevil conservative views, had broken the unspoken rule of calm, liberalesque conversation. The following night, as it happened, the guest was Gore Vidal, as assertive and bombastic on the liberal side as Buckley had been on the Tory. When Vidal departed, Downs formed a circle with his fingers and said that the far left and the far right tended to meet; they were indistinguishable in their radicalism.

Few viewers realized that those two evenings 46 years ago would birth a durable TV genre: the partisan political harangue as infotainment. The Left, in Vidal’s image, never took hold, but Buckley soon set up shop at PBS, of all places, hosting the primordial political chat show Firing Line. From that, and from Buckley’s blithe, castrating wit, a horde of right-wing radio spielers and Fox News ideologues, not to mention the Manichean shouters on The McLaughlin Report and many a Sunday panel show.

Buckley must have known he cut an eccentric figure on TV, as peculiar as Truman Capote or Tiny Tim. He certainly knew how to make the most of it. Whatever people thought of him, they watched him, first with Paar or David Suskind, then on the long-running Firing Line. First he was the token conservative, proud but lonely; then other joined his ranks and he became their paterfamilias.

Here was the Buckley image: a Mandarin figure, chin upraised, tongue occasionally darting out, ready to catch any unwary fly in the vicinity. Sometimes his eyes goggled out, a la Harpo Marx; at other times he closed his eyes and folded his hands, as if in supplication to the god of synonyms (“Please, Roget, instantly grant me a word as eloquent as it is obscure”). His words cascaded out, in periodic sentences with numerous subordinate clauses. They were given a kind of sprung rhythm by his slight, impatient stammer, and delivered in a turn-of-the-century Shakespearean actor’s mid-Atlantic accent, his voice so preposterously mellifluous that it seemed that, even as he was speaking, he had some brandy in the back of his mouth that he needed to evaluate before swallowing it.

Coming of out of the bland ’50s, when President Ike’s demeanor was both genial and baffled, and when the Democrats owned so much of the ideological real estate that they were usually ready to concede minor points, Buckley was the rhetorician as revolutionary. His manner suggested that he was 100% right — right as in correct — and all who opposed him were fools or brigands. It’s an old debater’s trick, and he was the master debater. Like another ’60s icon, Vince Lombardi, he believed that winning was the only thing. Your rival is not to be charmed so much as crushed.

For a while, the tactic didn’t win Buckley many adherents. But it worked in the long run. As the conservative movement took hold, thanks in large part to his biweekly magazine National Review, conservatives began to speak out more forcefully, belligerently, confidently. By the ’80s they had most of the smarties, while liberals still wallowed in position-paper platitudes. What had the right learned from Buckley? The importance of showmanship.

None, though, had Buckley’s strangely seductive, amusingly upper-class persona. In tone and aplomb, he was Leslie Howard to Rush Limbaugh’s Larry the Cable Guy, a caviar-and-truffles type to Sean Hannity’s Lunchpail Joe. In that sense, Buckley was a throwback even before the 1960s, to a breed of would-be royalists stranded in the tight-lipped New World. The anglophilia of this well-off son of Irish immigrants made him an anachronistic figure of fun when he ran for Mayor of New York City — the voters preferred earthy sorts like Ed Koch to Buckley’s Edward VIII airs — and a pleasant anachronism in his later career as conservative elder statesman, his orotundity drowned out by the noise of the Limbaughs.

But that only proved Buckley’s importance as a political and cultural innovator. His ear-catching right-wing eloquence would never have gone out of style if he hadn’t been successful in creating it.

It of course an inadvertent tribute to Mr. Buckley that Mr. Corliss felt the need to dust off his thesaurus and to try to use unfamiliar words to impress his unfortunate readers.

But as with the rest of the great man’s life, Mr. Corliss has missed the motive behind Mr. Buckley’s use of sometimes seemingly arcane words.

It was not a matter of:

“Please, Roget, instantly grant me a word as eloquent as it is obscure”.

It was in fact just the opposite.

Mr. Buckley believed in using the mot juste, that is, just the right word to more precisely and accurately communicate his thought. A lesson Mr. Corliss could stand to learn.

For accuracy is something that Mr. Corliss clearly has not mastered.

Even his headline makes no sense. Mr. Buckley was not a “Mandarin of right-wing TV.” His show “Firing Line” appeared on PBS, which is quite opposite of right-wing TV.

At most “Firing Line” was a sop to try to help PBS appear to meet the “fairness doctrine,” since both the public airways and public funding were involved in its production.

Perhaps Mr. Corliss meant “progenitor” instead of “Mandarin.” Though it is hard to see where there is any right-wing TV today. Even the Fox News channel would beggar that description in most right-wingers’ eyes.

But vocabulary aside, Mr. Corliss even manages to get his basic facts laughably wrong:

The anglophilia of this well-off son of Irish immigrants made him an anachronistic figure of fun when he ran for Mayor of New York City — the voters preferred earthy sorts like Ed Koch to Buckley’s Edward VIII airs…

Er, Mr. Buckley lost his mayoral bid to the singularly aristocratic John Vliet Lindsay, whom no one in their right mind would ever describe as “earthy.”

But why bother with getting such details correct when it is so much fun to sneer?

Unfortunately Mr. Corliss, like so many so-called journalists in our modern age, is stupid and yet smug about it.

That is a very unattractive combination. And one that Mr. Buckley would have known just how to skewer.

And he would not need to get out a copy of Roget’s to do so.

From the remarkably uninformed or merely malicious New York Times:

McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out

February 28, 2008
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON — The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office…

In the best New York Times tradition, this article prattles on in a longwinded and uninformed fashion without ever reaching a conclusion.

Mr. Hulse obviously blind-sided the “legal experts” he consulted, who understandably might not have had the details about citizenship at their fingertips.

However, even the most cursory of Google searches will show that this topic has been long since put to bed.

Indeed, a website calling itself the US Constitution Online has a whole page explaining US citizenship and even the seemingly inextricable intricacies (at least for The Times) of being “natural born.”

Fortunately, the site seems to be aimed at school children. So it is written in in such simple terms that even the Solons at the New York Times should be able to follow its exegesis:

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship

The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Citizenship. Citizenship is mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 1, Section 8, Article 2, Section 1, and in the 14th Amendment and several subsequent amendments.

If you’re going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

• Anyone born inside the United States
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president.

However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.”

QED

Indeed, as the last paragraph notes, Mr. McCain is a natural born United States citizen several times over under our laws.

But why let such minor details stand in the way of a good story?

The only question here is why did the New York Times even bring up the question? Are they really that uninformed? That lazy?

Or are they desperately trying to change the subject?