The Wall Street Journal blog reports that Bernie Sanders aims to win Donald Trump's supporters' votes, for they are anxious about the economy, whose decline Sanders blames on greed. Greed, of course, has always existed, and there is no evidence that there is more greed now than there was in the free market period of American history, when real wages grew at 0.5% to 2.5% per year.
Showing posts with label presidential election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presidential election. Show all posts
Sunday, December 27, 2015
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Johnson Threatens Romney's Viability
Gary Johnson may prevent Mitt Romney's election in November. Real Clear Politics says that Johnson aims to utilize increasingly important social media; if the strategy is successful and Johnson wins 15% in three national polls, he will participate in the national debates. This will be an important step to ending the two-party system, which has led to increasing corruption and ever bigger government. Politico notes that an Arizona survey found that Johnson will receive nine percent. The poll, published by Public Policy Polling on May 23, notes that, in a head-to-head race, Romney leads Obama by 50 to 43 percent in Arizona. Although 80% of Arizona voters say that they are not sure of their opinion of Gary Johnson, question 11 indicates this:
11. If the candidates for President this year were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Libertarian Gary Johnson, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama................................................ 41%
Mitt Romney................................................... 45%
Gary Johnson ................................................. 9%
Undecided....................................................... 6%
According to The New Mexico Watchdog, also based on a Public Policy Polling poll, Johnson was polling at seven percent in a three-way race among himself, Obama, and Romney. Obama wins against Romney in a two-way race, but wins by a 75 percent larger margin (48-44 versus 46-39) if Johnson is included.
Johnson says that he has an eight percent support level nationally. Public Policy Polling is a Democratic poll. Unfortunately, the Republican Rasmussen poll so far has excluded Johnson. Its results may therefore be distorted in Romney's favor. If Johnson is polling more than five percent, polling firms should include him. Their margin of error (confidence interval in percentage terms) is smaller than Johnson's support. In other words, they can't argue that Johnson's effect will be overwhelmed by random noise. It is bigger than random noise, and it will hurt Romney.
It is unfortunate that the GOP has chosen to pursue a big-government strategy. I would like to see Obama unseated, but the cycle of pitting a corrupt, big-government Republican against a corrupt, socialist Democrat needs to end. Those who oppose the expansive state that Romney advocates will be drawn to Johnson. His name recognition is still low, so six to eight percent may be significantly less than his ultimate support. The law suits being planned against the Romney campaign by Lawyers for Ron Paul (h/t Mike Marnell) may add to Johnson's support. Lawyers for Ron Paul alleges significant voter fraud and criminality in the Romney campaign. If these allegations are extended over the next five months, they may raise the support level for Johnson. The 15 percent target means that anyone who favors less government wastes their vote by supporting Romney.
11. If the candidates for President this year were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Libertarian Gary Johnson, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama................................................ 41%
Mitt Romney................................................... 45%
Gary Johnson ................................................. 9%
Undecided....................................................... 6%
According to The New Mexico Watchdog, also based on a Public Policy Polling poll, Johnson was polling at seven percent in a three-way race among himself, Obama, and Romney. Obama wins against Romney in a two-way race, but wins by a 75 percent larger margin (48-44 versus 46-39) if Johnson is included.
Johnson says that he has an eight percent support level nationally. Public Policy Polling is a Democratic poll. Unfortunately, the Republican Rasmussen poll so far has excluded Johnson. Its results may therefore be distorted in Romney's favor. If Johnson is polling more than five percent, polling firms should include him. Their margin of error (confidence interval in percentage terms) is smaller than Johnson's support. In other words, they can't argue that Johnson's effect will be overwhelmed by random noise. It is bigger than random noise, and it will hurt Romney.
It is unfortunate that the GOP has chosen to pursue a big-government strategy. I would like to see Obama unseated, but the cycle of pitting a corrupt, big-government Republican against a corrupt, socialist Democrat needs to end. Those who oppose the expansive state that Romney advocates will be drawn to Johnson. His name recognition is still low, so six to eight percent may be significantly less than his ultimate support. The law suits being planned against the Romney campaign by Lawyers for Ron Paul (h/t Mike Marnell) may add to Johnson's support. Lawyers for Ron Paul alleges significant voter fraud and criminality in the Romney campaign. If these allegations are extended over the next five months, they may raise the support level for Johnson. The 15 percent target means that anyone who favors less government wastes their vote by supporting Romney.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Rasmussen Poll Exhibits Anti-Ron Paul Bias
Rasmussen's "Daily Presidential Tracking Poll" exhibits anti-Ron Paul bias today. This is how the poll describes its survey:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Mitt Romney earning 47% of the vote while President Obama picks up support from 45%. Four percent (4%) would vote for a third party candidate, while three percent (3%) are undecided.
Much of the results of a survey depend on how you ask the questions. For example, if you ask car buyers, "Do you prefer a Lexus, a Cadillac, or another car," then the results will not be the same as when you ask them, "Do you prefer a Lexus, a Cadillac, or a Rolls Royce." Rasmussen asks its sample the first question. The correct question is this: "Who would you vote for in a three-way election: Obama, Romney, or Ron Paul."
I know that Rasmussen knows this perfectly well. The bias is not because of incompetence.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Mitt Romney earning 47% of the vote while President Obama picks up support from 45%. Four percent (4%) would vote for a third party candidate, while three percent (3%) are undecided.
Much of the results of a survey depend on how you ask the questions. For example, if you ask car buyers, "Do you prefer a Lexus, a Cadillac, or another car," then the results will not be the same as when you ask them, "Do you prefer a Lexus, a Cadillac, or a Rolls Royce." Rasmussen asks its sample the first question. The correct question is this: "Who would you vote for in a three-way election: Obama, Romney, or Ron Paul."
I know that Rasmussen knows this perfectly well. The bias is not because of incompetence.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Romney Outpolls Obama
The Rasmussen Poll finds that Romney noses out Obama 46%-45%. I'm trying to figure out whether that's good or bad. Rasmussen also finds that in a national generic congressional poll the Republicans are leading by 46% to 36%. The difference is volatile, though; last week it was less than half that.
The numbers may result from Obama's unpopular health care law. Rasmussen finds that 53% of the public favor its repeal. If 53% favor repeal and 45% favor Obama, either almost all the 9% undecided presidential voters favor repeal, or some Obama supporters do. That makes sense because we're talking about American voters. It would be interesting to know whether a few percent both favor Obama and favor repeal of Obamacare. Also, the public is skeptical of Obama's economic program. Rasmussen finds that only 49% of Americans say that their home is worth more than when they bought it, and only 27% think that the country is headed in the right direction.
All of this raises the specter of a double-breasted Republican victory: Republican control of congress and the presidency. On the one hand, that may have the effect of repeal of the health care law. Also, it would slow the environmental initiatives of the Obama administration: the attacks on energy development, the local initiatives like Smart Growth and LEED, and the concomitant attacks on home rule and democracy. Unfortunately, the Republicans have backed erosion of home rule and land rights too, but to a lesser degree. It is not clear that government will shrink under double-breasted GOP control; rather, the Republicans have previously consolidated Democratic expansions of state power and big government. If they do, in fact, repeal Obamacare, it will be a first.
At the same time, the Republicans have been good at causing inflation, expanding military spending, and government tyranny. All of this goes goes back to the Progressive era, with the establishment of the Fed (under Democrat Wilson, who was elected with the aid of Republican Roosevelt), the FBI, and the Palmer Raids. (Incidentally, if you haven't seen Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar starring Leonardo DiCaprio, I recommend it.)
The Bush administration accented the problems with Republican government: crony capitalism, pork barrel waste, and monetary expansion. In other words, the problems with electing Republicans are about the same as the problems with electing Democrats. The difference is that the Republicans bloat government to subsidize Republican special interests while the Democrats bloat government to subsidize Democratic special interests. Both subsidize Wall Street.
I am in favor of a third party, either the Libertarian Party or a new party if Ron Paul chooses to establish one. Governor Gary Johnson would be a first-rate candidate on the Libertarian ticket. He is more moderate and more competent than either Obama or Romney. Unlike Romney, who is a crony capitalist who has made his living through connections and monetary expansion, Johnson built a real business from scratch. He did not expand government in New Mexico; he fought a Democratic legislature to restrain government. In America, now, a third party candidate like Johnson is a more moderate choice than either a Democrat or a Republican.
The numbers may result from Obama's unpopular health care law. Rasmussen finds that 53% of the public favor its repeal. If 53% favor repeal and 45% favor Obama, either almost all the 9% undecided presidential voters favor repeal, or some Obama supporters do. That makes sense because we're talking about American voters. It would be interesting to know whether a few percent both favor Obama and favor repeal of Obamacare. Also, the public is skeptical of Obama's economic program. Rasmussen finds that only 49% of Americans say that their home is worth more than when they bought it, and only 27% think that the country is headed in the right direction.
All of this raises the specter of a double-breasted Republican victory: Republican control of congress and the presidency. On the one hand, that may have the effect of repeal of the health care law. Also, it would slow the environmental initiatives of the Obama administration: the attacks on energy development, the local initiatives like Smart Growth and LEED, and the concomitant attacks on home rule and democracy. Unfortunately, the Republicans have backed erosion of home rule and land rights too, but to a lesser degree. It is not clear that government will shrink under double-breasted GOP control; rather, the Republicans have previously consolidated Democratic expansions of state power and big government. If they do, in fact, repeal Obamacare, it will be a first.
At the same time, the Republicans have been good at causing inflation, expanding military spending, and government tyranny. All of this goes goes back to the Progressive era, with the establishment of the Fed (under Democrat Wilson, who was elected with the aid of Republican Roosevelt), the FBI, and the Palmer Raids. (Incidentally, if you haven't seen Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar starring Leonardo DiCaprio, I recommend it.)
The Bush administration accented the problems with Republican government: crony capitalism, pork barrel waste, and monetary expansion. In other words, the problems with electing Republicans are about the same as the problems with electing Democrats. The difference is that the Republicans bloat government to subsidize Republican special interests while the Democrats bloat government to subsidize Democratic special interests. Both subsidize Wall Street.
I am in favor of a third party, either the Libertarian Party or a new party if Ron Paul chooses to establish one. Governor Gary Johnson would be a first-rate candidate on the Libertarian ticket. He is more moderate and more competent than either Obama or Romney. Unlike Romney, who is a crony capitalist who has made his living through connections and monetary expansion, Johnson built a real business from scratch. He did not expand government in New Mexico; he fought a Democratic legislature to restrain government. In America, now, a third party candidate like Johnson is a more moderate choice than either a Democrat or a Republican.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Gingrich, Like Cagney, Is Better than Romney
Newt Gives It to the Taxpayers
The Economist was ebullient when Romney was winning. Now that Gingrich has trounced Romney in South Carolina, our financial overlords in the City of London and on Wall Street may be may be a bit less, but almost as, content. The difference between Romney and Gingrich is like the difference between Cary Grant and James Cagney. Romney, the debonair aristocrat, an opportunist beneath his manly charm, Gingrich, the thug who twirls around in a ménage à trois before mashing a grapefruit in taxpayers' faces (see Cagney's Gingrich-like performance in The Public Enemy above). These are two dogs out of the Council on Foreign Relations' kennel.
Of the four standing GOP candidates Romney is the most accomplished, having achieved impressive business success. In contrast, Gingrich's chief achievement, his appointment to speaker of the house, led to quick failure due to his incompetence. Romney is a stable and cautious friend of global financial interests while Gingrich is full of big ideas, each one more destructive than the last. In the last debate, Gingrich's proposal for a government subsidy to build a port in Charleston was an example. Gingrich seems to have planned a massive pork barrel project for each city in which a debate is held.
Romney blows with the winds; Gingrich proves that 180-year-old tax-and-spend Whig socialism is alive and well. Romney is in the centrist, globalist, and corporatist tradition of Richard Nixon; Gingrich is in the Whig tradition of Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln practically bankrupted Illinois with frivolous infrastructure projects, and, now that Illinois's credit rating has been reduced, what better expression of the GOP's big government Whig tradition than to nominate Gingrich?
Presidents don't usually win or lose because of ideas. Lyndon Baines Johnson fought Goldwater over the New Deal, but Kennedy had just been shot. Perhaps Ronald Reagan fought a campaign of ideas, but would he have won without his actor's charm? And did he really believe that government was the problem? He didn't act like it. Rather than ideas, Nixon's half-day-old whiskers are the kind of issue that America's increasingly impoverished electorate emphasizes. America was once the richest and freest country in the world, but television news has led it to its favoring candidates, like Gingrich, Romney, and Obama, who are bleeding them, diminishing their freedom, and creating a paper money aristocracy at their expense.
That said, Gingrich is better than Romney for one reason: Gingrich can't win. He can't win because his image is tarnished, he is fat, his ideas are ridiculous, and he is an imaginative sexual virtuoso. That makes him preferable to Romney, who can win.
The most important thing in this election is a strident protest vote. The greater and more explicit the vote against the Federal Reserve Bank, the greater a threat to its political security, the sooner the Ron Paul revolution will win. In the event that Paul loses the primary race (and his 13% showing was better than in '08, but discouraging), a vote for the Libertarian Party in the general election will speak more loudly than one for the GOP candidate. There is more likely to be a stronger protest vote with a Gingrich than with a Romney candidacy.
As well, a Republican Congress coupled with a Democratic presidency is unlikely to achieve much. That is the best we can hope for. If the Republicans win both branches, we will see plenty of ports and plenty of pork in Charleston and every other hurricane-prone city in the country, if not the world.
The Economist was ebullient when Romney was winning. Now that Gingrich has trounced Romney in South Carolina, our financial overlords in the City of London and on Wall Street may be may be a bit less, but almost as, content. The difference between Romney and Gingrich is like the difference between Cary Grant and James Cagney. Romney, the debonair aristocrat, an opportunist beneath his manly charm, Gingrich, the thug who twirls around in a ménage à trois before mashing a grapefruit in taxpayers' faces (see Cagney's Gingrich-like performance in The Public Enemy above). These are two dogs out of the Council on Foreign Relations' kennel.
Of the four standing GOP candidates Romney is the most accomplished, having achieved impressive business success. In contrast, Gingrich's chief achievement, his appointment to speaker of the house, led to quick failure due to his incompetence. Romney is a stable and cautious friend of global financial interests while Gingrich is full of big ideas, each one more destructive than the last. In the last debate, Gingrich's proposal for a government subsidy to build a port in Charleston was an example. Gingrich seems to have planned a massive pork barrel project for each city in which a debate is held.
Romney blows with the winds; Gingrich proves that 180-year-old tax-and-spend Whig socialism is alive and well. Romney is in the centrist, globalist, and corporatist tradition of Richard Nixon; Gingrich is in the Whig tradition of Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln practically bankrupted Illinois with frivolous infrastructure projects, and, now that Illinois's credit rating has been reduced, what better expression of the GOP's big government Whig tradition than to nominate Gingrich?
Presidents don't usually win or lose because of ideas. Lyndon Baines Johnson fought Goldwater over the New Deal, but Kennedy had just been shot. Perhaps Ronald Reagan fought a campaign of ideas, but would he have won without his actor's charm? And did he really believe that government was the problem? He didn't act like it. Rather than ideas, Nixon's half-day-old whiskers are the kind of issue that America's increasingly impoverished electorate emphasizes. America was once the richest and freest country in the world, but television news has led it to its favoring candidates, like Gingrich, Romney, and Obama, who are bleeding them, diminishing their freedom, and creating a paper money aristocracy at their expense.
That said, Gingrich is better than Romney for one reason: Gingrich can't win. He can't win because his image is tarnished, he is fat, his ideas are ridiculous, and he is an imaginative sexual virtuoso. That makes him preferable to Romney, who can win.
The most important thing in this election is a strident protest vote. The greater and more explicit the vote against the Federal Reserve Bank, the greater a threat to its political security, the sooner the Ron Paul revolution will win. In the event that Paul loses the primary race (and his 13% showing was better than in '08, but discouraging), a vote for the Libertarian Party in the general election will speak more loudly than one for the GOP candidate. There is more likely to be a stronger protest vote with a Gingrich than with a Romney candidacy.
As well, a Republican Congress coupled with a Democratic presidency is unlikely to achieve much. That is the best we can hope for. If the Republicans win both branches, we will see plenty of ports and plenty of pork in Charleston and every other hurricane-prone city in the country, if not the world.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Ex Post Birth Certificates Available in Hawaii in 1961
An Anonymous Poster to my blog just left the following message:
>People interested in this issue might want to look at this page from the Hawaii Department of Health.
>http://web.archive.org/web/20070924135018/http://www.hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html
>It shows that before 1972 when Hawaii was a territory that you could apply for a birth certificate for any child under 1 year of age.*
When I go to the link on the Hawaii website, it says the following:
>Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?
>The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.
>Certified copies of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may be requested following the procedures for certified copies of standard birth certificates (see Certified Copies). The eligibility requirements for issuance of a certified copy of a standard birth certificate apply to Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. And the same fees charged for standard birth certificates are charged for Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. Copies of the set of testimony used to establish a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may also be requested, and an additional fee is charged for each copy of the set of testimony.
How does this impact the claims of the Hawaii Health Department, Governor Lingle and the Obama campaign?
*Of course, Hawaii attained statehood in 1957, however, the law was not changed until 1972.
>People interested in this issue might want to look at this page from the Hawaii Department of Health.
>http://web.archive.org/web/20070924135018/http://www.hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html
>It shows that before 1972 when Hawaii was a territory that you could apply for a birth certificate for any child under 1 year of age.*
When I go to the link on the Hawaii website, it says the following:
>Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?
>The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.
>Certified copies of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may be requested following the procedures for certified copies of standard birth certificates (see Certified Copies). The eligibility requirements for issuance of a certified copy of a standard birth certificate apply to Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. And the same fees charged for standard birth certificates are charged for Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. Copies of the set of testimony used to establish a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may also be requested, and an additional fee is charged for each copy of the set of testimony.
How does this impact the claims of the Hawaii Health Department, Governor Lingle and the Obama campaign?
*Of course, Hawaii attained statehood in 1957, however, the law was not changed until 1972.
Friday, October 31, 2008
McCain Likely to Win--Florida and Election Dynamics on His Side
Two blogs (h/t Bob Robbins and Contrairimairi) capture a re-energized McCain campaign. This information contradicts the opinions of poller Sabado who appeared on Bob Grant the other night. First, Conservative Edge notes that early voting in Florida has resulted in a stunning shift:
"In a stunning shift in poll numbers, the LA Times estimates that John McCain leads Barack Obama 49-45 of those who have already voted in Florida, Just last week, a Times poll showed Obama leading 50-47 in the Sunshine state.
"But, the news gets worse for Obama. According to Florida Governor Charlie Crist, of the total citizens who have already voted, 54% are Democrats while 30% are Republicans. If these numbers hold up, and there is not a huge defection of GOP voters from McCain, Florida could be a blowout win for McCain.
"The coup de grace for Obama may come from Israel. Exit polls for absentee voting in that country show McCain winning 3-1 over Obama, despite a higher level of registered Democrats than Republicans."
Second, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs features an eye-opening Red State.com post from a former Hillary worker now employed in the Obama campaign who argues that:
"Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now. Joe the Plumber has put the focus on the issues again, and this scares us more than anything. Being in a position to know these things, I will rate what the Obama campaign already knows are their weak links from the most important on down."
Potential breakdowns in the Obama campaign include former Hillary voters, Sarah Palin (whom the college educated elite hate but they wouldn't vote for McCain anyhow), and Obama's radical connections.
Read the whole thing here.
"In a stunning shift in poll numbers, the LA Times estimates that John McCain leads Barack Obama 49-45 of those who have already voted in Florida, Just last week, a Times poll showed Obama leading 50-47 in the Sunshine state.
"But, the news gets worse for Obama. According to Florida Governor Charlie Crist, of the total citizens who have already voted, 54% are Democrats while 30% are Republicans. If these numbers hold up, and there is not a huge defection of GOP voters from McCain, Florida could be a blowout win for McCain.
"The coup de grace for Obama may come from Israel. Exit polls for absentee voting in that country show McCain winning 3-1 over Obama, despite a higher level of registered Democrats than Republicans."
Second, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs features an eye-opening Red State.com post from a former Hillary worker now employed in the Obama campaign who argues that:
"Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now. Joe the Plumber has put the focus on the issues again, and this scares us more than anything. Being in a position to know these things, I will rate what the Obama campaign already knows are their weak links from the most important on down."
Potential breakdowns in the Obama campaign include former Hillary voters, Sarah Palin (whom the college educated elite hate but they wouldn't vote for McCain anyhow), and Obama's radical connections.
Read the whole thing here.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Obama's Incredibly Shrinking Lead: IBD Tracking Poll Shows Dead Heat
The IBD tracking poll is more accurate than the mainstream media polls, possibly in part because of the strong bias among the mainstream media. On day 10 the results were Obama 45.7%, McCain 42.0%, which suggests to me and others who have e-mailed a McCain victory, because all polls have a "Bubba" bias. Also, I have heard that people have realized that Obama's supporters become violent and begin screaming, drooling and throwing things when they hear someone will not support their sociopathic candidate.
Today, Dan Friedman has forwarded the day 11 poll which indicates that Obama leads McCain by 1.1%. Anything less than a 4% Obama lead suggests a McCain victory, assuming that there is no massive voter fraud. Given the bad ethical climate surrounding the Obama campaign, the corrupt Chicago milieu in which he has operated, and the cynical "ends justify the means" utilitarianism of the thugs with whom he has surrounded himself throughout his life, it seems entirely possible that this election will be won through the gun barrel and through fraud, not through the democratic process.
Today, Dan Friedman has forwarded the day 11 poll which indicates that Obama leads McCain by 1.1%. Anything less than a 4% Obama lead suggests a McCain victory, assuming that there is no massive voter fraud. Given the bad ethical climate surrounding the Obama campaign, the corrupt Chicago milieu in which he has operated, and the cynical "ends justify the means" utilitarianism of the thugs with whom he has surrounded himself throughout his life, it seems entirely possible that this election will be won through the gun barrel and through fraud, not through the democratic process.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Dan Friedman Analyzes Polls
I just received the following message from Dan Friedman, based on an e-mail from the McCain campaign:
Sat Oct 18, 1:03 am ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democrat Barack Obama holds a 4-point lead over Republican John McCain, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Saturday.
Obama leads McCain by 48 to 44 percent among likely voters in the four-day tracking poll, which has a margin of error of 2.9 points.
Pollster John Zogby said that while Obama's overall lead had remained relatively stable between 2 and 6 points in the 12 days since the poll started, the latest figures showed a bump for McCain following Wednesday's final presidential debate.
"Today was the first full sample post-debate and there's a clear indication that McCain is moving up," Zogby said.
He added that McCain's support among Republican voters appeared to be consolidating.
McCain was backed by 91 percent of Republicans in the poll, while Obama drew support from just 88 percent of Democrats. But Obama still enjoyed a 16-point advantage among independent voters, which many analysts expect to be a deciding factor in the November 4 election.
"If (McCain) maintains his edge with Republicans, he stays competitive. But he's going to have to increase his share of independents," Zogby said.
Meanwhile, somewhere in the bowels of the city, very near its rectum:
CBS News/NY Times
10/10 - 10/13
699 LV
--
53
39
Obama +14
Sat Oct 18, 1:03 am ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democrat Barack Obama holds a 4-point lead over Republican John McCain, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Saturday.
Obama leads McCain by 48 to 44 percent among likely voters in the four-day tracking poll, which has a margin of error of 2.9 points.
Pollster John Zogby said that while Obama's overall lead had remained relatively stable between 2 and 6 points in the 12 days since the poll started, the latest figures showed a bump for McCain following Wednesday's final presidential debate.
"Today was the first full sample post-debate and there's a clear indication that McCain is moving up," Zogby said.
He added that McCain's support among Republican voters appeared to be consolidating.
McCain was backed by 91 percent of Republicans in the poll, while Obama drew support from just 88 percent of Democrats. But Obama still enjoyed a 16-point advantage among independent voters, which many analysts expect to be a deciding factor in the November 4 election.
"If (McCain) maintains his edge with Republicans, he stays competitive. But he's going to have to increase his share of independents," Zogby said.
Meanwhile, somewhere in the bowels of the city, very near its rectum:
CBS News/NY Times
10/10 - 10/13
699 LV
--
53
39
Obama +14
Monday, September 29, 2008
Message From Eagle of Ohio
Eagle from Ohio just e-mailed me the following message
>WONDERFUL, REFRESHING AND ABOUT TIME! I am so pleased to find an American who is not afraid to say the things about Hussein Obama that NEED to be said. I came across your blog quite by accident while perusing dontvoteobama.net. I thank you for sticking to your beliefs and the idea that this is STILL the USA and not quite the US of obama just yet.
Many Thanks,
Eagle
Ohio
And thank you, sir!
>WONDERFUL, REFRESHING AND ABOUT TIME! I am so pleased to find an American who is not afraid to say the things about Hussein Obama that NEED to be said. I came across your blog quite by accident while perusing dontvoteobama.net. I thank you for sticking to your beliefs and the idea that this is STILL the USA and not quite the US of obama just yet.
Many Thanks,
Eagle
Ohio
And thank you, sir!
Monday, September 22, 2008
To Bolt or Not to Bolt: Contrairiamairi Says "Not"!
Dear Mitchell,
I deeply understand your outrage with government over the last few weeks' economic situation. On a personal note, I do not like or trust Paulson. I know what is happening runs much deeper, but I just wanted to let you know from the beginning that I am very unhappy about the state of affairs.
Over the short months I have come to know you, I have trusted much in your ideas and expertise in much of what was coming down in this campaign season. You are capable of much "long-term" thinking, and do not give in to the "shortsightedness" we see surrounding those in Washington, as well as those involved in this campaign process, including the electorate.
The name calling and finger pointing has become so vile, that I can barely stomach much of the rhetoric any longer. I do have many of my own ideas on all of the proceedings. However, while I have come to trust you as a beacon of more sensibility in all of this, you probably know that my background in my own life has filled me with thoughts and ideas that I believe to be part of my "heritage". My Dad was a VERY strong influence in my life, and short of having him here, I often find myself considering what he would have said or done in a particular situation. Sometimes when I try my hardest to find that place where I know he would be, an answer jumps at me, that makes me feel I can make a comfortable decision.
I would ask you to look back at Sean Hannity's interview with Sarah Palin. I re-watched it over the weekend, because sometimes, small things are missed the first time around. I was FURIOUS over the bailout of Wall St., and even MORE FURIOUS over the lies of BO and the Democrats about whose fault this actually was! Republicans began questioning the goings on on Wall St. under Clinton. The attempts to gain better control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continued throughout the Bush years. Every attempt to scrutinize the hornet's nest was shut down by Dems, FAR too many of whom were receiving major monetary contributions from the perpetrators. In just the exceedingly short time BO was in Washington, his gains eclipsed others who had made Washington their "life-long" project.
In the Sarah Palin interview, Sarah tells Sean that she disagrees with John McCain about drilling in ANWR. She tells Sean, that while they do not agree, John keeps an open mind and opens his door to those of opposite opinions, and that she will continue her work to encourage him to drill in ANWR.
THAT was just the message I was looking for! It has nothing to do with ANWR, it has EVERYTHING to do with John McCain being open to listening to opposing views! I would urge you to consider BO. He is so closed and narrow minded, he sees NOTHING but himself, and his ideology that he is some sort of god, to be worshipped and obeyed! When he speaks on something, unless his demented "inner-circle" of questionable advisers "change his mind for him", it is like the Pope speaking "ExCathedra". Consider, knowing his friends, his advisers, and his very capability of rising to the top of the "pay-out" scheme so quickly after he set foot in Washington, how open you think he will be to opposing ideas. My loathing of this man runs MUCH deeper, but some opinions I prefer to keep to myself. I feel that if you are truly trying to find the lesser evil, PLEASE take the side of someone who will HOPEFULLY turn their ear to the American people and act accordingly. I believe John McCain has America at heart, while I also believe that BO is so enamored of being the "World-Citizen" President, that Americans may be the next ones thrown under his bus if he is elected.
I know, given your own background, how difficult this campaign season has been, and trust me, you are NOT alone. Americans will HOPEFULLY gain something from all of this, although, I am not holding my breath. I believe it is time for the "silent majority", who hold the Constitution so dear to their hearts, to rear up and take back our Country, our conservative beliefs, and no matter how politically "incorrect" our involvement may appear, to re-instill the foundations upon which this Country was founded.
Mairi
I deeply understand your outrage with government over the last few weeks' economic situation. On a personal note, I do not like or trust Paulson. I know what is happening runs much deeper, but I just wanted to let you know from the beginning that I am very unhappy about the state of affairs.
Over the short months I have come to know you, I have trusted much in your ideas and expertise in much of what was coming down in this campaign season. You are capable of much "long-term" thinking, and do not give in to the "shortsightedness" we see surrounding those in Washington, as well as those involved in this campaign process, including the electorate.
The name calling and finger pointing has become so vile, that I can barely stomach much of the rhetoric any longer. I do have many of my own ideas on all of the proceedings. However, while I have come to trust you as a beacon of more sensibility in all of this, you probably know that my background in my own life has filled me with thoughts and ideas that I believe to be part of my "heritage". My Dad was a VERY strong influence in my life, and short of having him here, I often find myself considering what he would have said or done in a particular situation. Sometimes when I try my hardest to find that place where I know he would be, an answer jumps at me, that makes me feel I can make a comfortable decision.
I would ask you to look back at Sean Hannity's interview with Sarah Palin. I re-watched it over the weekend, because sometimes, small things are missed the first time around. I was FURIOUS over the bailout of Wall St., and even MORE FURIOUS over the lies of BO and the Democrats about whose fault this actually was! Republicans began questioning the goings on on Wall St. under Clinton. The attempts to gain better control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continued throughout the Bush years. Every attempt to scrutinize the hornet's nest was shut down by Dems, FAR too many of whom were receiving major monetary contributions from the perpetrators. In just the exceedingly short time BO was in Washington, his gains eclipsed others who had made Washington their "life-long" project.
In the Sarah Palin interview, Sarah tells Sean that she disagrees with John McCain about drilling in ANWR. She tells Sean, that while they do not agree, John keeps an open mind and opens his door to those of opposite opinions, and that she will continue her work to encourage him to drill in ANWR.
THAT was just the message I was looking for! It has nothing to do with ANWR, it has EVERYTHING to do with John McCain being open to listening to opposing views! I would urge you to consider BO. He is so closed and narrow minded, he sees NOTHING but himself, and his ideology that he is some sort of god, to be worshipped and obeyed! When he speaks on something, unless his demented "inner-circle" of questionable advisers "change his mind for him", it is like the Pope speaking "ExCathedra". Consider, knowing his friends, his advisers, and his very capability of rising to the top of the "pay-out" scheme so quickly after he set foot in Washington, how open you think he will be to opposing ideas. My loathing of this man runs MUCH deeper, but some opinions I prefer to keep to myself. I feel that if you are truly trying to find the lesser evil, PLEASE take the side of someone who will HOPEFULLY turn their ear to the American people and act accordingly. I believe John McCain has America at heart, while I also believe that BO is so enamored of being the "World-Citizen" President, that Americans may be the next ones thrown under his bus if he is elected.
I know, given your own background, how difficult this campaign season has been, and trust me, you are NOT alone. Americans will HOPEFULLY gain something from all of this, although, I am not holding my breath. I believe it is time for the "silent majority", who hold the Constitution so dear to their hearts, to rear up and take back our Country, our conservative beliefs, and no matter how politically "incorrect" our involvement may appear, to re-instill the foundations upon which this Country was founded.
Mairi
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Has Barack Obama Gone Laissez-Faire?
Call me crazy but I was in the health club of the Emerson Inn and Spa this afternoon and saw a headline that said that Barack Obama has called the AIG subsidy "crony capitalism". Bravo. I sincerely hope that Senator Obama is going laissez-faire, although I can't help but wonder what those contributions from the Pritzkers and from George Soros are all about? Has Wall Street gone laissez-faire too? I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Really.
Monday, September 15, 2008
McCain Ties in Minnesota
Jammiewearingfool (h/t Larwyn) reports that:
"John McCain has now held a steady three-point edge over Barack Obama for three straight days and now has hit the 50% mark for the first time in months, but the big shocker is he's now tied with Obama in Minnesota, a state where he had trailed by 13 points."
Jammiewearingfool adds:
"With Minnesota now a toss-up and a battleground state, it has to be a clear psychological blow to an Obama campaign that may now have to use resources in a state they must have envisioned as a clear slam dunk."
"John McCain has now held a steady three-point edge over Barack Obama for three straight days and now has hit the 50% mark for the first time in months, but the big shocker is he's now tied with Obama in Minnesota, a state where he had trailed by 13 points."
Jammiewearingfool adds:
"With Minnesota now a toss-up and a battleground state, it has to be a clear psychological blow to an Obama campaign that may now have to use resources in a state they must have envisioned as a clear slam dunk."
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Contrairimairi on the Obama-McCain Forum
I was raking the first of this years fallen leaves and missed the events in New York today, but Contrairimairi has sent me a an e-mail to fill us in about the campaign:
Dear Mitchell,
It is just a bit ironic to me, that tonight's forum was supposed to be a brief break from campaigning, and take a thoughtful look at service to the Country. It was supposed to be a sort of "win...win" situation for everyone. I just can't help thinking, that despite being on "home turf", his alma mater, BO lost.
I HOPE I am not the only one who noticed that BO made a point to say that he felt older Americans could offer much to schools by teaching Math and Science. Weren't those the very same programs that were attempting to be part of the CAC, and were turned down? Just saying.....who knows, maybe you can teach an old dog new tricks. Maybe BO finally realizes that Math and Science really are important.
I also believe he lost on the question of community organizer pitted against the experience of a small town mayor. Sen. McCain was quite gracious, I think, in handling that fiasco's reference, but BO twisted it to try to make Gov. Palin look like the villain yet again. I find it hard to believe he was "hurting" by making the choice to be an organizer in Chicago. Seems like he made many "allies" during that time.
The moderators stunk! I was also surprised that Sen. McCain came out so clearly against service to Country becoming yet another bureaucracy. I felt BO would start spending immediately, and we know how that "rolls down hill".
I would LOVE to know what BO actually "accomplished" in his time as CO. I feel in Chicago, a lot of that work is just voter registration in an attempt to gain an impassioned voter response in underprivileged neighborhoods, and then, an abandonment of the very people who were used to get a vote result. I believe this has happened often in Chicago, and it saddens me that those who employ that type of technique are very effective with it still. I don't know if the CAC records will relate directly to BO, but I would sure like to have a complete breakdown on where those funds went and exactly how they were used.
Mairi
Dear Mitchell,
It is just a bit ironic to me, that tonight's forum was supposed to be a brief break from campaigning, and take a thoughtful look at service to the Country. It was supposed to be a sort of "win...win" situation for everyone. I just can't help thinking, that despite being on "home turf", his alma mater, BO lost.
I HOPE I am not the only one who noticed that BO made a point to say that he felt older Americans could offer much to schools by teaching Math and Science. Weren't those the very same programs that were attempting to be part of the CAC, and were turned down? Just saying.....who knows, maybe you can teach an old dog new tricks. Maybe BO finally realizes that Math and Science really are important.
I also believe he lost on the question of community organizer pitted against the experience of a small town mayor. Sen. McCain was quite gracious, I think, in handling that fiasco's reference, but BO twisted it to try to make Gov. Palin look like the villain yet again. I find it hard to believe he was "hurting" by making the choice to be an organizer in Chicago. Seems like he made many "allies" during that time.
The moderators stunk! I was also surprised that Sen. McCain came out so clearly against service to Country becoming yet another bureaucracy. I felt BO would start spending immediately, and we know how that "rolls down hill".
I would LOVE to know what BO actually "accomplished" in his time as CO. I feel in Chicago, a lot of that work is just voter registration in an attempt to gain an impassioned voter response in underprivileged neighborhoods, and then, an abandonment of the very people who were used to get a vote result. I believe this has happened often in Chicago, and it saddens me that those who employ that type of technique are very effective with it still. I don't know if the CAC records will relate directly to BO, but I would sure like to have a complete breakdown on where those funds went and exactly how they were used.
Mairi
Monday, September 8, 2008
Governor Sarah Palin's Security Clearance
I just received the following information from Contrairimairi. You won't be hearing this on Oprah:
Hi, Mitchell,
Not sure where this one originated, but my sister sent it to me and I thought you might be interested. Sarah "alluded" to the fact she had some international experience, but never gave specifics. I guess now we know.
Important info ref: Palin's National Security Credentials
Just picked up some little known info on Palin's National Security Credentials. Some have shrugged off her position as Commander of the Alaskan National Guard but see this:
"Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. Itʼs on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.
As governor of Alaska, Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material ay rival even Biden's.
She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counterterrorism plans.
Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense. Given Alaska's proximity to Russia, she may have security clearances we don't even know about.
According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets.
She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is."
That is probably at least one click above a "Community Organizer".
Hi, Mitchell,
Not sure where this one originated, but my sister sent it to me and I thought you might be interested. Sarah "alluded" to the fact she had some international experience, but never gave specifics. I guess now we know.
Important info ref: Palin's National Security Credentials
Just picked up some little known info on Palin's National Security Credentials. Some have shrugged off her position as Commander of the Alaskan National Guard but see this:
"Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. Itʼs on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.
As governor of Alaska, Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material ay rival even Biden's.
She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counterterrorism plans.
Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense. Given Alaska's proximity to Russia, she may have security clearances we don't even know about.
According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets.
She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is."
That is probably at least one click above a "Community Organizer".
John McCain Rally In QUEENS!
I just received the following message from Phil Orenstein of the Queens Village Republican Club. Demonstrating for McCain in the heart of New York City takes chutzpah!
Manhattan Republicans held a huge March for McCain and participated in the 3rd Ave Street Fair today. Brooklyn Young Republicans just today celebrated the McCain/Palin ticket at a Post-Convention BBQ Bash & Fundraiser. Former publisher of the Village Voice, Bartle Bull is the New York State chairman of Democrats for McCain, and is busy mobilizing former Hillary supporters and McCain/Palin Democrats who have chosen character over extreme partisanship. Now it's Queens County's turn to join the march!
Years ago, when I was looking desperately for lawn signs, leaflets and posters, anything to campaign for Bush 2004, they told me you gotta be kidding, there are no Republicans left - forget about New York, go help them in NJ. Then after the election I joined the Queens Village Republican Club and they said I came to the right place! We've have been fighting ever since for New York to score Red and take back Districts and seats galore for Republicans. Who says NY can't be a BIG RED STATE ??
Well, now I hear New Yorkers saying "I'm proud to be a NY Republican!" We all saw the RNC on TV and the thunderous appeal of Governor Sarah Palin for the ticket and the "country first" theme of John McCain's life. The excitement was more like the New York Mets winning a Subway Series. Our delegates have come home from the RNC newly energized and ready to energize the troops. Queens Chairman Phil Ragusa and Vice Chair Vince Tabone met with team McCain 2008 and will be leading a decentralized grassroots campaign to support McCain/Palin in Queens. A mass McCain rally is in the works that will incorporate local campaigns. Veterans for McCain, Women for McCain, Sportsman for McCain and other steering committees are being formed to capitalize on the enthusiasm of the McCain/Palin surge from the RNC to energize all local GOP campaigns in Queens.
Stay tuned for more news of the rally and please let Vince know if you want to participate in one of the committees. Let your friends, neighbors, and families know in advance of the big McCain/Palin rally coming up! Vince also mentioned that McCain posters and literature will be available soon and pending issues will be addressed such as updating the County GOP Website and publicizing a viable phone number that Queens residents can call to get a McCain lawn sign or bumper sticker, or help to get out the vote.
In the meantime Republican activists are on the move. Gerald Bush who staffs the McCain/Palin HQ in Mineola said at last week's Club meeting that we must win New York State for McCain! The Mineola HQ (220 Old Country Rd.) covers Nassau, Suffolk and Queens and lawn signs, bumper stickers and literature are available now. Call 718-465-0925 or 516-741-2555 and ask for Gerry. Or you may call Grant Lally directly: 516-741-2666.
Also take a look at the terrific work of our own State Comitteewoman, Linda Gritch: Queens Broads for McCain Palin 08
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=409104581
While you're at it check out Frank Padavan's new myspace page also set up by Linda: http://www.myspace.com/frankpadavan
Also check out my terrific blog refuting Us Magazine's hatchet job on Sarah Palin: Never underestimate the power of a pissed off housewife
http://democracy-project.com/?p=3233
My Best Regards,
Phil Orenstein
Queens Village Republican Club
Board of Directors Member
maduroman@att.net
Manhattan Republicans held a huge March for McCain and participated in the 3rd Ave Street Fair today. Brooklyn Young Republicans just today celebrated the McCain/Palin ticket at a Post-Convention BBQ Bash & Fundraiser. Former publisher of the Village Voice, Bartle Bull is the New York State chairman of Democrats for McCain, and is busy mobilizing former Hillary supporters and McCain/Palin Democrats who have chosen character over extreme partisanship. Now it's Queens County's turn to join the march!
Years ago, when I was looking desperately for lawn signs, leaflets and posters, anything to campaign for Bush 2004, they told me you gotta be kidding, there are no Republicans left - forget about New York, go help them in NJ. Then after the election I joined the Queens Village Republican Club and they said I came to the right place! We've have been fighting ever since for New York to score Red and take back Districts and seats galore for Republicans. Who says NY can't be a BIG RED STATE ??
Well, now I hear New Yorkers saying "I'm proud to be a NY Republican!" We all saw the RNC on TV and the thunderous appeal of Governor Sarah Palin for the ticket and the "country first" theme of John McCain's life. The excitement was more like the New York Mets winning a Subway Series. Our delegates have come home from the RNC newly energized and ready to energize the troops. Queens Chairman Phil Ragusa and Vice Chair Vince Tabone met with team McCain 2008 and will be leading a decentralized grassroots campaign to support McCain/Palin in Queens. A mass McCain rally is in the works that will incorporate local campaigns. Veterans for McCain, Women for McCain, Sportsman for McCain and other steering committees are being formed to capitalize on the enthusiasm of the McCain/Palin surge from the RNC to energize all local GOP campaigns in Queens.
Stay tuned for more news of the rally and please let Vince know if you want to participate in one of the committees. Let your friends, neighbors, and families know in advance of the big McCain/Palin rally coming up! Vince also mentioned that McCain posters and literature will be available soon and pending issues will be addressed such as updating the County GOP Website and publicizing a viable phone number that Queens residents can call to get a McCain lawn sign or bumper sticker, or help to get out the vote.
In the meantime Republican activists are on the move. Gerald Bush who staffs the McCain/Palin HQ in Mineola said at last week's Club meeting that we must win New York State for McCain! The Mineola HQ (220 Old Country Rd.) covers Nassau, Suffolk and Queens and lawn signs, bumper stickers and literature are available now. Call 718-465-0925 or 516-741-2555 and ask for Gerry. Or you may call Grant Lally directly: 516-741-2666.
Also take a look at the terrific work of our own State Comitteewoman, Linda Gritch: Queens Broads for McCain Palin 08
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=409104581
While you're at it check out Frank Padavan's new myspace page also set up by Linda: http://www.myspace.com/frankpadavan
Also check out my terrific blog refuting Us Magazine's hatchet job on Sarah Palin: Never underestimate the power of a pissed off housewife
http://democracy-project.com/?p=3233
My Best Regards,
Phil Orenstein
Queens Village Republican Club
Board of Directors Member
maduroman@att.net
Monday, August 18, 2008
Obama's Abortion Lie
Brutally honest (h/t Rick) has a blog about Barack Obama's position on abortion. The gist is that Obama lied about his position on abortion. What? I can't believe it. Obama really lied?
>"So Obama's goal is to reduce the number of abortions, a goal he deems worthy of pursuing:
"'Because the fact is that although we’ve had a president who is opposed to abortions the last eight years, abortions have not gone down.'
"Really?
"The number of abortions performed in the United States dropped to 1.2 million in 2005 -- the lowest level since 1976, according to a new report.
"The number of abortions fell at least in part because the proportion of women ending their pregnancies with an abortion dropped 9 percent between 2000 and 2005, hitting the lowest level since 1975, according to a nationwide survey.
"Well... I'm sure Barack simply made a mistake, after all there's nothing in his history that would suggest that he has anything in mind but to reduce the number of abortions...
"Last week Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee drew my attention to a previously unnoticed January 2008 article by Terence Jeffrey stating Barack Obama actually did vote against a version of the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act that was identical to the federal version, contrary to multiple public statements Obama or his surrogates have made to rationalize his opposition thttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2555123713188257297o the IL bill for the past 4 years.
"Since then we have found 2 separate documents proving Barack Obama has been misrepresenting facts...
Read the whole thing here.
>"So Obama's goal is to reduce the number of abortions, a goal he deems worthy of pursuing:
"'Because the fact is that although we’ve had a president who is opposed to abortions the last eight years, abortions have not gone down.'
"Really?
"The number of abortions performed in the United States dropped to 1.2 million in 2005 -- the lowest level since 1976, according to a new report.
"The number of abortions fell at least in part because the proportion of women ending their pregnancies with an abortion dropped 9 percent between 2000 and 2005, hitting the lowest level since 1975, according to a nationwide survey.
"Well... I'm sure Barack simply made a mistake, after all there's nothing in his history that would suggest that he has anything in mind but to reduce the number of abortions...
"Last week Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee drew my attention to a previously unnoticed January 2008 article by Terence Jeffrey stating Barack Obama actually did vote against a version of the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act that was identical to the federal version, contrary to multiple public statements Obama or his surrogates have made to rationalize his opposition thttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2555123713188257297o the IL bill for the past 4 years.
"Since then we have found 2 separate documents proving Barack Obama has been misrepresenting facts...
Read the whole thing here.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Is Barack Obama a Sociopath? Ask Alice Palmer
Lisa has forwarded an interesting article by Rhonda Schwartz in the Chicago Sun Times:
"Lynn Sweet, the savvy Chicago political columnist who's been tracking Obama's rise, called into question Obama's use of composite characters and made-up names in his highly praised autobiography...
"I was dismayed," wrote Sweet, "at what I found when I read Dreams from My Father. Composite characters. Changed names...Except for public figures and his family, it is impossible to know who is real and who is not...As Sweet noted in her article, in the introduction of the book, Obama does disclose to his readers the use of composite characters " 'for the sake of compression'..."
"...When reached by ABC News today, a spokesman for Sen. Obama first tried to find out if the Chicago Sun-Times story was being "pitched" to ABC by a rival campaign, and after being told that was not the case, the spokesman declined to comment for the record. "It was a non-story then, and it's a non-story now. Let the book speak for itself," he said.
Read the whole article here.
When I first heard of Mr. Obama and saw him on television, my first impression was that he is a sociopath, and I blogged about this two months ago. I am not a psychologist, but I have had dealings with sociopaths in business and have looked up a few points. A sociopath is someone who lacks a conscience. Most typically, sociopaths are characterized by anti-social personality disorder, and prefer to live unconventionally. Most do not function at high levels in large organizations because their behavior raises flags before they advance very far. However, there are sociopaths who are intelligent, as is Mr. Obama, who can cloak their impulses and fool others. Politics does not provide as rigorous vetting as does a corporate job. As well, politicians ordinarily exhibit characteristics of sociopaths such as the ability to lie without remorse.
Ms. Sweet notes that Mr. Obama lied frequently in his book. Others have described Mr. Obama as manipulative and vicious with respect to opponents. Despite its functioning primarily as a publicity agent for B.O., CNN points out that Mr. Obama has repeatedly utilized election rules rather than the democratic process to win elections:
>"As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.
"The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district."
Besides the willingness to repeatedly lie, manipulate and behave viciously in order to achieve his goals, Mr. Obama has some additional sociopathic characteristics. Sociopaths are often charming and attractive. They are frequently able to induce others to trust them, to make investments or take risks others would not normally take. In Chuck Whitlock's fascinating book, Scam School, Whitlock gives example after example: a minister who convinces an elderly woman to give him her home, a man who marries women in order to extract a large sum and then disappears, a woman who murdered elderly male borders for their social security checks, a man who used a ponzi scheme to convince others to invest in spurious investments, and on and on. I have met people like this on serveral occasions. They appear to be creative, charming, often attractive, charismatic. Hitler might have been one. So might Obama. The use of a vacuous campaign slogan, "change", the ability to attract mindless, fanatic followers like Ray who posts on this blog, the ability to attract the (admittedly vapid) mainstream media, are all consistent with the hypothesis that Mr. Obama is a sociopath.
>Lisa writes:
Dear Mr. Langbert,
I tried to reply to ray but I forgot my pass word. I guess its best not to reply...he is a troll who tells discouraging things.
Whoopie!!! FEC Petition is up to 4,703 e-signatures! We don't need to tell Ray about this. He can stay under the bridge.
If Obama concealed his Barry Soetoro's persona from the public wouldn't he have re-write his autobiography?
His autobiography is based on fictional people including himself.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/01/chicago_suntime.html
Have a good day,
Sincerely,
Lisa Illinois
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Pamela Geller/Atlas Shrugs Skeptical of No Quarter Blog Claims
Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs writes "I will not publish against Barack Hussein until we see IF he gets the nomination." She had broken the birth certificate story through her work with Techdude. I had heard that Larry Johnson of No Quarter Blog, who is a Clinton supporter, had obtained a copy of the Obama birth certificate. He blogged this over the weekend. Now, Pamela of Atlas, is skeptical of Johnson's claims and wants to avoid helping Hillary. Therefore, she will not publish against Barack Hussein Obama. Pamela contends that Hillary is still a bigger threat than Obama.
I don't agree and I give my reasons below, but in a nutshell, the American public has the right to an electoral system that functions coherently. Partisanship created an electoral system that does not require identification, birth certificates and fingerprinting of candidates. This is a more important problem than Hillary v. Obama, because I don't believe that either can win anyway.
Pamela writes:
>Pro- Hillary blog's are reporting: *BREAKING* Barry Soetoro’s Birth Certificate in Republican Hands [UPDATE]. Just for knowing, it's total bullshit.
>"This "Republican Operative" meme is being spread by Hillary's camp. Operative? Ha! Republicans can barely find their ass with both hands. They are so politically correct they are afraid of their own shadow. They have not touched any of the O-bombshells."
>"This has Clintonostra written all over it...The African American constituency of the Democrat party is not gonna be happy if the nomination is "stolen" from Obama. Hillary wants to deflect blame and direct the nasty anger towards the Republicans...
It ain't the Republicans behind this story...I will not publish against Barack Hussein until we see IF he gets the nomination. BHO is McCain's dream opponent, HRC his nightmare. McCain's 96-year-old mother could beat BHO. The Republicans cannot even run a campaign. HRC is competent, which makes her so dangerous, should she get elected. And she is a lot more ruthless than competent...Rush revealed today that HRC's people were out there long before the Rev. Wright thing got traction, trying to get Republicans to push it forward, so they could keep their hands clean... Do NOT support anything prior to Denver which would further weaken BHO in the event that HRC has plans."
I disagree with this analysis. If Hillary wins, the Democrats lose regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats broke a story about Obama. Moreover, I am unconvinced of the claim that Mr. Obama is not a serious threat. I think that he is a bigger threat than Hillary. One reason is that Obama's followers will drop the Democrats if he does not get the nomination. They will drop Hillary regardless of who obtains any adverse information.
Nor is there any evidence that anyone is going to obtain any information. I haven't seen anything approaching a practical result yet. It may well take several months to obtain the birth certificate. Waiting to cover this until September may make it impossible to get anywhere by the election.
Obama's followers will not care if Republicans or Democrats obtain the birth certificate. A large percentage of them are under-25, Paris Hilton types who are the products of "progressive" education. Thus, they can't even read the birth certificate. They will be upset that Mr. Obama lost, and 30% of them will not vote. That 30% doesn't vote much of the time anyway. Hence, if the birth certificate is revealed before the convention, then Hillary gets the nomination and 30% of Obama's supporters drop out, and therefore McCain wins because more Obama supporters will drop out than McCain supporters will shift. If the birth certificate is revealed after the election, same result.
There is another, more crucial point. The issue of the birth certificate is a matter of ethics, not just politics. The public has a right to know. Whether that results in Hillary Clinton's nomination or not is not the core of the issue. There are weaknesses to a partisan system, one of which is that both sides collude in avoiding improvement in order to enhance each others' capacities to exploit the system. I want the Republicans to win, but I don't want them to do it by gaming a corrupt electoral system. Perhaps this kind of attitude is why, since 1994 when Rush's henchman Newt Gingrich gained power, there have been massive spending increases, increased corruption, corrupt subsidies to Wall Street Banks and increasingly bloated federal budgets. Maybe partisanship is not the solution.
I see no need to suspend coverage of this or to avoid attacking the most likely Democratic nominee. The Republicans should aim to win with good ethics, integrity and principle, not venom and anger at Democrats. Hillary right now is unlikely to get the nomination, so the real target is B.O.
Pamela certainly aims to continue to cover the story. In another blog she writes:
"There is more to come on Obama's citzenship issues. It is well beyond the COLB now. Stay tuned."
I don't agree and I give my reasons below, but in a nutshell, the American public has the right to an electoral system that functions coherently. Partisanship created an electoral system that does not require identification, birth certificates and fingerprinting of candidates. This is a more important problem than Hillary v. Obama, because I don't believe that either can win anyway.
Pamela writes:
>Pro- Hillary blog's are reporting: *BREAKING* Barry Soetoro’s Birth Certificate in Republican Hands [UPDATE]. Just for knowing, it's total bullshit.
>"This "Republican Operative" meme is being spread by Hillary's camp. Operative? Ha! Republicans can barely find their ass with both hands. They are so politically correct they are afraid of their own shadow. They have not touched any of the O-bombshells."
>"This has Clintonostra written all over it...The African American constituency of the Democrat party is not gonna be happy if the nomination is "stolen" from Obama. Hillary wants to deflect blame and direct the nasty anger towards the Republicans...
It ain't the Republicans behind this story...I will not publish against Barack Hussein until we see IF he gets the nomination. BHO is McCain's dream opponent, HRC his nightmare. McCain's 96-year-old mother could beat BHO. The Republicans cannot even run a campaign. HRC is competent, which makes her so dangerous, should she get elected. And she is a lot more ruthless than competent...Rush revealed today that HRC's people were out there long before the Rev. Wright thing got traction, trying to get Republicans to push it forward, so they could keep their hands clean... Do NOT support anything prior to Denver which would further weaken BHO in the event that HRC has plans."
I disagree with this analysis. If Hillary wins, the Democrats lose regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats broke a story about Obama. Moreover, I am unconvinced of the claim that Mr. Obama is not a serious threat. I think that he is a bigger threat than Hillary. One reason is that Obama's followers will drop the Democrats if he does not get the nomination. They will drop Hillary regardless of who obtains any adverse information.
Nor is there any evidence that anyone is going to obtain any information. I haven't seen anything approaching a practical result yet. It may well take several months to obtain the birth certificate. Waiting to cover this until September may make it impossible to get anywhere by the election.
Obama's followers will not care if Republicans or Democrats obtain the birth certificate. A large percentage of them are under-25, Paris Hilton types who are the products of "progressive" education. Thus, they can't even read the birth certificate. They will be upset that Mr. Obama lost, and 30% of them will not vote. That 30% doesn't vote much of the time anyway. Hence, if the birth certificate is revealed before the convention, then Hillary gets the nomination and 30% of Obama's supporters drop out, and therefore McCain wins because more Obama supporters will drop out than McCain supporters will shift. If the birth certificate is revealed after the election, same result.
There is another, more crucial point. The issue of the birth certificate is a matter of ethics, not just politics. The public has a right to know. Whether that results in Hillary Clinton's nomination or not is not the core of the issue. There are weaknesses to a partisan system, one of which is that both sides collude in avoiding improvement in order to enhance each others' capacities to exploit the system. I want the Republicans to win, but I don't want them to do it by gaming a corrupt electoral system. Perhaps this kind of attitude is why, since 1994 when Rush's henchman Newt Gingrich gained power, there have been massive spending increases, increased corruption, corrupt subsidies to Wall Street Banks and increasingly bloated federal budgets. Maybe partisanship is not the solution.
I see no need to suspend coverage of this or to avoid attacking the most likely Democratic nominee. The Republicans should aim to win with good ethics, integrity and principle, not venom and anger at Democrats. Hillary right now is unlikely to get the nomination, so the real target is B.O.
Pamela certainly aims to continue to cover the story. In another blog she writes:
"There is more to come on Obama's citzenship issues. It is well beyond the COLB now. Stay tuned."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Mr. Sanders is right: There is little difference between Mr. Trump and him. Both are big government advocates. Mr. Sanders sees government redistribution as the cure to greed, an absurd, impossible plan, and Mr. Trump sees government immigration restrictions as the cure to job loss, an equally absurd non-sequitur.
While Hitler, like Trump, was a racist, he was also, like Sanders, a national socialist. The twenty-five-point Nazi plan of 1920 contains much overlap with Mr. Sanders's views, albeit Sanders's Brooklyn Jewish background may not have been to Hitler's taste.
Point six of the Nazi twenty-five-point plan, for instance, was nearly identical to Sanders's position on immigration: "Non-citizens may live in Germany, but there will be special laws for foreigners living in Germany."
The Nazis also agreed with Mr. Sanders's redistributionist schemes, as in points ten and eleven: "Every citizen should have a job. Their work should not be selfish, but help everyone. Therefore we say...No one should live off money from rents or other income unless they have worked for that money."
Like Sanders, the Nazis hoped to repeal greed. Since greed is a natural impulse like sexual desire or hunger, aiming to repeal greed opens the door to repression and ultimately murder, as has been the case with a long list of large-scale socialist states over the past century.
The Nazis' immigration policies, redistributionist schemes, and opposition to selfishness parallel Bernie Sanders's platform. The American left is a reincarnation of the Nazi movement, with the racist (but not anti-Semitic) element excised.