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.
CNBC business analyst Mark Hanes delivered the economic news on MSNBC, then asked host Joe Scarborough to explain why Hillary Clinton isn’t being given more credit for narrowly winning the primary in Indiana, where some early polls had showed Obama leading.
Scarborough explained that Clinton failed to meet recent expectations and that, just as with corporate earning statements, that’s what counts.
“You don’t want this to end, do you?” Hanes asked in conclusion.
“Of course not,” Scarborough replied. “I want the Stones’ Street Fighting Man played in the background while I monitor the streets of Denver with tear gas, the ghost of Abbie Hoffman rising up over the auditorium. Yeah, baby, I want a fight — on both sides”
This video is from MSNBC’s Primary Coverage, broadcast May 6, 2008.
“My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a formal complaint, dated April 22, 2008, with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) related to a fundraising luncheon held at London’s Spencer House to benefit Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign. The venue for the event was apparently donated to the campaign by foreign nationals, in violation of federal campaign finance laws.
“Recent news reports suggest that Sen. John McCain and John McCain for President may have accepted an in-kind contribution from foreign nationals Lord Rothschild OM GBE and the Hon. Nathaniel Rothschild of Great Britain in contravention of federal election laws,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton wrote in a complaint letter dated April 22, 2008. “On behalf of Judicial Watch and its supporters, I hereby request that the FEC investigate the matter.”
The McCain fundraiser was held on March 20, 2008 at London’s Spencer House, billed as “London’s most magnificent 18th century private palace.” The McCain campaign distributed an invitation indicating that the site for the luncheon had been provided “by kind permission of Lord Rothschild, OM GBE and the Hon. Nathaniel Rothschild,” who are both foreign nationals. In statements to the press, the McCain campaign referred to the luncheon as a “fundraiser.”
While it is, as yet, unclear how much money was raised during the luncheon, had the venue not been donated to the McCain campaign, the net profit from the event would have been significantly reduced. The donation of the venue, therefore, represents an illegal in-kind campaign contribution.
According to 2 U.S.C. § 441e, Contributions and donations by foreign nationals, it is illegal for any foreign national to “make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” to a Federal, State or Local election. (Judicial Watch filed a similar complaint on April 14, 2008, concerning a fundraiser by Elton John for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.)
“The Clinton campaign recently accepted an in-kind contribution in the form of a fundraising concert by Elton John. And now the McCain campaign has apparently run afoul of federal election laws with this foreign fundraiser. The FEC must treat these incidents seriously, and hold any campaign that accepts contributions from foreign nationals accountable. We cannot allow these presidential campaigns to play fast and loose with the law,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Obama is the lead sponsor of U.S. Senate bill S.2433 that most people never even heard about - his $845 BILLION Global Poverty Act
More of the socialist agenda to redistribute the wealth that we no longer have to the rest of the WORLD when the US is already in financial straits. Shouldn’t charity begin at home?
Again - Obama’s actions contradict his words.
US National Debt is now over $9.3 TRILLION.
I guess this is part of the CHANGE Obama keeps talking about.
Taxes were on the forefront of many Americans’ minds this week as they scrambled to meet the April 15th deadline to file their returns.Tax policy in this country hurts taxpayers twice – once when they pay taxes, and then when the government spends the money.Americans are sick and tired of the financial burden and the endless forms to fill out. To add insult to injury, after collecting this money the government does some very detrimental things to the economy.
The burden of complying with the income tax is tremendous.Since its inception in 1913, the tax code has gone from 400 pages to over 67,000.The Tax Foundation estimates that around $265 billion dollars and 6 billion hours are spent just on compliance.That expense amounts to about 22 cents of every dollar the IRS collects.Imagine the boon to the economy if we spent that time and money expanding our businesses and creating jobs!
Aside from the direct loss of money and productivity, the funds from the income tax enable the government to do some very destructive things, such as vastly over-regulating economic activity, making it difficult to earn money in the first place.The federal government funds over 50 agencies, departments and commissions that formulate rules and regulations.These bureaucracies operate with little to no oversight from the people or Congress and generate around 4,000 new rules every year and operate at a cost of about 40 billion dollars. There are some 75,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Register that Americans are expected to know and abide by.Complying with these governmental regulations costs American businesses more than one trillion dollars per year, according to a study by Mark Crain for the Small Business Administration.This complicated system drives production to other countries and shrinks our job market here at home.
Big government is destructive when it takes your money and when it spends it.There is no economic benefit to supporting a government sector as massive as ours.In fact, this country thrived for well over 100 years without an income tax.Today, if you took away the income tax, the government would still have revenue from other sources equal to total government spending in 1990, when government was still too big.$1.2 trillion should be more than enough to fund a government operating within its constitutional confines, and that is exactly what we need to get back to.
I have introduced legislation many times to abolish the IRS and the income tax.It is fundamentally un-American to require taxpayers to testify against themselves and be considered guilty until proven innocent.Abolishing the IRS altogether would trigger an avalanche of real growth in the economy.
With these financial hard times only just beginning, this would be the most efficient and logical way to get our economy growing again, and Americans would need not dread the 15th of April every year.
