Exclusive: Monday, June 23

by PRESIDENTIAL WATCH June 23, 2008

Is Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth" a Forgery?

Conservative Blogs.com

The Daily Kos blog has posted a JPG that allegedly is Barack Obama's "Certificate of Birth." From a detailed analysis of the image and the text, it looks like it was created by a graphics program, and is not a true copy of an original, certified document.

Basically, anyone could have produced this document on his or her own computer, and I'll tell you why.

In short, there is nothing in this copy to indicate that it is, in fact, a "certified copy." As I have shown above, there is a whole lot of evidence that it is a manufactured copy. There certainly is a very strong motive for creating one.

Unless the voting public is given a real birth certificate to examine, the question of Barack's birth is still up in the air. GO HERE for this fascinating discussion.

Obama and McCain Spout Economic Nonsense

Karl Rove, Online WSJ.com

Barack Obama and John McCain are busy demonstrating that in close elections during tough economic times, candidates for president can be economically illiterate and irresponsibly populist.

In Raleigh, N.C., last week, Sen. Obama promised, "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills."

Set aside for a minute that Jimmy Carter passed a "windfall profits tax" to devastating effect, putting American oil companies at a competitive disadvantage to foreign competitors, virtually ending domestic energy exploration, and making the U.S. more dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas.

Instead ask this: Why should we stop with oil companies? They make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales. Why doesn't Mr. Obama slap a windfall profits tax on sectors of the economy that have fatter margins? Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar and computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per dollar, according to the Census Bureau. Microsoft's margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales. Call out Mr. Obama's Windfall Profits Police!

It's not the profit margin, but the total number of dollars earned that is the problem, Mr. Obama might say. But if that were the case, why isn't he targeting other industries? Oil and gas companies made $86.5 billion in profits last year. At the same time, the financial services industry took in $498.5 billion in profits, the retail industry walked away with $137.5 billion, and information technology companies made off with $103.4 billion. What kind of special outrage does Mr. Obama have for these companies?

Sen. McCain doesn't support the windfall profits tax, but he can be as hostile to profits as Mr. Obama. Read article.

What Can the GOP Do to Win?

John LeBoutillier, NewsMax.com

The new spate of Quinnipiac polls from Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have rocked the GOP political establishment.

Here is the brief overview from Quinnipiac:

This is the first time Sen. Obama has led in all three states. No one has been elected president since 1960 without taking two of these three largest swing states in the Electoral College.

Florida: Obama edges McCain 47 percent-43 percent

Ohio: Obama tops McCain 48 percent-42 percent

Pennsylvania: Obama leads McCain 52 percent-40 percent

In the three states, Obama leads McCain 10 to 23 percentage points among women, while men are too close to call. The Democrat trails among white voters in Florida and Ohio, but gets more than 90 percent of black voters in each state. He also has double-digit leads among young voters in each state.

Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute says, "Finally getting Senator Hillary Clinton out of the race has been a big boost for Senator Barack Obama. He now leads in all three of the major swing states, although his margins in Florida and Ohio are small."

These results, especially in Florida (thought to be secure for McCain) and Ohio (very winnable for the GOP, especially with Gov. Ted Strickland stating he would not accept the veep slot from Obama), have shaken the McCain campaign and renewed the fear that an anti-GOP, anti-Bush tsunami is rolling in this fall. It may take not only McCain along with it but dozens of GOP House and Senate hopefuls, as well.

Now, some questions need to be raised:

What can McCain do to reverse this pro-Obama trend? Read article.

View Obama video RIGHT HERE.

When Obama Is Off the Teleprompter

John Podhoretz, Commentary.com

The November election is, and remains, Barack Obama's to lose. Usually, candidates whose victories are entirely in their own hands make it through. It is clear Obama's path to victory is through the teleprompter. Let him give a big speech and he drives it like Tiger Woods hitting a fairway, as he did Sunday with his stunning sermon about the importance of fathers. But let him sit for an interview with a well-prepared reporter who isn't interested in shilling for him and Obama makes mistake after mistake.

This is what happened the other day with ABC's Jake Tapper, who got Obama to talk about how we need to treat terrorism as a law-enforcement matter - which is exactly what he should not be saying if he wants to solidify those less-liberal Democratic votes in the states where he was shellacked by Hillary Clinton - and how he opposes all forms of school choice - which works against his vague message that he is a vague agent of vague change. Read article.

But why was Obama against the war? (or was he really?)

Jack Cashill, WND.com

Much has been made about the "when" of Barack Obama's opposition to the war - before his opponents, before the war for that matter - but very little about the "why" or "how" of it.

The "War in Iraq" page on Obama's official website leads with a speech he gave in Iowa in September 2007 that purports to answer the "why" question.

"I made a different judgment," says Obama, contrasting himself with senatorial naifs like Clinton and Edwards, "who took the president at his word."

Obama tells us that he was keen on "reading the intelligence for himself." This intelligence led him and him alone to worry "about an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences."

Obama's supporters have quoted this now famous "undetermined" riff endlessly, as has Obama himself. It was the most important line in his most important speech, the one that positioned him to beat Hillary Clinton.

The Obama website, however, is purposely vague about the original speech. It boasts of it but only in general terms. "As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002," it tells us, "Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq."

Of course, he did no such thing because he was no such candidate. In 2002, Obama was an unknown ward healer from Chicago's notoriously crooked South Side. What he was for or against was irrelevant. He would run for the U.S. Senate in 2004, not 2002.

As elusive as the speech itself is the source of the "intelligence" that enabled an obscure state senator from Chicago to intuit events that the United States Senate could not.

To discover that source, I needed the original speech, which I found after some effort. Obama had delivered it an impromptu rally staged by the Chicagoans Against the War in Iraq in Chicago's Federal Plaza on Oct. 2, 2002.

His description of Saddam that day as a "man who butchers his own people ... thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity" was Democratic, pre-war boilerplate. Read article.

A Redefined 'GOP': Get Our Petroleum

IBD Editorials.com

Energy Independence: President Bush asks Congress to lift the 1981 drilling ban on offshore oil. The no-drill Democrats will call it flip-flopping. We call it change you can believe in.

In a speech in Houston on Tuesday that critics dissed as pandering to Big Oil, GOP presidential candidate John McCain said we "must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. . . . But a federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift those restrictions."

McCain previously opposed offshore drilling and remains opposed to oil exploration in the frozen tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But that was before $130-a-barrel oil and $4-a-gallon gasoline, factoids that threaten both our economy and national security.

On Wednesday, Bush took the lead, also changing his position somewhat to address the growing energy threat to our security. He asked Congress to lift its 27-year-old moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling. In 1981, Congress added a rider to a spending bill that barred energy leasing on 85% of the Outer Continental Shelf surrounding the contiguous 48 states.

The Democratic response has been to call for more taxes on oil companies and to pressure, even sue, OPEC. Read article.

Jindal Says GOP Getting Away From Its Core Values

Zachary A. Goldfarb, Washington Post.com

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, an up-and-coming Republican sometimes touted as a potential presidential running mate, said his party has taken a beating at the polls lately because it "started defending corruption and spending and other things they would have rightfully condemned in the other party."

Jindal, the first Indian American governor and a former House member, said he has talked to presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) several times, but that they have never talked about his possibly serving on McCain's ticket.

"I'm certainly supporting Senator McCain, will do whatever I can to help him get elected, but I'm focused on being governor of Louisiana," Jindal said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Some analysts have drawn comparisons between Jindal and presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). Both are newcomers to the national scene, minorities, highly educated, young and talented at public speaking.

Jindal said that -- even aside from policy differences -- those comparisons have their limitations. Read article.

McCain closes the cash gap against Obama 

Jeanne Cummings, Politico.com

For the first time in the campaign, Republican John McCain in May raised about the same amount of money, $22 million, as Democrat Barack Obama.

McCain also closed the gap in the amount of cash the two parties' presumptive presidential nominees have in the bank at their respective disposals as they enter the first phase of the general election.

McCain reported having about $32 million in cash for primary-related expenses at the end of May.

Obama reported having $43 million in hand at the start of June - but about $10 million of that is dedicated to the general election.

Obama's fundraising in May marked a sharp drop-off after months of record-breaking donations. Even in difficult times, such as the key loss he suffered in Pennsylvania in April, Obama brought in a steady flow of cash that usually topped $30 million a month.

At the same time, he was forced to burn through his cash reserve in the final round of primaries, which were hotly contested by a significantly underfunded Hillary Rodham Clinton. Read article.

Barack Obama aide: Why Winnie the Pooh should shape US foreign policy

Tim Shipman, Telegraph.co.uk

Winnie the Pooh, Luke Skywalker and British football hooligans could shape the foreign policy of Barack Obama if he becomes US President, according to a key adviser.

Richard Danzig, who served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton and is tipped to become National Security Adviser in an Obama White House, told a major foreign policy conference in Washington that the future of US strategy in the war on terrorism should follow a lesson from the pages of Winnie the Pooh, which can be shortened to: if it is causing you too much pain, try something else.

Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: "Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security."

He spelt out how American troops, spies and anti-terrorist officials could learn key lessons by understanding the desire of terrorists to emulate superheroes like Luke Skywalker, and the lust for violence of violent football fans. Read article.

The Post-Post 9/11 Candidate

Philip Klein, Spectator.org

As somebody who has attended dozens of Obama's speeches, rallies, and town hall meetings over the past 15 months, I can attest to the fact that he does not emphasize the threat of terrorism in speeches unless they are specifically geared to a national security audience.

His rhetoric is full of calls for hope and promises of change. He talks about health care, the environment, education, and the need to pull troops out of Iraq.

But other than an occasional mention of how Iraq was a diversion from fighting al Qaeda, references to terrorism are largely absent from his standard stump speeches.

In the wake of Sept. 11, there was widespread agreement that the worst attack that America had suffered in its history was attributable to our inability to recognize the magnitude of the terrorist threat.

In the years that followed, as per human nature, life began to return to normal and more and more intellectuals started questioning whether the terrorist threat was overblown. Instead of seeing the absence of subsequent attacks as evidence that perhaps the Bush administration's aggressive policies have been effective at combating terrorism, many have drawn the opposite conclusion.

Barack Obama's candidacy is the clearest embodiment of the old way of thinking that doesn't see terrorism as such a big deal. Read article.

McCain doesn't matter. It's all about Obama

Rush Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh.com

CALLER: I wanted to talk -- you know, I agree 100% with everything that you've been talking about with respect to Obama and the danger that he poses for conservatives. But I'm not really 100% convinced that the bigger danger doesn't lie with McCain. Not so much that I support Obama in favor of McCain, but that... Well, let me explain. You know, the Republican establishment -- not the base, but the establishment -- they're moving left. They're moving towards the left and this is just another symptom of the fact that they pushed McCain on us. They're moving in this direction because they have the conservative vote; they know they have the conservative vote. So in order to keep their jobs, in order to consolidate their power, they're wanting to attract voters -- more moderate, more left voters -- and my fear is that if McCain wins this election, McCain will win, and the establishment will know forever that they do not need to appeal to conservatives any longer. Conservatives will be less down the lurch. They'll know that they have the conservative vote. They know the conservatives will vote with them no matter what.

RUSH: Yes. This is --

CALLER: We'll never get a conservative elected into office.

RUSH: Ohhhh, yes, we will. This is the Limbaugh Echo Syndrome. One of my warnings to people has been that if the Republicans win... Here's the other half of it. In addition to what you said, if things hold as they do now -- and, by the way, there are still many, many, many weeks to go. This is subject to change, because there's a lot of time for all kinds of wacko crazy things to happen, but if things hold as they're projected to now the Democrats are going to end up with a much bigger majority in both the House and the Senate. So no matter who the president is, the Democrats are going to be setting the agenda. If we elect McCain, we're already electing a guy who likes working with Democrats anyway. So that's a second prong of the problem. What you said is exactly right. The establishment country club blueblood Rockefeller types, after a McCain win, will come to all the conservatives. Read article.

Who says Right and Left can't agree?

Bruce Kesler, Democracy-Project.com

Did the D.C. federal appeals court overstep in its judgment last week that Federal Elections Commission rules should be rewritten as stricter? That was my opinion on the rising of the McCain-Feingold Ghoul.

Who says Right and Left can't agree? Below, with permission, is cross-posted the entire blog entry by Barack Obama's campaign law advisor, Bob Bauer. Bauer also served as campaign law counsel to the Democrats in the House and Senate. Bauer exposes "the superficiality of the Court's reasoning."

Bauer is not an outright opponent of McCain-Feingold, but he is both a learned and practical critic. We occasionally correspond, I commenting he often sounds like a conservative, he replying he's a staunch progressive. Perhaps it's just that Bauer applies - pardon the term, since he takes it to task below - common-sense. As Bauer says, "the Court's performance was exceptionally unpersuasive."

This case is ripe for appeal to the Supreme Court. How it may decide is an interesting question, as it has restricted other campaign law impositions on free speech but also been respectful of literal language in laws.

Aside from public disclosure of contributors, McCain-Feingold has contributed little to better or cleaner politics. Instead, it has added layers of convoluted avoidance, and even

concentrated more power over elections in those who can afford to maneuver the maze. Read article.


blog comments powered by Disqus

FSM Archives

10 year FSM Anniversary

More in PUBLICATIONS ( 1 OF 25 ARTICLES )