A flight with members of Texas’ U.S. Congressional delegation aboard, including former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, “took a major nosedive” and was forced to make an emergency landing on Tuesday afternoon, according to a Houston TV station.
KHOU reports that a Continental Airlines flight carrying seven U.S. lawmakers suddenly lost cabin pressure on its way from Houston to Washington, D.C.’s Reagan National Airport.
The flight recovered, was diverted and landed safely in New Orleans, according to one lawmaker’s spokesperson.
Aboard the flight among 117 other people with Rep. Paul were Reps. John Carter (R), Henry Cuellar (D), Nick Lampson (D), Solomon Ortiz (D), Ted Poe (R), and Ciro Rodriguez (D), all representing Texas in the U.S. House.
The airline confirmed that no one was hurt, the report said.
This video is from CNN’s Situation Room, broadcast July 22, 2008.
In response to mounting media questions about the failure of the Barack Obama presidential campaign to produce the presumptive Democratic nominee’s birth certificate, an official spokesman of the campaign has endorsed as genuine the image of a document purporting to be his “birth certificate.” But some who have examined that image in high resolution claim inconsistencies and irregularities which suggest that the purported document is a forgery. Its high profile use by the campaign, they claim, suggests an attempt to conceal the truth of Obama’s birth circumstances and citizenship qualifications from the American people.
The campaign has posted only a low-resolution image of that document, which it claims is his “birth certificate,” on its “Fight the Smears” website, along with purported proof of why the claim that Obama may not qualify as a “natural born citizen” is false:
— Lie:
Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen
Truth:
Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment
“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….”
—
Contrary to the campaign’s claims, the issue of when Hawaii became a state and the wording of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, are not at issue.
Rather it is Article Two, Section One of the Constitution which requires that the President be a “natural born citizen” and not simply a naturalized citizen. The issue is whether there is proof that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, the legal status of his mother at the time, and what exactly is written on the original birth certificate — if it in fact such a certificate exists.
Some bloggers have claimed that the purported official State of Hawaii document, originally published by the radical left Daily Kos blog, is a fake, and a poorly executed one at that.
Examination of the higher resolution of the image indicates irregularities which suggest to some that the purported “certificate” may be a forgery produced or modified by Photoshop or another image-editing software, and not a genuine item.
“I can confirm that that is Sen. Obama’s birth certificate.” Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, to the Los Angeles Times.
1. Use of a second generation reproduction of the seal of the State of Hawaii at the top
2. Blacking out of the Certificate number in an attempt to prevent it from being traced
3. Absence of any official signature or seal which typically appear on such documents
4. Crudely arranged borders inconsistent with a professionally produced official document
5. Crude overlay of the textual items on top of the patterned background, indicating that the background was produced first and then the textual images laid on top of it by a graphical program rather than being scanned from the original.
6. Failure to use the double-S symbol before the listing the relevant statute (HRS 338-13b) as appears in official uses of the State of Hawaii.
7. The appearance of the backward facing text “Jun 6, 2007″ that appears to come from a stamp in the lower right hand portion of the document.
8. The description of his father’s race as African, when the term Negro was reportedly used at the time of birth.
9. The use of an identical typeface for all text items on the page.
Even if one or two of the above irregularities may have an explanation, they claim, the aggregate points to an amateurish attempt to manufacture an official-looking document that may not exist in the official records of the state of Hawaii.
On its face, this document does not even presume to be a copy of the original birth certificate — contrary to the claims of the Obama campaign — but rather a secondary Certification of Live Birth, which may be used when the original birth certificate can’t be located, and can be produced after the fact with just the affadavits of a family member, or even the child himself.
The Obama campaign, however, has not even produced a paper version of this document, and indeed it does not even publish the high resolution version that appeared on the Daily Kos. It has not fulfilled the media’s persistent requests to produce the original Birth Certificate, or to respond to media questions about the birth certificate controversy.
What could be the Obama campaign’s motive for withholding the original birth certificate and passing off instead a crudely forged facsimile of a “Certification of Live Birth”?
Speculation in the blogosphere and mainstream media is rampant that the concealment is for one or more of the following reasons:
1. There is no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.
2. The father listed on the birth certificate is not Barack Hussein Obama.
3. The father’s race is listed as something other than African, perhaps Muslim or Arab.
4. The mother was no longer at that time an American citizen.
5. The child’s name is not listed as Barack Hussein Obama II.
Jim Geraghty, reporting on the Campaign Spot blog of the National Review and one of the original writers on the controversy, cited the “rumor” that Obama was born not within the United States, but elsewhere, possibly Kenya.
Geraghty stated that “If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen — because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for ‘10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.’”
He then points out that Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, was 18 when Obama was born “so she wouldn’t have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16.”
According to FindLaw.com, cited by Geraghty, the requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama’s birth, state, “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.”
Geraghty said the Obama campaign could “debunk” the rumors about his birth simply by releasing a copy of his birth certificate, but the campaign has so far chosen not to do that.
The seriousness of this latest controversy cannot be underestimated. Unlike the scandals related to Obama’s various associations with unsavory characters, or claims about his Muslim upbringing, the issue here relates to his citizenship and legal qualification to run for President of the United States.
One would have thought that the most basic documentary proof of the location and date of his birth should be a basic and non-controversial requirement for any presidential candidate, and part of the public record, much more so than one’s tax return or annual checkup. It is almost incomprehensible that they would withhold this information — unless there is something to hide.
Ironically, a similar controversy surrounded Obama’s likely opponent in the Presidential race, John McCain. McCain was born to two American parents, one of whom was serving in a US military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone.
“McCain was indeed born in the Canal Zone, and Article II of the Constitution plainly states that ‘no person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President.’
“Some might define the term ‘natural-born citizen’ as one who was born on United States soil. But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that declared, ‘The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.’ That would seem to include McCain, whose parents were both citizens and whose father was a Navy officer stationed at the U.S. naval base in Panama at the time of John’s birth in 1936.”
But the issue is not legally closed, and therefore this year, as reported in the legal column of the Wall Street Journal a non-binding resolution was introduced and passed affirming that McCain qualifies as a “natural born Citizen,” as specified in the Constitution and is therefore eligible for the highest office in the land. Ironically, the resolution was co-sponsored by Barack Obama.
About McCain, of course, there is no question about the facts surrounding his birth, but over their legal significance. He is not denying that he was born in Panama, or posting certificates that claim he was born in Florida. Obama’s campaign, on the other hand, seems intent on evading the need to produce and submit to public scrutiny the official document that could prove that his qualification to run for President according to the Constitution.
The cloud of controversy, of course, could be dispelled with ease, of course, if Obama would release the real documentation of his birth, or even the original printed version of the online document the campaign claims as genuine. And yet the campaign is sticking by its guns, despite the evidence from the blogosphere pointing to the forgery and inadequacy of the proffered image of the non-birth certificate. Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, told the LA Times: “I can confirm that that is Sen. Obama’s birth certificate.”
Validation for the authenticity of the image is provided by a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times, who reportedly emailed the image and got a confirmation from an official in the Hawaiian Department of Health. “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo is quoted as telling the reporter.
House Republicans gave Treasury chief Henry Paulson an earful Wednesday about the administration’s rescue package for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The two companies will have a chance to make it up to their congressional detractors during a housing industry reception at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota in September.
Fannie and Freddie are sponsoring a reception at the Graves Hotel in Minneapolis on Sept. 2, along with the Independent Community Bankers of America, the National Association of Home Builders and the National Association of Realtors, according to a copy of the invitation.
But while House Republicans can expect to consume their fill of shrimp cocktail and chardonnay at Fannie and Freddie’s expense, don’t expect to see any Republican senators at the shindig. In fact, under the 2007 ethics and lobbying law, senators are prohibited from attending lobbyist sponsored bashes at conventions. The House decided to keep that loophole in place so their members can enjoy the major parties that have been a staple of presidential conventions over the years. This difference between House and Senate ethics has not gone unnoticed by government watchdog groups.
The title of the reception is “Building Stable Communities for America’s Future,” and invitations went to some of the most outspoken opponents of the administration’s plan to temporarily extend credit to Fannie and Freddie and potentially purchase an equity stake in the two private companies.
This could be the most entertaining event of the entire week if the cocktail party is anything like the closed-door session Wednesday between Paulson and his Republican colleagues in the House. It might give loyal conventioneers another chance to watch their Treasury secretary arguing with the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee about who called whom and when over the weekend …
Back on July 2, Barack Obama read his “public service” address, and it contained this line that hasn’t received much notice:
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set… We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”
LOL What? Obama’s going to create a civilian national security force as strong as the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines — combined? With the same budget? And hardware, apparently? Holy %^&*!
This inconceivably vast proposal is hardly being mentioned by the MSM; just a throwaway line in last week’s speech about voluntarism. But what will this “civilian national security force” do? Obama didn’t say. Where will they get their funding? Didn’t say. Wouldn’t this force be at least extra-constitutional, if not unconstitutional? Who would control them? Would service be mandatory like his other youth “volunteer” initiatives? ::shrug::
At this same speech, he promised to withhold funds from school districts that don’t make their junior high and high schoolers serve 50 hours a year. 100 hours for college students, provided their type of service is deemed acceptable by a sprawling new Federal bureaucracy.
Oh, and Obama’s going to double the size of the Peace Corps while quadrupling AmeriCorps. I’m curious if anyone will be left to fill all the newly vacated private sector jobs. St. Barack concluded his speech with this gem: “Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it.”
But what if I love my country the way it is?
Throwing more kerosene on the mob’s torches, Obama is moving his nomination acceptance speech to Denver’s 75,000-seat outdoor stadium. And is thinking about a speech at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate. Odd that he didn’t choose Nuremberg.
After hearing about John McCain’s ridiculous criticism of Social Security — you know, the fact that it still functions the way it has for, oh, 75 years — CNBC’s Jim Cramer can’t help but laugh at the “disorganized” John McCain and his complete lack of knowledge about all things economic.
By now, it is widely known that the Supreme Court has weighed in on the debate over the rights of the prisoners at Gitmo. The court has stated that the detainees’ habeas corpus rights (the protection against an indefinite detention without charges and a trial) ought to be respected.
Referring to the human beings who are still being detained at Guantanamo Bay, McCain stated, “These are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in this country have” (emphasis added).
So our rights are given to us? Interesting.
I might ask McCain at the out-set, since you apparently believe that only citizens have rights (presumably “given” to them in the Constitution) where exactly in text of the Constitution does the Constitution give this right the right of habeas corpus?
(Article continues below)
You won’t find it. The Constitution only puts limits on the removal of habeas corpus, which implies that human beings possess this right naturally, and that habeas corpus is not some peculiar civil privilege, such as welfare, or some right that only citizens have, such as voting in our elections.
Similarly, human beings possess the rights in the Bill of Rights naturally, and as such, government is prevented from infringing upon them in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. But the rights are not granted by the government or the Constitution; we already had the rights as human beings!
I recommend that McCain read the Declaration of Independence. He has admitted that he is ignorant of economics, so perhaps he needs to brush up on his political theory and History, as well.
The Declaration of Independence declares the self-evident truth that God gave us our rights and that we are “endowed by our creator” with “unalienable rights,” such as, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Unalienable. Can’t be taken away. God-given natural rights. This is extremely important. Pay attention.
You see, if governments have “given” you “rights,” well then guess who can take them away at their will. Governments! McCain’s dangerous philosophy of rights as privileges is a recipe for tyranny. Government gives us our liberty? Is he serious? Well then that makes the state our god.
In reality, when something is granted, it is not a right at all. Something that is granted is, by nature, a mere privilege that can be revoked upon the whim of the entity which granted it–in this case, government…a scary notion, indeed.
A right, on the other hand, is unalienably possessed by somebody because he is the rightful owner of his life, liberty, and property. His own body, his thoughts, his decisions to move about, his money and possessions, etc.
These rights are his naturally. They are his property.
Rights are rooted in ownership of the property in question, and this very concept is God-ordained, thus we say that our rights are “God-given.”
They are NOT granted by government. They are NOT merely a privilege of citizenship.
Under the American philosophy of government where our rights are natural, or God-given, we have the power of free action that is limited only by the equal rights of others. And only when we impede upon the rights of others can government legitimately intervene to punish the criminal aggressor…and it can only do that through due process (they have to prove your guilt in a fair, speedy, jury trial).
The right of habeas corpus has been recognized as a basic right since the Magna Carta.
McCain is reversing the progress of human rights 800 years.
It doesn’t take the great mind of an ACLU liberal to figure this out.
As Ronald Reagan said, “The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” McCain, once again, betrays conservative values of limited government and God-given property rights. His is the view that the state is supreme.
Liberty and justice for all. But for McCain…just the privileged few. Just pray that you stay in the good graces of an arbitrary McCain government, because where the government grants “rights,” it can take them away. So watch yourself dissenters…especially because McCain has a “volcanic temper.” Will the American people let this man be the next ‘decider’?
[Scott Ritsema teaches Economics, Government, and Advanced Placement U.S. History at a Christian high school, and possesses a master's degree in those three disciplines. Visit his new site CIVICS NEWS.com ...news with a conscience.]
According to news reports, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton went out of their way to hold their long-awaited private meeting in a very specific location - not at Hillary’s mansion in Washington - but in Northern Virginia, which also just happens to be the scene of the 2008 Bilderberg meeting.
Obama’s spokesman Robert Gibbs told the media that Obama and Clinton held a private meeting last night but he refused to disclose where it taken place, except that it was not at Clinton’s home in Washington, as had been widely reported. Hillary campaign managers also refused to disclose the location of the rendezvous.
“Reporters traveling with Obama sensed something might be happening between the pair when they arrived at Dulles International Airport after an event in Northern Virginia and Obama was not aboard the airplane,”
Dulles just happens to be walking distance from the Westfields Marriott hotel in Chantilly where Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and the rest of the Bilderberg globalists are convening
Asked at the time about the Illinois senator’s whereabouts, Gibbs smiled and declined to comment,” the reports adds.
What is the only political “event” taking place in Northern Virginia at the moment? The Bilderberg Group meeting of course. Rather than taking the easier option of meeting at Clinton’s Washington mansion, Obama and Hillary went out of their way to grace the Bilderberg elitists with their presence.
The neo-liberal website Wonkette, which had previously ridiculed “conspiracy theorists” for ascribing power to Bilderberg, seemed to take a somewhat different tone when it made the connection between Obama and Hillary’s meeting and the Bilderberg Group.
“Guess who had a very private talky-talk in (maybe) romantic Northern Virginia tonight, probably at the Bilderberg Group meeting in Chantilly? Your Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton!,” states the blog. “They really met and talked, in private, Thursday night. And really, it sounds like they did this at that creepy Bilderberg Group meeting, which is happening now, and which is so secret that nobody will admit they’re going, even though everybody who is anybody goes to Bilderberg.”
To have the potential future President and Vice-President of America attend a conference that debunkers have dismissed as a mere talking shop for old white men once again underscores the real influence that Bilderberg enjoys.
Not one U.S. corporate media outlet has made the connection between the location of the Bilderberg Group conference this year and Obama and Hillary’s decision to venture out to Chantilly for their confidential “tet a tet”.
Not one U.S. corporate media outlet has yet uttered one word about 125 of the world’s most influential power brokers meeting behind closed doors to discuss the future of the planet on U.S. soil - while being met by the probable future President of the United States.
Both Hillary and Obama have deep rooted connections to the Bilderberg elitists.
Bill Clinton attended the 1991 meeting in Germany shortly before becoming President and he attended again in 1999 when the conference was held in Sintra, Portugal (despite Clinton’s lie that he had not attended in 15 years).
Hillary herself was rumored to have attended the 2006 meeting in Ottawa, Canada.
As we reported last month, Bilderberg luminary and top corporate elitist James A. Johnson will select Democratic candidate Barack Obama’s running mate for the 2008 election and in turn potentially act as kingmaker for America’s future President.
Johnson also selected John Kerry’s running mate John Edwards in 2004 after Edwards had impressed Bilderberg elitists Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller with a speech he gave at the globalist confab in Italy that year.
Johnson, who attended last year’s Bilderberg meeting in Turkey, is a representative for Friends of Bilderberg, an offshoot group that organizes Bilderberg’s annual meeting.
Hillary and Obama’s attendance of the 2008 Bilderberg meeting, and the complete failure of the mainstream media to report on the fact, once again betrays the super-secretive nature and influential reputation that the 54-year-old organization still maintains.
This morning, a Boston-born performance artist, Yazmany Arboleda, tried to set up a provocative art exhibition in a vacant storefront on West 40th Street in Midtown Manhattan with the title, “The Assassination of Hillary Clinton/The Assassination of Barack Obama,” in neatly stenciled letters on the plate glass windows at street level.
By 9:30 a.m., New York City police detectives and Secret Service agents had shut down the exhibition, and building workers had quickly covered over the inflammatory title with large sheets of brown paper and blue masking tape. The gallery is across the street from the southern entrance to The New York Times building.
The police officers declined to answer any questions, and at first would not permit reporters to speak with Mr. Arboleda, who was wearing a black T-shirt and making cellphone calls from inside the makeshift gallery.
Later, Mr. Arboleda, who is 27, said in an interview: “It’s art. It’s not supposed to be harmful. It’s about character assassination — about how Obama and Hillary have been portrayed by the media.” He added, “It’s about the media.”
Mr. Arboleda said the exhibition was to open on Thursday and run all day.
The interview was abruptly ended as Mr. Arboleda was led off to the Midtown South police precinct station for what he called an interrogation.
Reached by telephone this morning, Eric Joza, the building manager for the building at 264 West 40th Street, between Eighth and Seventh Avenues, said: “I had no idea what he was going to do. All I knew is that he was an artist and was going to use the store for two days: today and tomorrow.” There are offices above the storefront.
Mr. Joza would not identify the building’s owner, and he would not disclose the terms of the lease or the previous occupant of the storefront, beyond saying that the storefront had been vacant.
Mr. Arboleda has even set up elaborate Web sites, one for Mrs. Clinton and one for Mr. Obama.
Shortly after 11:30 a.m., Mr. Arboleda called reporters to let them know that he had been released.
“The Secret Service had to do a whole questionnaire with me,” he said. “It was about an hour of questioning. They asked if I owned guns, if I was a violent person, if I had ever been institutionalized.”
Mr. Arboleda answered no. Nonetheless, he said the Secret Service asked him if he would voluntarily take down the exhibition title from the window.
“I’m renting that space; the space was allocated for an exhibition and it’s my right to put those words up,” he said. “They said it could incite someone to do something crazy, like break the window. It’s terrible, because they’re violating my rights. If someone breaks a window, they’re committing a crime.”
He added, “The exhibition is supposed to be about character assassination. It’s philosophical and metaphorical.”
He said he had not yet decided whether to take down the exhibition’s title, saying he first needed to speak to representatives of the building’s owner.
Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, speaking to reporters at 1 Police Plaza around noon, said, “I am not certain he has been arrested,” then added, “He put up signs indicating the assassination of Senator Clinton and Barack Obama. And we notified the Secret Service. This individual is being spoken to. He apparently made statements that had to with their reputation. This is all under investigation.”
Asked whether the artwork was being seen as dangerous, Mr. Kelly said: “Obviously, it sounds totally inappropriate. We need more information as to what the purpose of it was. As I say, apparently he made some statements that he was referring to their reputations … don’t know, we will have to get more information. But he is being questioned now by our detectives and the Secret Service.”
Mr. Kelly was also asked why the artist would be questioned at all. “Why would we question him?” he responded. “Well, we want to determine what his motives are. Obviously they could be interpreted as advocating harm to protectees; both of the senators, of course, are now being provided Secret Service protection, that’s why the Secret Service was interested; both of them are federal employees, so, ah, of course it is a concern to federal authorities as it is to ourselves. Our lawyers are researching it and will determine if there are any violations of law; right now he is being questioned.”
(In fact, when Mr. Kelly spoke, Mr. Arboleda had already been released from custody a short while earlier.)
Special Agent Eric P. Zahren, a spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington, emphasized in a telephone interview that the agency did not seek to shut down the show.
“We did not shut down that exhibit or request that anybody else shut it down,” Agent Zahren said. “This was brought to our attention, we went out there and had a conversation with the individual, but we did not shut it down.”
According to Mr. Arboleda’s Web sites, he was born in Boston in 1981 and lives in New York City. His family moved to Medellín, Colombia, shortly after he was born, and lived there until 1992. He holds a master’s degree in architecture from the Catholic University of America and has been trained in photography, painting, fashion design and graphic design. His first solo show, “The New Vitruvians,” was presented at Tribeca Issey Miyake in 2007.
Assassination has been the subject of many cultural products, including even a Stephen Sondheim musical, “Assassins.” But in the post-9/11 context, recent comments touching on assassination during this political season — including references by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton — have hit a nerve, and have been followed by apologies.
The safety of Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee, has been an issue. When he was assigned Secret Service coverage in May 2007, it was the earliest point in a campaign that a candidate had been given protection. In February, Jeff Zeleny of The Times wrote a Political Memo on the “hushed worry” on the minds of many Obama supporters; it mentioned how his wife, Michelle Obama, had voiced concerns about his safety.
“Checkpoint,” a 2004 novel by Nicholson Baker, purported to plumb the thoughts of a would-be presidential assassin. In 2006, a British digital-television station commissioned a 90-minute film, “Death of a President,” about the aftermath of a fictional assassination of President Bush by a sniper.
Arizona state senator Karen Johnson (R-18) today delivered a letter to the office of U.S. Senator John McCain asking him to meet with a group of professionals to discuss the events of 9/11 when terrorists hijacked four airplanes and attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. One plane crashed in Pennsylvania.
Johnson recently announced her support for a new, independent investigation of 9/11. “Even the chairman of the commission has announced his dissatisfaction with the report,” said Johnson. “Anyone who reads the report can see that much was left out and that there are many discrepancies,” she said.
Johnson’s letter requests that McCain allow a meeting with Scottsdale professor, Blair Gadsby, who has been on a hunger strike outside McCain’s office on 16th Street for nine days. Gadsby has arranged for architect Richard Gage and physicist Steven Jones to meet with McCain at his convenience to present evidence of controlled demolition gathered from the ruins of Ground Zero. Gage is the founder of Archetects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth – a group consisting of hundreds of building professionals who want Congress to open up a new investigation of 9/11. Dr. Jones is a physicist who has done laboratory analysis of residue from the rubble of the World Trade Center and found evidence of explosives. Both Gage and Jones believe that the Twin Towers and Building 7 collapsed as a result of explosives that were planted in the buildings before September 11.
“Their evidence is very significant,” said Johnson, “because it wasn’t presented to the 9/11 Commission when they did their original investigation, and it completely changes the conclusions of the Commission. There’s nothing wrong with going back and having another look. If the Commission didn’t have all the facts, then so be it. But we need to know what happened on 9/11. Nearly 3,000 Americans died that day, and we deserve to know the truth about what happened. It’s time to get to the bottom of this.”
Johnson and Hunger-Striker Gadsby want McCain to allow Jones and Gage to present the evidence to him. “Senator McCain wants to be elected to the highest office in this country,” said Senator Johnson, “and he needs to know the truth about 9/11. Finding answers to 9/11 should be a significant part of this presidential campaign. The events of 9/11 led to this war with Iraq, to the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security, to the loss of habeus corpus, the use of wiretaps, the push for a national ID, and other legislation that deprives us of freedom. This is a very significant issue, and no one is discussing it. Our presidential candidates need to talk about this.”
Senator John McCain
U.S. Senate
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0303
Dear Senator McCain:
You are no doubt aware that a “Hunger-for-Truth” hunger strike is taking place outside your Phoenix office. Each day since Memorial Day (May 26), Blair has arrived at about 6 a.m. and spent the day until approximately 10:30 p.m., distributing literature about 9/11 to passing pedestrians and motorists. Blair is not eating any food at all and drinks only water. Today is Day 9 of the hunger strike.
Blair and his thousands of supporters around the country are requesting that you give two hours of your time to some experts who would like to present evidence about the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 on Sept. 11, 2001. We all appreciate how full your schedule is, but the many important unanswered questions about 9/11 demand answers. I am respectfully requesting that you meet with Blair and the experts he has arranged. I understand that you hae promised to address the 9/11 issue in the near future. For this I am grateful.
You might have heard some absurd claims about 9/11, but we are not responsible for what all 9/11 skeptics say. We are responsible only for what WE say, and what we say is rock solid. Well qualified professionals in the fields of physics, engineering, and architecture reject the idea that the World Trade Center buildings came down as a result of the impact of the planes and fire. Building 7 wasn’t even hit by an airplane and the fires in that building were small and contained. Yet all three skyscrapers came down very evenly and very fast. These experts have analyzed the evidence with sound scientific procedures and have concluded that the buildings came down through the use of explosives as are used in controlled demolitions. I have spoken with these experts myself, and I agree with their findings.
The American people expect and deserve complete answers to what was really involved in the most lethal attack on U.S. soil Since Pearl Harbor. The families of the innocent victims of U.S. military action in Afghanistan and Iraq also deserve to know the truth. The events of 9/11 need to be investigated thoroughly and openly. That hasn’t been done yet.
Please give Blair and his experts the time they need to provide you with this very important, credible information.
SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton mentioned the June 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy in explaining on Friday why she had resisted calls to end her White House bid, drawing a rebuke from Democratic front-runner Barack Obama’s campaign.
Clinton, who later apologized, made the remark about Kennedy to the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader newspaper when explaining that other races for the Democratic presidential nomination had lasted into June.
“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California,” she said.
“I don’t understand it,” Clinton said, referring to calls for her to pull out of the Democratic nominating race, which ends on June 3 with primaries in South Dakota and Montana.
Kennedy, brother of slain U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy, was assassinated during the 1968 race for the Democratic nomination.
Clinton’s comments drew a sharp response from the Obama campaign.
“Senator Clinton’s statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.
Clinton told reporters later, “I regret if my referencing of that moment of trauma for our entire country and particularly the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I had no intention of that whatsoever.”
“I’m honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family,” Clinton added.
A spokesman said Clinton had simply been pointing out that Democratic campaigns in the past had continued into June and therefore people should not be pressuring her to withdraw.
“She was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Robert Kennedy in 1968 as historical examples of the nominating process going well into the summer. Any other reading is inaccurate,” Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said.
There have been concerns about the safety of Obama, an Illinois senator who would be the first black U.S. president. He began receiving Secret Service protection 18 months before the November election — earlier than any other candidate has received increased security.
The protection came after congressional leaders raised the issue with Homeland Security and other groups and presented information that reportedly included threats on the Web and in letters.
Obama has an almost insurmountable lead over Clinton in the race for Democratic nomination. The former first lady has said she would continue until the last state has held its nominating contest.
