RealClearPolitics Responds: 'Read the Rules'

From Israel Forum J Blog 8:19 AM. 26 Oct 08:
Total Score 107
Rate It
Radarsite: re: An Open Letter to RCP: More ComplaintsNote From Radarsite:Below is a copy of an email which I sent to the editors of RCP on 22 October. I have yet to receive a reply. Now, after reading two articles about this same problem on RCP -- one of them on the Front Page! -- I have decided to make th... Dateline: 2008-10-23 3:19pm PT (422 words)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After all this time and all these questions from all these people, this is their response:

Dear Mr. Gardner,
Please see the rules regarding posting on RealClearPolitics.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/realclearpolitics_comments_pol.html
From: ROGER GARDNER Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:30 PMTo: Russell, DavidSubject: Fw: rcp

----- Original Message -----
From: ROGER GARDNER
To: Russell, David
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 5:09 PM
Subject: rcp

Dear David -- I am hoping this address for you is still valid.
I am forwarding an email I received from a friend and fellow blogger, M. Evidently, this problem has been going on for a while. I am intimately acquainted with M's work as we contribute to each other's blogs.
There have been allegations made, mostly rumors, but enough of them to be troubling, that RCP is actually being monitored by an Obama agent, and that if anything overly critical about the Obamas is posted to RCP it will be immediately taken down.
So far I have refrained from getting involved in this controversy as it was still in the unsupported rumor stage,
However, given what is happening with my friend M, I am becoming more and more concerned.
This cannot be true can it? It would seem impossible.
If you choose to refute this rumor here, I will gladly forward your response to all those friends and associates who rely on the integrity of RCP.
As for my friend Maggie, I can only hope that you will be kind enough to give her some explanation for what has been going on with her disappearing articles.
I am forwarding a copy of this inquiry to the appropriate RCP editors.
I trust you and await your response.
Best wishes,
Roger W. Gardner
Radarsite

-----------------------------------------------------

A note from Radarsite: That's it? That's the response to all of our entreaties? One short terse sentence. Read the rules. No other explanation is needed or is forthcoming. Like it or lump it. And all our questions about censorship? About an Obama censor? Or about a possible hacker? Read the rules. This from a gentleman who in previous email conversations had always been exceedingly courteous and helpful. Just read the rules.
Below is a copy of Radarsite's reposting of a removed article. The last time it was up it actually had 65 votes. Now it's gone. After 2 days. "Most voted in the last 7 days". Gone in 2.

Most Voted in Last 7 Days
8 Lawsuits Filed on Obama Birth Certificate Issue It is my understanding that this article was unfairly removed by RCP. I am therefore reposting it under Radarsite's banner. We shall see...
Submitted By Dodgerg - Oct 23, 8:03 pm
62 votes

If I was smart, I'd drop this whole damn thing right now. I need RCP. It is a vital outlet for my work at Radarsite. To me, that curt message, followed by taking down my protesting article, the Most Voted article at RCP during this recent period, is a clear message. It's a display of power. We have the power and this is what we can do. We can just erase you at will. And they're right. They do have that power. And I shouldn't keep pressing my luck.

But it's not just me, is it? Up until today, they had never deleted one of my articles. But what about all those people who took the time to email me or comment about this troubling state of affairs at RCP? What about those 7,531 people that went onto Radarsite on that one day, most of whom went on to read about the troubles at RCP? What about all those people?

So here's the proverbial bottom line. Sorry, but that answer was insulting and woefully insufficient. We have asked and asked again for answers to some valid and important questions, questions that speak to the very heart of our Constitutional Right of Free Speech. And we were told to read the rules. Period. Well, I did read the rules. And I also made up my mind that we deserve better than that. We deserve respectful answers to our respectful questions. And until such time as they are forthcoming, I for one will keep pressing for them. And if that jeopardizes my standing at RCP, then so be it.

I am posting below the latest response I have received to this affair. It does, as you will see, address the whole fundamental issue of this ongoing unpleasant business. - rg

----------------------------------------------------------

This just in from Independent Voter [see article below]

Monitoring RCP's Post Management
Post created on RCP Oct 25, 5:44 pm
Post (11 votes in the 'over 10' list), user account DELETED at approximately 10:30 pm EST on Oct 25
New Account and re-post: Oct 25 at 10:59 pm EST
Post DELETED: Oct 25 at 11:56 pm EST -- re-posted Oct 26, 12:01 am EST
Post DELETED: Oct 26 at 12:26 am EST -- re-posted Oct 26, 12:29 am EST
Post DELETED: Oct 26 at 1:02 am EST -- re-posted Oct 26, 1:04 am EST
Current Date/Time: Sun, Oct 26 2008 - 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
S. Roberts said...
Just wanted you to get a copy of an email I just sent to Michael Savage talk radio host relative to some of my very popular RCP posts that were removed this past few days. One was #2 on the Most Voted In Last 7 Days Column.
----------------------------
To: michaelsavage@savage-productions.com
Subject: RealClearPolitics.com Banned Popular Links To Michael Savage/Berg Interview

I created two RealClearPolitics.com reader article posts that linked to your audio page and home page regarding the Berg interview. They immediately started receiving approval votes, and when I checked last night, over 17 votes each, thereby a high enough ranking to land in the Most Recent Articles With 10 Or More Votes column and earn rotation through the RCP home page.Today, they were removed from the Website. Over the past month, the RCP has been removing anti-Obama posts related to topics that could damage his election significantly. The RCP home page and the reader articles sections have all been tampered with. Polling figures and electoral maps have at times not mathematically computed, always in Obama's favor.Rumor has it they are owned by CNN/Time Warner, but I cannot verify that.I have proof -- one of my best rated articles last week made it to the Most Voted In Last 7 Days column. It was removed from RCP the day after I captured this image of that column (second article from the top):http://64.37.107.199/rcp/ mostvot...edlast7days.pdfIt linked to the Kentucky Lake Times reporting on the Berg topic.

The current page (today is the 25th so mine should still be there and with even more votes):http://readerarticles.realclearp...om/? period=weekMine was not the only one removed. Compare the two and you can see the 2 below mine were also removed.Here are before and after links of My Submissions:Before where articles 2 and 3 are the ones to your Berg pages: http://64.37.107.199/rcp/ 3_reade...earpolitics.pdfThis afternoon: http://64.37.107.199/rcp/ 4_reade...earpolitics.pdf BOTH MISSINGIf you go to the RCP reader articles recent submissions, you will catch posts about the bias, hacking, or whatever is going on at RCP (before they get removed). Here are a few blogs about this:http://conservativebadlands.blog...ng- problem.htmlhttp://radarsite.blogspot.com/20...r- politics.htmlRCP is not responding to anyone on this issue. I have conversed with the Webmaster there multiple times by email on topics that interest him. He has been with RCP a long time, as I found his name in blogs from a year or two ago. He is David Russell and the two emails are drussell@realclearpolitics.com (not published but he replies from this one) and webmaster@realclearpolitics.com (published).I thought perhaps you might want to help communicate the growing concerns about the dependability of this popular site that is used as a basis for mainstream media and citizens to base their opinions. Thanks for your efforts in finding the truth.
----------------------------
October 25, 2008 12:15 PM

Update: This just in from Independent Voter:




Interesting Berg comments taken from subsequent article:.... Berg said he is in possession of a native-language audiotape of Sarah Obama, Barack Obama's paternal grandmother, stating on the day of the last presidential debate that her famous grandson was indeed born in Kenya, and that she was present in the hospital for his birth.
"The tape is in the native language there," Berg said. "I will release it as soon as translation is confirmed by affidavit, and we are waiting on affidavits from contacts over here and in Kenya."
Posted by America's Right on October 25, 2008
Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed From Philadelphia Federal Court
The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.
Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations.
Various accounts, details and ambiguities from Obama’s childhood form the basis of Plaintiff’s allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter … and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff’s opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama’s cover-up.
A judge’s attitude toward the factual foundation of a plaintiff’s claims is an essential factor in understanding just who indeed has standing to sue. The question running to the heart of the standing doctrine is whether or not the plaintiff indeed has a personal stake in the outcome of the otherwise justiciable matter being adjudicated. As has been discussed before many times here at America’s Right, a plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress.
In this case, Judge Surrick’s attitude toward the evidence presented by Berg to support his allegations figures in heavily because, while there is a three-pronged test to standing in itself, there is no definitive test by which the court can determine whether a certain harm is enough to satisfy the first element of that three-pronged test by showing true injury-in-fact. Traditionally, it hasn’t taken much to satisfy the need for an injury-in-fact, but as the plaintiff’s claimed injury is perceived as being more remote, more creative, or more speculative, the injury-in-fact requirement becomes more difficult to satisfy.
As it were, much of Berg’s basis for injury-in-fact could be considered threatened injury–he felt that the country was at risk for “voter disenfranchisement” and that America was certainly headed for a “constitutional crisis”—and, while threatened injury can certainly be injury enough to satisfy the injury-in-fact element, such satisfaction depends upon the threat being perceived by the judge as being not too creative, speculative or remote.
When it came to Philip Berg’s personal stake in the matter at hand, Surrick compared his action with those of Fred Hollander—the man who, earlier this year, sued Sen. John McCain in New Hampshire on grounds that, born in the Panama Canal Zone, he was not a natural born citizen—and held that Berg’s stake “is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters.” The harm cited by Berg, Surrick wrote, “is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”
So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that's completely up to Congress to decide.
If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.
Judge the 34-page memorandum. In one such instance, Surrick noted that Berg had misinterpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in asking the court to permit him to amend his complaint. The first amended complaint was deemed admitted by Judge Surrick on grounds that, under FRCP 15(a), a party can amend once so long as it’s done before being served with a responsive pleading and that [just as I had not-so-confidently suggested] the motion to dismiss filed on Sept. 24 by Obama and the DNC was not a responsive pleading. Because Berg perceived the motion to dismiss as a responsive pleading and was waiting on the court to grant or deny the motion for leave to amend, he did not serve the additional defendants added in the amended complaint. This, too, was noted by Surrick.
Berg’s attempts to distinguish his own case from Hollander were deemed by Surrick to be “[h]is most reasonable arguments,” but his arguments citing statutory authority were said by the judge to be a venture “into the unreasonable” and were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.” All in all, the judge wrote, it was the satisfaction of the injury-in-fact requirement which was the problem. Berg’s harm was simply too intangible.
…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.
Intangible or not, Berg said, we have a case where "an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate's eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure."
In fact, the motion to dismiss and motion for protective order filed by Barack Obama and the DNC were not only proper but also an expected maneuver by the defense attorneys. The very idea behind such motions is to foster the adjudication of the matter with minimal damage to the named defendants, and both are measures used more often than not. Still, Berg believes there is more to it.
"While the procedural evasions may be proper," Berg said, "it only makes me believe more that we were correct in the first place, that Obama does not have the documentation we've requested."
While the evidence presented by Berg was largely circumstantial, the attorney says that he is learning more about this narrative--and about the Democratic Party nominee for president -- with each passing day. For example, regardless of whether it could be attached to the proceeding as it goes through the appellate process, Berg said, he is in possession of a native-language audiotape of Sarah Obama, Barack Obama's paternal grandmother, stating on the day of the last presidential debate that her famous grandson was indeed born in Kenya, and that she was present in the hospital for his birth.
"The tape is in the native language there," Berg said. "I will release it as soon as translation is confirmed by affidavit, and we are waiting on affidavits from contacts over here and in Kenya."
Berg, nonetheless, is disappointed by Surrick's decision and will issue a press release today detailing his plans to appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.
"This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg said. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States--the most powerful man in the entire world--is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"

Update: From Plank-Road.com



Posted by African Press International on October 29, 2008
Obama’s campaign manager offers 3 million dollars to API in connection withMichelle Obama tape to be aired by Fox News Network

Six hours after the release of information by API on the planned broadcast by Fox News Network of the Michelle Obama tape, in accordance with an agreement that has been reached between API and Fox News Network, API was contacted by Obama’s Campaign Manager.
Those who are close to the democratic presidential candidate must be desperate to win the elections no matter what, otherwise they would not have taken such bold step to contact API with an offer of a bribe in order to stop the airing of the tape.
Obama’s campaign manager contacted API by telephone and email offering 3 million US dollars followed with a request to API to cancel the deal with Fox News Network.
Ten days ago API received the first request to accept 2 million US dollars by Mr Ed Hale, President of Plains Radio, Texas - USA, in an effort to suppress the information from reaching the public before the coming US Presidential elections.
API has now taken a decision to contact the American Embassy in Oslo, Norway as soon as possible in order to report the matter and hand over the evidence for investigative purposes.
API’s Canadian lawyer is expected to fly to Oslo shortly in order to assist in the legal matters that arise from the bribery attempt.
API’s Chief editor is expected to travel to New York, together with the Canadian lawyer, where he will appear live in one of the shows that will air the Michelle Obama tape.
Chief Editor Korir/ African Press International - API

Monitoring RCP's Post Management
Post created on RCP Oct 29, 9:07 am CST
Post DELETED Oct 29, 9:50 am CST

Re-posted Oct 29, 10:14 am CST
Post DELETED Oct 29, 10:26 am CST

Re-posted Oct 29, 10:30 am CST
Post DELETED Oct 29, 11:05 am CST

Re-posted Oct 29, 11:17 am CST

Post DELETED Oct 29, 11:21 am CST

Re-posted Oct 29, 11:23 am CST
Post DELETED Oct 29, 11:29 am CST

Re-posted Oct 29, 11:31 am CST
Current Date/Time: Wed, Oct 29 2008 - 12:18 pm CST