Friday, October 24, 2008

A President Obama would be the first to have nude pictures of his mother on the net

They have been gathered together from various sources but can conveniently be viewed here and here and here.

Background on the story here. The woman was clearly not your average American Mom.

The person who gathered the pictures suspects that the photographer was "Frank", Obama's Communist "mentor". As do many bloggers (e.g. here), he suspects that Frank was in fact Obama's father. The two look alike. So how to establish who took the pictures? The floor in the photo may give a clue. It looks like Oregon pine, which is an unusual flooring material. That may jog some memories somewhere. Secondly, there seems to be an address associated with one of the pictures: 6035 Kalanianaole Hwy. Maybe some GOP enthusiasts in Hawaii would like to look into it.

So if the pictures CAN be linked to "Frank", it would strongly suggest that he had an intimate relationship with the young woman and Obama could be the fruit of that. In that case we would have a Presidential candidate who is the offspring of a Communist and a slut. It would be much to Obama's credit to have risen above that but because personality traits are highly heritable it would also cast further doubts on his character.

Obama has made two trips to Hawaii during his candicacy and many bloggers link that to his refusal to produce his original birth certificate. They suspect that there is a quiet battle going on somewhere in Hawaii to have it altered. If the original shows Frank as the father, that would all fall into place.

The latest follow-up on the matter is on TONGUE-TIED.

The birth certificate coverup continues

Pennsylvania Democrat Philip J. Berg, who filed a lawsuit demanding Sen. Barack Obama present proof of his American citizenship, now says that by failing to respond Obama has legally "admitted" to the lawsuit's accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa, Kenya.

As WND reported, Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Though Obama has posted an image of a Hawaii birth certificate online, Berg demands that the court verify the original document, which the Obama campaign has not provided.

Now Berg cites Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter. Since Obama has only filed motions to dismiss and has not actually answered the charges in the lawsuit, Berg claims, according to Rule 36, Obama has legally admitted he is not a natural-born citizen. Now Berg is asking the court for a formal declaration of Obama's admission and asking the Democratic National Committee for another presidential candidate.

In a statement released today, Berg argues that he filed Requests for Admissions on Sept. 15, meaning Obama had until Oct. 15 to answer or face the consequences of Rule 36. "Obama and the DNC 'admitted,' by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit," Berg's statement reads. "Obama is 'not qualified' to be president and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for president and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate."

Berg's original lawsuit leveled several charges at both Obama and the DNC - accusing the former of lying about his place of birth, faking his birth certificate and fraudulently running for office; and accusing the latter of not properly vetting its candidate.

Though it hasn't given Berg the evidence he seeks, the Obama campaign has publicly answered allegations that the candidate was born in Kenya and faked his Hawaii birth certificate. "Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn't have a birth certificate aren't actually about that piece of paper," says the "Fight the Smears" section of Obama's website, "they're about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen. "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America," the campaign website states. It also includes images of a Hawaii birth certificate bearing the name Barack Hussein Obama II.

Berg has also taken the controversy public through his website and through repeated public offers to revoke the lawsuit if Obama will produce legal documents that establish his citizenship. Without those documents, Berg has chosen to file two additional motions in district court in Philadelphia. The first asks the court to notify Obama and the DNC of what Berg understands they have now legally "admitted," and the second asks for an expedited ruling, given the quickly upcoming Nov. 4 election.

"It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side," Berg told Jeff Schreiber for his blog, America's Right. "The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. He admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States."


There is another, more comprehensive post on the birth certificate affair here. There is definitely something being held back.


You small business owners out there are preparing for life under a Barack Obama presidency. One of our listeners sent us some new rules for small businesses based on Obama's ideals of change and fairness:
As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama officially becomes president-elect, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:

1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are under-achieving a "fair shake".

2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst you. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.

3. All top management will now be referred to as "the government." We will not participate in this "pooling" experience because the law doesn't apply to us.

4. The "government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all".

5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth around". Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic".

6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our Democratic Congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?)!!!

If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th.


Fraudulent foreign contributions to Obama

There is enormous amount of money being secreted into the Obama campaign from foreign sources. It is fairly safe to say these countries will be richly rewarded - Kenya, Indonesia but most of all - Obama will drop a load on the UN. Fosho.

The crooked, corrupt international one world global warmers have the largest stake in this election. Back on August 14th, I wrote that Julia Gorin told me a funny story. About four months ago. Her husband's co-worker wanted to see what would happen if he tried giving a contribution to the Obama campaign via a credit card. He used his Macy's card. The system accepted it. He tried the same with McCain's campaign, and the transaction wouldn't go through. Atlas reader Craig submits to me the following,
I may have just uncovered how the Obama campaign is facilitating massive donation fraud. I've read recent reports of the Obama campaign receiving donations from dubious names and foreign locales and it got me wondering; how is this possible?

I run a small internet business and when I process credit cards I'm required to make sure the name on the card exactly matches the name of the customer making the purchase. Also, the purchasers address must match that of the cardholders. If these don't match, then the payment isn't approved. Period. So how is it possible that the Obama campaign could receive donations from fictional people and places? Well, I decided to do a little experiment. I went to the Obama campaign website and entered the following:

Name: John Galt
Address: 1957 Ayn Rand Lane
City: Galts Gulch
State: CO
Zip: 99999

Then I checked the box next to $15 and entered my actual credit card number and expiration date (it didn't ask for the 3-didgit code on the back of the card) and it took me to the next page and. "Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift."

This simply should not, and could not, happen in any business or any campaign that is honestly trying to vet it's donors. Also, I don't see how this could possibly happen without the collusion of the credit card companies. They simply wouldn't allow any business to process, potentially, hundreds of millions in credit card transactions where the name on the card doesn't match the purchasers name.

Not unless Obama's campaign is warehousing donations (held back) and any that fail or are rejected by the credit card companies or for any other reason are covered by illegal donations.
In short, with the system set up as it is by the Obama camp, an individual could donate unlimited amounts of money by simply making up fake names and addresses. And Obama is doing his best to facilitate this fraud. This is truly scandalous.

Yes, and then cover them with illegal funds.


PS I tried the exact same thing at the McCain site and it didn't allow the transaction.

Pss I went back to the Obama site and made three additional donations using the names Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses. All the transactions went thru using the same credit card. I saved screen shots of the transactions if you want them

Cathy found this at Free Republic:
Somebody, high up, has access to millions of credit card, and possibly debit card accounts. This is how it works: An apparent charge appears on your account, then through the correction process, it disappears. An unauthorized charge delivers the funds to control of an intermediary, and the intermediary then reimburses the original draft on the account. The intermediary is a wealthy consortium of manipulators, who take the small contribution (always less than $200, so as to avoid the reporting requirements of name and occupation of the original source), thus providing hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of "contributors", and allowing ineligible contributors to cover up their participation. It would take the research of literally thousands of these accounts to uncover the pattern of "mistaken" charges, and if these accounts are held outside the US, there would be no overview of these transaction by any of the authorities that govern these transfers in this country. The only check on this is to review your own account, and those who had their accounts used in this manner. If individuals or corporate entities are already supporting Obama, or the Democrat National party, or any of the 527s that are anti-Republican, THEY are not going to say anything.


The Tax Argument Still Works

Obama's plans are giving voters pause


No campaign moves in a straight line. Every race experiences turns toward one side or the other, driven by events, the determined efforts of one candidate, or even a bored media hoping for a new story line. This campaign's most recent turn started Sept. 15 with the credit markets shutting down and the economy at the brink of disaster. Before then, John McCain was 2.1 points ahead in the RealClearPolitics average, his first lead since late March. Two weeks later, RealClearPolitics had Barack Obama ahead by 4.6 points, rising to an 8.2-point lead on Oct. 14. Is there one more turn in the contest and, if so, will it be toward Mr. McCain?

The race has tightened slightly in recent days to an average Obama lead of 6.8 points yesterday. And there are a few things bending toward Mr. McCain. The emergence of "Joe the Plumber" and the likelihood of an agreement with Iraq on a continued U.S. troop presence are two of them. Both are opportunities for Mr. McCain to contrast himself against Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama's troublesome friendships with Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko and (especially) Rev. Jeremiah Wright are important. But only 12 days remain. These relationships should have been highlighted by the McCain campaign in the spring and summer. But Mr. McCain complicated things by unilaterally declaring Rev. Wright off limits. Now, Mr. Obama will benefit from the noise the media will generate if Mr. McCain attempts to make Obama's Four Amigos this election's closing act.

On the other hand, Mr. McCain might gain by arguing that in this time of consequence for America's economy and security he has been right and Mr. Obama demonstrably wrong on the biggest issues facing the country. Mr. McCain's economic argument is simple: Raising taxes on small businesses in the face of recession will deepen and prolong the downturn. Taxing Joe the Plumber and other entrepreneurs to pay for what the National Taxpayers Union says are Mr. Obama's $293 billion-a-year new spending plans is an expense the nation cannot afford. Mr. Obama's tax-and-spend prescription will cause the economic fever to spike, not recede.

On national security, America is close to a bilateral agreement with Iraq that will continue sending U.S. troops home based on success -- the result of the surge that Mr. McCain strongly advocated and Mr. Obama fiercely opposed. Should we elect someone so wrong about a strategy vital for success in what Osama bin Laden calls the central front in the war on terror?

Beyond that, Mr. McCain should also use vivid imagery to highlight concerns about the freshman Illinois senator. There are plenty of warning signs about Mr. Obama we ignore at our peril. Mr. McCain needs to explain what they are. America's economy got into trouble when people didn't heed warning signs. Three years ago, Mr. McCain called for stricter oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, warning their risky practices threatened our economy and could cost taxpayers billions. He tried to prevent or at least reduce the breadth of the crisis we're in now. Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats ignored these signs and opposed reform.

There's more. Wanting to raise taxes -- anyone's taxes -- in a slowdown is a warning sign of a misguided economic philosophy. Mr. Obama's proposal to redistribute wealth is a warning of indifference or hostility to enterprise. Mr. Obama's health-care plan is a warning that government will have more, not less, to say about your health care if he has his way. Mr. Obama's dismissal of offshore drilling and opposition to nuclear power are warning signs for an economy whose growth depends on affordable energy. Mr. Obama's commitment to withdraw our troops from Iraq without regard to conditions on the ground is a warning sign that Mr. Obama is dangerously wrong-headed and ideological on national security.

There's more: The absence of a single significant instance in which Mr. Obama cooperated in a bipartisan manner in the Senate is a warning sign. So is his failure to dirty his hands by working hard on any major legislative challenge since entering Congress. And so is his refusal to break with his party or its interest groups on any issue of substance.

Mr. McCain has only one hope: to drive home doubts about Mr. Obama based on his record, and share as much as he can about his own values and vision to reassure voters. Even if he does, Mr. McCain's task won't be easy: Mr. Obama is using his considerable talents as a community organizer. Evidence from early voting in Florida, North Carolina, New Mexico and Nevada shows that Democrats are flocking to cast ballots. We don't know yet whether they're cannibalizing their Election Day turnout by getting reliable voters to cast ballots early, or creating an electoral tsunami by targeting people who wouldn't otherwise bother to turn out. If it's the former, Mr. McCain still has a (long) shot. If it's the latter, he and other Republican candidates are about to be dealt a punishing electoral blow.


What Obama Can't Change: The Lives of Blacks

If Barack Obama wins the keys to the White House next month, even nonsupporters will acknowledge the historic significance of his achievement. And America's. But what might an Obama victory mean for African-Americans in particular? Should we expect his administration to play a major role in black group advancement?

For more than a century, black civic leaders have tangled over whether to pursue economic independence or focus their energies on integrating political, corporate and educational institutions. W.E.B. Du Bois, author of the groundbreaking 1903 treatise, "The Souls of Black Folk," argued for the latter, while his contemporary, Booker T. Washington, said "political activity alone" was not the answer. In addition, insisted Washington, "you must have property, industry, skill, economy, intelligence and character."

Since the 1960s, the black civil-rights leadership has sided with Du Bois. Between 1970 and 2001, the number of black elected officials in the U.S. grew from fewer than 1,500 to more than 9,000. And while impressive socioeconomic progress has been made, wide black-white gaps remain in educational achievement, homeownership rates, labor-force participation, income levels and other measures.

Nor should we conclude that civil-rights laws are responsible for the black progress that has occurred. For example, up until the 1950s, and in an era of open and rampant racial discrimination, the jobless rate for blacks was much lower than today and similar to that of whites in the same age group. In fact, blacks had higher labor-force participation rates than whites in every Census taken between 1890 and 1950. And in the decades preceding the 1960s -- that is, prior to the passage of landmark civil-rights bills and affirmative-action legislation -- there were sharp rises in black educational achievement, both absolutely and relative to whites.

The economist Thomas Sowell has spent decades researching racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. and abroad. And his findings -- in books like "Race and Culture: A World View," "Affirmative Action Around the World" and "Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?" -- show that political activity generally has not been a factor in the rise of groups from poverty to prosperity.

Many Germans came to the U.S. as indentured servants during colonial times. And while working to pay off the cost of the voyage they studiously avoided participation in politics. Only after they'd risen economically did Germans begin seeking public office, culminating with the election of presidents Hoover and Eisenhower.

A similar pattern can be found among Chinese populations in southeast Asia, the Caribbean and the U.S. In Argentina, where English minorities have done well financially and played a major role in the development of the economy, they've played almost no role in Argentine politics. And so it goes with Italians in the U.S. and Jews in Britain: In both places economic gains have generally preceded political gains. "Empirically, political activity and political success have been neither necessary nor sufficient for economic advancement," writes Mr. Sowell. "Nor has eager political participation or outstanding success in politics translated into faster group achievement."

Black Americans might keep in mind that in those rare instances where the political success of a minority group has come first, it has often resulted in slower socioeconomic progress. The Irish immigrants who came to the U.S. in the mid-19th century hailed from a country where 80% of the population was rural. Yet they settled in industrial centers like New York, Philadelphia and Boston and took low-skill jobs. Their rise from poverty was especially slow -- as late as 1920, 80% of all Irish women working in America were domestic servants -- despite the fact that Irish-run political organizations dominated many big-city governments. "The Irish were fiercely loyal to each other, electing, appointing and promoting their own kind," writes Mr. Sowell. "This had little effect on the average Irish American, who began to reach economic prosperity in the 20th century at about the same time when the Irish political machines began to decline."

If elected, Mr. Obama may well turn out to be a competent president, even an admirable one. But history gives us no indication that his political success will translate into black upward mobility. And given Mr. Obama's liberal leanings, there's every reason to believe that current obstacles to black progress will remain in place.

The candidate favors minimum-wage laws, for example, on the assumption that they help lift people out of poverty. But most poor people already earn more than the minimum wage. And most people who earn the minimum wage aren't poor. Minimum-wage laws are more likely to price people out of the labor market, especially younger and less educated workers, a large number of whom happen to be black. Today's economy places a premium on skills. If young people can't get an entry-level job because an artificial federal wage floor has made them too expensive to hire, they can't gain the skills and experience to move up the economic ladder.

To take another example: Mr. Obama opposes educational choice, which will also have a negative impact on poor blacks, who tend to be the ones stuck in America's worst public schools. Mr. Obama opposes school vouchers that would allow low-income black parents to send their children to the type of private school where he sends his own daughters. In both cases, the only "change" that Mr. Obama would be bringing the Oval Office is the color of the person perpetrating bad policies.


(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . For readers in China or for when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

No comments: