How Monica Got Her Start

Hillary Clinton says, "We don't have to blow."

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Coffee With Palin

Says Palin in her new book:

"Should Secretary Clinton and I ever sit down over a cup of coffee, I know that we would fundamentally disagree on many issues. But my hat is off to her hard work on the 2008 campaign trail."

In the video it looks like she is accepting the offer.

Hill Buzz likes the idea.

We’ve had coffee with Hillary Clinton before — in a room with few people in it, no media, where she can be herself and say whatever she wants to say. The woman is funny, sharp, self-depreciating, REAL, honest, charming, and astute. Some of you out there wonder why we’ll support her to our dying days without question. You ask why we’re so loyal to her. You wonder why we’re so determined to make sure what was done to her is NEVER done to another woman again…and that Dr. Utopia does not do again in the Caucuses and Primaries next year what he did in 2008.

It’s because, first and foremost, Hillary Clinton is a proud and committed AMERICAN. That’s above everything else. The woman loves this country more than anything and wakes up every morning to do whatever she can to help keep it safe, strong, and prosperous.

We’ve seen her up close. We’ve seen her with no makeup, no artiface, no camera crews. We’ve seen the real deal…and the real deal is that she’s one in a million.

And, she really is hilarious when she wants to be. Her humor is dry, sharp, and biting. She’s sarcastic and to the point.

Just imagine how much fun she and Sarah Palin would have together when they do sit down and have coffee.

And we are sure they honestly will do this at some point…and it will probably be under the radar and we won’t hear about it until long after it’s happened, but it will happen.

Clinton people support the Palins. Palin people support the Clintons. Both sides do not agree on everything, but we all clearly have common experiences sustaining attack after attack from the Left in the name of Dr. Utopia.

Can you not understand how a bond would naturally develop there?

I would love to see the after action reports.

The Hilary Weapon Unleashed

H/T Diogenese via e-mail

Slow Down

India is not going along with the climate change scare.

India has taken the hardest line in the negotiations so far. Along with China, India refused at the meeting of the Group of Eight industrialised nations this month to sign up to a target of cutting global emissions by half by 2050. The countries were holding out to gain concessions from the west on financing.

The claims from Mr Ramesh that Western science was wrong on the question of melting Himalayan glaciers appeared to reinforce Delhi’s recalcitrant stance.

Mr Ramesh this week challenged Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, over her appeal to India to embrace a low-carbon future and not repeat the mistakes of the developed world in seeking fast industrialisation.

Well of course. If the Indians would only be content to die and pass up the advantages of wealth it would be so much better wouldn't it Herr Clinton? What are a few million dead children among friends?

Besides, fast industrialization would decimate the servant class don’t you know. Can't have that now can we?

Cross Posted at Classical Values

I Have Nothing Further To Say

I see the Democrats know how to put a woman in her place.

H/T Judith Weiss on Facebook.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Delusions Spring Eternal

While George Bush basically figured out that Middle East Peace is an illusion, Mr. Obama promises to go at it full bore. Mr. Obama says:

"It will be the policy of my administration to actively and aggressively seek a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as between Israel and its Arab neighbors," he said.

The subject of Israeli-Palestinian peace was the first foreign policy issue Obama addressed in his trip to the State Department, which came on the day Hillary Clinton assumed office following her Senate confirmation Wednesday. She also introduced a second envoy, Richard Holbrooke, who will serve as point man on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Obama was criticized even before taking office for remaining silent during the recent Gaza violence, and the Mitchell announcement - coupled with his remarks on the subject - seemed a bid to demonstrate that he is now fully engaged in the issue after relieving himself of the shackles of the transition period.

"We have come to the State Department today to send a very clear message that we will reinvigorate American diplomacy," declared Vice President Joe Biden, who accompanied Obama on his first meeting with Clinton at her new headquarters.

Every President who has tried to settle the Israeli-Arab conflict has failed. The only success story so far has been Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan and it had nothing to do with American diplomacy (although America did grease the deal). It had to do with the fact that the parties involved wanted to settle. So unless Obama is going to use his magic soft power on Hamas and get them in a deal making mood he is setting himself up for epic fail.

Obama doesn't understand that real diplomacy is about carrots and sticks. He is big on carrots and disdainful of sticks. Which is why he will fail. What Obama doesn't get is that Middle East Peace is nothing at all like making a deal for an Congressional Senate Seat for one of his cronies.

Plan for war - because Obama knows nothing about keeping the peace.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Friends Of Saudi Arabia

It looks like ole Billy Boy Clinton is doing real well for himself.

Now that Bill Clinton has released the list of his 205,000 donors who have given close to $500 million to his library and foundation, it is clear why he resisted releasing the list while his wife was running for president.

Compelled by the Obama transition team to make it public as a condition of his wife's appointment as secretary of state, it becomes clear that the list is a virtual encyclopedia of conflicts of interest for the husband of a senator, to say nothing of the husband of an incoming secretary of state.

Every one knows money doesn't buy influence in Washington. That kind of stuff only works in Illinois.

Specifically, Clinton got:

Between $10 million and $25 million from:

-- The government of Saudi Arabia

Between $1 million and $5 million from:

-- Friends of Saudi Arabia

-- The Dubai Foundation

-- Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid

-- Saudi tycoon Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi

-- Former Lebanon Deputy Prime Minister Issam Fares

-- The government of Kuwait

-- The government of Qatar

-- The government of Oman

-- The government of Brunei

-- The Zayed Family, rulers of Abu Dhabi and the United Arab Emirates

He also received between $500,000 and $1 million from Saudi businessman Walid Juffali.

That kind of money can buy an awful lot of books. I wonder what Bill will be reading? Maybe he is studying to become a mining engineer.

The list reveals another key center of conflicts of interest in Kazakhstan, the former Soviet Republic, now home to some of the world's greatest mineral deposits and ruled by a corrupt dictator, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, who according to The New York Times has all but quashed political dissent."

Clinton visited Kazakhstan and met with its president on Sept. 6, 2005, accompanied by Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra. Soon after, Giustra was awarded a highly lucrative contract to mine uranium there. Now, lo and behold, Giustra turns up having given the library and foundation $10 million to $25 million and the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative-Canada gave $1 million to $5 million more. And Clinton got $1 million to $5 million from Laksmi Mittal, the fourth wealthiest person on the Forbes billionaire list and a member of the Foreign Investment Council in Kazakhstan.

In addition, Clinton further fished in troubled waters by taking $1 million to $5 million from Victor Pinchuk, the son-in-law of the controversial former president of Ukraine.

You know. I'm beginning to think Obama doesn't care a bit about being President. All he has to do is stick out the job for four or eight years without creating too much havoc. The real money is in being an ex-President. Especially if you can get your wife elected Senator. Dick Durbin can probably be induced to resign in 2014 if Obama loses in 2012. I wonder how much the seat will be worth then? And if Obama lasts until 2016 his old seat will be available. How fitting. Carol Mosely Braun II. Or III depending on who gets the seat next. Is Valerie Jarrett still in the running?

PUMA Power

Paul Marston takes a look at how the PUMA factor is affecting the polling.

The results of the polls for President are all over the map. If the polls are supposed to be correct to a 95% degree of certainly give or take 2 or 3 percent, how can the polls be that much different for the same candidates when taken at the same time? The simple answer is that they should not be that far apart. If you take a look at the polls making up the average at www.realclearpolitics.com on October 23rd, you will see a range from Senator Obama being up over McCain from 1 to 14 percent. Now there is such a thing called an outlier poll. That is where that other 5% comes into play and statistics says that the result could be outside of that normal sampling error of 2 to 3 percent. So let’s say that happened with both the 1% and 14% results and throw those away. That still leaves a range of 2 to 11% and that is way outside the margin of error on both polls. How come?

Take a look at the polling results for the 2004 election. Here you do not see the wild differences between the various polling firms. In the same time period in October of 2004, the range was from a 1 to 6 point lead for Bush. That is a five point spread and within the margin of error. That is a big difference between the current 13 point spread that is way outside the margin of error. To have this kind of spread indicates that something unusual is happening that is causing problems with the adjustments polling companies have to make to get the sample of voters to properly represent all of the voters. No random sample of voters perfectly represents all voters and polling firms have to weight their results to force them into being representative of all voters.

Of course they could reduce this adjustment by increasing the sample size by a factor of 10X. But then the polls start to cost real money. About 500 to 1,000 responses is considered a reasonable rate. Fairly good accuracy at a reasonable cost.

If their weighting algorithms are not correct, this would skew the results. Still, major national polling firms have a lot of experience and they have learned how to fine tune these algorithms pretty well. What is far more likely is that the sample simply does not accurately represent the voters in the area being polled as a whole due to some new factor. Obviously, when the polling companies look at the results from other polling firms and they see results different from their own outside the margin of error; they know something is amiss just like I do. This has caused them to try and tweak their weighting algorithms during the election season. Departing from tried and true weighting algorithms is a risky thing to do, but what choice do they have?

The fact of the matter is that instead of properly correcting for this unknown factor, they have only made things worse. I know of nothing else that could cause such wildly different results. This problem in turn has resulted in totally different headlines about what is happening in this election. Some say that the race is tightening considerably and others saying that the gap is widening to the point of being a landslide. The Drudge Report for October 22nd showed both of these claims. If you believe the Zogby results, then we are heading for a blowout. If you believe the Associated Press result, we are headed for another squeaker election. Obviously, they both cannot be right so which one is correct? That is precisely why the folks at www.realclearpolitics.com prefer to average all the polls hoping that the various sampling errors will balance each other out.

Well that was a real hoot. The race is tightening/widening depending on who you believe.

What does McCain believe?

Meantime, back at the McCain camp, their strategy makes no sense. They have practically conceded Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico and are still pursuing some blue states. They are not overly worried about Ohio and Virginia either. Neither do they seem very worried about all of those toss up states. So what is going on here? Clearly, the McCain campaign thinks the narrowing algorithms are correct, but isn't that just wishful thinking? They pulled out of Michigan when the Democratic Rossman Group/MIRS poll had them down by only 5 points. Yet they persist in Pennsylvania when the RCP average has them down by 10.5 points. No one has them closer than 8 points right now and no one has had them closer than a tie in the last six months. They sent Palin to New Hampshire where they are behind from 8 to 13 points. Why would they do this? They cannot be that stupid unless they think they are on to something.

Remember that the McCain camp has their own polling firm and are running their own private polls. The only answer that makes sense is that the McCain folks are convinced that their own polling firm has figured out what factor is causing all those wildly differing results from the other polling firms. Whatever this factor is, it is something that the tried and true weighting algorithms are not handling properly. In a previous article, I speculated that it could be that the Bradley Factor is alive and well in this election. Since this is the first presidential election with a black candidate, the weighting algorithms are just not equipped to handle the race factor. The fact that the race card has been repeatedly played in this election could be causing the Bradley Factor to be much more prominent than it ordinarily would be.

Yet Gallup Polling claims that the Bradley Factor is a wash at best and could actually be adding an extra 3 points to Obama's total in a kind of reverse Bradley Effect. Looking at where the McCain folks are competing when they would seem to have no chance, they all have one thing in common. They were carried by Hillary Clinton and in some cases even after it was obvious that Obama had it locked up. McCain was bound to pick up some of Hillary's supporters anyway after the way Hillary was treated by the Obama campaign. These are the so-called PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) folks. Clearly the McCain folks think that there is a P.U.M.A. Factor in play which is a variation of the Bradley Factor. The results that Hillary got simply cannot be explained by race alone. It was the positions that she took that were different than Obama's that resonated with these voters. Because Obama has such an extremely liberal voting record, there were some issues where even Hillary agreed with McCain more than she did with Obama.

There is way more and you should read it all for it is good.

And then you should read his quantification of the PUMA factor at The McCain-Palin Landslide and How Big is the P.U.M.A. Factor?.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Another Democrat For McCain

Another Clinton backer endorses McCain.

As Barack Obama and John McCain battle for the Hispanic vote, a leading Latino backer of Hillary Clinton is crossing party lines to support the Republican presidential nominee.

In an interview Thursday, Miguel D. Lausell, a Puerto Rican businessman and longtime Democratic activist and fund-raiser, came out for Sen. McCain. While he said he doesn't agree with all the policy positions of the Republican candidate and his running mate, Sarah Palin, Mr. Lausell added: "I find McCain to be a sound person and a man with a track record. I know where he is coming from." Mr. Lausell had been a major backer of Bill Clinton and served as a senior political adviser to Sen. Clinton's unsuccessful bid this year for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Mr. Lausell said he feels Sen. Obama "doesn't really regard the Hispanic community as important." Sen. Clinton won a large majority of the Hispanic vote in most primaries, and Latino voters are an important bloc in swing states such as Florida, Nevada and New Mexico. Most polls show Sen. Obama leads Sen. McCain among Latinos.

That may swing more than a few votes.

Let me add that there is a lot of bad blood between Latinos and blacks. The way the Latinos see it, fair or not, is this: Latinos mow lawns, blacks collect welfare. If the shift becomes major it could see a further cracking of the Democrat coalition.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Mommy, I Learned A New Word - Psephology

Long time commenter and e-mail friend linearthinker brought that word to my attention. He quotes this definition:

"...the statistical analysis of elections. Psephology uses compilations of precinct voting returns for elections going back some years, public opinion polls, campaign finance information and similar statistical data."

And then he explains why it is important.

One quarter of all registered voters are Catholics and Biden is losing Obama their votes.

And since he was so kind to include a link to an article on the subject I will too. The Elephant Bar quotes from The Telegraph UK.

Remember, you read it here first: on September 11 this blog reported a mounting backlash from Catholic bishops against Biden, Barack Obama's "Catholic" pro-abortion running mate. At that time I estimated eight bishops had come out to denounce Biden; the total is now 55. Beyond that, Biden is being trashed across every state of the Union by Catholic newspapers, TV and radio stations, and blogs. It is a tsunami of rejection.

The story has now hit the secular media. Last Saturday Time magazine asked: "Does Biden Have a Catholic Problem?" By Wednesday the issue had moved onto the front page of the New York Times. Joe the Jinx has blown it, big time. Biden has only himself to blame: he started this war, with his notoriously undisciplined mouth. He knew the dangers. Last August, Archbishop Raymond Burke, former Archbishop of St Louis and now Prefect of the Apostolic Segnatura in Rome, said communion should be denied to pro-abortion politicians "until they have reformed their lives".

Archbishop Chaput of Denver had already announced Biden should not receive communion because of his pro-abortion views. Defiantly, Biden took communion in his home parish in Delaware in late August. On September 2 the Bishop of Scranton, Pennsylvania (a crucial swing state) banned him from communion in his diocese. That is effective excommunication.

Uh. Oh. Joe is deep in it. Now here is the killer:

There are 47 million Catholic voters in the United States. One quarter of all registered voters are Catholics. At every presidential election in the past 30 years the Catholic vote has gone to the winning candidate, except for Al Gore in 2000. This year 41 per cent of Catholics are independents - up from 30 per cent in 2004. Psephologists claim practising Catholics were the decisive factor in the crucial swing states in 2004: in Ohio 65 per cent of Catholics voted for Bush, in Florida 66 per cent. They were drifting away in disillusionment from the Republicans and split 50-50, until Joe Biden worked his magic. This is electoral suicide by the Democrats.

Yep. And Jews are drifting away from the Democrats as well. In fact it looks like they are now being pushed. It all starts with an anti-Ahmadinejad rally. Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were both invited to the rally. When Hillary pulled out Democrats threatened to sic the IRS on the Jewish organizations if Palin showed up at the official event.

CBS2 has a Democratic politician on record with the story of why Sarah Palin's invitation was rescinded after Hillary Clinton pulled out of the event upon hearing that Palin was also invited and planned to attend the rally to protest Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at the UN, with one Democratic lawmaker calling it "McCarthyism."

Once Clinton canceled and announced she would not attend, according to the report, the "axes were out for Palin" and the Jewish Groups which organized the event were told their tax exempt status would be jeopardized if Palin attended but Hillary Clinton or Democratic vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden did not.

CBS 2 spoke to Assemblyman Dov Hikind, Democrat from Brooklyn, who said, "This is insulting. This is embarrassing, especially to Gov. Palin, to me and I think it should be to every single New Yorker."

Hikind goes on to to declare, "It's an absolute shame that this has happened. To threaten organizations … to threaten the Conference of Presidents that if you don't withdraw the invitation to Gov. Palin we're going to look into your tax exempt status … that's McCarthyism."

Jeeze Democrats. What a way to shore up support for a core constituency. First the Catholics. Now the Jews. You would almost think that this was an attempt to lose in a landslide. Here is another little bit on the subject from an article titled: Jews For John McCain Poll Shocker.

The Siena Poll of New York likely voters is really going to upset the tummies of the Democrat Party, if they have any sense at all.

New York Jews have not voted Republican en masse since Ronald Reagan and as of six months ago didn't appear to have changed.

The tide has seemingly turned though. In the Siena Poll (cross tabs) section is a demographic which should make Mr Obama start thinking about what to do with all of his spare time after next November.

The issue would be Sen. John McCain garnering 57% of the New York Jewish favorable view and Mr Obama getting a miserable 38% favorable rating.

That is not good news for the Obama/Biden camp, since the last time this happened Ronaldus Maximus Reagan won in such a landslide the world doesn't even remember who his opponent was. (actually the guy who ran against Reagan went on to get a job building houses for free and roaming the globe trash talking the United States and Israel)

It seems like the only identity politics the Obama team can play well is Black. That will guarantee him about 12% of the vote. Add in the Democrat "progressives" and it is still not enough to win an election.

You know this is pretty stupid for a Harvard educated guy who taught at the University of Chicago. Not to mention the fact that he has spent his adult life in Chicago identity politics. He should have spent more time in the ethnic wards on the North Side. They have Catholic areas up there. Jewish areas. And don't forget the hippie contingent. He might have learned a thing or two.

I think he is one of those kind of people who are over represented in academia. Too smart to learn anything new.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

John McCain Is A Great Man

Yeah. We all knew that. So that is not the story. What is the story? Look at who is saying it.

Former President Bill Clinton has largely kept himself out of the public eye since his wife lost the Democratic primary to Barack Obama.

However in a rare television interview tonight, the former president called Republican presidential candidate John McCain "a great man" and praised GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin as an "instinctively effective candidate."

On a day when Obama sought to convince voters that he's best able to handle the economic crisis, the former president said it was his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who gave today "the most detailed position."

In an interview with CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, Clinton, who has tried to put to rest rumors of tensions between himself and Obama said, "I've never concealed my admiration and affection for Sen. McCain. I think he's a great man.

I'm sure Bill has Obama's best interests at heart. Like helping him keep his seat as the Junior Senator from Illinois.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Selected Not Elected

Hillary Clinton called for the selection of Obama as the Democrat Party nominee for President.

"In the spirit of unity, with the goal of victory, with faith in our party and our country, let's declare in one voice, right here, right now, that Barack Obama is our candidate and that he will be our next president," Clinton said. "Madame Secretary, I move that the convention suspend the procedural rules and suspend the further conduct of the roll-call vote, all votes cast by the delegates will be counted, and I move Senator Barack Obama of Illinois be selected by this convention by acclamation as the nominee of the Democratic Party."

I guess that lets Bush off the hook.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Money Doesn't Matter

It apprears that there is a group backing Obama that intends to scare the big money away from McCain's campaign.

Nearly 10,000 of the biggest donors to Republican candidates and causes across the country will probably receive a foreboding “warning” letter in the mail next week.

The letter is an opening shot across the bow from an unusual new outside political group on the left that is poised to engage in hardball tactics to prevent similar groups on the right from getting off the ground this fall.

Led by Tom Matzzie, a liberal political operative who has been involved with some prominent left-wing efforts in recent years, the newly formed nonprofit group, Accountable America, is planning to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.

Is it likely to work?

...Ed Patru, a spokesman for Freedom’s Watch, scoffed at Mr. Matzzie’s plan.

“This idea sounds even more sloppily thought out than his last venture, which, of course, went belly-up for lack of financial support,” Mr. Patru said.

“I doubt anyone will be intimidated by him,” he said, “but if it gives anyone pause, they are always welcome to give to Freedom’s Watch — all of our donors are entitled to complete anonymity by law.”

Indeed, anonymity is a potential obstacle to the group’s efforts. Outside political groups organized as 501(c)4 entities, including Accountable America, do not have to disclose the names of their donors.

Chris LaCivita, a Republican strategist who helped organize the Swift Boat effort, said Mr. Matzzie’s group was likely to have the opposite effect on potential donors, firing them up instead of discouraging them.

“They’re not going to be intimidated by some pipsqueak on the kooky left,” Mr. LaCivita said.

So it is liable to backfire. Just what I would expect. Americans are not easy to intimidate. We are the descendants of outlaws, misfits, and revolutionaries. People not easily pushed around.

There are operatives in the Obama campaign who believe money matters.

Democrats say that Mr Obama needs to accomplish two critical things on his return next week. First, he must put on a good event to announce the selection of his running mate. Second, his speech at the party convention in Denver must be exceptional.

In contrast to the jittery nerves among Democrats in general, the Obama campaign conveys serene confidence that it will accomplish both. Tad Devine, a Democratic consultant, says: “If he pulls off a good convention, as you would expect him to do, then he will go into the general election with a serious money advantage over John McCain.”

And yet I remember Obama out spending Hillary 3 to 1 and 4 to 1 in some of the primary campaigns and despite that Hillary came out with wins.

The Obama campaign is not factoring in the Internet 2.0 where money is not a significant factor and people with small change (heh) can get on YouTube or other video services and create ads that millions will watch, post to blogs, and e-mail to their friends. Heck Paris Hilton even did an add that the Republicans piggy backed on. And none of this counts as campaign donations.

The guys worrying about money in this campaign are fighting the wrong war. The key in this campaign is internet time. Speed of response. The French had a bigger Army than the Germans at the start of WW2. How did the Germans beat the French? They beat them with speed, blitzkrieg. Lightning war.

Here are some links to anti-Obama videos produced by independents.

Leave Barak Alone
Changing Grove Parc
Jon Stewart on "Playing the Race Card"
Paris Hilton Has An Energy Plan
Kiss Him Good-bye
The John McCain Campaign On You Tube
NoBama For Beginners
Just Say No Deal
More From Just Say No Deal
The Art of Hypocracy
Chicago Style
Talking About Change
Glass Ceiling

As you can see money doesn't mean much this election season. The important issues for the campaigns this season are interest and time. Obama took the early lead, but McCain is coming back strong with the efforts of his campaign and the efforts of people not connected with any campaign.

And what is the first rule for advertising? You can only sell to those interested in buying. From what I can see the electorate is not buying Obama. If that is the case it does not matter how much selling he does.

==

London American has been collecting these videos and many of the links were gotten from his site. There are loads more there. No Quarter also has a nice selection of videos.

H/T Instapundit and Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Not A Citizen?

Commenter Jane at Just One Minute posted this interesting e-mail she received.

Barack Obama is not a legal U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between December 24, 1952, to November 13, 1986. Federal Law requires that the office of President requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents. This is what exempts John McCain, though he was born in the US Panama Canal Zone.

US Law very clearly states: ". . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one's birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16." Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.

Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to Barack Obama's birth, but-after-age-16.

In essence, Mother alone is not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, 2 years elapsed from his mother turning 16 to the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18. His mother would have needed to have been 16 + 5 = 21 years old at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to be a natural-born citizen. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at the time his mother would have needed to be to allow him natural citizenship from his only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama should have been naturalized as a citizen . . . but that would disqualify him from holding the office.

Now I'm starting to see why the birth certificate issue is so important. It would list his father. It also explains Bill Clinton's statement: "I never was mad at Sen. Obama. I think everybody's got a right to run for president who qualifies under the Constitution.

Which may mean the forgery issue re: the birth certificate is a red herring. The real issue is who is your daddy?

So the question is: was Hawaii a State when Obama was born? He says he is 46 years old. That would be 1962. Hawaii became a State on August 21, 1959. Well that blows that theory. If he was born in the USA he is an American citizen. Period.

OTOH commenter Sarah had this to say:

As a genealogist, I could not list Barack Obama Sr. as the legal father since he was never "legally" married to Barack's mother. He was already married. So technically Barack would be considered illegitimate, a more complicated matter back in 1961 than today.

Texas Darlin did a post about adoption when the adoptive parent is Indonesian and how if the child is under 5, citizenship reverts to Indonesia, over 5, dual citizenship, which is not recognized by Indonesia, but is by the U.S.

The answer lies somewhere in the illegitimate birth and possible subsequent adoption by Soetoro.

Texas Darlin looks at the citizenship angle from the adoption point of view.

1. Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, with the legal name Barack Hussein Obama II, and Barack H. Obama Sr. was identified as his legal father. [NOTE: an alternative theory, that Obama was born in Canada, is still being researched.]

2. Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Hawaii sometime around 1965-1966.

3. As part of the adoption procedure, pursuant to Hawaiian law, Obama’s original Birth Certificate (BC) was sealed, and a new Birth Certificate was issued with his new name, Barry Soetoro, and the name of his new father, Lolo Soetoro.

4. Mother and son joined Soetoro in Indonesia, where Barry Soetoro was registered in school as Lolo’s son, a Muslim, and a citizen of Indonesia.

5. After approximately 4 years, Barry Soetoro returned to Hawaii as a U.S. citizen to live with his grandparents, the Dunhams, and attend private school.

6. At some point before his 18th birthday, he most likely changed his legal name back to Barack Hussein Obama, but his Birth Certificate would not have been modified again unless there was another adoption (by the Dunhams, for example).

What does all this mean? Maybe nothing.

All Barry has to do to scotch the rumors is to release his birth records.

If he does have dual citizenship that will cause him problems with a lot of the electorate. If he is not an American citizen it is all over for him.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

The Cadaver Is Getting The Best Of Them

I recently did a post on how a number of Democrats view the McCain campaign so far. Here is my favorite quote from the long list of quotes:

After Axelrod swiftboated Hillary, I tell you, he has no play book for the GE. For such a "brilliant team" they are struggling with a cadaver and the cadaver is getting the best of them.

Evidently there is still some life in the old cadaver yet.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Not Playing With A Full Deck

Obama has been playing the race card a lot lately. The McCain camp is hitting back hard. Very hard

“The McCain campaign was compelled to respond to this outrageous attack because we will not allow John McCain to be smeared by Senator Obama as a racist for offering legitimate criticism,” he said. “We have waited for months with a sick feeling knowing this moment would come because we watched it incur with President Clinton. Say whatever you want about President Clinton, his record on this issue is above reproach.”

In the Democratic primary campaign, Mr. Obama’s supporters at several occasions accused the Clinton campaign of using racially charged tactics, particularly after Mr. Clinton equated Mr. Obama’s victory in the South Carolina primary with the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s victory in the nominating contest there in 1988. Mr. Clinton himself then complained in a radio interview in April that the Obama campaign had “played the race card on me.”

A not so subtle reminder for the PUMA crowd. Which is Democrat speak for Party Unity My Ass. In other words Hillary supporters.

And it appears that Obama is tanking in the polls. This is not going to help. I did a Bounce Check after Obama returned from his Ego Trip to Europe and found that Obama didn't get any bounce from that trip. Now his numbers are falling. My guess is that Team Obama is starting to run scared. Well playing the race card didn't help. That means he is at least one card short of a full deck.

My prediction? Obama is going to take a lot of Democrats down with him in November. Denver is going to be one ugly place for the Democrat Convention at the end of the month.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Not Yet In Evidence

Larry Johnson of No Quarter (how about two dimes and a nickel?) has a bit from HillBuzz on the not yet in evidence Michelle Obama Oration tape. Here is what HillBuzz has to say:

The Michelle Obama Rant Tape was filmed between June 26th - July 1st 2004 in Chicago, IL at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference at Trinity United Church: specifically the Women's Event.

Michelle Obama appeared as a panelist alongside Mrs. Khadijah Farrakhan and Mrs. James Meeks.

Bill Clinton spoke during the Conference, as did Bill Cosby and other speakers, but not at the panel Michelle attended.

Michelle Obama spoke at the Women's Event, but referenced Bill Clinton in her rant --- his presence at the conference was the impetus for her raving, it seems.

For about 30 minutes, Michelle Obama launched into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to blame for the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton for the deaths of millions of Africans and said America is responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She then launched into an attack on "whitey", and talked about solutions to black on black crime in the realm of diverting those actions onto white America.

HillBuzz has more. If that is true, what is going to kill the deal for the Obamas is not the "whitey" stuff. It is the advocacy of a black race war against whites. Hey, Michelle. Do you really think that is a vote getter?

For now though, take all this with a kilo of salt. The tape is not yet in evidence.

Interesting Tag Line

I was looking through the comments at Larry Johnson's No Quarter and came across this interesting tag line:

Clinton or McCain 08

This is one of the most interesting elections I have ever watched. The crosses and double crosses are amazing. The parties double cross the voters and the voters return the favor to the parties. Hillary donors want the money they donated to the party returned to them. Republican big money donors are working to screw McCain. It's a donnybrook. Fortunately it is not a private fight and any one can join in. Spectators welcome too. Stand back if you want to avoid the blood spatters.

From A Usually Unreliable Source

Larry Johnson of No Quarter who is is a usually unreliable hard lefty except when it come to digging dirt on Obama reports this:

I now have it from two three four sources (three who are close to senior Republicans) that there is video dynamite–Michelle Obama railing against “whitey” at Jeremiah Wright’s church. Republicans may have a lousy record when it comes to the economy and the management of the war in Iraq, but they are hell on wheels when it comes to opposition research. Someone took the chance and started reviewing the recordings from services at Jeremiah Wright’s United Church of Christ. Holy smoke!! I am told there is a clip that is being held for the fall to drop at the appropriate time. The last thing Barack and Michelle need is a new clip that raises further questions about her judgment and temperament.

Larry also says in another post:

Here’s the news short and sweet–if you have a copy of the Michelle Obama video, in which she is lambasting white people (four different sources say she uses “whitey” as an epithet) at Jeremiah Wright’s church, then there is an ultra conservative Republican billionaire who wants to pay your $1 million dollars for the tape. Why? He hates John McCain. Conservative Republicans refer to John McCain as a Marxist and a sell out (and those are the nice comments). The billionaire in question believes Barack is a very weak candidate and, if he gets the Democratic nod, then McCain will surely be President. Especially after the October “surprise” of Michelle Obama railing against whitey. The billionaire wants to preempt McCain and Rove and has put the word out thru conservative networks that there is a $1 million dollar bounty for the person or persons who produce the tape.

I got this info courtesy of a major Republican operative. I am told that Karl Rove and his political allies control the tape where Michelle Obama has a Stokely Carmichael moment of sorts. Rove and company reportedly are showing the tape to big money Republicans to loosen up their wallets and get new money to fund independent expenditure groups. That’s why news of this is starting to leak out. The money is being raised for 527 groups that will target the Democrats in the fall.

This election season is just getting weirder and weirder. I really have to ask though what kind of Republican would take a chance on a world war and a bunch of hard left Supreme Court picks just to derail the McCain Campaign? That seems a little harsh to me even if McCain leans too much towards the center for some Republicans. Especially since Republicans - at this point in time - are looking a a bloodbath in the Congressional races.

However, all is not lost. Recreate '68 could still derail a Hillary campaign in in Denver if she looks like she has any chance of getting the nomination. As I said weird. There are so many unconstrained forces loose in the land, with neither party united behind their candidate, that making any predictions at this time about anybody's chances in November is a fools errand. So what am I predicting? Sales of popcorn and beer will be at record highs through November. "Pass me the remote honey. I want to see if another network has a better angle on the action."

Where The Voters Are

The above image is from a Pew Research Center Report on where the voters are vs where the candidates are. What surprised me most was that the center of gravity in America was Center Right (RINO territory) according to Pew.

Althouse of Althouse and Jeralyn Meritt of TalkLeft had a dust up and Jeralyn thinks Obama is too far to the center to win in November. Althouse being the more sensible of the pair and better in touch with the electorate (lots of righties like to comment at her blog, Jeralyn excises them) gets the better of the argument. At least if Pew is correct.

The Futurist (where I stole the graph) makes some very good arguments. He lists them as numbered points so go there if you want to see the rest.

3) The Democratic Party has been enslaved by fringe leftists. Obama and Clinton are nearly identical in ideology, yet very far to the left of the center of gravity. The purple oval I have inserted, along with the question mark, represents a vacuum in the moderate left. A large number of voters clearly reside there, but the Democratic party of today will not nominate someone who resides in the purple zone, leaving these voters as ideological orphans. Thus, Clinton and Obama have to lie (assisted by a complicit leftist media) to appear more moderate than they are, and hope that the public doesn't figure that out.

Joe Lieberman, the VP candidate against Bush/Cheney just seven years ago, was run out of the Democratic Party simply for not being opposed to bringing democracy to Iraq. Bill Clinton's actions of supporting free trade agreements like NAFTA, cutting taxes on capital gains in 1997, attacking Saddam Hussein to remove his WMD programs in 1998, etc. are all actions that the modern Democratic party would not take.

The moderate left died in 1968, when two of their most promising young leaders were assassinated. Since then, Democrats have only won three of the last ten elections. After the disaster of Jimmy Carter, Democrats never again won 50% of the popular vote in SEVEN attempts, while Republicans achieved that feat 4 times over that period (1980, 84, 88, 2004). This is a truly shambolic performance from the Democrats of the modern era. Jimmy Carter did more to ensure a generation of GOP dominance than Reagan, Gingrich, Limbaugh, or Rove ever could.

Furthermore, Democrats are not capable of getting a majority of voters who earn over $30,000 a year. The middle class earning between $50,000 and $75,000 voted just 44% for Democrats. A party that is soundly rejected by the middle class and upper class is not positioned for long-term success.

Let me see if I can explain this a little. American retirement programs are tied up with 401k plans, which are in the main stock ownership plans. Over half of all Americans own stock. How do you think the Democrat plans to punish companies and the economy are going to go over with such people?

I think a little history is in order.

In 1978, Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code, later called section 401(k), whereby employees are not taxed on income they choose to receive as deferred compensation rather than direct compensation.[2] The law went into effect on January 1, 1980,[2] and by 1983 almost half of large firms were either offering a 401(k) plan or considering doing so.[2] By 1984 there were 17,303 companies offering 401(k) plans.[2] Also in 1984, Congress passed legislation requiring nondiscrimination testing, to make sure that the plans did not discriminate in favor of highly paid employees more than a certain allowable amount.[2] In 1998, Congress passed legislation that allowed employers to have all employees contribute a certain amount into a 401(k) plan unless the employee expressly elects not to contribute.[2] By 2003, there were 438,000 companies with 401(k) plans.[2]

Originally intended for executives, section 401(k) plans proved popular with workers at all levels because it had higher yearly contribution limits than the Individual Retirement Account (IRA); it usually came with a company match, and in some ways provided greater flexibility than the IRA, often providing loans and, if applicable, offered the employer's stock as an investment choice. Several major corporations amended existing defined contribution plans immediately following the publication of IRS proposed regulations in 1981.

Hmmm. 1978. That would have been under Jimmy Carter with the Senate and House Democrat controlled. And 1984? Ronald Reagan. With the Senate Republican and the House Democrat. Under Carter the plans were for the elite. Under Reagan they got expanded to the masses. Interesting. Verrrrry interesting.

So the question is. Despite the economic bump we are hitting will the electorate wish to punish business and raise taxes? I don't think so. So what should the Republicans promise? I think cutting taxes and cutting spending (including ending earmarks permanently) might work. So where do the candidates for President actually stand on earmarks based on their behavior as opposed to their promises? Well in the current Congress Hillary Clinton is a Champion among the Presidential Candidates at $340 million, Obama is in second place with $91 million, and poor old John McCain brings up the rear with $0. That is right a big fat zero. Way to go John.

I know who I'm voting for. Even RINOs have some Republican principles.

Cross Posted at Classical Values