Friday, October 31, 2008
Second: simply look at his voting record in the Senate.
THIRD: How many radical Muslim clerics want him to be President? How many dictators around the world?
FOURTH: Redistribution of wealth. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Karl Marx.
FIFTH: William Ayers, the unrepentant 1970s Weather Underground terrorist.
SIXTH: Rev. Wright.
SEVENTH: Rev. Plfeger.
Is that enough reasons?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The link: http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39973-113-text.html
If you're been reading this blog for a while (and I know what some have and I thank you warmly for that,) you'll know that before it became a mostly political blog it also covered the Global Warming situation.
There can be no doubt that we are in the midst of climate change. Of that, this is no doubt whatsoever. The governing consensus is that the Earth is in a period of global warming, although there is a theory that says we're in a period leading up to a new ice age. I'll be the first to admit right now that any theory arrived at logically and scientifically possesses its own validity, however, there are a number of people who are now viewing global warming as a de facto religion. It most certainly is nothing of the sort. Global Warming is a theory ... at best. It predicts wild swings of temperature. Some years it will be colder and in others it will be hotter. The overall trend, however, will be warming. To be frank, it is a theory that also has a great deal of contradictory evidence. Some of this evidence in fact refutes global warming entirely.
So what is going on? Well, let's go with the governing consensus, that the Earth is in a period of global warming. The overwhelming bulk of evidence supports this reading of the facts, although as stated there is contradictory evidence about this, too.
So, let's say that the Earth is in a period of global warming. If we were to accept this as a fact, the next logical question would be why exactly is the Earth warming? This, however, is where the consensus breaks down completely.
There are a great many people out there on both sides of this debate that consider themselves to be "scientists." However, for one to be a scientist, one must follow the scientific principle*, which is also called the scientific method*.
One of these tenets is that you do not go into a reading of the data with a preconceived notion of where it will lead. In other words, you follow the data and the evidence where it leads you. You do not attempt to 'fudge' the data to make things come out in your favour. You do not emphasis certain data and de-emphasis other contradictory data. To be a real or serious scientist is to follow the data, not attempt to lead it.
Far too many people on both sides of the global warming debate are forgetting this point, however. They read the data with the goal of proving or disproving their already established conclusion. A serious scientist won't even have a conclusion at this point.
FACT: The Earth is warming.
CONCLUSION: Mankind is solely culpable (at fault.)
Now that is a leap of illogic. The fact is that we are in a time of global climate change. If we were to accept as fact that the Earth is in a period of global warming, we can accept the "fact" as a bona fide fact. Therefore; the Earth is warming. The conclusion, however, is in no way supported by the facts.
PROBLEM #1: Mercury is warming. This can be proven (again, read my older postings or Google this and you will find it.) However, since Mercury is so close to the Sun, I'm not sure this is valid. The Sun could burp and poor little Mercury would get fried. ::burp:: ::WHOOSH!:: "Sorry. I didn't mean to fricassee you again." (Just imagine what would happen if the Sun were to sneeze.)
PROBLEM #2: Venus is warming. Again, this can be proven by NASA and the folks at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
PROBLEM #3: Mars is warming. Again, this too can be proven by NASA and the folks at JPL.
PROBLEM #4: Jupiter is warming at the equator. Same sources.
PROBLEM #5: Europa is warming. Same sources. Although, to be brutally honest, some of this probably is due to the gravitiational and tidal forces being exerted on this moon.
There are no cars on any of these bodies. No coal-fired power plants, either. Yet the people that view global warming as a type of religion ignore this. This really is an 'inconvenient truth,' isn't it, Mr Gore? No farming, therefore no cattle.
"Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions." (emphasis mine)
I've been pointing this out for years. So has George Noory (yes, of Coast to Coast AM). So has Dr. Peter Ward and many many others. And yet, we've all be called ... well. Never mind what we've been called. But it ain't pretty.
Here's what Mr Noory and Dr Ward say, and to follow the evidence where it leads, I also believe: The Earth follows natural cycles. Yet this article as well will be ignored by those with an agenda.
The Sun also follows its own natural cycles. In fact, every one of those five problems I highlighted earlier can be solved by increasing the output from the Sun. This would warm all of these bodies and on Earth would increase the amount of methane and sulfur dioxide in the air.
How? By melting permafrost from rising temperatures and from releasing methane and sulfur dioxide trapped on the ocean floor by a similar method. In fact, there is evidence in the fossil record that supports an impending mass extinction**.
But for those that view global warming as a de facto religion, this really is an 'inconvenient truth,' and will, in sad fact, be discarded. However, that is not what a serious scientist does. A serious scientist would look at this contradictory evidence and would be forced to consider it on its own merits, not by how it fits in with an already established conclusion.
One of the few concrete facts we have is that we are in the midst of global climate change. However, based on the fact that five other bodies in this solar system (four planets and one moon) are also warming, can we really believe that mankind is solely to blame?
Not if we are scientists and follow the evidence where it leads us.
* - Scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method
** - link for impending mass extinction: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071024083644.htm
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Grabbing headline, isn't it? But Obama's Campaign did indeed send out the mail asking people to skip work and school. But for the rest of us? He'll redistribute our wealth. Just as what happened in Zimbabwe.
But let me, as others have, ask this: How many times was 'the one' late?
But what happened in Zimbabwe?!? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe HYPERINFLATION!
"Critics of president Robert Mugabe blame his land reform policies focused on taking land from white farmers and redistributing it to blacks;" (Links left intact, but are not mine. (emphasis added))
Just as I'd written before. (And in the interests of full disclosure, I had nothing whatsoever to do with this Wikipedia article.)
"The Cato Institute's Senior Fellow Steve Hanke released a document estimating Zimbabwe's annualized inflation rate to be 10.2 Quadrillion percent as of October 24, 2008." (Links left intact, but are not mine.)
So what is a "quadrillion?" It's one thousand million million, or 1,000,000,000,000,000. So if inflation were running at 10.2 quadrillion per cent (per year) that would be annual inflation rate of (stand back) 10,200,000,000,000,000%
::BLINK:: But believe it or not, that's not the record. The record for hyperinflation actually belongs to Hungary, which in 1945-46 saw an annualized percentage rate of 4.19 quintillion per cent. What's a quintillion? It's 10^(18) power. Or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. So 4.19 quintillion per cent would be 4,190,000,000,000,000,000%.
"In 2008, Zimbabwe was forced to print a 100 billion Zimbabwean dollar note, which at the time of printing was only worth about the cost of two loaves of bread." link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintillion#Usage_of_names_of_large_numbers
That's right, hyperinflation in Zimbabwe was so bad, prices were so high - and the value of each individual dollar was so low, that it took 100 billion Zimbabwean dollars to buy two loaves of bread. Or, $100,000,000,000 ZBD (Zimbabwean Dollar.)
And that could be coming here if America elects Barack Obama. Remember, hyperinflation is usually caused by social and/or political upheaval. We'll get Socialism under Barack as he redistributes the wealth, and that is both a political and social upheaval.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin, Wikipedia)
But, CNN is going to sit down with Obama on Friday! Here's that link: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/29/send-wolf-blitzer-your-questions-for-obama/
You'll notice Ms Malkin's title for the article: "Send Wolf Blitzer your questions for Obama." I happen to agree with that.
There are a few reasons. First, I think we're all aware by now that Linda Bloodworth-Thomason has said that MSNBC was "completely out of control." She was speaking about the blatant bias in MSNBC's election propagandizing (er...coverage.) But as recently as a few days ago, Mr Malone was writing that he'd learned to approach CNN "...with skepticism."
A few other polls and reports have placed CNN firmly "...in the mid 70's..." on the scale of 1 (far far right wing) to 100 (far far left wing.) 50 is neutral. CNN was "...in the mid 70's..." overall.
But Ms Malkin isn't alone in asking that you write CNN's Mr Blitzer to include questions to ask. If we don't, given that this is CNN, we'll probably get these types of questions:
"Mr Obama, we know that you've measured for the curtains in the Oval Office. But have you given any thought of pastels as a colour?"
"Mr Obama, we know that your daughter likes to watch the Disney Channel as well as Nickelodeon. Will she have a TV in her room?"
"Getting back to pastels, they'd look wonderful on a new dress for your wife."
IF and I do mean IF Mr Blitzer dared to ask a hard question, he'd probably spin it thusly:
"There are those that say that your policies amount to Socialism. How do you respond to these outrageous and completely unfactual, and - dare I say - racist, statements?"
I'm now quoting from Ms Malkin's article:
"Viewers can submit questions for Obama online at www.iReport.com/Obama.
Or contact Blitzer here.
Will he dare to ask about the Khalidi Jew-bash? Ohio’s raid on Joe The Plumber’s records? The Obama campaign’s credit card fraud racket?"
Unless you demand that Mr Blitzer will, he won't. And even then, he might spin it.
I did write Mr Blitzer and signed my name. If CNN is competent in the least, it'll lead them right back here. And my writing hasn't been very friendly towards the press or Mr Obama.
I wonder how long it'll be before somebody pulls my records?
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
I don't get it. Well, I do get it. If you ask me, Obama wants to steal the election by stuffing the ballot box with unregistered or illegally registered 'voters.' Remember Freddie Johnson, who ACORN pressured into registering 72 times in Ohio? How about "Doodad Pro," or the starting lineup of the Dallas (TX) Cowboys? But they 'registered' in Las Vegas.
You don't need a valid photo-ID to vote, and now an idiot (er...judge) has said that the homeless can 'register' and give their address as a park bench. You get three guesses as to how most of them would vote, and the first two don't count.
If we try to point that out .... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... "RAAAAAAAAAACIST!"
But how about now? ::Listening to silence::
It's not racist for Barack to request photo-ID for his party, but it is when you are asked to have one to vote?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
"In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election.
The cable news channel is "completely out of control," said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat."
It would've been nice had you been mentioning it before the press and ACORN stole the election for Obama. But the damage is done, so what the hell, right?
Obama will be beholden to his lapdogs in the press and he'll throw one hell of an inaguration party. He'll also have ACORN and their fraudulent voters to thank.
He'll invite unrepentant terrorist William Ayers to his inaguration (after ensuring that he and his wife don't smuggle in explosives to blow the place up.)
He'll also invite Rashid Khalidi. Who's he? He served as the mouthpeice for Yasser Arafat! You do remember the video that the LA Times is sitting on right? The one with Khalidi, Bill Ayers, and "the one?" You know, the one the LA Times is refusing to release? What do you want to bet that that particular party (gathering, whatever) didn't turn into a Jew and Israel bash fest?
If any of you liberals had any common courtesy, any sense of ethics, any sense of morality AND if you slanted stories or broke the law ... you'd all commit seppuku. (Japanese ritual suicide, usually by disembowlment.) If that's too gruesome for you liberals who broke laws or turned your heads and allowed others to do so, try harakiri.
But I forget. Anything to screw over the other side and win, right?
"COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren't buildings as their addresses."
Why? So they're not "disenfranchised" of course! Meanwhile, if you remember, I wrote to Ms Brunner demanding the same right to register (and vote) multiple times without prosecution. Hey, it's what ACORN favours, right?
Not a word in reply. Guess you gotta be a Democrat, right?
So much for real democracy. Guess you do gotta be a Democrat.
Now it's time for some math, and we're gonna follow the example I gave before, about the $700bn for the US Bailout, how 10 per cent of that went to bonuses.
2,800,000,000,000 x 10% = a hell of a lot of money.
$280,000,000,000 or $280 BILLION for bonuses, using the 10 per cent example.
That figure, however, is worldwide
YOU! ASSUME THE POSITION!
"U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D. Toledo) whipped the crowd up before Mr. Obama took the stage yesterday telling them that America needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers."
I want to spit.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
They larded the bailout up with ... well ... lard and shoved it down our throats. I was afraid something like this would happen:
The link: http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/10/19/ten-percent-of-700-rescue-package-may-go-to-bonuses/
"Wall Street walked into the path of its own oncoming stupidity. Of the $700 billion in Treasury rescue money, as much as $70 billion could go to bank and brokerage bonuses."
BUT WAIT! It gets better, believe it or not:
"AIG sent salespeople on a lavish luxury retreat at the same time it was getting billions in government aid. The retreat at the St. Regis resort in Monarch Beach, Calif., cost AIG $440,000 and came right after it received a $85 billion line of credit. Even worse, it planned another lavish retreat soon after. But when the press caught wind of that one, it was soon cancelled." (emphasis added)
Gotta love it. This is what our tax dollars are going for. Mad enough to stop paying your taxes & filing your tax form? If so, you're not alone.
Monday, October 27, 2008
One other aside - Yes, I know that AOL is called the "training wheels for the Internet." And I can hear some people asking "Why on Earth does he have an AOL address?!?" The reasons are twofold. First, I've had the AOL account since mid 1995. That's just over 13 years. A great many people know that they can reach me at the AOL address. Yes, I do have several non-AOL addresses, but I almost never give those out. The other reason is because it's now free. I don't have to pay them a penny to keep the account.
And now for the question (thank you!) The question is that I'd written that Mr Obama's mother couldn't fly back since she was in the late stages of pregnancy. Why couldn't she?
It was a good question! There are a few reasons for being unable to fly during the late stages of pregnancy, and the first has to do with liability. Even during the best of deliveries, delivering a healthy baby is not an easy task. Frankly, I wouldn't want to do it! But things can easily go wrong during the best of times. And I don't think the airline's insurance carrier would want to cover that risk. Because it is a risk. If an attendant were to attempt to deliver a child mid-flight and there was a problem that caused the child or mother to die, both the airline and that attendant would be sued. Possibly the Captain and First Officer as well.
But the second reason is also tied into the first one. The second one would be that the airline simply wouldn't want to take the risk of the mother giving birth at 35,000 feet.
As another aside, can you imagine how that would be written on a birth certificate?
Place of Birth: Seat 29a on United Flight 27 at 35,217 feet over Muncie, Indiana.
How about over the Atlantic Ocean? :) I don't wanna think about that one!
I've gotten a tonne of spam, but I sometimes get comments about this blog, and I love knowing that this blog is being read.
This time, I had the question (to paraphrase) of why I frequently quote from Wikipedia. And, I do quote from them frequently. I've written before that I am Wikipedian, and an editor. (There's that full disclosure thing.)
That, however, isn't why I frequently quote from Wikipedia articles. The reason I do is because most of their articles are written in the neutral Point of View (PoV.) Granted, I could easily name a few articles that I believe to be slanted, ridiculously so in my opinion, but that's not the point. The point is that the bulk of Wikipedia articles reflect the Neutral PoV. It is one of their three core content policies. And yes, another Wikipedia link. :) But since this one deals with Wikipedia... :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
But thank you for the question. :) Hopefully, that answers it. And thank you for reading!
(Before I go further ... I know that IE7 has tabs under the address bar and that I could simply open another tab in the browser instead of opening another browser. And that's true. I am in fact using IE 7, it's just simpler for me to open another browser and to move between them that way. But I've had a few emails asking why I don't do this. Now you know. :) But thank you for the emails. I've written this before, but it bears saying again - knowing that people are reading this blog is humbling. Truly. Thank you again.)
Ok...where was I? :)
OH! This Opinion-Editorial article is both telling and damning, in my opinion. It's also long. But the article's author, Michael S. Malone, states his argument clearly and concisely. I'm going to quote only a bit of it ... since I don't have the right to quote more of it, and it's a juicy read. But I fear that rabid people on the far-left are going to be very very upset at Mr Malone. His article is, in my opinion, that damning.
"The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling."
I've written about liberal bias in the media, as have many others. There have been numerous polls about the bias. But now Mr Malone calls it "...appalling." And, he's right, at least in my opinion. How many times have I and numerous others written about the "Obamedia," and the Cult of Personality being created by that same media? How many times have we complained that the media treats Obama/Biden with kiddie gloves and slams McCain/Palin? Now Mr Malone actually says it. And, in my opinion, the people on the far-left are going to ensure that he "pays" for it, too.
"Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page." Mr Malone even goes on to specifically name two newspapers, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.
As Rush Limbaugh would say "STOP THE PRESSES!!!" But many others have written about that, too. We've pointed out, rightly I believe, that there indeed is a place in a newspaper for opinions - that being the Op-Ed section. But read Mr Malone's section carefully, he said it was creeping "...into the news section, and from there onto the front page." And, again in my opinion, he's right on the money. Opinion, either for or against a certain subject, has no place in a truly unbiased media other than the Opinion-Editorial section. Personal blogs (yes, that emphasis on personal) are also good places for opinions.
And then, Mr Malone says the following. And this, again in my opinion, is where Mr Malone will be vilified by the far-left.
"But what really shattered my faith -- and I know the day and place where it happened -- was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.
I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story … but it never happened."
(CNNi is not a typo, it is CNN International.) That's a long quote, and I only have one word to say in response: Pallywood. (True, his article goes on for three more pages (again, it is a juicy read) but I'm done quoting from it. Please do read it in its entirety, however. It is an excellently written article and my hat is off to Mr Malone for daring to write it.) Ok, two words. Pallywood and Hezbollywood.
Pallywood. The word is a portmanteau of "Palestinian" and "Hollywood." And Hezbollywood?
Two links: The first one is the Pallywood entry at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallywood
This one is Professor Richard Landes' documentary "Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallywood:_According_to_Palestinian_Sources
You'll note that both articles are flagged in that their neutrality is disputed. In my opinion, they are neutral. But again, that is my opinion. The other thing is that you can write anything you want to be completely neutral, but somebody, somewhere, would dispute it. That goes right back to my hypothetical match up I referenced earlier.
Let's assume that Dr. Rice and Gen. Powell were both running for President. Well, they're both African-American, so that would remove the race card from play. But you know as well as I do that if you were to vote for Gen. Powell that somebody somewhere would scream "sexist" because of the way you voted. It's not quite the same as neutrality, but the point is the same. Somebody, somewhere is always going to object to something you do.
And Hezbollywood? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollywood
You can also do a Google search for those three words. Just stand back. There's a lot there. :)
(H/T: Drudge Report, Wikipedia)
Where, pray tell, does that banner on Drudge Report go? Right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
Now let's look at Mr Obama saying he's going to give people tax cuts. He can't do it. Why? Because of all of the spending that they're going to be doing on their nanny state, taxes would have to go up. They'd simply have to.
The money would have to come from somewhere, right? Where would it come from?
T A X E S. Remember, they can't just simply print more. It'd be nice, but you can't do that. If you do print a lot of new money to pay for socialist policies, the value of each individual dollar would go down. There's even a term for that: Hyperinflation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation (and the caption under the photograph to the right is chilling (no pun intended.) "1923 Weimar Republic inflation: A German woman feeding a stove with Papiermarks, which burned longer than the amount of firewood people could buy with them."
I'm now going to do a cut-and-paste from that article, leaving their (Wikipedia's) hyperlinks intact. "Although there is a great deal of debate about the root causes of hyperinflation, it becomes visible when there is an unchecked increase in the money supply or drastic debasement of coinage, and is often associated with wars (or their aftermath), economic depressions, and political or social upheavals."
Although that paragraph is important, it is the last four words that we're interested in. The article states it (hyperinflation) "...is often associated with wars ... and political or social upheavals." (emphasis mine)
If we do make the mistake of electing Barack Obama, you can bet that our nation would go Socialist. And that is both a political and a social upheaval.
And now, let's go right back to that now "infamous" (if you're Barack Hussein Obama) YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM
The question asked of Mr Biden was "Getting back to the spreading of the wealth question: What do you say to the people who are concerned that Barack Obama will want to turn America into a Socialist country, much like Sweden?" - Ms. Barabara West.
And that clueless man's answer: (Remember, she had said earlier that 84% of people polled had said that the gov't should have other priorities instead of spreading the wealth around) But here's what Mr Biden said: "I don't know anybody who thinks that, except the far-right wing of the Republican Party."
Well, Joe Biden - now you do.
But there's more. Michelle Malkin had this to say about it (the YouTube video mentioned by the banner on Drudge Report: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/26/obama-in-2001-how-to-bring-about-redistributive-change/
I won't quote from her entire article, but I will quote the last three sentences and leave her hyperlinks intact:
"Yeah, and don’t you dare ask Obama or Biden about this.
You’ll get blacklisted and bombarded and labeled “combative.”
And who knows what’ll happen to your government records. "
Her first question, I believe, is a reference to Ms. West's questioning of Mr Biden. The second is the Obamessiah campaign's "handling" of the situation ... where the station won't get another interview of "the one" or Mr Biden. And the third has to do with Joe the Plumber ... how his information was pulled using a "test account" assigned to the IT department of the Ohio Attorney General's Office!!
No shenanigans here. Move along, please.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin, Drudge Report, Wikipedia)
Take a look at the image on the right. It lists "the one's" name as Barry Soetoro and his religion as "Islam." And, it's from Indonesia.
That name, Barry Soetoro, disqualifies him from being in the Illinois Bar, from what I've been told. From what I've been told, you have to swear that you've never used another name.
Um...I'd call "Barry Soetoro" another name. Remember, "the one's" father was Lolo Soetoro. The image was made available by the Associated Press (which explains their stamp on it) on 24-JAN-2007. The paper alone, again, from what I've been told, disqualifies him from entering the Illinois Bar.
And in spite of the Court throwing out Mr Berg's lawsuit, it remains an open question whether "the one" (Barack Hussein Obama) is even eligible to be President. For my money, the answer is no.
For those people about to tell me (again) that I'm "RAAAAACIST" or have hate in my heart; I would have no problem with an African-American being the President. But General Powell isn't running.
Also for the record, I would have no problem with a woman being the President. But Dr. Rice isn't running, either. (As she's also African-American, that would get rid of both of the Democrat's favourite cards - the race card and the gender card. Although you know full well that somebody somewhere in a hypothetical matchup between Dr. Rice and Gen. Powell would still scream and pull out the gender card. You know it. "You just can't vote for Dr. Rice because you're a sexist." ::sigh:: )
It's enough to make you wanna vomit, isn't it?
Saturday, October 25, 2008
"U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. Berg claimed that Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a boy."
::sigh:: No real surprise here, however. Judge Surrick was appointed by President Clinton.
In my opinion, however, Judge Surrick made a mistake. I linked before to Coast to Coast AM where they discussed the Obama citizenship dilemma. Here's that link again:
It's Mr Berg's opinion that Barack Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate was forged. Indeed, during the show, Mr Berg said "But the media has given Obama a free ride."
"But the information I have, which we'll go into, really indicates that he is not a natural-born citizen, and therefore cannot serve as President of the United States, according to our US Constitution."
According to Mr Berg's information:
Under the Nationality Act of 1940, when Obama's mother moved to Indonesia and married Lolo Soetoro, because she had the care and custody of Obama at age 6, under the laws of that time, she would have lost her citizenship in the United States.
His nationality was Indonesian and his religion was Muslim. If his father-in-law Mr Soetoro had adopted Obama, he would have lost his citizenship entirely.
Again, this is Mr Berg's information. When Obama was 20, he travelled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport! This was in 1981.
"So you believe...bottom line it here ... that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii." - Ian Punnett
"Correct." - Mr Berg.
"And that before giving birth, Sen. Obama's mother travelled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to her home because she was in the late stages of pregnancy. So because of that, he never was actually born in Hawaii as they claim. Now what's with the birth certificate from Hawaii? That's a fake?" - Ian Punnett
"Well, the Obama Campaign website posted about in June of this year, June of 2008, the supposed birth certificate of Obama. And we've had three experts looked at it, and it is a forged document. It is actually the birth certificate of his sister which has been altered." - Mr Berg
Now those are direct quotes, so ... there you go.
Go here for the info: http://www.obamacrimes.com/
Mr Berg is appealing to the United States Supreme Court. I only pray they agree to hear it.
(H/T: Drudge Report)
I think that says it all "Bam Staffers pull their bogus Ohio ballots."
"Thirteen campaign workers for Barack Obama yesterday yanked their voter registrations and ballots in Ohio after being warned by a prosecutor that temporary residents can't vote in the battleground state." (I removed the link)
So folks, tell me. If the right to vote is important, why is voter registration fraud not?
We're told that "every vote counts." Not if you're Freddie Johnson, however. Remember?
"Ohio Man Bribed by ACORN Activists to Register to Vote 72 Times." is the article's title.
I'm going to use that word again ... "BRIBED." Bribed to illegally register to vote.
(H/T: Drudge Report)
"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign."
But I love the way the Drudge Report handled it: (Screenshot)
About bloody time somebody asked the Obamessiah's campaign hard questions.
"If I’m wrong, I’ll apologize. If I’m right, will this woman?
It needs to be said — and since it is not said often enough by those on the other side of the political aisle, I’ll say it again:
We have enough low-lifes and thugs in the world running loose and causing campaign chaos and fomenting hatred without having to make them up. I’ve been blowing the whistle on the real, left-wing rage not on the front page and in-your-face tactics throughout the election season.
Hate crimes hoaxes — by anyone, of any political persuasion, and of any color — diminish us all."
(Hyperlinks hers.) But she was right. Turns out, the "Victim" made it all up.
"Ashley Todd, 20-year-old college student from College Station, Texas, admitted Friday that the story was false and was being charged with making a false report to police, said Maurita Bryant, the assistant chief of the police department's investigations division. Police doubted her story from the start, Bryant said."
The article also stated that police have concerns about Todd's mental health. I'd buy that, since doing this was really a boneheaded move.
B is for boneheaded.
B is for braindead.
B is for busted.
But this is one time when B is not for Barack.
Friday, October 24, 2008
"Todd, who is white, now says she was knocked unconscious and doesn't remember being cut. She now says she only discovered the wound later."
I wonder what she'll say tomorrow?
(H/T: Drudge Report)
"LONDON (AP) - About half of American doctors in a new survey say they regularly give patients placebo treatments - usually drugs or vitamins that won't really help their condition. And many of these doctors are not honest with their patients about what they are doing, the survey found."
Um...I guess that would be a problem? Sort of? Just imagine, you go in to have an ingrown toenail on your right foot removed. "Well, I'm very sorry to tell you this, Mr Jones. But we're going to need to amputate your left arm."
"My left?!? For an ingrown toenail??"
"I have the degree, Mr Jones. Don't argue with me. See my diploma? I filled it out my own sel.... Oh. Well, at least I have one, right?"
Just think of all the money that goes to paying doctors whom, as it turns out, about half of them don't give us the treatment that we need. It makes me wonder how many of them give us drugs not to help us, but because the pharma companies are paying them.
"You know, Dr Jones, we know that your practice needs that financial 'shot in the arm.' So if you've prescribe our new miracle drug "Pannin" (main ingredients - paint thinner and tap water) we'll see that your practice stays around for many years to come."
And many of them "...are not honest with their patients about what they are doing..." Are they doctors or politicians in training??
I thought we went to doctors to get help for medical conditions, not be lied to and given something that we don't need.
Was I wrong?
" "It's a disturbing finding," said Franklin G. Miller, director of the research ethics program at the U.S. National Institutes Health and one of the study authors. "There is an element of deception here which is contrary to the principle of informed consent." "
Yes, this is one of those 'duh' moments. But as an aside, with business and politicians screwing us over (and now half of doctors too) ... there are still ethics programmes?
Do I want to know what they're teaching? This really reminds me of the Dragnet episode "The Big Quack."
(They were talking about a door with two "Doctors" names painted onto the glass.) "Brother, look at all the letters after the names, huh? What would it take to get a lineup of degrees like that?"
"A paint brush and about ten minutes." - Joe Friday.
(H/T: Drudge Report)
"The New York Times endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for U.S. president on Thursday, saying he had "met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change." "
Let's see. He met challenge after challenge - such as not proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he is eligible to be the President; has in fact filed a counter-suit that will keep the issue tied up until well after the election. He certainly "met" that challenge (well, more like ran from it.) He has "cut" his ties to the Revs. Wright and Pfleger, and he has backtracked from the alleged voter registration fraud (in 14 states) of the group ACORN, which he was once a member of. And let's not forget how he 'backtracked' from his pal, the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers. You still got enough room under that bus, Barack? Isn't it about time to throw more people under it?
Yup, those are challenges all right. Those are enough to make even trained Olympians sweat.
"...putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change." I haven't seen a single example. And I've been looking, too. Of course, he has mentioned "change" in nearly all his adverts, so perhaps that is what the Times is talking about. Change about change.
"What type of change, Mr Obama?"
"Good question. I'm talking about the type of change that we know we need in Washington. We need to change what is broken and tweak what works. We need to change the system, and I need you to make that happen."
"Can you give specifics, Mr Obama?"
"I just did."
" "He has drawn in legions of new voters with powerful messages of hope and possibility and calls for shared sacrifice and social responsibility," the Times said. "
"...drawn in legions of new voters..." Including Mickey Mouse, Doodad Pro, and the entire starting lineup of the Dallas (TX) Mavericks. Of course, they registered in Las Vegas. Oh, and let's not forget Freddie Johnson, who registered an astonishing 72 times in Ohio!
Well, to be fair, they did say new voters. They didn't say a single thing about legally registered voters. Gotta draw that distinction, it is an important one. But not if you're Barack Obama.
"...shared sacrifice and social responsibility." Such as spreading the wealth around? Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Taking my hard-earned money away from me and giving it to people who haven't earned it? That type of sacrifice? I call that socialism.
What was it Karl Marx said? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Marxism? That type of "...social responsibility?"
(H/T: Drudge Report)
And then read it again.
And then read it again.
After the fourth such read, my mouth was still wide open.
The link: http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2008/10/homosexuality-pedophiliaand-obama.html
All I can say is "!!!"
"Republicans, furious about negative campaign phone calls made by Democrats last week in Billings, did everything but label the tactic un-American.
Turns out, they could have.
The calls were made from Romania, according to phone records submitted this week to the state commissioner of political practices." (emphasis added)
Talk about outsourcing. I thought the Democrats were mad that firms outsourced American jobs. I'm not too thrilled about outsourcing myself.
But now the Democrats outsource political calls???
Talk about a new high in lows.
Remember that guy in New York that got beaten up for being a McCain supporter? Well...now a house has been shot up: http://www.local6.com/politics/17784129/detail.html
"Republican HQ Manager's Home Shot Up Over McCain Signs" is the headline.
"[Rog] Coverely [the homeowner] said it appears Democrats are becoming more aggressive in the county. "I wouldn't say slipping, but I would say the Democrats have become far more aggressive in Seminole County because it is such a heavy Republican area," Coverely said."
"...more aggressive..." And yet they expect us to play by the rules of fairness.
All together .... 3 .... 2 .... 1 .... "DOUBLE STANDARD!!"
(H/T: Drudge Report)
Ok...OK. He didn't say that, but what he said was at that link. Geeze. :)
It was a superbly written article, exactly as I've come to expect from Mr Buchanan.
"Contrasting McCain with his hero, Joe declared a few weeks back, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and ... said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"
Nice historical reference. Except when the market crashed in 1929, Hoover was president, and there was no television.
Can one imagine what the press would have done to Sarah Palin had she exhibited such ignorance of history. Or Dan Quayle?"
Wow. Good questions, ne? And exactly what I've been pointing out.
Can we say "double-standard?" SUUUUURE you can!
(H/T: Drudge Report)
Note that at this point, I'm not saying anything further than what I've said. If she was attacked, the attacker is a coward. If she wasn't attacked, this is something that neither Republicans nor Democrats needed.
Michelle Malkin has the details: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/23/why-that-mccain-volunteers-mutilation-story-smells-awfully-weird/
Also, until *all* the facts come in, this is all I'll be saying on this matter.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
Thursday, October 23, 2008
We also know that they have a 10-year record of alleged voter registration fraud (Google this, you'll find it) and have been on the public dole since 1977. (Google that as well.)
But did you hear about Seattle, Washington in 2007?
Glenn Beck did. His programme today highlighted it. I didn't listen to the entire programme as I was in the middle of a few other things. But, he mentioned Seattle. ACORN, according to his programme, turned in 1,800 "voter registrations."
The Seattle elections board wanted to check them, but ACORN threatened to sue! To their credit, Seattle checked those 1,800 "voter registrations."
It turns out, again according to today's Glenn Beck programme, that a total of six were valid.
SIX. SIX OUT OF 1,800!
Now, again, I'm none-too-bright according to my now ex-wife, so bear with me as I do the division: 6 / 1800 = 0.0033333333333333333333333333333333
We now need to convert this to a percentage, so 100 x 0.0033333333333333333333333333333333 = 0.333333333333%
In other words, one THIRD OF ONE PER CENT were valid.
Now a link to Michelle Malkin's site that deals with it: http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/26/acorn-falls-again-the-worst-case-of-voter-registration-fraud-in-washington-state-history/
And yet, ACORN is still around. If they'd been right-leaning, my word. They've been run out of business nine years and eleven months ago. But ACORN is left-leaning and have been at it for TEN YEARS.
Gotta love the double-standard.
As Michelle Malkin wrote at the time (and I'm leaving the link in there because it leads to a Google search) "ACORN and voter fraud: Perfect together."
Amen. You can say that again. :)
(H/T: Glenn Beck Programme, Michelle Malkin)
"[Pittsburgh, PA Police Spokeswoman Diane] Richard said the robber took $60 from the woman, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim's car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter "B" into her face, Richard said."
"B" for Barack Obama. I found that on the Drudge Report.
Another link that deals with the same attack: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_594853.html
" "He continued to kick and punch her repeatedly and said he would teach her a lesson for supporting John McCain," said police Chief Nate Harper." (emphasis added)
Yes, those tolerant liberals.
Now let's play pretend. In our new case, the tables are turned. In plainer words - let's assume the attacker was white and the victim black and the attacker carved a "M" into the victim's face.
You and I know that in .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds would come the screams of "RAAAAAAAAAACIST!!!!"
To his credit, Obama did comment on the attack: ""Our thoughts and prayers are with the young woman for her to make a speedy recovery, and we hope that the person who perpetrated this crime is swiftly apprehended and brought to justice." "
But you'll notice that he didn't condemn the attack. Here's how it should have been written, in my opinion "Our thoughts and prayers are with this young woman for her to make a speedy recovery. We strongly condemn any such attack made for any purpose and pray that the person(s) who perpetrated this heinous, vicious, crime are swiftly apprehended and punished to the furthest extent of the law."
Now let's take my scenario (attacker white, victim black, and "M" carved into victim's face.) You know as well as I do that the following would happen in swift order:
1) The MSM (Mainstream Media) would be on-air pontificating about racism in the United States. They would say that that is why Barack Obama should be elected, to "...help the American people deal with their inbred racist views."
2) Rev. Jackson would immediately be on the airwaves denouncing the attack (he should be anyway, in my opinion.) He would liken the case to the Tawana Brawley case.*
3) Rev. Al Sharpton would join Rev. Jackson in denouncing the attack (again, he should denounce this one as well in my opinion.) He also would liken the case to the aforementioned incident(*) and proclaim that only Barack Obama could help the American people deal with "...their inbred racist views."
However, in this case, our victim was white and her attacker black. He carved her face with the letter "B". The MSM won't dare touch this one.
And now for the attacker: You're a damned coward. If you were so proud of what you'd done, why didn't you stay there and wait for the cops to show up? If you were so proud of Barack Obama, why didn't you wait till the cops arrived and say to them "Yup. I done teached her her lesson."
Don't have the cojones for a real fight, do you?
Can we say "double-standard in the media?" SUUUUUUUUUUUUUURE you can!
* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley
(H/T: Drudge Report)
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
SAY IT AIN'T SO! I could just faint. Well...not really. I expect the "news media" to slant the news. After all, there have been how many studies showing that now?
The link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/22/study_coverage_of_mccain_much.html
"Media coverage of John McCain has been heavily unfavorable since the political conventions, more than three times as negative as the portrayal of Barack Obama, a new study says."
Just remember, folks. The news media, according to numerous studies, is liberal. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, people polled believe that reporters try to help their candidate.
And we know that the liberal media has made Obama into a Cult of Personality.
When you go to the polls, forget what the liberal media has told you. Remember the problems with Barack Hussein Obama.
Frankly, and this is going to get every 3-letter government agency after me, but here goes:
I couldn't vote for Barack Hussein Obama if you held a gun to my head and threatened to kill me. Honestly.
Not because of hate, or "RAAAAACIST" or crap like that, but for the reasons I enumerated in an earlier posting. ACORN, Rev. Wright, Rev. Pfleger, Project Vote, the Cult of Personality, and now Louis Farrakhan saying that when the messiah speaks, the children listen. He said the messiah was speaking and the children (I assume the Obama Children's Choir (aka: Brown Shirts Part Deux)) are listening.
The parallels are there and they should scare you to your core.
Many people are going to vote for McCain because they think it's a vote against Bush. If that's the only reason you're going to vote for Obama, well.
Change? We don't need socialism, but that's what's coming. We don't need radical preachers and unrepentant TERRORISTS, but that is what's coming if you elect Barack Hussein Obama.
Yes, William Ayers, I'm referring to you. Wasn't it you who told the New York Times (on 9/11 no less!!!) that "I don't regret settings bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." Your group bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings!!
First, if you've been reading this blog at all, you'll know that it remains an open question as to whether Barack Hussein Obama is even eligible to be the President. Seriously. All the man has to do is provide one peice of incontrovertable proof of his eligibility and this would be a moot point.
He hasn't. What he has done is file a counter-suit. Do you, perchance, have something to hide Mr Obama?
Next, we've all heard about the race-baiting antics of the Reverends Wright and Pfleger. Yet Mr Obama would tell you that he sat in that church for 20 years (by his own admission no less) and somehow never once heard such a race-baiting sermon. I find that hard to believe in the extreme, since everytime somebody questions "the one," we hear:
"RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!" He certainly has playing the race card down pat, just as Hillary had no problem pulling out the gender card. To look at it from a statistical standpoint, that really stretches the bounds of credulity. It's not IMpossible, but it is extremely unlikely.
As if that's not enough, we do know that Project Vote and ACORN are closely tied. Indeed, until a recent investigation, Project Vote's board members just happened to be ACORN members (Google this, I don't have the link in front of me.) Seriously. Yet Mr Obama states they're separate entities. However, according to their Federal 990 Form, Project Vote still shares the same physical address as ACORN and their phone numbers remain identical. Why is this important? Three words: Voter Registration Fraud. Yes, ACORN is the same bunch that pressured that young Ohio man into registering an astonishing 72 times. Yes, they registered Mickey Mouse in Florida. And not to outdo themselves, they also registered the entire Dallas (TX) Mavericks starting lineup. There's just one problem there - that happened in Las Vegas.
And yet Mr Obama says he has no ties to either group. Yet we know that he was a memeber of ACORN according to Madeline Talbott (who was a member of ACORN) and we also know that he took over the helm of Chicago's Project Vote.
But wait - there's more! There's the Cult of Personality being formed around "the one." If you've read the blog, you'll have seen the Votive of Obama. Yes, Obama the "messiah." He certainly isn't mine.
Let's see, we're up to ... how many now? Four? FIVE if you include ACORN's involvement and Barack's lying about his membership with it.
And now, this comes at us: http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_illegal_donations/2008/10/21/142761.html
The title? "Obama Ignores Credit Card Donation Fraud"
"What do Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson, and Raela Odinga have in common?
All are celebrities; and with the exception of Odinga and O.J. Simpson, they also are fictional characters. And yet, all of them gave money earlier this month to the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors."
Oops. I'd call that a problem.
" Campaigns are not required to disclose contributors who donate less than $200 — and Obama’s campaign refuses to release their names, addresses, and donation amounts. Obama has collected a staggering $603.2 million. Most of the money — $543.3 million — has come from individual contributors, half of it from “small” donors Obama won’t disclose.
The Obama campaign has turned a blind eye to the possibility of donor fraud."
It gets worse folks, a lot worse.
And then we come to the AOL Poll referenced in an earlier posting. They asked if Obama's policies amounted to socialism.
The answer, for the record, was yes. Overwhelmingly so.
I couldn't trust Obama if he laid his hand on the Christian Bible and gave an Oath. He's a politician. Worse, he's a politician that has no problem telling us to play by one set of rules while he plays by his own set - the set that says it's OK to break the law. "I'm doing it because I care. It's for the best."
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
In an engineered crisis. Seriously.
How to we avert the crisis? Simple: Don't elect Obama.
But what's that my sister is now shouting?
"Can't lose, Obama backs Rays, Phillies"
He was for it before he was against it... Just another self-serving politician. No change here.
(H/T: Drudge Report)
The $700bn (which they admitted they pulled out of their behinds) wasn't enough.
The last time I wrote about the bailout, people did called their Congressperson and expressed their opinion (which really didn't matter because the pols had one hand in the pork-barrel and the other up their lobbyists rectum.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
Not to be undone, they soon registered "Mickey Mouse" in Florida. Oh, and let's not forget the young Ohio man whom they registered to vote 72 times. That's 72, folks.
This time it wasn't ACORN, but if you needed any more proof of alleged voter registration fraud, here you go: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_el_st_lo/voter_registration_goldfish
The name of the article? I'm so glad you asked: "Dead goldfish offered the vote in Illinois."
You read that right, a dead goldfish. It doesn't get any more scarey than that. I'd be crying from laughing so hard if it weren't so serious. We're told (by Democrats no less!) that our votes count, that we shall not be "disenfranchised."
Just how the hell can our votes count when they stuff the ballot box with made up names, made up people, made up addresses (some of which do not physically exist!!) and now dead goldfish??
Ms Brunner? ACORN? Obama?
Do you care to change your story?
Now for the important part: Since you don't seem to give an overweight rat's rectum about people (Democrats, naturally) being allowed to vote 72 times, I demand of you, Ms Brunner, the "right" to vote 72 times and not be held accountable for it.
If you don't like that, I'm sorry. But you yourself set the precedent.
Do you now wish to obey state law, or make it up as you go along?
And now for a kick in the teeth:
"Help Jennifer fight for free, fair open and honest elections in Ohio!" She I don't think she'd know a fair and honest election if it knocked her on her butt.
Let's not forget that she herself put the loophole in there that allowed the fiasco. And now she says she doesn't have ability to check all registrations. Ms Brunner, by your own admission, 200k of the 666,000 "New voter registrations" had some sort of "discrepancy."
Are you there? Do you care?
To be fair, I sent her an email, both to Jenniferbrunner.com and to the Ohio Secretary of State page. We'll see what she spews in my direction.
Assuming, however, that I get a reply. I'm legally registered to vote in Ohio, so she might not give a you-know-what about me.
Why? Mostly because I've been saying "bad" (and as it turns out true) things about the Obamessiah. I've been told that I was attempting to cast Obama in a bad light, that he was only trying to help. I was told that "Obamessiah" was reading something into something else that wasn't really there. It was once a deragatory term.
The picture? Here's a screenshot:
URL left intact.
Yes, that's the "holy man" himself. Now: Would anybody else care to tell me that I'm wrong when I cite the Cult of Personality around "the annointed one?"
I rest my case, Your Honour.
(H/T: Drudge Report)
A National poll on AOL said "McCain says Obama's policies amount to "Socialism" Your thoughts?
141,080 Votes cast as of this writing.
YES, Obama's policies are socialism - 65%
NO, Obama's polices are NOT - 34%
I'm not sure! - 01%
Kind of telling, ne?
The link: http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/21/hot-seat-socialism-attacks/?icid=200100397x1211590816x1200694578
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Note to GoDaddy.com and "Sue Madden," the "address" you've given is a business.
Honestly. At least, Google returns it as a business.
WHOIS information for: orlflvac77.com:[whois.godaddy.com]
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: ORLFLVAC77.COM
Domain servers in listed order:
For complete domain details go to:
According to GoDaddy.com, the site was created on 17-OCT-2008. Today is 19-OCT-2008.
GoDaddy - you do check these registrations, right?
He responded, not with a shred of proof, but with a counter-suit. Here's the original link: http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/20080823O
Mr Obama, what are you trying to hide? Are you, in fact, eligible to be President?
(H/T: Douglas Hagmann, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network)
(And yes, a "vote early for Barack" advert is on the bottom of the page. ::sigh:: )
"In a brief unsigned opinion, the justices said they were not commenting on whether Ohio is complying with a provision of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 that lays out requirements for verifying voter eligibility.
Instead, they said they were granting Brunner's request because it appears that the law does not allow private entities, like the Ohio GOP, to file suit to enforce the provision of the law at issue."
So if a "...private entity..." can't force a Democrat to do her job, who will? Ms Brunner is saying that the Republicans are trying to disenfranchise voters.
Like that same young man that ACORN pressured into registering 72 times? Ms Brunner? How about it?
Like those out-of-state activists who falsely registered as Ohioans? Ms Brunner?
Ms Brunner, is it just barely possible that you might be trying to "throw" the election?
Ms Brunner, how do you justify the fact that 200,000 of the 666,000 "new voter registrations" have some type of discrepancy, according to your own office? Ms Brunner?
Ms Brunner, it appears that a crime may have been committed. All I want are the facts. Now how about it?
(H/T: Drudge Report)
Hang on...yes, it's the Toledo Blade. But it is a newspaper (actually!) that has a website. So they are a legitimate news service. And while a great many people wouldn't touch that particular paper with a 30-foot pole, well ... they are a legitimate news service.
"The Lucas County Board of Elections yesterday denied a challenge to 105 registered voters whose addresses are listed as "One Government Center."
Assistant County Prosecutor John Borell said the voters were all registered as overseas voters, who used One Government Center - the board of elections' address - rather than their last address in Ohio.
Even though some of them haven't lived in Ohio "...for decades," according to the article.
Decades. Each decade, you'll remember, is 10 years. Decades.
"The Lucas County Board of Elections denied the challenge during a special meeting yesterday morning at 9 a.m. Mr. Borell said that a formal hearing was not required, and Board of Elections Chairman Pat Kriner did not allow Kelly Bensman, who submitted the challenges, to speak during the meeting."
And then, just to make their point, they didn't allow the person who submitted the challenge, to speak.
Stiffling of dissent?
Wait....wait. What's the call I'm hearing in the background?
(H/T: Toledo Blade) (Yes, they ARE a legitmate news organization. Honestly)
Saturday, October 18, 2008
In the article, Ms. Malkin quotes from Mr Biden's speech that "We are all patriotic, we all love this country."
And then, Ms. Malkin goes to disprove what Mr Biden had said by showing a number of pictures. The first one echoes what Dr. Wright said: "God Damn America." The remainder of thie pictures, like the first, are disgusting.
Rather than recreate the article (which would be wrong on any number of levels,) I'll simply point you to the link. Follow it if you will. All of the photos are untouched, unphotoshopped.
They are all disgusting. If these people dislike America so much, why don't they just leave?
We don't put up fences or barbed wire to keep our people in, unlike certain other countries I could mention. So why do they stay?
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
Jennife Oulette (and Spousal Unit)
I am so very sorry to learn what I just did.
You have my best hopes and prayers.
I pray that Clio recover soonest. If, perchance, she doesn't, I pray that she meets and remembers Slick to her heart.
I still love Slick.
Yes, I know she drew her final breath only a few hours after this picture was taken. But I still love her. VERY much. I love her. I pray she will remember me. Please, Father God, let her remember us with kindness. Let her be taken to be with You forever and ever.
In Jesus' Name we pray. Amen.
Friday, October 17, 2008
All together now ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... "RAAAAAAAAAACIST!"
Hey, libs? I thought you didn't approve of people being called names?
(H/T: Drudge Report)
"Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s.
If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on." (emphasis added)
It gets worse, a lot worse.
"- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally. (emphasis added)
- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.
This should scare the hell out of you. But it's what's coming unless you vote against Obama. Do you want Democracy or Socialism? If you're tired of Bush, I can understand that. I myself have said that I regret voting for him. But don't vote against McCain just because of Bush.
Think before you vote. Please. If you vote for Barack Obama, I guarantee that what you've seen written here will come to pass ... quickly. Read the entire article, please.
"In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined." (emphasis added)
As an aside, would somebody just please shoot me now and get it over with? Please? A single clean shot to the head would end it nicely.
(H/T: Drudge Report)
"Boston police told WBZ Friday that three Dell laptop computers were stolen from the group's Dorchester office around 10:15 p.m. Wednesday."
I'd call it politically motivated. Despite the US Supreme Idiots (er...Court) having their heads up their collective arses, I'd call it politically motivated.
Remember, ACORN is being investigated in 14 states and now by the FBI for voter registration fraud. This next is my personal opinion, but I wouldn't put it past ACORN to make those computers disappear before the Boston office got raided.
(H/T: Drudge Report)
We're not just screwed. We just got (the f-word.) And not forked, although that fits too. The Obama bunch, thanks to the US Supreme Idiots (er...Court) just stole Ohio.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
You'll also want to listen to Dr. Jerome Corsi's interview on The Roth Show (a link is in the article.) As I wrote earlier, Michelle Obama is calling Dr. Corsi "racist." Rep. Murtha (who I sincerely hope and PRAY gets voted out of office!!!) echoed the "racist" tirade against his own state!
Remember, we're all "racist" for daring to expose the truth about "The One."
One really quick thing: Dr. Jerome Corsi is no more a racist than I am. Period. That's not my opinion, it happens to be a fact.
Douglas Hagmann, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, is also no more a racist than I am. But you know as well as I do (and as Mr Hagmann is unfortunately going to find out) by exposing these bits about the Obamessiah, he's going to be called one.
I've traded emails with Mr Hagmann on several occassions, and can safely say that if I needed an investigator that I could trust with my life, I'd call him. (That is my opinion, for the record.) But he's not a racist, and that's a fact.
But I do need to quote something that Mr Hagmann wrote, because it is very very telling. "In fact, many controversial issues regarding Barack Hussein OBAMA have been made trivial, buried, diverted, quashed, and made off-limits via threats of litigation by the so-called OBAMA "Truth Squads."
"To this point, the Northeast Intelligence Network as an organization has been virtually silent on many OBAMA related issues in our best efforts to stay out of politics.
We will be silent no more because frankly, it has little to do with politics, more to do with power.
Do not, however, believe that by breaking silence, we are endorsing Senator John McCain. We are not, and in fact, do not endorse anyone. It is not our place or position. Republican presidential candidate John McCain has dirty hands in many areas, although most of his history is much more transparent and readily accessible than that of OBAMA.
It is not a matter of political party, it is a matter of truth. It's not about politics, it's about power."
Here's that link: http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/20081009DH
I needed to quote that because Mr Hagmann is also going to face charges that he's endorsing Sen. McCain. You can be sure of that. But as was just quoted, they are not endorsing McCain. Mr Hagmann is quite correct in stating that the Northeast Intelligence Network must not endorse anybody, in order that their credibility remain intact.
Unfortunately, they're soon going to be accused of endorsing McCain. Mr Hagmann, as a citizen, has his own political views, I am certain. Yet as the director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and his organization itself must remain neutral.
Mr Hagmann, fortunately, has a very thick skin. (If you wish, feel free to browse his site and see what a few radical shieks have had to say about him. It ain't pretty.)
(H/T: Douglas Hagmann, director - Northeast Intelligence Network.)
I did join the Russel Brigade. :) Lt. Col (Ret.) Bill Russel. How I wished I could vote for him.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
You read that right.
"Former members of Kenyan opposition leader Raila Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement party have told WND when Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama visited Kenya on a "fact-finding" trip in 2006, he was carrying out part of a secret election strategy that also included exploiting divisive tribal tensions and ultimately taking advantage of rioting that left 1,000 dead.
Read the latest now on WND.com.http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78132 "
At the end of each post, he'll usually put "H/T (and then a link to the person's blog or news article that it came from.)
But what is an H/T? Hat Tip. It's just a way of recognizing where the article came from and giving credit where it's due. Although I usually don't give Hat Tips (I give the link in the posting) I think I'm going to start from this point forward. :)
So that's what the (H/T) that you'll be seeing here means. Thank (or blame! :)) Rorschach. And don't forget to take a look at his blog at http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/ LOTS of good reading there.
Read the full story right now at WorldNetDaily.com!
MUST-READ WND NEWS:
Obama raised $1 million for foreign thug's election
But Wait! There's more!! Michelle Obama is calling Dr. Jerome Corsi a (guess what!) "RAAAACIST!"
Bollocks. Sheer and utter bollocks.
Time to put the race card down, love. It's getting really old.
Here's the link: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Snuck into the Mother of All Bailouts was an oil-shale ban. One guess as to which political party ( ::cough:: Democrat ::cough:: ) put that in there.
But we can and need to get off of foreign oil. I've said before and I'll say again that those countries that we purchase oil from have us (the US) by the testicles.
Here's a link: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9bfdbe08-9b8e-11dd-ae76-000077b07658.html
"The move coincided with fresh calls from those countries within the oil producing cartel that are heavily dependent on oil revenues for their budgets – most notably Iran, the organisation’s perennial hawk – to cut output. Ecuador and Qatar also supported slashing production." (emphasis added)
I wrote some time back about imagining what would happen to those countries economies if we were able to tell them "We don't need your oil any more." Now the Financial Times says it - that some countries are "...heavily dependent on oil revenues for their budgets..."
Just imagine what we could do with all the money that we're paying them. Just imagine. Their economies might collapse completely. And while that is not a good thing for them, we would have other uses for our money. Such as not spending it on foreign governments, some of which are openly hostile to us.
We need to get off of oil completely. It can be done, but it will take the will of the American people to do it.
And the title says it all: "Sen. Cornyn Seeks Nationwide Federal Probe of ACORN."
To quote from part of Sen. Cornyn's letter: "Given these allegations, as well as the well-documented fraud convictions in recent years of ACORN employees, I urge you to launch a nationwide criminal probe into ACORN's voter registration activities. As you know, federal law prohibits an individual from (1) providing fraudulent voter registration information; (2) conspiring to encourage false registration or illegal voting; and (3) paying or offering to pay another individual for registering or voting. It is also a crime to knowingly procure or submit false, fictitious, or fraudulent voter registration applications. Finally, I must add that, because the violations of federal voting laws by ACORN employees appear to be so widespread, ACORN and its affiliates should be investigated as a criminal enterprise." (emphasis added)
Wow. At this point I wish I still lived in Texas. I'd vote for Sen. Cornyn based on this letter alone!
Again, thank you for the permission to cross-link, Rorschach.
I just did a Google search for my name "Greg Birosh".
Thank you. I'm truly humbled.
This page is from Fox News, but that doesn't change the group that conducted the study: The Center for Media and Public Affairs. Who are they? They are a nonpartisan, not-for-profit research think-tank located in Washington, DC. Their website is here: http://www.cmpa.com/
Here's what they had to say:
"The Center for Media and Public Affairs, a media analysis group, kept a tally of jokes told about the presidential contenders on the "Late Show" and "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" in the five weeks after McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate and vaulted the little-known Alaska governor into the national spotlight.
The total: Republicans, 286. Democrats, 42." No liberal bias ... move along, please.
But you won't find the link on ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, MSNBC or any of the other networks. Why? They, in my opinion, want Obama to win.
How about nasty, nasty pasting from the Media Research Center, another nonpartisan, not-for-profit media watchdog? Here's their link: http://www.mrc.org/press/2008/press20081016.asp (This is a link to the article, the main site itself is http://www.mrc.org/ They are located in Alexandria, Virginia.)
"“Okay, Sen. Obama, we will cede you the point that the Fox News Channel, by accurately portraying you and your record, has brought you down 2-3% in the polls. Now it’s time for you to concede that were it not for NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, etc., etc., etc. Sen. John McCain would be up by 20%.”
Oh, the hate that must be in their heart for speaking the truth about the Obamedia!! (Sarcasm now OFF.)
How about this one: http://newsbyus.com/index.php/article/1781 The title of the article? "A Record of Blatant Bias: Four Debates - Four pro-Obama Moderators."
Now let's take a look at an AOL Poll. The question asked is "Do you think the FBI will find evidence of a national voter registration fraud scam?" As of this writing, 60,548 votes had been cast. Here are the results:
Yes - 45,217 votes (75%)
No - 10,612 votes (18%)
Don't know - 4,719 votes (7%)
Here's that link: http://webcenter.polls.aol.com/modular.jsp?resType=7&popup=yes&pollId=153956&channel=aol_us_election&view=153676&template=1609
(This is not a scientifically accurate poll. But it is telling.) The AOL Poll asked another question, however. "How concerned are you about voter registration fraud?" Here are those results: (60,250 votes cast total)
Very - 46,443 votes (77%)
Somewhat - 7,498 (12%)
Not at all - 6,309 (11%)
This poll was not scientific, either. Both polls will admit that if you look at their "Note on poll results." That link is here: http://webcenter.polls.aol.com/modular.jsp?resType=7&popup=yes&pollId=153957&channel=aol_us_election&view=153677&template=1576
Granted, we are in deep trouble. No liberal bias in the media? How about that Rasmussen study I referenced in an earlier post?
Here's what I wrote earlier under "I Hadn't Expected This"
Folks, please put down whatever (if anything) that you're eating or drinking.
"The findings, nevertheless, are troublesome for the embattled news industry and parallel what voters said in surveys earlier this summer. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of voters now believe most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and 49% believe reporters are trying to help Obama this year. Only 14% think they are trying to help McCain. In another survey, 55% said media bias is a bigger problem for the electoral process than large campaign donations. "
There's the entire quote, complete with their (NOT MINE!) hyperlinks. Let me distill these numbers down:
68% think most reporters try to help "their" candidate. (Yes, a 'duh' moment.)
49% believe that reporters are trying to help Obama!!! THAT'S NEARLY HALF!!!
55% believe that liberal media bias is a bigger problem campaign contributions.
51% believe that reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin!!!! THAT IS OVER HALF!!
Yes, you read that correctly. Remember, these are Rasmussen's numbers, not mine.
68% think most reporters try to help "their candidate.
49% believe that reporters are trying to help Obama.
And now we've got ACORN! Is it just barely possible that they're trying to throw the election for Obama? They're being investigated in 14 states and now by the FBI for voter registration fraud.
Is it just barely possible?