IF OBAMA IS SUCH A SWELL GUY, THEN WHY ARE TWO OF HIS RELATIVES LIVING IN SLUMS!?

A FEW MONTHS AGO WE LEARNED THAT:



DESPITE THE FACT THAT MERELY $50/YEAR WOULD LIFT HIM OUT OF POVERTY, A HALF BROTHER - GEORGE - LIVES IN A SLUM IN NAIROBI.

NOW WE LEARN THIS:



OBAMA'S AUNT - ONE HE "LOVINGLY" REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST VOLUME OF HIS MEMOIRS - LIVES IN A SLUM IN THE USA.

• OBAMA IS WORTH A LOT OF MONEY, SO WHY DOESN'T HE HELP THESE "RELATIVES"?

• IS HE A JUST DEMAGOGUE AND A PHONY?

• OR ARE THEY ALSO REALLY NOT HIS RELATIVES? (ONE OF THESE FACES DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT BELONGS...)
  

BOTTOM-LINE:

OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST WHO WANTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO SPREAD YOUR WEALTH AROUND, WHILE HE WON'T EVEN SPREAD HIS OWN WEALTH AROUND - TO HIS OWN "FAMILY"!

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

PS: THE ONLY GROUP TO GET ANY SIZABLE CHARITY FROM OBAMA WAS TRINITY CHURCH AND WRIGHT. THAT'S WHERE HIS HEART IS.

OBAMA CAMPAIGN USED ACORN IN DELIBERATE RICO-LEVEL FRAUD

It's becoming clear that the Obama Campaign indulged in massive illegal activites related to fraudulent "contributions" and various forms of voter fraud. Although Obama flat out lied about his longstanding relationship with ACORN, the truth is coming out. As reported by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

A former staffer for an affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now testified today that the organization was provided a "donor list" from the presidential campaign of Barack Obama in late 2007 for fundraising efforts.

Anita Moncrief, a former Washington, D.C. staffer for Project Vote, which she described as a sister organization of ACORN, said her supervisor told her the list of campaign contributors came from the Obama campaign. Moncrief said she has a copy of a "development plan" that outlines how Obama contributors who had "maxed out" under federal contribution limits would be targeted to give to Project Vote, and that it was her job to identify such contributors.

Evidence of the Obama Campaign's systematic flouting of election finance laws was reported by the Washington Post:

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

The disabled security features enable donors to funnel huge amounts of foreign and illegal money to the campaign, by breaking the amounts up into smaller than $200 amounts, the precise details of which the campaign is not required to report. This is a deliberate exploitation of loopholes in the law, with the clear intention to commit fraud.

By the way, each fraudulent contribution entails a 2 year prison term, and they are to be served consecutively.

SIZE DOESN'T COUNT: PHOTO PROOF THAT LARGE LEFTIST RALLIES DON'T MEAN SQUAT ELECTORALLY

MY FRIENDS, DON'T YOU WORRY ABOUT OBAMA'S LARGE RALLIES.

SIZE DOESN'T COUNT.

HERE'S PROOF:

IN 1968, THERE WAS A HUGE 1,000,000 STRONG PROTEST IN DC -
I WAS THERE.

NIXON WON.

IN 1972, THERE WERE HUGE PROTESTS AGAINST THE WAR.
KERRY AND FONDA SPOKE AT SEVERAL...

NIXON WON A RE-ELECTION IN A HUGE LANDSLIDE.

THERE WERE ALSO HUGE PROTEST MARCHES ALL OVER THE WORLD AGAINST REAGAN IN 1983 - AGAINST HIS DEPLOYMENT OF
PERSHING MISSILES IN EUROPE AND FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT.
ONE IN NYC GOT OVER A MILLION PEOPLE. (I WAS THERE.)

REAGAN WON A BIG RE-ELECTION.
IN 2004, THERE WERE HUGE PROTESTS AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR
AND AGAINST BUSH.
THE ONE IN NEW YORK DREW 500,000...

BUSH CHENEY WON RE-ELECTION. BIG-TIME.

BOTTOM-LINE: OBAMA'S BIG RALLIES IN BERLIN OR DENVER OR ST LOUIS DON'T MEAN SQUAT - IF WE - THE "SILENT MAJORITY", THE "JOE THE PLUMBERS" - TURN OUT AND VOTE.

I PRAY WE DO.

(WE ALSO HAVE TO STOP MASSIVE, NATIONWIDE, PLANNED ACORN VOTER FRAUD.)

The useful vagueness of Obama

Nineteen eighty-two was a lucky time (as your columnist can attest) to be leaving college. Whatever faults various authorities find in the "decade of greed," which was followed by another decade of greed, it marked the start of 25 years of exceptional prosperity and opportunity. Freer trade and the epochal joining of a couple billion Chinese and others into the global division of labor played a role. The ideas of Reagan and Thatcher, bringing the private sector back to a place of honor, played a role.

Is the age of Obama the beginning of a less golden age? We cast no aspersion on the man or his program. Mr. Obama, in his short career, has not strongly associated himself with any policy idea. His relation to his own proposals during the campaign has been pleasantly noncommittal, if generally liberal (as voters and the media are only now getting around to noticing).

His rise offers little insight either. His Senate primary and general election races were smoothed by the serendipitous bowing out of formidable opponents in each case, in divorce-related "scandals." His presidential hopes have been turned overnight into landslide hopes by a financial crisis that has left the public angry and confused, though not one that plays to any expertise of Mr. Obama's.

Yet if he wins next week, it could be with a sweeping mandate to decide, er, what his mandate will be. He's a presidential vehicle perfectly designed, or self-designed, to be driven by history, rather than driving it. And he comes just at the moment when, overnight, crashing down is just about every normal restraint against intrusive, redistributing, regulating government. This is the door the remarkable Mr. Obama is about to waltz through.

In a two-party system, both parties need to be capable of governing, of having some long view of the central challenge -- which, arguably, in our case remains the financing challenge of the American welfare state. John McCain may not be much of an economist and hasn't adopted the "ownership society" as his slogan, but his health-care plan falls right in with tradition on the center right -- a spectrum that once included Bill Clinton -- of invoking a new role for individual responsibility and individual choice in making the welfare state work.

Democrats, in contrast, never really tell us where they want us to go. That hasn't been the Democratic way and Mr. Obama, in this, is a perfect Democrat -- as opaque on the big question as his party has been. Al Gore let on that he favored a single payer health-care system only two years after he lost the White House. Politics -- simple politics -- instead has been Democrats' governing philosophy, and Mr. Obama is, again, the perfect heir.

In an interesting piece of work, economist Henning Bohn has forecast the future voting propensities of an aging electorate based on two things: how much in taxes a median voter would expect to pay until retirement, and the present value of his or her expected Social Security and Medicare benefits. His conclusion: It will make financial sense for the median voter to vote for higher taxes on his remaining working years and on younger people in order to secure his benefits.

If he's right, Democrats need to say only one thing when running for office -- and that's nothing intelligible about the funding dilemma of the welfare state or the need to address it. Mr. Obama has evidently learned his politics well. This week, he told Time Magazine's Joe Klein that, after the current financial crisis, "a new energy economy . . . That's going to be my No. 1 priority when I get into office."

This is a cipher, an air sandwich. Mr. Obama here affords himself a placeholder for a priority to be named later. He knows that such impractical, centrally planned "energy revolutions" have been preached by candidates and op-ed writers for decades, only to be forgotten after inauguration day in favor of less rhetorical agendas.

Mr. Obama's knack for eliciting pleasing feelings of self-regard in his followers is certainly a political virtue. (That so many of John McCain's supporters must hold their noses is, in its way, the equal and opposite virtue.) More than that, the vagueness of Mr. Obama's governing philosophy is a natural fit for a party that has long been wedded to the strategy that you get where you're going (a bigger welfare state) by not saying where you're going.

Source


Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here

Group Pride, insecurity and the Left

Strictly speaking, the generalizability of the research below is limited by the sample they used but the conclusions are very ancient and almost certainly true. In ancient Athens, hubris (arrogant pride) was actually considered a crime while megalopsuchia (proper pride; big spiritedness) was a virtue. I follow the report below with a few notes about the wider implications of the research

From screaming baseball fans to political rally-goers, groups that engage in boastful self-aggrandizing may be trying to mask insecurity and low social status. "Our results suggest that hubristic, pompous displays of group pride might actually be a sign of group insecurity as opposed to a sign of strength," said researcher Cynthia Pickett, associate professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis.

The new study reveals how two types of pride are related to a person's good feelings about one social group or another to which they belong. These good feelings could come from being a Los Angeles Lakers fan (when they win), a war veteran, a member of a particular ethnic group or a sorority gal or fraternity brother. But while authentic pride is linked with real confidence in your group, hubristic pride is a false arrogance that belies insecurities about one's group. These results build on past research showing similar pride characteristics in individuals.

"It turns out, people who have the hubristic collective pride in their group, underlying it all is an insecurity about whether the group is good enough, really," said researcher Jessica Tracy, a psychologist at the University of British Columbia. The research was presented last week at a meeting of the Society for Experimental Social Psychology in Sacramento.

In three studies, Pickett, Tracy and their colleagues surveyed more than 300 undergraduate students, first asking each participant to write about an experience when they felt proud of their group. In one of these studies, students had to recall the UC Davis football win over Stanford. In another, Asian American students were asked to write about a proud experience tied with their ethnic background. Other experiences ranged from sports team wins to achievements by sororities, say raising a big chunk of money for a charity.

Each participant then rated to what extent they would use certain words to describe themselves at the time of the event or achievement. Some of the descriptors indicated hubristic pride, such as "snobbish," "pompous" and "smug," while others were linked with authentic pride, such as "accomplished," "successful" and "confident." Students also answered questions about the status of the group, including whether the group was valued by non-members, whether they themselves thought highly of the group, whether the group was under threat or in competition with another group, and other group-related questions.

The results showed that groups in which individuals boasted and gloated - a sign of hubristic pride - tended to have low social status or they were vulnerable to threats from other groups. So the worse the person felt about their group's status as well as how badly they thought the public viewed the group, the more likely that member would experience that empty, boastful pride. In contrast, those groups that expressed pride by humbly focusing on members' efforts and hard work tended to have high social standing in both the public and personal eyes.

Hubristic pride can rear its ugly head in both small groups like sports teams and larger groups like citizens of a country. "A lot of this has real-world implications," Tracy told LiveScience. "There are some kinds of collective pride where people get really angry and hostile and feel like 'it's not just that my group is great but my group is better.'" She added, "You can think of it as the distinction between nationalism and patriotism, with nationalism being the sense of it's not just that I love my country, it's that my country is best."

When group members show signs of hubristic pride, such as making grandiose statements about their country, that could be a sign of underlying insecurity, the researchers said. "When you hear groups starting to get into that type of rhetoric it may be because they're starting to realize they're in a losing position and that they need to do something to try to drum up respect, to drum up the kind of status that they feel they're lacking," Pickett said.

Source

The first thing that needs to be stressed about the above findings -- something the authors themselves imply -- is that not all group loyalty is dysfunctional. Tribalism or group action is very common in the animal world -- from ants to apes -- and it is part of humanity too. Leftists tend to deny that, however. They see any kind of group loyalty -- such as patriotism -- as primitive. And tribalism certainly is a prominent feature of primitive societies. That something is primitive does not mean that it is weak, however. And in fact tribal loyalties of one sort or another still to this day dominate most human societies. In Muslim lands, for instance, there is virtually no loyalty to the nation. All loyalty is to your tribe, to your clan, to your kinship group or to your religion.

As Emmanuel Todd, a French Leftist historian, correctly pointed out, it is the Anglo-Saxons who are deviant. To Southern Europeans, the English family is incomprehensible. It appears pathologically fractionated. Instead of strong family loyalties, the English simply go their own way once they leave home and have almost no further contact with one-another by normal human standards. I saw this in the late '60s when I was doorknocking with a social survey in an ethnically mixed area of Sydney. One of the questions I asked was: "How often do you see relatives?" The Greeks and Italians would usually say: "Every weekend". By contrast, about half the Anglo-Australians said: "Never!".

So if even family ties are so weak among Anglo-Saxons, one can understand that tribal loyalties are very limited -- usually seen only in attachment to particular sporting teams. Sport is a re-enactment of real combat so it is a very primitive thing and draws out primitive reflexes.

But tribalism DOES have some life among Anglo-Saxons outside sport. In particular, Anglo-Saxons do have some attachment to their own nation and ethnic group. They put up surprisingly well with having other ethnic groups living among them but their preference nonetheless is generally for their own ethnic group. See here, for instance. And this tattered remnant of group loyalty is what Leftist routinely stigmatize as "racism".

Ironically, however, it is Leftists themselves who seem to have the strongest group orientation. Contrast the lukewarm support of conservatives for McCain with the hysterical adulation for Obama on the Left. And, from Hegel through Hitler ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer") to Obama, it is Leftists who glorify unity and seem to regard as ideal an anthill type of existence where everybody obeys implicitly direction from the top. So Leftists are clearly the political fanatics. And the research above does therefore identify them as the most insecure.

And there is reason for that insecurity and its compensatory fanaticism. They know that what they really want is the utter destruction of the "system" in which they live and there is always a great risk that the mask will come off that and expose them for the haters and destroyers that they are.

And that Islamic hypersensitivity about "insults" reflects insecurity is a common observation. They certainly have little to be proud of by way of real recent achievements and their sensitivity to slights shows that they know that a low opinion of them and their hamstrung lifestyle has some justification. By contrast, cartoons ridiculing Christians are routine (usually from the Left) but I have yet to hear of any Christian demands to behead cartoon publishers.

Reference: Todd, E. (1985) The explanation of ideology Oxford: Blackwell

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here

REDISTRIBUTION IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE VALUES AT THE CORE OF OUR NATION'S FOUNDING

S&L: OUR FOUNDING FATHERS OF REDISTRIBUTION:

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”

— John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

— James Madison

But maybe they were wrong and Mr. Obama is right.

After all, he is a Constitutional scholar.

HEH.

SERIOUSLY: LINCOLN MADE EACH MAN'S RIGHT TO THE FRUITS OF HIS OWN LABOR THE CENTERPIECE FOR HIS MORAL ATTACK ON SLAVERY:

It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You toil and work and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.

- Seventh and Last Joint Debate with Steven Douglas, at Alton, Illinois (15 October 1858)

OBAMA WOULD HAVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REDISTRIBUTE PRIVATE PROPERTY.

THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UN-AMERICAN.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

• AND REMEMBER: THESE POLICIES ARE NOT JUST UN-AMERICAN; THEY DON'T JUST VIOLATE OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS; THEY'LL HAVE HORRIBLE CONSEQUENCES:
  

• WHILE HE WOULD INCREASE TAXES TO PAY FOR INCREASED WELFARE SPENDING, OBAMA WANTS TO CUT THE DEFENSE BUDGET.
  

• WHICH MEANS OBAMA WOULD RATHER TAKE YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY AND GIVE IT TO OTHER CITIZENS (HE THINKS DESERVE IT MORE THAN YOU), THAN USE IT TO DEFEND THIS NATION AND OUR ALLIES.

• OBAMA'S POLICIES WILL WEAKEN US ECONOMICALLY AND IT WEAKEN OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

OBAMA AND WRIGHT: SOUL MATES FROM HELL

HERE'S A SAMPLING OF A FEW EVIL RANTS FROM WRIGHT:



NOTE HOW THE CHURCH MEMBERS APPLAUD AND HOOT AND WHISTLE THEIR APPROVAL... THEY'RE NOT SHOCKED OR DISMAYED; THEY'RE ELATED! THIS PROVES THAT THESE RANTS ARE NOT OUT OF CHARACTER FOR WRIGHT OR THE CHURCH.

HERE'S OBAMA PRAISING WRIGHT:



OBAMA DEFENDED WRIGHT IN HIS ONCE FAMOUS SPEECH IN PHILLY, (A "FAMOUS" "LEG-TINGLING" SPEECH NOBODY CAN QUOTE FROM!); BARACK OBAMA:

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions — the good and the bad — of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

... I suppose the politically safe thing to do would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. [HE DID; IT HAS - AS FAR AS THE MSM AMND THE LEFT IS CONCERNED!] We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America — to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through — a part of our union that we have not yet made perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care or education or the need to find good jobs for every American. [HE WALKED AWAY THREE WEEKS LATER!]

.... The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour of American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity within the African-American community in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful. And to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

THERE'S NOT A WORD IN THIS EXCERPT WHICH SURVIVED WRIGHT'S ACCUSING OBAMA OF BEING "A TYPICAL POLITICIAN." (LINK HAS VIDEO, TOO!)

WRIGHT: It went down very simply. He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. But they're two different worlds. I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician.

FOR CALLING HIM THAT, OBAMA DISOWNED WRIGHT AS SURELY AS HE DUMPED HIS GRANDMOTHER - "A TYPICAL WHITE PERSON" - UNDER THE BUS.



OBAMA'S LIFE IN CHICAGO AND SINCE MORE CLOSELY REFLECTS HIS CHOICE TO BECOME A FOLLOWER OF WRIGHT, THAN THE ROOTS HE CHOSE TO ABANDON - HIS WHITE GRANDMOTHER'S HOME IN HAWAII.

SUCH A MAN IS UNFIT FOR ANY OFFICE.

IF ELECTED, AMERICA BECOME UNFIT TO LEAD THE FREE WORLD.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

SARKOZY: OBAMA'S AN EMPTY SUIT ON FOREIGN POLICY

French president Nicholas Sarkozy has summed up the problems with Barack Obama's foreign policy positions (Hat tip: Hot Air):

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is very critical of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama’s positions on Iran, according to reports that have reached Israel’s government.

Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France. But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate’s stance on Iran as “utterly immature” and comprised of “formulations empty of all content.”

Obama visited Paris in July, and the Iranian issue was at the heart of his meeting with Sarkozy. At a joint press conference afterward, Obama urged Iran to accept the West’s proposal on its nuclear program, saying that Iran was creating a serious situation that endangered both Israel and the West. According to the reports reaching Israel, Sarkozy told Obama at that meeting that if the new American president elected in November changed his country’s policy toward Iran, that would be “very problematic.”

Wow. Now that's saying something. Indeed it would be a problem, since no way is Iran going to cease their nuclear warfare building by just asking them.

On France24 Television news, they tried to make it sound as though Europe prefers Obama. This should prove otherwise, and it's also a very good warning of some of the things that could go wrong under an Obama-led government.

JOE THE PLUMBER TO HELP CAMPAIGN FOR MCCAIN

The brave guy who approached Obama a few weeks ago to ask about his tax policies is now going to help campaign for McCain in Ohio (via Hot Air Headlines).

Awesome! Joe is an inspiration for everyone. In fact, as I've just discovered, much to my additional amazement, Joe has also stood up in defense of Israel (also via Hot Air Headlines):

COLUMBUS, OHIO (AP) - "Joe the Plumber," the small business aspirant and overnight media sensation, endorsed John McCain's presidential campaign Tuesday and said Barack Obama would make America a socialist nation.

The Ohio plumber, whose real name is Samuel Wurzelbacher, also agreed with a McCain supporter who asked him if he believed "a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel."

"I'll go ahead and agree with you on that," Wurzelbacher told the man, retired Florida lawyer Stan Chapman who was visiting Ohio.

Wow. Joe is an inspiration for Israel as well as for small businessmen. I thank him very much for his support.

Global warming caused by solar panels

This finding is kind of cute. Alexander Ac has pointed out that a greenhouse gas emitted during the production of solar panels and HDTVs, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) that is used for cleaning some parts of the gadgets, is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

The concentration of NF3 in the atmosphere was artificially increased by a factor of 20 during the last two decades. The measurements of the concentration surpassed the previous estimates by a factor of five.

The present 5,400 tons in the atmosphere - that will stay there for 700+ years - creates the equivalent warming of all Finland's CO2 emissions (I can't tell you how much it is, because of the unknown feedbacks, but the comparisons are pretty reliable).

Given the fact that the solar panels produce about the same percentage of the global energy as Finland, it is reasonable to guess that the state-of-the-art solar panels that would replace fossil fuels would cause a comparable amount of warming per Joule as fossil fuels.

Source (See the original for links)

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here

Skeptical scientist has university certification revoked!

The Green/Left never stop trying to stifle dissent. Press release from Dr. David Deming [profdeming@earthlink.net] below. He is a geophysicist and an associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research articles. Dr. Deming's Senate December 6, 2006 testimony is available here. University President Boren is a "staunch supporter of Obama". One Fascist supports another, I guess

For ten years or more, professor David Deming has taught a course in environmental geology at the University of Oklahoma. In October 2008, he was informed that the "general education" certification for his course was being revoked. Under the University of Oklahoma system, this means that student enrollment in the course is likely to drop by two-thirds.

This is a course which receives outstanding student evaluations. Professor Deming is well-known to be a global-warming skeptic. In 2006, he testified before the US Senate that media coverage of global warming had descended into "irrational hysteria." See here.

Professor Deming is unaware of any other case in the history of the University of Oklahoma where the "gen ed" certification for a course has been revoked. It would appear possible that professor Deming's position on global warming was a motivating factor. But in this case, the tragedy is that the people being punished are the students, not the professor. Those who wish to express their concern can do so by writing or calling University of Oklahoma President David Boren.

David Boren, President
University of Oklahoma
110 Evans Hall
Norman, OK 73019
telephone: 405-325-3916
email: dboren@ou.edu

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here

FORMER MS. EDITOR: "PALIN AS SMART AS SAM ERVIN"

(VIA HOT AIR): LAFFERTY - A LIB FORMER EDITOR OF MS. - SPENT SOME TIME WITH PALIN AND WAS VERY VERY IMPRESSED.

SO WAS CNBC'S ORIGINAL MONEY HONEY MARIA BARTIROMO.

DON'T BELIEVE THE MSM BS - THAT PALIN IS NOT READY.

SHE IS MORE THAN READY: SHE IS AWESOME.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

MORE HERE.

TO OBAMA, "CHANGE" MEANS CHANGING YOUR MONEY INTO SOMEONE ELSE'S - AND HE GETS TO PICK WHO!

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN - IF YOU BELIEVE IN SOCIALISM.

GREAT NEWS: STEVENS CONVICTED! NOW... WHEN WILL THEY INDICT DODD ET AL!?!?

NYTIMES: Alaska Senator Is Convicted of Ethics Breach in Gift Scheme

WASHINGTON — Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the longest-serving Republican in the Senate’s history and a figure of enormous influence in his state, was found guilty on Monday of violating ethics laws for failing to report gifts and services that he was given by friends.

A federal jury of eight women and four men from the District of Columbia found that the 84-year-old Mr. Stevens, who has represented Alaska in the Senate for more than 40 years, knowingly failed to list on Senate disclosure forms the receipt of several gifts and tens of thousands of dollars worth of remodeling work on his home in Girdwood, Alaska.

GOOD RIDDANCE. STEVENS WAS A CORRUPT BIG SPENDER.

• NOW... WHEN WILL CHRIS DODD OF CONNECTICUT BE INDICTED FOR GETTING A SWEETHEART LOAN FROM COUNTRYWIDE?

(AS DID SEVERAL OTHER SENATORS, ALL OF WHOM SHOULD BE INDICTED TOO.

NOTE: COUNTRYWIDE WAS AT THE VERY HEART OF THE RECENT MORTGAGE/FINANCIAL MELTDOWN, AND DODD - WHO AS CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE HAD OVERSIGHT OVER THEM AND FANNIE MAE.

DODD GOT FAVORABLE TREATMENT FROM THEM AND THIS IS A CRIME).

MORE ON THE CORRUPT DODD FROM THE HARTFORD (CT) COURANT:

Dodd's Campaign Money Shift Raises Questions

October 26, 2008

Sen. Christopher Dodd's bewildering odyssey of entitlement, evasions and deceptions continued last week. He shed more credibility as he staggered through new excuses for concealing from the public documents related to his cut-rate mortgages of nearly $800,000 from subprime giant Countrywide Financial.

On Wednesday, Dodd announced he wants to wait until the Senate Ethics Committee completes its investigation of his mortgage deals. There's no Senate rule requiring Dodd to remain silent during the investigation. There's no legitimate reason for Dodd to withhold from the public the array of documents, e-mails and letters from the mortgage swag bag Countrywide gave him.

MORE ON DODD FROM THE WSJ:

Former Countrywide Financial loan officer Robert Feinberg says Mr. Dodd knowingly saved thousands of dollars on his refinancing of two properties in 2003 as part of a special program the California mortgage company had for the influential. He also says he has internal company documents that prove Mr. Dodd knew he was getting preferential treatment as a friend of Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide's then-CEO.

That a "Friends of Angelo" program existed is not in dispute. It was crucial to the boom that Countrywide enjoyed before its fortunes turned. While most of the company was aggressively lending to risky borrowers and off-loading those mortgages in bulk to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Mr. Feinberg's department was charged with making sure those who could influence Fannie and Freddie's appetite for risk were sufficiently buttered up. As a Banking Committee bigshot, Mr. Dodd was perfectly placed to be buttered.

RTWT.

• DEMOCRATS DODD AND FRANK AND KERRY AND OBAMA PROTECTED FANNIE MAE AND COUNTRYWIDE BY BLOCKING THE INCREASED OVERSIGHT FANNIE MAE NEEDED AND THE GOP PROPOSED.

• DODD - IN THE SENATE FOR DECADES - WAS THE NUMBER ONE RECIPIENT OF FANNIE MAE MONEY. OBAMA - IN FOUR SHORT YEARS WAS ALREADY NUMBER TWO.

• GIVING THESE CORRUPT SCUM MORE POWER - BY GIVING OBAMA THE WHITE HOUSE - IS INSANE.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

VIDEO REMINDER:

PHOTO: OBAMA'S MISTRESS: VERA BAKER

SCROLL DOWN - MAJOR UPDATE MAY 1, 2010!

PODCAST HERE.



BASIC STORY: WHEN MICHELLE FOUND OUT, BAKER WAS FORCED TO "FLEE" TO MARTINIQUE - LEAVING BEHIND A LUCRATIVE JOB IN DC.


MAJOR NEWS: WHILE IN MARTINIQUE, SHE'S ON THE PAYROLL OF A CHICAGO MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT - A JOB ONLY THE MACHINE COULD GET YOU, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S A "NO SHOW" JOB.

WHO COULD GET HER A JOB LIKE THAT, AND WHY? IT'S VERY DAMNING, IF TRUE... HERE'S A PICTURE OF VERA (LEFT).




I CAN SEE WHAT OBAMA SAW IN VERA - WHY HE WAS SO ATTRACTED TO VERA THAT HE "BIT THE FORBIDDEN APPLE":

IT'S VERA'S SMILE:

IN VERA'S SMILE, OBAMA SAW HIS HALF-SISTER MAYA SOETORO:

MAYA AND VERA BOTH HAVE A GAP BETWEEN THEIR TWO FRONT TEETH. AND STRONG CHINS.

PERHAPS VERA BROUGHT BACK "FORBIDDEN MEMORIES"...

(MAYA IS ON THE RIGHT, BELOW.)



























UPDATE: MORE QUESTIONS HERE.

UPDATE #2: SEPTEMBER 22, 2009.

*******UPDATE: BREAKING NEWS: NATIONAL ENQUIRER SAYS OBAMA HAD AFFAIR WITH BAKER! (THEY WERE RIGHT ABOUT JOHN EDWARDS!)

UPDATE: MORE HERE!!!!!!!

2014 UPDATE:

Is the Obama marriage on the rocks? Astonishing claims emerge of ugly fights over that selfie, and even a Presidential affair

• Michelle Obama alleged to have discovered her husband has been unfaithful
• Reports claim they will separate at the end of his presidency in 2016
• Follows claims in two books that couple neared divorce in early 2000's

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541580/Is-Obama-marriage-rocks-Ugly-fights-selfie-Even-Presidential-affair-Astonishing-claims-emerge.html#ixzz2qiTLqQX0 

THE REAL BARACK OBAMA: WRIGHT, TRINITY AND "ANTI-MIDDLECLASSNESS"

OBAMA WANTS YOU TO THINK HE'S PRO-MIDDLE CLASS, BUT HE ISN'T AND NEVER HAS BEEN.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A DUPE.

HERE ARE THE FACTS:

TRINITY CHURCH - WHICH OBAMA BELONGED TO FOR 20 YEARS, (UNTIL ITS HEAD PREACHER BECAME TOO INCONVENIENT) - HAS A SET OF BLACK VALUES IT TEACHES AND IT HAS ALWAYS INCLUDED THIS:

8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"

(MORE HERE.)

• THIS IS WHERE AND HOW OBAMA CHOSE TO RAISE HIS CHILDREN.
• IS IT HOW YOU WANT TO RAISE YOURS!?
• DO YOU THINK A MAN WHOSE CHURCH ATTACKS MIDDLECLASSNESS WILL DEFEND THE MIDDLE CLASS ONCE HE'S IN OFFICE!!? AND BETRAY HIS CHURCH OF 20 YEARS!?
• I DON'T THINK SO.

HERE - AGAIN - IS THE PREACHER THAT OBAMA CALLED HIS MENTOR AND WHOSE SERMONS ARE QUOTED IN OBAMA'S MEMOIRS AND WHOSE TITLE FOR ONE SERMON BECAME THE TITLE OF ONE OF OBAMA'S MEMOIRS:

• DO YOU THINK ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CHEERING WRIGHT'S RANT ARE MARTIANS!?! OF COURSE THEY AREN'T; THEY'RE JUST THE MEMBERS OF OBAMA'S CHURCH.
• ARE THEY SHOCKED OR APPALLED AT WHAT THEY HEAR, OR DO THEY CHEER!?
• THEY CHEER.

THEY CHEER WRIGHT BECAUSE WHAT WRIGHT IS PREACHING IS TRINITY'S CORE VALUES - AND THEY ARE OBAMA'S CORE VALUES, TOO.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

OBAMA: Constitution 'reflected fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day'

This is from the 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview.

Some deep background on the polls

Reader Frogg passed along this really interesting commentary from a professional pollster who is (a) a die hard Obama supporter and (b) laughing at the public polls:

I was having dinner a night ago with a friend of mine who is a statistician for a well-regarded private polling company. They do some work for Republicans in California, but most of the work they do is for Democrats or Democrat-leaning operations (Unions, etc.). Anyway, her shop was retained to do a few Presidential polls for targetted states on behalf of a union so the union could decide where to spend their ad dollars for the last week. They did Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Missouri. After mocking the hell out of the voter id spreads used by Rassmussen, Zogby, etc. (and this is coming from a committed Dem who will be voting for Barry O) she said the results of their polling lead her to believe that McCain will definitely win FL, OH, NC, MO and NV.

She says Obama definitely wins New Mexico. She said that Colorado and New Hampshire were absolute dead heats. She said she thinks there is a 55% chance Obama holds on in Pennsylvania and a 75% chance McCain wins Virginia. She absolutely laughed at the public polls showing Obama leading Virginia-and pointed out that all of those polls rely on Dem turnout being +4 and as much as +7, when in 2006, Republicans actually had the advantage by +3. She also pointed out that the numbers for Obama in SWVA look absolutely awful and that McCain is running 10 points better then Allen did in NoVa.

Anyway, her company's conclusion is that the election will come down to Colorado, New Hampshire and the Republican leaning district in Maine, which in her opinion might very well decide the Presidency (apparently the district in Nebraska that Obama thought he might be able to get is now off the table). She said she has very little doubt that the public polling is part of a "concerted voter suppression effort" by the MSM. She said IBD/TIPP was the only outfit doing public polling that was "worth a bucket of warm piss".

The turnout model scam of 2008 will be the big story of this election. In my last post on polls I noted how many of the polls out there are starting to fall into two camps. The first camp is the traditional approach using historic turnout models where party affiliation is actually quite close as both sides turn out their base equally well. The second model is new and unverified, and assumes there will be a huge difference in party affiliation turnout this year.

The first class of polls show a very tight race, the second class are so heavily weighted towards the dems they assume all the anger with the direction of the country has no impact on Democrats and their media puppets. The DC/NY Political Industrial Complex is mostly liberal in its make up, and it has recently become more and more isolated in its echo chamber. Just look at how it reacted to Sarah Palin. The end result is the polls of polls are showing a classic bimodal result with clusters of polls at one of these two modes: "traditional' and "extended" - just like the two turnout models now being openly produced by Gallup.

I think this pollster has it about right. LJStrata and DJStrata have been out doing the GOTV stuff this week and what they find here in our part of Northern Virginia is there are about equal numbers of Obama and McCain supporters, but the Obama supporters are more open, and the McCain supporters are a bit down because of the tilted polls. The GOP support is quiet, but just as massive as the Obama support.

Sadly, one of the better pollsters has gone to the dark side of the bimodal results. Rasmussen has decided to increase his Democrat edge to new heights, under the naive assumption Dem and GOP supporters are equally engaged in answering pollsters:

Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large. Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process (see methodology)..... The targets are not set arbitrarily. Rather, they are established based upon survey interviews with a separate sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding six weeks. A total of 500 nightly interviews are conducted for a total of 21,000 interviews over the six week period.

While it sounds reasonable, the fact is willingness to participate in polls may not be uniform between the left and right. And pollsters are more and more considered part of the problem, part of the Political Industrial Complex which the public blames for the country being on the wrong track by 90+%. There is a `pox upon all your houses' mentality in the country that is starting to lump the media, the pollsters, the consultants in with the politicians from both sides. Trust in the political class is gone.

Rassmussen now gives the dems a questionable 33-40 edge in turnout (Indies at 27). Previously in September he had Rep-Dem-Indie (RDI) at 34-39-28. Each time he increased the dems edge McCain lost ground - duh!

Let's look at the latest Newsweek Poll which has Obama up 12%. One look at the internals gives the answer to the large lead. Supposedly from 1204 interviews they distilled out 1092 Registered Voters, which were further distilled down to 882 Likely Voters. Of these they claim 299 Reps, 380 Dems and 381 Indies.

If we do the math the total sample size for party affiliates is 1060 - which cleverly doesn't map to interviews, registered voters or likely voters. What is also interesting is they have error bars on their party ID? They claim the Rep error bar is +/-7 (which comes out to 2%.) and the indie/dem error bar is +/- 6. Not sure why they are not sure what party people claimed they were associated with was in doubt, but there it is.

Anyway, if we do the math the Newsweek RDI turnout model is 28-36-36. Recall Rasmussen's model was 33-40-27. I mean they are not even close!

One of the problems is a lot of people are still on the fence to some degree and pollsters are trying to push them into a lean for one candidate, but this is very shaky ground to be on. Look at this Minnesota poll which is making people sit up and take notice:

A St. Cloud State University poll shows that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama leads Republican opponent John McCain 42 percent to 37 percent in Minnesota.... After earlier surveys showed DFL challenger Al Franken with an edge, the SCSU poll shows Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman leading with 36 percent, compared with 27 percent for Franken. Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley trails with 16 percent.

Not only is McCain down only 5%, there are an enormous number of undecideds given the low numbers for both candidates. I included the surprise Senate seat race for comparison because it shows similar numbers for Coleman and Franken (with the Rep out front), but there is a substantial number voting for a 3rd party candidate in that race. There is no major 3rd party candidate on the national level. In MN and with this poll, the race is wide open because of the enormous number of uncommitted voters. Obama could easily lose this state if this poll is to be believed.

So what do we have? We have polls using dynamic turnout models which link willingness to take a poll to willingness to get out and vote (a very suspect assumption IMHO). Especially since different pollsters are deriving vastly different turnout models as a result of this approach. All these polls share one thing, they tend to show massive Obama leads, while the traditional turnout models show a tight or tightening race.

Much more here

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here

Note about Obama from a black Christian

Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him..

Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness. I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does because He is the leader. I can't vote black because I am black, I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.

In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning to name a few, wrong economic concerns will soon not matter. We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I don't know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record. His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007. NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008) To beat Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.

There is a reason planned parenthood gives him a 100 % rating. There is a reason the homosexual community supports him. There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him. There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court. There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill. There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion. There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito.

These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue. Lets take a look at the practice he wanted to continue. The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedure: A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby) B. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal. C. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head. D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole. E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed. God help him.

There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law. Think about this: you can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.

There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now? Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 'Go and make disciples of all nations.' This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you, talk like you believe what you believe etc.

The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him? Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a 1. Commitment to the White Community 2. Commitment to the White Family 3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic 4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community . 5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions 6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System 7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

Would you support a President who went to a church like that? Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside. This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discovered he went to a racist church.

The church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world. A church can't have a value system based on race. The church's value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.

Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone once wrote: 'Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?

So what does all this mean for the nation? In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment. Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 'Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.' Then God says 1 Samuel 1:18 ' When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.' 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.' 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, 'Listen to them and give them a king.'

Here is what we know for sure. God is not schizophrenic He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.. Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture so I doubt it.

For all my friends who are voting for Obama can you really look God in the face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four supreme court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy. I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions.

Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends. Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation, 1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation? 2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?

Blessings, Huntley Brown

Note: Mr Brown is a Jamaican-born classical pianist, well-known in evangelical circles. Snopes.com confirms that the email above is genuine


Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here

BERG'S LAW SUIT DISMISSED

From this source:

Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."

I don't know that I quibble with Berg's lacking standing. That may indeed be so.

But Obama's Constitutional qualifications don't matter? Is that what the judge is saying? If so, then this also follows:



When I posted the above over at Infidel Bloggers Alliance, an anonymous commenter left this link. Excerpt:

In the “never-ending” drama that is known as the 2008 Presidential election, there is an appearance that the decision issued yesterday by the Honorable Judge R. Barclay Surrick in the matter of Berg v. Obama might have been SENT to the judge just a short time BEFORE he released the decision.

A fax copy of the decision from Judge Surrick was faxed to Mr. Berg from the Judge’s Chambers, pages 1-36, beginning at 18:09 October 24, 2008, and that is clearly notated by the receiving fax, starting at page 01/36. Page 36/36 is marked 18:16 October 24, 2008. What is interesting is not at the TOP of the fax pages; it is at the bottom.

At the bottom of each page is a notation from another FAX machine, indicating the date, page number and time. Unlike the pages faxed from Judge Surrick’s fax at 18:09, the “name” of the fax sender is blank, presumably so the sender’s identity could not be seen, and obviously with the sender unaware that the date and time would be stamped on it. The fax began from this mystery fax at 04:55P on October 24, 2008, and ended at 05:11P.

From all appearances, the clerk at Judge Surrick’s office merely took the fax off the machine, the Judge signed it, and it was faxed to Mr. Berg and the other attorneys involved in the case....

Go HERE to read the rest and view the graphics.

Now, sometimes the blogosphere is filled with rumor and unsubstantiated data presented as fact. Then again, sometimes the blogosphere does report the truth. Wasn't it the blogosphere which broke the story of all the PhotoShopped material used by the mainstream press during the Israel-Lebanon War of 2006?

As I said earlier in this post, my primary concern about the dismissal of the law suit is that the judge — a Clinton appointee, if I'm not mistaken — appears to have ruled that Constitutional requirements for the office of President of the United States can be ignored. Another manifestation of Obama-mania? You decide.

(Crossposted from Always On Watch)

HOW LOW WILL OIL FUTURES GO?

Reliapundit was one of the very few --perhaps the only blogger who confidently predicted what we are seeing now in the oil markets:


Stay tuned, there may yet be a ways to go. (Source.)

MORTGAGE FRAUD AND VOTER FRAUD

Glenn Reynolds has noticed something interesting:

I wonder if the voting system is like the credit system, with same-day registration and limited ID requirements kind of like those "no doc" loans, and questionable voting machines being like the dubious credit-rating schemes. As with the credit system, lots of insiders are making out too well from the current system to want to fix it, but when the inevitable crash comes the rest of us will pay the price . . . .

The Democrats are indulging in voter fraud in every battleground state.

In Ohio, 13 Obama campaign staffers petitioned the Board of Elections to discard their absentee ballots, when the local prosecutor discovered that they were not Ohio residents. They will thereby avoid prosecution . . .

In Indiana, thousands of fraudulent voter registrations have resulted in voter rolls that exceed the population!

And the same situation obtains in Alabama.

Historical examples of how socialists, communists, and National Socialists have abused and degraded electoral systems all over the world abound. Once they are established in power, the leftists begin systematically to make elections a sham spectacle. The implications for the United States --as Reynolds hints-- are clear:

If the Obamessiah is elected with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, 2008 might very well be the last fair, legal national election in the history of the United States.

Vote accordingly.