All Boards => Current Events => Topic started by: sine-qua-non on 09 01, 10, 10:47:19:AM



Title: Cost of the Kenyans Hiding his Bonafides $$
Post by: sine-qua-non on 09 01, 10, 10:47:19:AM
The following is information was compiled from the official Federal Elections Commission website for disbursements from the Obama campaign to the law firm of Perkins Coie, which is or did represent Obama in various eligibility suits.

The FEC links follow the entries.

2nd Quarter, 2010, FEC report for Obama for America
Perkins Coie: 
$248483.94
http://query.nictusa.com/pdf/501/10930598501/10930598501.pdf#navpanes=0

1st Quarter, 2010 Perkins Coie:  $261,206.69
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2010/Q1/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html

October 2009 quarterly:
Perkins Coie:  $314,018.06

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q3/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html

July 2009 quarterly:
Perkins Coie:  $270,754.18

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q2/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html

April 2009 quarterly
Perkins Coie:  $688,316.42

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q1/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.htm

Year-End 2008
Perkins Coie:  $173,052.52

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/YE/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html

Amended post-general election:
Perkins Coie:  $205,323.00
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/30G/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html

that adds up to:  $2,161,155.11

Perkins Coie does not appear in the pre-general election filing or a few others checked randomly.  You are free to pursue any further information that is of interest. 

But one would assume that the official FEC website to which the Obama and other campaigns must report their financial activity would be taken by even the most skeptical among us as valid documentation of the reported $1.4 or $1.8, or anything in between, figure expended to defend the eligibility suits.

This information is about the legal fees only of that one law firm, not the DOJ attorneys, court time, or other related costs.


Title: Re: Cost of the Kenyans Hiding his Bonafides $$
Post by: keno on 09 01, 10, 11:24:00:AM
And all it would take to 'fight the smears', and save a few million, would be to produce one of these:
 
 
 


Title: Re: Cost of the Kenyans Hiding his Bonafides $$
Post by: lluke47 on 09 01, 10, 11:39:18:AM
He doesn't have one of those, I don't think they issued BC from a mud hut in the jungle of kenya...


Title: Re: Cost of the Kenyans Hiding his Bonafides $$
Post by: sine-qua-non on 09 01, 10, 11:40:52:AM
On February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2678) a bill to the Senate for consideration.  That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act.  The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).
   

   
   Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a "natural born citizen" and hence; the entitlement to run for President of the United States.  This bill met the same fate that similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past.  Attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2128)were known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a shadow-cached copy (http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:-8mxNrTuzJsJ:www.jcics.org/natural%2520born%2520summary%2520) left, that only the most curious public can find.
   

Sen. McCaskill, her co-sponsors, fellow colleagues and legal counsel, contend that the Constitution is ambiguous in article II,section 1 and requires clarification.  But does it?  According to the framers and such drafters as John Bingham, we find the definition to be quite clear:
   
I find no fault with  the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen… . . – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866

From the days of James Madison (http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/madison.html) to the present, the courts have held that the amendment process be justifiable in accordance with its constitutionality and not self-serving or political. But is that what happened here? Again, we must go to the record.
   
Within only five short weeks after Senate Bill 2678 faded from the floor, we find Sen. Claire McCaskill back again, making another attempt with Senate Resolution 511 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511).  On April 10,    2008, she introduced a secondary proposal in the form of a non-binding resolution, recognizing John McCain as a "natural born citizen" in defiance of the Constitution.  Curiously, it contained the same identical co-sponsors, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
   
   ABCNews.com (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/legislation-int.html) reported:
   
       "With questions -- however serious -- about whether Sen.John McCain, R-Ariz., is eligible to run for president since he was born outside U.S. borders on an American Naval base, Sens. Patrick Leahy,  D-Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen.  Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. today introduced a non-binding resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that McCain qualifies as a "natural born Citizen," as specified in the Constitution and eligible for the highest office in the land.       
 Co-sponsors include Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and  Barack Obama, D-Illinois; Leahy said he anticipates it will pass unanimously.

One has to wonder -- what dire urgency could there possibly have been in persisting with trying to legislate a candidate into being a "natural born citizen?"  [/B]


Title: Re: Cost of the Kenyans Hiding his Bonafides $$
Post by: sine-qua-non on 09 01, 10, 11:42:40:AM
Certainly providing a birth certificate and reading the Constitution would be more than sufficient.  Why did these candidates and their wishful nominees go to such lengths in the Senate when obviously, they had more pressing matters to attend to?  And why were there two Senators co-sponsoring such an issue, twice, who were in direct competition with John McCain in the 2008 election?


So political was the motive of McCaskill, even Missouri’s Governor, Matt Blunt (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/breaking-gov-matt-blunt-releases.html) revealed that Sen. McCaskill was involved in the "abusive use of Missouri Law Enforcement".  This was dubbed as the "Truth Squad" during the election campaign by the media. The Truth Squad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fax2lFzkRTQ) was comprised of Missouri officials and attorneys who set up shop on the streets of Missouri and threatened the public with criminal penalties and lawsuits if they engaged in critical speech against Sen. Obama. 

The Obama campaign also issued cease and desist letters to
media station managers (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-campaign-tries-to-get-nra-ads.html) who carried advertisers who were unfriendly towards Barack Obama, namely, the NRA.  Citizen outrage prompted this response (http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj) from Governor Blunt:

   
"Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the  Obama-Biden campaign.
   
What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal   punishment.
   
Considering these facts and the judicial record, there is every reason to believe that Sen. McCaskill had no interest in resolving Sen. McCain’s eligibility, but Sen. Obama’s long-term. She manipulated the Senate and then threatened the media and the public thereafter, politically motivated at the prospect of becoming Obama’s Vice-Presidential pick.  But it didn’t stop there.
   

Chairman Patrick J. Leahy entered into the Senate record a legal analysis of two high-powered attorneys hired by Sen.McCain -- Theodore Olson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson) and Laurence Tribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Tribe) -- both of whom are    extremely politically active and biased, and attached that opinion to S.R.511.

   
So controversial was that legal opinion, that it prompted a rebuttal by Professor Gabriel J. Chin (http://www.law.arizona.edu/Faculty/getprofile.cfm?facultyid=147) of The University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, in a discussion paper #08-14   entitled,  Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President (http://www.scribd.com/doc/9258498/Why-Sen-John-McCain-Cannot-Be-President).  Professor Chin points out clearly where Tribe-Olson sought to draw out implied theories in the law, which in reality, are simply not there and in fact have been decided by the courts already, in opposition to the suggestions offered by Tribe-Olson. 

Simply put, the attorneys hired by Sen. McCain attempt to fit the law into their agenda with contrived implications.  Professor Chin brings the law back into focus, requiring no implied theories.