Will Scott Brown Be Labeled a Birther?
Scott Brown did not give a definitive response as to whether Barack Sr. and Stanley Ann married prior to Barack Jr.’s birth. Does that make him a “birther” as the Left will label him? Or is he just saying he doesn’t know if Obama’s parents were married when Barrack Hussein Obama Jr. was born? Does saying I don’t know if Stanley Ann and Barack Obama Sr. were married automatically get someone branded as a birther? Wouldn’t you like to know how anyone on the Left knows if they were or weren’t married? Have they seen the marriage license? So far, no documentation has been unearthed proving their marriage date or the place where it occurred. Strange, indeed. Stranger yet, is how if anyone asks a question or doesn’t tow the line with the Left’s stock answers, they are called birthers. Therefore, if one disagrees with policies of the Obama administration, be prepared to be labeled. Their definition is changing, and it no longer pertains to the ineligibility issue alone.
How can those that appear to know specifics be so sure of their information? They are positive because those are their talking points. They were spoon fed the information and they parrot what they were told, and not because they have seen any proof. How do we know? Thousands of researchers haven’t found any documents that certifiably identify Barack Obama. Any papers or proof that might provide some information are sealed or are forgeries.
The woman in this video speaks with “knowing” authority when she corrects Scott as he is talking. Scott must be aware of the eligibility questions regarding Obama and have some background on the subject. Otherwise, he would not know Stanley Ann was eighteen when she had her first born.
In a TV chat room interview in 2008, Scott Brown and a woman were discussing policies. Scott was supportively talking about Sarah Palin and her strengths and good family values. The woman with whom he was speaking was questioning the Palin family values because Sarah’s daughter got pregnant out of wedlock. The woman said she talked to many people about this issue and their consensus was that if a teen got pregnant, then she had corrupted values. She found this judgment to be prevalent no matter if she was speaking to Democrats, Republicans, or Independents. She said that it was interesting that suddenly the focus was on whether Sarah’s daughter kept the child rather than it being on her morals or values. Scott recognized these issues and said there was a lot of sexism in 2008.
He responded to her with the retort, “Your inference is pretty clear. And quite frankly, Barack’s mom had him when she was 18 years old.”
The woman interjected, “And married.”
Then Scott said with a slight laugh, “Well, I don’t know about that, and more importantly, the fact she had him at 18 years old…”
Unfortunately, the video ends and we do not know what else was said beyond this point. Apparently, the video owner ended it exactly where they wanted it to end. Context matters and we would like to hear the rest of the eliminated conversation.
Below is the video, so you can decide. “Honesty is the best policy,” and I think Scott showed honesty and integrity with his answer. This is a value the Left does not possess, practice, nor emulate. This might be one of the final smear attacks by the Democrat machinery as the two opponents are heading toward the final stretch this Tuesday. The question will be raised and the label placed, but is he a birther or isn’t he? Only Scott knows for sure. I think his records are sealed. Really, does it matter?
Don’t be concerned Scott, we’ve all been called vile, rotten names this year for speaking our minds. I was only angry when Pelosi took it down to ground level and called me Astroturf. I was getting so used to Birther, Right-wing extremist, racist and mobster. Those names sort of grow on ya! Don’t you think so Steve?
Great Scott…you are the change we need to stop the Marxist regime!
Massachusetts, it is up to you! The USA is watching and praying. Bring it on!
Update (by RP):
Paul Kirk, the appointed interim successor for the late Ted Kennedy in the Senate, has vowed to provide the 60th vote for ObamaCare regardless of whether Scott Brown wins Tuesday’s special election to fill the seat. But can Kirk vote on any bill after Tuesday? Fred Barnes reports on GOP lawyers who have checked the law in Massachusetts and the precedent in the Senate, and says that Kirk becomes a lame duck without a vote as soon as the polls close on Tuesday:
Appointed Senator Paul Kirk will lose his vote in the Senate after Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts of a new senator and cannot be the 60th vote for Democratic health care legislation, according to Republican attorneys. …
But in the days after the election, it is Kirk’s status that matters, not Brown’s. Massachusetts law says that an appointed senator remains in office “until election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy.” The vacancy occurred when Senator Edward Kennedy died in August. Kirk was picked as interim senator by Governor Deval Patrick.
Democrats in Massachusetts have talked about delaying Brown’s “certification,” should he defeat Democrat Martha Coakley on Tuesday. Their aim would be to allow Kirk to remain in the Senate and vote the health care bill.
But based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period. Brown meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in the Constitution to qualify for the Senate. “Qualification” does not require state “certification,” the lawyers said.
It appears that a win by Brown will shine a spotlight on the concepts of “Qualification” versus “Certification”.
And while the Congress “Certified” the Electoral College vote, they never “Qualified” Obama. The members of Congress, including President of the Senate Dick Cheney, inspected certificates, sent to them under seal from the Secretary of State of each and every state, to certify the Electoral College vote. Dick Cheney failed to follow the law and ask for objections, so the legality of this “Certification” is in question. But these members of Congress never inspected any certificate from Hawaii to “Qualify” Obama’s birth there. And they never addressed the legal question of whether or not someone born to a father who was a foreign subject could be considered a natural born Citizen of the United States.
Congress “Certified” the Electoral College vote, they never “Qualified” Obama, even though the 20th Amendment makes it perfectly clear that
…a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Every member of Congress has sworn to support and defend the Constitution, which includes the 20th Amendment.
Every member of Congress has a responsibility to qualify Obama.
Why do the democrats want Scott Brown’s medical files? When caught the Democrats said their request was misinterpreted and the insurance company made a mistake! The insurance company can’t read I guess.
Official slams Democrats’ shot at Scott Brown’s medical files
The [Boston] Herald reported yesterday that Brown blasted the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for trying to obtain private medical records for himself and his family. GIC [Group Insurance Commission] officials notified Brown on Tuesday that the DSCC asked them “to provide insurance information.”
The partisan flap comes as national Democrats gear up for a well-financed campaign to regain Brown’s seat in 2012, and several local Democratic candidates are mulling a challenge.
DSCC spokesman Matt Canter said that GIC officials “made a mistake” and misinterpreted their records requests.
Just like getting divorce and custody records for Obama opponents in IL was a “mistake”? Just like getting personnel records for Linda Tripp was a “mistake”? Just like Sandy Burglar spiriting documents out of the National Archives in his clothing, hiding them under a construction trailer, and coming back later to destroy them was mere “sloppiness”?
These people have no honor, no morality, no ethics. “By any means necessary,” they pursue their goals, so if they work somewhere where they CAN get access to private information, they will, and they will use it in order to smear political opponents. And in most cases, there will be no punishment.
Or if they can trick public employees into providing them clues about anything they can use against an opponent, they will do that, too.
For what reason would they want copies of any and all correspondence between Brown and the insurance agency for STATE employees? This covers Brown’s family, too, and they’re OLD records. He doesn’t work for the state anymore. He’s a US senator.
So this time, they didn’t get the information. But suppose the request had gone to an employee there who happens to agree with Barry’s policies and would use that request as an excuse to release. “mistakenly”, damaging information about Brown’s health or something personal about his wife and daughters that could be used against him politically? I can see that happening.
Imagine the outcry if the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee asked whatever agency oversees federal employee health insurance and whatever agency oversees the president’s health checkups for “any and all correspondence” between Barry and those entities. Especially because it might also mean correspondence about MO’s or the daughters’ health status. btw, why doesn’t Barry release his own medical information, such as other presidents have been asked for by the media, and who then have released it?
We face a similar danger with Internet providers, phone companies, search engines, credit card companies, virtually any business that employs “obots” and gives them access to personal information. By the time any legal process winds through the courts, the damage is long past done. As in Obama’s case, by the time the falsehoods are shown to be falsehoods, the damage to opponents is already done.
They’re on fishing expeditions, like the so-called “journalists” who dumpster dived behind Sarah Palin’s home in Alaska.