We The People Publishes Full Page Chicago Tribune Ad Re BOCOLB

Bob Robbins has forwarded the following link to Count Us Out:

>Our full-page Open Letter to Mr. Obama will be published in the Chicago Tribune on both Monday, December 1, 2008 and Wednesday, December 3, 2008. It will appear in the main news section. Click here to view a copy of the final ad.

>...The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.

>Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists

>...We are now in the process of selecting the forensic scientists who would travel to Hawaii to examine Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate...

In addition, Bob also forwarded Steady John's post on SteadyHabits.com

Steady John writes about the Obama dual citizenship issue. He writes:

"I will be writing here only about the issue of Barack Obama’s dual citizenship, acknowledged as fact on his website, because of his Kenyan Father’s status as a British subject."

Read the whole thing here.

Kenyan Ambassador Ogego Agrees that Barack Obama Was Born in Kenya

WRIF radio announcer Mike Clark asked (see minute 12:39) Kenyan Ambassador His Excellency Peter Ogego whether there would be a monument placed at Barack Obama's birthplace in Kenya (h/t Contrairimairi). Ogego says "yes". This was a leading question, of course, but still interesting.

>Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, His Excellency Peter Ogego, admitted in this radio interview that Barack Obama was born in Kenya!

When WRIF "Mike In The Morning" Mike Clark (Michigan Radio Talk Show) Co-Host asked if there was going to be a marker where Barack Obama was born in Kenya, the Kenya Ambassador Ogego said his birthplace in Kenya "is already an attraction."

Next question to Ambassador Ogego was: Will they put up a marker at Obama's birthplace there? Ogego affirmed: "it's already well known!"

His Excellency Peter Ogego, Kenyan Ambassador to the United States admitted in this radio interview that Barack Obama was born in Kenya!

Interview "LISTEN TO OUR CALLS TO THE KENYAN EMBASSY ABOUT BARACK OBAMA!:"

LISTEN HERE: http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916 See minute: 12:39 on

CONTACT INFO:
Contact Mike Clark, WRIF Michigan Radio Talk Show Host: mim@wrif.com

His Excellency Peter Ogego
Kenyan Ambassador to the United States
Contact Ambassador Peter Ogego: http://www.kenyaembassy.com/ambassador.html OR http://www.kenyaembassy.com/contactus.html?SQMSESSID=12e18742378a8e305f4a071c8f87caa8

Dan Friedman's Morning Laugh

Dan Friedman writes:

>"Barack Obama won the election because he saw what is wrong with this country: the utter failure of government to protect its citizens."

--New York Times, The Next President

It's good to start the morning off with a laugh. This has nothing to do with why he won this election, but it will be the reason he loses the next one.

Dan Friedman
NYC

But I'm confused. What's the New York Times?

Obama Flips McCain

Hat-tip Don Surber and Larwyn:

Contrairimairi on the Election

Dear Mitchell,
In about 48 hours, people in this Country will be on the verge of a major civil war. I wish, and HOPE that I am wrong, but I don't know how I could be.
If BO wins, Those on the right will KNOW the election was stolen. Stolen by vote fraud, stolen by foreigners who intend to take this Country down from the inside. Stolen by anyone with enough money......
If JMc wins........whole 'nother story. I believe we will see rioting, the likes of which this Country has NEVER seen. I do not believe for a moment, that riots won't happen if BO wins, in fact, if past history proves anything, it is that there will be riots, no matter what the outcome, but they will be far more devastating if BO loses.
So, where does that leave us?
We have seen an election process that will not soon be forgotten. I cannot believe the stupidity and maniacal fervor with which BO's minions have supported him. I truly believe that much of this could have been avoided, had the media done it's job.........even 1/2 it's job. Instead, they have nearly guaranteed that this Country will in a few hours time, become a war zone!
I hate pessimism, but I also believe in truth. The end of this election will see both! The truth will be the reality of pessimism felt by the supporters of whichever candidate loses.
I truly believe that the next four years will seem intolerable to those whose candidate loses, and may also be intolerable to those who supported BO if he wins.
One has to wonder if the damage will be irreparable. Few members of the electorate will oppose their own incumbent candidates, while wildly supporting "imposed" term limits on others by the votes of constituents. This should nearly guarantee the re-election of democrats already holding office, and thanks to George, the installation of new democrats to replace the republicans being tossed out.
Many others have seen and called this scenario, but in just a few short hours, it is looking much more likely to soon be reality. A bit ironic, if you ask me. Americans have "wrapped" themselves in "reality". Television is permeated with some ridiculous idea that "reality" is what viewers really want. Ahhhhh....the old......"Be careful what you wish for!"
Despite the fact that most "reality" in viewers mind has little or nothing to do with "actual" realities, I think America is about to get a hefty dose of, "Wake up and smell the coffee!" If JMc wins, I think there will be bitter hatred along race lines for a VERY long time, but hopefully the nation will survive the economic onslaught. On the other hand, if BO wins, I fear very little will survive. I believe this Country may evaporate before our eyes in a "reality" that cannot be stopped after an hour of "air time".
48 hours, and America as we have known her will be altered.....maybe just for a while......maybe permanently, but for many of us, it will be a very sad passing.
Mairi

No Matter How You Slice It--Obama Lies Again

Obama's supporters have descended to defending his right to lie. That's the best moral argument the Democrats can muster. These are the people who have told America that social democracy makes the poor richer and the rich poorer, but ever since 1970 real wages have been falling and stock market returns have been rising. OLiar, I mean Obama, is perhaps the culmination of the Dewey cum Roosevelt cum Keynes cum Krugman social democratic movement that is based on deceiving the public into believing that the interests of the wealthy and of professionals, especially academics, stock jobbers and attorneys, are the interests of the poor. This is accomplished by arguing, as William Greider does in his book about the Fed, "Secrets of the Temple", that inflation is good for the poor, or that the $750 billion Wall Street bailout is good for the poor.

OLiar, I mean Obama's, latest deception (the list has grown so long that it's difficult to keep track) is that he did not know that his aunt was in the United States. Larry Johnson of No Quarter USA (h/t Larwyn) notes that:

"The Associated Press found that Obama’s aunt had been instructed to leave the country four years ago by an immigration judge who rejected her request for asylum from her native Kenya. The woman, Zeituni Onyango (zay-TUHN on-YANG-oh), is living in public housing in Boston and is the half-sister of Obama’s late father."

This was going on(i.e., the aunt was living in public housing while here illegally and as a non-citizen illegally contributing to the Obama campaign) while Obama's wealth soared into the millions. He is truly a man of honor. But wait, there's more:

"A statement given to the AP by Obama’s campaign said, “Senator Obama has no knowledge of her status but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws be followed...The campaign said it was returning $260 that Onyango had contributed in small increments to Obama’s presidential bid over several months. Federal election law prohibits foreigners from making political donations. Onyango listed her employer as the Boston Housing Authority and last gave $5 on Sept. 19."

In other words, the aunt was illegally contributing to his campaign, but Obama claims that he did not know she was in the US. But here's the kicker. As Larry Johnson points out:

"One would think Obama would know the immigration status of his aunt after he rendered her into a textual spectacle in his 1996 memoir entitled Dreams of My Father. One would also think a relative would have contacted him in 2004 in order to inform the aspiring US Senator and Illinois political official that auntie needed assistance with her asylum petition. After all, auntie attended Obama’s swearing-in to the US Senate the same year her asylum petition was unfavorably adjudicated. Moreover, one would think that Obama would have been informed by someone related to his aunt that she donated tainted money to his campaign."

Was Obama lying when he wrote about the aunt in his memoirs, or was he lying when he said that he did not know anything about her presence here? Was he telling the truth about not knowing when she had attending his swearing in ceremony?

How many lies are enough? And how many lies are Obama's victimized followers going to tolerate before they realize that their candidate is a sociopath? Or rather, is the Obama movement simply one of thuggish liars who aim to gain control of the US government in order to loot, steal, murder and oppress?

Vote Yes on Sarah Palin's Qualifications

I just received this from philaver@aol.com:

Keep this moving quickly...

PBS has an online poll posted, asking if Sarah Palin is qualified.

Apparently the left wing knew about this in advance and are flooding the voting with NO votes.

The poll will be reported on PBS and picked up by mainstream media. It can influence undecided voters in swing states.

Please do two things -- takes 20 seconds.

1) Click on link and vote YES!

Here's the link:

http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html

Mark Steyn's Jewish Thing

>This may be a Jewish thing but... [Mark Steyn of NRO h/t Larwyn]

>So writes a Democrat for McCain, who notes that the Obots recommend memorializing your service to the cause by getting numbers tattooed on your forearm. As Mr Warsch adds:

>No wisdom, no memory, no historical perspective.
God save us from these people.

>Ignorance is O-bliss.

Obama in the Spotlight

Dan Riehl has forwarded this video that explores Barack Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright:

John McCain's Campaign on Youtube

My old friend, Manoj Dalvi, professor of economics at CW Post College, sent me the following depiction of Senator John Sidney McCain's 2008 presidential campaign:

To Bolt or Not to Bolt: the Cognoscenti Speak

I had written several friends about the question of whether to bolt the Republican Party because of the bailout and vote Libertarian instead. I had picked up Contrairimairi's response earlier today. They're all good answers. So far, only one of six responses has been anti-Republican. But the GOP has got to wake up. Carl Svensson, founder of the New York Republican Liberty Caucaus makes a number of good points about wedge issues, running candidates and appealing to minorities.

Candace de Russy:

8 years of O. would be dreadful...better to try to influence Mc

Lenny Rann:

I have never been so sickened in my life. You know this bailout is going to go down a giant rat hole. Can you imagine that foreign banks, UBS and Barkley's, will be part of the bailout? That is what I have read anyway. Do you know if that is a fact? Phil Gramm, on the board of UBS must have been up lobbying all night. It's like the more a politician is waving the flag, the more likely he is a foreign agent. Really, this collapse of the investment bank gambling casino must have been looked on as a tremendous opportunity to make money, now that the opportunity of credit swaps is played out. I am sickened and disheartened beyond belief. My useless prediction: Gold is gonna go to $1200 pronto. We are gonna be wheeling f...ing wheelbarrows to the store.

Pinni Bohm:

I think a factor that is being underestimated is Sarah Palin. As Governor of Alaska, she did cut spending by 80% and is described as a libertarian on the economy. (I am assuming there is no evidence to the contrary.) Since McCain's pick was meant to select his successor, if McCain wins this election, Palin will likely win the election in 2012 and we will have a libertarian-minded person in control of the white house.

Additionally, even if it can be argued that Palin cannot win in 2012, she will be in the white house with McCain over the next four years and she will be a strong influence. She has already proven she is not afraid to go against the establishment if she disagrees, as evidenced by her "taking on the good old boy network in Alaska" (who are now trying to erase her from Alaska politics with this troopergate scandal), so I have no reason to believe that she will be afraid of going up against McCain if necessary. However, as VP, she would also have the ears of the powerful liberal press, who will have an interest in hurting McCain in retaliation for him overthrowing their chosen one.

Therefore, my conclusion is that McCain is the better of the two candidates, if only for the above reasons. (Of course there are the foreign policy reasons and the argument that Obama was the most liberal person in the Senate before he officially announced his run for president.)

Carl Svensson:

" I am not sure that I can continue to support the Republican Party....they have become a socialist party".

They have not, albeit key elements of the Republican leadership seem to be taking us in that direction. The GOP, like the Democrats, continue to be coalitions of various factions, and it appears that that will be the case in the foreseeable future. I am still confident that the vast majority of the GOP leadership and rank-and-file continue to be pro-limited government and pro-free market, and that a majority, hopefully, support personal freedoms too.

".....the Republicans may be more socialist than the Democrats."

I don't think so. The leadership of the Democrats, on most levels, are much more left that the leadership of the Republicans, and you all know that to be true. That is also true of the Democratic rank-and-file viz a viz the Republican rank-and- file.

" election of McCain at this point may be too much of an affirmation of George Bush's socialism".

Whether this is true or not, it is a moot point. "We" do not have the power or influence to determine whether or not Obama or McCain get elected. Indeed, here in NYS, Obama will coast to victory no matter what we do. The election will be determined in a handful of states, and the only impact that "we" can have -----and a very nominal impact to say the least -- is by contributing financially to
one campaign or the other.

I believe that all of us share your very real concerns about precedents and the like; I know that I do.

So what can we do to have an impact this election cycle? Nothing tangible I'm afraid, and I would be loathe to marginalize myself, and have any of you marginalize yourselves, by publicly supporting Obama or a third party candidate which would have zinch impact anyway.

The question should be, can we, acting together with others, steer the GOP and the country in a more positive direction? Hopefully, that is the case provided that we take a realistic assessment of the political situation in NYS, and that we attempt to do something to accomplish this.

A few of the facts (as I see them):

1. To be successful, we must organize "ourselves" on a state-wide basis.
2. Libertarians can not win an election on their own; there are too few of us.
3. Republicans can not win elections, in most cases, on their own, we are outnumbered.
4. You can not win elections without candidates.
5. You can not establish and build 'local political organizations" without candidates.
6. We must pursue "wedge issues" to split off a portion of the Democrats from their base.
7. We must recruit black and brown candidates if we are too have long-term success.

The only 'universal' wedge issue that I am familiar with is "Term Limits". These have the support of more that 70% of all voters accross all parties. 'Our" candidates should be supporting these, and the possibility of establishing a "Term Limits Party" should also be investigated. School choice is a good wedge issue in some "minority districts" but it works against "us; in suburban districts.

Republicans make up about 40% of the electorate state-wide, and less than that in our cities. We must cultivate alliances with the Conservatives, Independence, and Libertarian Parties, and make inroad with Democrats too.

We need to run candidates. You all know that we are not contesting several dozen state offices, and hundreds of local offices even in those areas where the party has an enrollment advantage.

One of our goals, I believe, should be for us to contest every State Senate and Assembly race in 2010 to garner some attention from the media and are base, and begin to 'grow' local Republican organizations. This should be easy! It takes a maximum of 500 valid signatures to get an Assembly candidate on the ballot, and we can use piggyback petitions to get our Senate candidates on the ballot. I know that Robert is planning on running for City Council in 2009, and we should be able to recruit and get on the ballot a near full slate for these races if we begin now.

Koch Endorses Obama

Newsmax reports that Mayor Ed Koch has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Hizzoner repeats some of the now-familiar and unconvincing ex post arguments about Governor Palin, such as that she lacks experience even though she has more executive experience than Senators Obama and Biden combined, and has more experience than a number of former presidents such as Grover Cleveland, who had served two years as governor and less than one year as mayor before becoming one of history's best presidents. Mayor Koch's endorsement of Mr. Obama demonstrates that he is indifferent to inexperience because Mr. Obama has none. Nor does Mr. Obama's flip flopping on the issue of Jerusalem suggest that he has even a lay person's grasp of international issues, the Middle East or Israel's security.

Mayor Koch's endorsement has substance with respect to one important point. Allow me to quote him:

"Protecting and defending the U.S. means more than defending us from foreign attacks. It includes defending the public with respect to their civil rights, civil liberties and other needs, e.g., national health insurance, the right of abortion, the continuation of Social Security, gay rights, other rights of privacy, fair progressive taxation, and a host of other needs and rights."

Indeed, it is for these economic and social reasons, namely the threat that a Democratic president will further extend Progressivism, that I oppose Mr. Obama. While he was Mayor, Mr. Koch oversaw a city in economic decline due to Progressive, socialistic policies that Mr. Koch did nothing to reverse. These included a bloated city payroll; an incompetently run Department of Social Services (I worked there for a few weeks in the 1970s while I was a student and know about it first hand); a welfare system destructive of human dignity and the incentive to work; corrupt construction regulation; public housing that induced crime and depravity; and massive pension benefits for all city workers. As a result of New York City's pathological Progressivism, between 1960 and 1990 three quarters of the Fortune 500 firms that had been headquartered there left. Mayor Koch, although a noble, feisty soul, did nothing to reverse the People's Republic of New York's destruction of economic opportunity for future generations.

Mayor Koch and the New York Times would like to see Senator Obama impose New York City- and Chicago-style Progressivism on all of America. The result of their ideas will be a two-tiered society and declining economic opportunity for all Americans, especially the working class.

I do not doubt that Mayor Koch is an honorable man and that he truly believes that Barack Obama is capable of improving health care and social security. I happen to believe the reverse. But this disagreement has gone past the point of possible reconciliation. Mayor Koch and the Democrats have forced the nation to adopt failed policies. Now, Progressivism and Democratic Party ideology are irreconcilable with the beliefs of Americans who believe in freedom and traditional values. Either the Democrats will have to compel people like me who disagree with their theories with violence, or they cannot adopt them.

To reduce the tension that the Democrats' insistence on failed Progressive ideas is causing, I have come to the conclusion that the country needs to decentralize into two or more federal regions that offer alternative policies. The thought of social democratic health care, extension of social security, or Barack Obama's extending welfare in ways that Mayor Koch and Senator Obama consider attractive is unacceptable to me and many others. The time is past when the stupid theories of "liberals" can be rationalized as experimental or innovative. They have failed, and I am tired of paying the costs of the New York Times', Mayor Koch's and Barack Obama's dim witted ideas.

Having come from the same city as Mayor Koch, I do not feel any need to share a nation with him. He and Senator Obama are aliens to me. They can take their health care, their welfare, their dim witted programs, their incompetently run bureaucracies, and their chums on Wall Street, and keep them in New York. New York's Progressives have done enough damage as it is. I do not like the country that they envision, and I do not like the policies that they have forced me to support.

Similarities Between President Grover Cleveland and Sarah Palin

In 1884 Democrat Grover Cleveland defeated Republican James G. Blaine. Cleveland was what was then called a "Bourbon" Democrat, a laissez-faire liberal who favored low taxes, the gold standard, de-regulation and low tariffs. He represented honesty in government, like Sarah Palin. The elite New York and Boston Republicans, known as Mugwumps, backed Democrat Cleveland over Blaine. They were called Mugwumps because they were early "professionals" of the same kind that flowered in the twentieth century--professors, lawyers and physicians as well as businessmen. Some were independently wealthy. "Mugwump" means "Chief" in a Native American dialect, I believe Algonquin.

Here are some similarities between Grover Cleveland and Sarah Palin:

o Cleveland was governor of New York for two years before becoming president. Palin will have been governor of Alaska for two years before she swears in as vice-president.

o Cleveland was Mayor of Buffalo for less than a year before being governor. Palin was Mayor of Wasilla for four years before becoming governor.

o In 1873 Cleveland had an affair with 35-year old Maria Halpin and she bore Cleveland's son, Oscar Folsom Cleveland, out of wedlock. Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol Palin, is currently pregnant out of wedlock

o Grover Cleveland's opponent, James G. Blaine, was accused of lying about his relationship with the Little Rock and Fort Smith Railroad and the Northern Pacific Railroad. Barack Obama has been accused of lying about his background, in his book, about his birth certificate and about his relationship to George Soros.

o Grover Cleveland favored lower taxes and less regulation. Sarah Palin favors lower taxes and less regulation.

o Grover Cleveland attracted bolters from the Republican Party (the Mugwumps) who believed that Blaine was corrupt. Palin is attracting bolters from the Democratic Party who believe that Palin best represents women and that her opponents are corrupt.

President Grover Cleveland was the last true laissez-faire liberal to be elected to the presidency. During his presidency, the average real wage increased by 10-20%. Big business and the left complained incessantly about "depression" but millions of immigrants flocked here to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities that laissez-faire offered the poor.

Clinton Supporters for McCain

Bob Robbins just forwarded a link to Hillary Clinton Forum.net. What is intriguing about this site is that many of the posters are saying that they support McCain. The mainstream media is likely to downplay this phenomenon.

One poster who uses the nom de guerre "Hillary Clinton Rules" writes:

MANY OF US ARE NOW VOTING FOR MAC AND PALIN!!! IT IS WORKING!!!!
Obama and the DNC are going down this November!
the Democratic Party is going to be railroaded on Election Day by it's own party base -- that they disowned!!! LOL
Keep using our posts for reference
The Clintons and the DLC are COMING BACK

Another named "Expat4Hillary" writes:

"They've got my vote in November as well! A war hero and a working mother who each have children in the armed forces deserve my complete respect!"

However, not all agree. A poster named Muzza writes:

"Please only speak for yourself. The forum does not have a collective conscience whereby everyone does the same thing. You are supporting McCain/Palin and that's your choice. Not everyone in here will be doing that."

And someone named joeysky18 adds:

"It probably is the majority opinion, but not all members will vote Republican. Some will vote 3rd party. And some haven't made their decision."

One of the downsides of the World Wide Web is that almost everyone prefers anonymity. We are turning into a nation of academics who feel that they need to remain anonymous (the academic review process is often anonymous).

However, I am gladdened to hear about their choices.

Democrats' Reality Warp On Sarah Palin

Democrats smear Republicans. It's part of the democratic process. Smearing goes back to Federalist days. I can't prove this, but my guess is that the volume of smearing directly relates to the quality of the candidate. The better the candidate the more the smearing volume. In the case of Sarah Palin, the volume has been high. Oddly, the Democrats chose to emphasize Ms. Palin's experience. But the Democratic nominee, Senator Obama, has experience at most slightly greater than Governor Palin's. But she is running for the number two, not the number one spot. Moreover, Mr. McCain has evened the age difference, attracted conservatives and likely attracted women.

For instance, on the Huffington Post, Warren Goldstein raises the issue of:

"Sarah Palin's qualifications to be president of the United States -- that's right, President."

and concludes

"We can hardly be expected to take seriously her track record: being mayor of a town of 9,000, and less than a year of being governor of a state with fewer residents than 19 American cities (if it were a city, Alaska would rank just above Baltimore, just below Charlotte)."

I checked Ms. Palin's biography on Wikipedia and learned that she assumed office in December 2006, so Mr. Goldstein is facutally inaccurate. She will have two, not one year of experience when her vice presidential term begins in 2009. 2007 + 2008 = two, not one year.

Let us compare Ms. Palin's experience to some other vice-presidential candidates in history. Let us start with a worst case scenario: twentieth century vice-presidents who assumed office because of a president's death. In 1900, Theodore Roosevelt ran as Vice President under William McKinley following exactly two years as governor of New York. Previous to that he had been assistant secretary of the navy and police commissioner of New York City. In other words, his experience was of the same order of magnitude as Ms. Palin's.

Let us compare Ms. Palin to a second vice-presidential candidate who later became president, Calvin Coolidge. Prior to running as vice-president in 1921, Mr. Coolidge had served for exactly two years, the same as Ms. Palin, as Governor of Massachusetts. Prior to that he had been lieutenant governor for three years. When he assumed the presidency in 1923 (following President Warren G. Harding's untimely death) he had roughly the same experience, excepting the three years as lieutenant governor, that Ms. Palin would have under similar circumstances.

A third example is Harry S. Truman. Truman had been US Senator for ten years. A longer term than both Palin and Obama.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for president of the United States in 1932, he had been governor of New York for three years, one year more than Governor Palin, and like his cousin TR, had been assistant secretary of the navy for seven years and a member of the New York State Senate for two. From the standpoint of significant prior executive experience, his resume was not that different from Ms. Palin's.

Now let us look at Senator Obama. He would have four years as US Senator and seven years as an Illinois state senator. He has no prior executive experience and only four years of legislative experience at the federal level. He would be going into the president's job with slightly more experience than Ms. Palin. He would be among the most inexperienced presidential candidates of the twentieth century. With only two years' additional experience as vice president, Ms. Palin's experience level, emphasizing executive-level experience, would be comparable to most other vice presidents' who have assumed the office of president. In contrast, Mr. Obama's experience is among the weakest because he lacks executive experience. Moreover, Governor Palin is running for number two, whereas Senator Obama is running for number one.

The great presidents include Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Jackson, Cleveland, Roosevelt, and Roosevelt.

Of these,

Washington had no prior political experience (other than briefly as a member of the Continental Congress) but had been the commander in chief for seven years.

Thomas Jefferson had considerable experience, having been governor of Virginia for two years, delegate to the Second Continental Congress, United States Ambassador to France, and Secretary of State when he became Vice President under John Adams in 1797.

Andrew Jackson had been Congressman for one year and Senator for six months, as well as a military officer in the War of 1812 and the First Seminole War before running for president.

Lincoln had two years of legislative experience and no executive experience when he assumed the presidency. In other words, he had less experience than Governor Palin and Senator Obama.

Grover Cleveland had been Governor of New York for two years, and Mayor of Buffalo, NY for one.

Theodore Roosevelt had been Governor of New York for two years, assistant secretary of the navy and police commissioner.

Franklin D. Roosevelt had been Governor of New York for three years, assistant secretary of the navy for seven and a Senator for two.

The foregoing were among the best presidents that we have had, and only Jefferson and Washington had significantly more experience than Governor Palin. Lincoln had less even than Mr. Obama.

However, all of the foregoing had demonstrated competence at some executive position. In Andrew Jackson's case it was military leadership (albeit controversial military leadership). In all other cases except Lincoln there had been some executive experience. Mr. Obama has no executive experience whatsoever.

Larry Johnson of No Quarter USA is among the few Democrats who is willing to confront reality. The mainstream media, an organ of the Democratic Party, has chosen to emphasize the experience issue with respect to Governor Palin but not with respect to Senator Obama. Yet with four years of senatorial experience, Mr. Obama has less relevant experience than Ms. Palin, who has two years of executive experience. Johnson writes:

There is an unwillingness in many quarters, including the DNC, the MSM, the left wing blogosphere, Air America radio and others to acknowledge what is painfully obvious to those of us at No Quarter, which is that there are a lot of loyal Democrats who are seriously considering voting Republican in the fall.

I am not sure of why the mass media has gone ga ga over Obama. This is the same mass media that believed Walter Duranty when he thought that Stalin was a hero in the 1930s, that trusted Castro and that backed the overthrow of Diem in Vietnam. The American media has a proven record of blistering incompetence. The American public is wise to ignore the media's soap.

Fundraising Message From Governor Sarah Palin

Comparing Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, it would seem that Governor Palin has significantly more extensive and more relevant experience. Governor Palin has filled an executive role, unlike Mr. Obama, who has been a United States Senator for a whopping two years. Funny that overpaid juggler Chris Mathews and the acrobats at AP have yet to raise experience questions about Mr. Obama, but they are quick to raise them with respect to the more experienced Governor Palin.

The following is a fund raising message that I just received from her:

Dear Friend,

I'm honored and humbled to join this historic campaign as John McCain's running mate. I feel privileged to join a man I admire and the man I know is ready to lead our country as the next president.

Some of life's greatest opportunities come unexpectedly, and this is certainly the case for me. I never set out to run for office. But life has taken me on a course that first led to the Alaska Governor's office and now the country's first female Republican vice presidential candidate.

I want you to know that John McCain and I will challenge the status quo in Washington. We're ready to address our nation's great challenges - from reducing our dependence on foreign oil to cutting wasteful spending and creating good jobs for Americans. I look forward to working with him to achieve every goal he has set out during this campaign to improve the lives of all Americans.

As the mother of a son serving in the U.S. Army and the commander of Alaska's National Guard, there is no doubt in my mind that John McCain is prepared to serve as our next Commander in Chief.

What I admire most about John McCain is his unwavering ability to put our country first and to ask for nothing in return for his decades of service. He's shown his resolve, toughness and strength of heart in the darkest of places; all in service to his country. This speaks volumes about the type of selfless leadership John McCain will bring to the White House.

Our team is ready to lead the country as the next President and Vice President of the United States. We're ready to win in November and we won't be able to do it without your support. If you want change in Washington, then John McCain and I are asking for your support. Please join our team today!

Sincerely,

Governor Sarah Palin

P.S. Now is your opportunity to get involved and join our team. I'm proud to be John McCain's running mate and I'm ready pitch in and do my part to win in November. And that means asking you for a campaign contribution. Senators Obama and Biden have amassed a massive war chest - with hundreds of millions of dollars aimed at defeating me and John McCain. Will you help our campaign by making a generous donation today? Any amount you can give will go a long way in helping our ticket. Your support is appreciated. Thank you.

Brutally Honest about Sarah Palin

Rick of Brutally Honest just sent me a post on Sarah Palin. Rick is skeptical of Palin's qualifications, but it seems that McCain's choice is even more brilliant than I initially thought. With this choice he's bringing in disenchanted conservatives as well as women. These advantages were too confusing for juggler Chris Matthews and the acrobats at AP. I understand what Rick is saying about inexperience, but Palin has more experience than Obama. Obama has never served in an executive capacity. Plus, if the Democrats want to bring up the inexperience issue, then they have to confront this problem with Obama, especially since no one's sure where Obama was born.

Rick writes:

To say that McCain's choice for VP has conservatives panting is little like saying Al Gore's slightly bent. The buzz is enormous and you're guaranteed to read more about her, certainly here, in the days leading up to the election. Seems the more I read about her, the more appreciative I'm becoming. Beyond doubt, she is worthy.

Others think she's pretty fab too including this web-site devoted to Sarah Palin facts:

Sarah Palin isn’t allowed to wield the gavel at the convention because they’re afraid she’ll use it to kill liberals.
Sarah Palin once won a competitive eating contest by devouring three live caribou.
Sarah Palin once carved a perfect likeness of the Mona Lisa in a block of ice using only her teeth.
Sarah Palin will pry your Klondike bar from your cold dead fingers.
Sarah Palin pick retroactively makes the theme of #DNC08 “Things To Do In Denver When You’re Dead”
Sarah Palin doesn’t need a gun to hunt. She has been known to throw a bullet through an adult bull elk.
Tons more where that came from and there's also an edgily named site called VPilf.com with more.

Gerard brings us the "Best Palin Reaction Line of the Day":

"The smart liberals are worried. The dumb ones think they've won."

Lots of dumb to choose from too, whether it be here, here or here on this blog or, of course, over at the Daily Kos:

So it's official - John McCain has thrown a Hail Mary and tapped Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. The trad med types are ga-ga about what a game-changing choice Palin is. And they're right. It is a game-changer. The Palin pick takes a race already leaning toward Obama and pushes it further into his corner.

Why? Because Sarah Palin is the most unqualified VP nominee in modern history, with the possible exception of Admiral Stockdale.

She's worse than Quayle.

After his selection in 1988, Dan Quayle was rightly lambasted as a dim, inexperienced lightweight with no real pertinent experience who was named by George H. W. Bush as a gimmick - a case of an old, out-of touch candidate trying to appear relevant by teaming up with a much younger pol. Now, Palin's not Quayle - by all accounts, she's quite bright. But she's fantastically inexperienced, far more so than Quayle was when he was tapped. And she possesses an attribute far worse than Quayle's stupidity - she's a big corrupt wheel in Alaska's big corrupt Republican Party, arguably the most corrupt political apparatus in the United States.

It seems all the more boneheaded to bring up Dan Quayle when Obama makes him look like William F. Buckley.

Nevertheless, there'll be much more about Palin here, you can betcher britches on that... in fact, I've created a new category called Plainly Palincredible so that we can keep track.

H/T for the image to Rachel Lucas.

Who Knows Where the Voter Fraud Goes?

On August 6 I noted that the McCain campaign needs to think carefully about fraud prevention. Yesterday, Pamela Geller(h/t Bob Robbins) covered an interesting story along the same lines:

PUMA* members were out and about in Denver trying to savor some of the ambiance when they were approached by a group of young people registering voters in Denver. They tried to register this group to vote — all of them are registered voters in other states. The young people never asked where they lived, only if they wanted to register to vote.

Bob also sent me a link to a Charles Krauthammer article in which Mr. Krauthammer wonders why there are no testimonials to Barack Obama's character. Whereas John Kerry could find a bunch of veterans and McCain has dozens of associates who will stand behind him, Obama has no one--he stands alone. Indeed, we cannot even figure out where he was born.

The mainstream media has been clownish with respect to its coverage of Mr. Obama because it has not functioned as one would expect of competent news sources. There have been few or no questions about Mr. Obama's past, his ethics, his associations in Chicago and the small matter of potential deception concerning his early life, to include allegations of forgery of his birth certificate.

The absence of "character witnesses" is consistent with my suspicion that Mr. Obama is a man who lacks character. What better way for a publicist to manage such a man's candidacy than to omit all history. This is very similar to how con men operate, and this is also why I have been suspicious for several months now about whether Mr. Obama may be exhibiting traits associated with sociopathy (also see here and here).





*PUMA stands for "Party Unity Up MY A** and is associated with disenchanted Clinton supporters.

Obama's Star Wanes

Bob Robbins just sent me the following American Thinker piece by Lee Cary.

Cary writes:

"As the battle with McCain tightens, his demeanor is morphing into adolescent bravado in the form of trash-talking. For example, he reportedly stated that John McCain "doesn't know what he's up against" in this election and challenged him to stop questioning his character and patriotism...Obama's three-legged campaign strategy is in deep atrophy..."

Read it here.

Nice. But remember Sun Tzu's admonition: things often turn into their opposites. We must not let Obama's sociopathic "inner child" make us overconfident.

John McCain Ad

Mairi just forwarded a link to a John McCain ad here. Mairi writes:

"The Very Best Ad For John McCain - Ever!
... and to my knowledge, the McCain camp didn't have anything to do with it (and if they did, they did a fantastic job).
The audio clips of the Obamas in this video - their own words, are stunning; the video itself vividly demonstrates the profound differences between the two candidates for president.

"Don't Tread On Me, Obama," by Miradena. Watch, and enjoy, every second of it."