Posted on 07/27/2009 2:59:11 PM PDT by pissant
Where there is smoke, there is probably fire.
Where there is $1M spent to prevent the public from viewing something, there is ...probably ...something slimy.
Wow. I find myself agreeing with someone from the MSM. This issue is such a waste of time compared to all the things Obama is doing to destroy the economy. It just makes us people on the right look like wackos.
Yeah, we can get carried away here and miss all the important stuff that you posted threads on. Can you go back and ping us to these. Hate to miss the important things.
“If this is such a non-issue, why the flood of articles on it?”
Because it makes people on the right look bad.
You asked — Saaaaaay, is it his own money for the lawsuit? or is the money from his campaign cash?
—
I believe candidates set up legal funds for this. It’s not campaign funds. It’s not subject to campaign fund laws, but then again, Obama’s campaign funds were open and he didn’t take any government money. It was all private money.
Here’s something about Congressional legal funds, but they also mention the Executive Branch, too. I noticed that there is no limit on how much money contributors can give to legal funds, as opposed to campaign funds. I’m sure there’s other stuff out there if I looked further...
Congressional legal defense fund regulations
When members of Congress and officials of the executive branch get in trouble with the law or have alleged ethical violations, they may establish a fund – commonly referred to as a legal defense fund or legal expense trust – to defend themselves. These funds are governed by House and Senate ethics rules and guidelines from the Office of Governmental Ethics (OGE) which impose various requirements. [House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Memorandum to All Members, Officers, and Employees, “Legal Expense Fund Regulations,” House Rule 26 (June 10, 1996). The House Rule on Legal Expense Funds has since been renumbered to Rule XXV(5)(c)(3). U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics, “Regulations of Trust Funds to Defray legal Expenses Incurred by Members, Officers, and Employers of the United States Senate, Senate Ethics Manual (Aug. 10, 1988). Office of Government Ethics, Letter to an Alternate Designated Agency Ethics Official (Aug. 30, 1993)]
The rules governing congressional legal defense funds generally are more restrictive and much more specific than the rules governing officials of the executive branch.
Since legal defense funds for congressional and executive branch officials have been deemed by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to fall outside the realm of campaign finance law, donors may contribute the maximum to a candidate’s campaign and still make an additional contribution to the same official’s legal defense fund. The 2002 federal election law banning corporate and union money to federal officeholders has not been applied by the FEC to ban such contributions to legal defense funds of officeholders, though Senate rules and OGE guidelines prohibit corporate and union contributions to the legal defense funds of Senate members and executive branch officials. House members may receive contributions for their legal defense funds from any source except registered lobbyists and foreign nationals.
http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Congressional_legal_defense_fund_regulations
The bottom line it’s not his money and it’s “open ended” as far as how much can be contributed and apparently no limits on contributions by each contributor. At least, that’s the way I read it...
We MUST not allow the moral onus of this debate to be inverted. A legitimate and moral president would be MORE than happy to allay his countrymen’s legitimate concerns about the legal basis for his governance and produce ordinary documentation to confirm that legal and constitutional basis, as did Barry Goldwater, George Romney Sr, and John S.McCain. It is he who has caused this crisis, and no amount of pettifogging obsfucation by his acolytes can change that.
But I am certain that Hussein ain’t legitimate. He is all likelihood a lying usurping BASTARD who, were these documents be revealed, expose him for the counterfeit POTUS that he is.
We are pursuing his lack of NBC qualifications because he ACTS like someone who has none. He cannot be qualified without revealing himself as the perverted sociopathic liar that he is, because he cannot be qualified without a US citizen father who was born on US soil. We need not fear exposing at LEAST that.
You framed the issue with clarity and the solid bedrock of truth. That 0bama and his media allies continue to obfuscate the issue cries to all that have decency and good sense that something is very amiss.
You said — Because it makes people on the right look bad.
—
I believe that’s the goal of the big “push” for all these articles. It’s to “marginalize” those on the right. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but even if someone doesn’t bring up the birth certificate issue, you will find that reporters will bring it up themselves, to those on the right, trying to get them to say that they are on board with the birth certificate issue.
In other words, reporters want to “push’ those on the right further *into* the birth certificate issue, even when they have not been in it. They actually want them to say that they think that Obama should show his birth certificate, as that gives the MSM another big opportunity to slam another conservative about the issue. And it actually takes them off point of what that conservative politician might have wanted to discuss.
I saw an article that got all over one conservative because they did not denounce “strongly enough” this issue, even though they tried to simply “minimize it”...
I’m sure that’s why Ann Coulter has backed off this issue, because if she got into it, that’s the only thing liberals would let her talk about. She wouldn’t have any chance at all to discuss the liberal legislation and other issues that the public needs to hear about.
I think it’s a *conscious strategy* of the liberals to paint as many conservatives as possible into this issue, in the public’s mind. Then whenever that conservative comes up with some other comment about (let’s say) Universal Health Care, then they say, “But, you believe that Obama should show his birth certificate, don’t you?” And there goes talking about Universal Health Care *right out the window*... and that’s the strategy...
Now, some may think, “Okay, let’s talk about that all the time, then.” But, the problem there is that Obama (and his advisors and other liberals) knows that no matter what Obama does on this ‘birth certificate issue” that there are conservatives who would never even believe him handing out his birth certificate, even if they saw him do it. They would say, it’s a fraud (if it showed he was born in Hawaii). If it came from the State of Hawaii (directly) they would say that someone changed it or “got to the officials” and they made another one. They know this about this issue and so they know that it serves no purpose to release it.
Therefore, if they know that releasing it does no good, then they figure, “Why not use it to our benefit!” And so they do. They can keep this going for the entire term of office that Obama has and keep marginalizing all the conservatives that they can.
Read again. I never said the part about making the right look bad. I merely marveled at the legs this story is getting.
I find that many people don’t know the difference between the “pingee” and the “person replied to”...
You were the “pingee”... :-)
How much? There are legitimate legal issues for every candidate, including proper filings, etc., and I don't know how you determined what was spent on legit, normal election business and what was spent on "covering up."
How about you tell us how you get to the $1 million figure?
You said — We are pursuing his lack of NBC qualifications because he ACTS like someone who has none. He cannot be qualified without revealing himself as the perverted sociopathic liar that he is, because he cannot be qualified without a US citizen father who was born on US soil. We need not fear exposing at LEAST that.
—
Well..., now that the State of Hawaii has announced that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen, it looks like that part of it is put to rest...
I love it when liberals become so concerned about the welfare of Republicans. I means we are getting close -very close and the only way they have of shutting us up is to lament that by pursuing this path we are going over the cliff.
Well I say, if we don’t stand up and protect the constitution we are going over the cliff so might go fighting a righteous cause.
I say we should tell the Obama administration that we will see them one birth cert. and raise them all public school records and passport file that the guy was murdered trying to scrub.
I say we should look at every campaign donation and all those SSNS and see if any were used.
Commie, I agree with you.
I have long felt that, after the election, there was a slight chance that the long form BC DID exist, and that the Dems were letting the GOP string this out for months, then spring the BC on the world so as to put the matter to rest, give BO sympathy and a huge ratings boost so as to pass critical legislation, like cap and trade and health care.
Also, to divert attention from the real truth — perhaps that BO’s mother had renounced his citizenship when they moved to Indonesia.
But I don’t think so anymore. Now, the State of Hawaii claims that they destroyed all long form BCs. Clearly, this is a state government covering for their native son. So, for now at least, I don’t see a crafty strategy meant to hand Republicans and garner sympathy for Obama.
So Obama was lying about who his father is? This dumbass DemocRAT official probably knows less about the constitution than she does about quantum mechanics.
Ronald W Regan put it best “TRUST BUT VERIFY!!!!!!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.