Liberal Economics for Dummies

Tony Rubolotta

Developing energy sources in America is bad for the environment. Consequently, we buy oil from Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Kuwait, Iraq and other countries where energy development must be good for the environment.

 

Dotting every hilltop in America with windmills must also be good for the environment, but putting them within sight of Ted Kennedy's house is bad for the environment. Don't worry about the unsightliness, noise and unreliability of wind power. You'll get used to it. Will the Hollyweirdo's get used to it; that is the question.

 

Solar electric panels covering vast expanses of America's deserts must be good for the environment too. Never mind the cost per kilowatt because we can afford anything we have a mind to get a credit line to purchase. Besides, solar panels are a little less unsightly than wind mills, and slightly more reliable. Let's empty out New Mexico for starters and make room for solar energy production. We can send all the squeegee guys from New York to Santa Fe to keep the panels clean. Better yet, we can do that with illegal aliens.

 

Devoting millions of acres of American cropland to ethanol production must be better for the environment than drilling for oil on 2,000 acres of Alaska. Don't worry about ethanol not being as efficient a fuel as gasoline. We can just produce much more of it to get the same result. If the higher price depresses you, you can always put it in your favorite mixed drink. As for ethanol competing for food production, I wouldn't worry about that either. Let them eat cake.

 

Ethanol must be better than drilling offshore too, unless you are Cuba. Let them ruin their beaches. It is very important that Americans enjoy pristine beaches and eat less too. That will eliminate the unsightliness of obese people on the beaches of New Jersey and Long Island. Wouldn't that also be good toward making free health care more affordable?

 

Hybrid and all electric cars are good for the environment because we can always arrange a deal with China to accept the battery packs for recycling or disposal. It will also cut down on accidents since we will be doing less driving because of our less reliable sources of electrical energy. Perhaps Congress can pass some legislation repealing the laws of thermodynamics that make energy conversion inefficient. If Congress can repeal the law of Supply and Demand, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Laws of Thermodynamics should be a piece of cake.

 

Employment without belonging to a union should be illegal. Every person in America should be part of a group extorting higher salaries from those evil businesses. The labor monopoly that controls auto production, steel, construction, trucking and port facilities should not be alone to enjoy the benefits of their monopolies. In fact, doctors and nurses would be remiss if they didn't immediately form a union to deal with the federal bureaucracy that will run health care. Follow the example of the National Education Association and you can get a far better deal than you are getting now. Better yet, get AFSCME to help you organize since you will be government employees.

 

In the same vein, our military should be organized to demand better working conditions and much higher pay. Considering the risk they take, they should be making at least three times what teachers are paid. They should also have the right to select their own commander-in-chief. Voters not in the military should have no say about who their boss will be. That isn't liberal.

 

Shouldn't government run all businesses? That will save a lot of time and money since the politicians negotiating for our votes can negotiate our salaries at the same time. I'm going to vote for the guy (or gal) that offers the best deal.

 

Finally, and most importantly, we should all stop paying our debts. That is what government is for after all. I want my bailout and free stuff and I'm getting a bit impatient with Obama and his promises. The Office of the President-Elect has had more than enough time to send its legislative agenda to the Congress-Elect and start passing some laws. What do they think this is anyway, a constitutional republic or something?

Proofin' the prez: Who's in charge? Is Obama Eligible to be Prez?

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Constitutional lawyer says electors
have duty to investigate citizenship

---

By Bob Unruh

---

WorldNetDaily

Barack Obama

A one-time vice presidential candidate who is considered an expert on the U.S. Constitution says it is up the electors from the 50 states to make certain President-elect Barack Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen before they cast votes for him in the Electoral College Dec. 15.

"If they do their duty, they would make sure that if they cast a vote for Mr. Obama, that Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," Herb Titus, the Constitution Party's running mate to Howard Phillips in 1996, told WND today.

"I think it should be resolved. The duty is in the Electoral College. Every Obama elector that is committed to casting a vote on the 15th of December, they have a constitutional duty to make certain whether Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," he said.

If the electors fail their duty and Obama proves ultimately to fail the eligibility requirement of the U.S. Constitution, there would be only the laborious, contentious and cumbersome process of impeachment available to those who would wish to follow the Constitution, he suggested.

The issue of Obama's citizenship has been in the news for weeks as multiple legal claims have asserted the Democrat is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. There have been claims he was born in Kenya, that he's a British subject because of his father and that he lost his citizenship in Indonesia.

(Story continues below)

Two of the cases are pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and several others that have fallen by the wayside.

Also, thousands of people are jumping aboard a petition that demands documentation of Obama's eligibility to hold the highest office in the U.S., not just assurances from party officials.

As of this afternoon, about 70,000 petitioners have joined the effort coordinated by WND founder and editor Joseph Farah.

To participate, sign the petition here.

A report accompanying Farah's petition explains the many questions raised about Obama's eligibility, from an apparently fabricated "Certification of Live Birth" posted online to questions about what nation's passport he used to travel to Pakistan.

One case is scheduled for a conference among U.S. Supreme Court justices Dec. 5. Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.

Do you agree with contentions made in "The Audacity of Deceit" about the impact of an Obama White House on the United States?

The case, unsuccessful at the state level, was submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas for conference Dec. 5.

Titus holds a law degree cum laude from Harvard, is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and a long list of federal court districts, and helped found a law school. He told WND the framers of the Constitution specifically wanted the electors, citizen voters from all the states, to determine the presidency to avoid chief executives who are indebted to political parties or court decisions.

In 1788, Titus noted, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers on the issue of the presidential election that "nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption."

"They have not made the appointment of the president to depend on any pre-existing bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment," Hamilton wrote. "And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the president in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States," Hamilton wrote in support of the concept of the Electoral College.

If the electors fail, Titus said, "I think it moots the point."

"I don't think there is anything in the Constitution [that would allow a challenge based on a candidate's constitutional qualifications.]

"It would politically undermine Obama's re-election … and there may be an impeachment if someone concluded he deliberately misled the people, and knew he was not a natural-born citizen," he said.

Titus said the evidence clearly shows there are questions about Obama's birth that should be resolved. But he said he doesn't believe the courts will do anything, nor should they.

"If it's revealed it's only going to be [revealed because of] investigative journalism or by Obama himself," he said.

"It's only the Electoral College that has the duty and authority to determine is a person is qualified to be president," Titus said.

"We should act accordingly, get the names of all the electors, including McCain's electors, and urge them to do their duty," he said.

He said, however, the bottom line is that there are some people who would rather ignore the Constitution than dispense with a candidate who may be unqualified.

"Politically, [being ineligible] would be a very serious problem for [Obama,]" he said. "But there also would be people who would only shrug."

"It's up to the people. Essentially the Constitution is a covenant of the people with their government. If the people don't insist on their government officials abiding by the covenant, I don't know what you can do," he said.

Titus said the basis of a natural-born requirement traces back to the Old Testament, where Moses prophesied about the people of Israel getting a king.

"The whole notion of a natural-born citizen is designed for the purpose of making sure that the chief executive would not have politically divided loyalties," he said.

Supreme Court would decide?

Meanwhile, a veteran law enforcement officer and director of criminal justice courses says he believes the 2008 election results ultimately could come down to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a ruling eight years ago that helped put George W. Bush in the White House.

The assessment comes from James H. Hafeman, a veteran of decades in law enforcement who supervised an armed security force, taught criminal justice and directed criminal justice programs in Michigan. He submitted a commentary to WND, outlining his evidence.

Hafeman said his argument is based mostly on the U.S. Constitution, which outlines the requirements for eligibility for president, including that the candidate be a "natural-born" citizen.

While replacing a president is outlined in the Constitution, he warned the replacement of a president-elect who is found to be ineligible isn't simple.

"While many have speculated that an official declaration of Obama's ineligibility may lead to the appointment of Joe Biden as president, the speculation is inaccurate. Since it was up to the respective political party to properly vet their candidate before a primary election, they may not qualify to be rewarded for their lack of integrity. Additionally there is no separate balloting for president and vice-president; they share the same slot. Obama's ineligibility would effectively void the entire Obama-Biden ticket," he said.

Therefore, he said, other provisions likely would come into play.

"We already know that if two candidates have an equal number of Electoral College votes, the members of the House of Representatives will collectively choose the president. Many citizens have been led to believe that it is the responsibility of the House is to decide the winner by majority vote, but that is incorrect. Members of the House of Representatives from each state would meet in a state-caucus type of meeting and vote with all congressional members from their respective state. The majority of the state's delegation would only have only one vote. Out of the 50 votes allotted among the House of Representative members, 25 plus a minimum of one vote would be required to elect the president," he wrote.

William Ball, a political science professor at Northern Michigan University, has said, "The results of the Electoral College are sent to the president of the Senate, but if there is no winner, then the House of Representatives, not the whole Congress, decides who will be president. But, in this process the State of Vermont or Wyoming with their one vote each would have as much power as California or New York."

Hafeman said the Constitution demands the same process for a situation in which a seated president becomes ineligible, but Obama won't be inaugurated until Jan. 20.

"This may be the first known case where a presidential candidate intentionally attempted to side step the specific requirements of the Constitution in order to run for the office of president," Hafeman said. "The 12th Amendment is quite clear. If the president is found ineligible, the vice-president shall become the president. However, the key is the 'president,' not the president-elect. In other words, if Mr. Obama is found ineligible to hold the office prior to his January 20, 2009, inauguration, the 12th Amendment would not necessarily be the guiding instrument for the Supreme Court.

"The Justices would be free to make their own determination regarding the specifics of the general election," Hafeman wrote.

So, Hafeman concluded, the high court may have to make some decisions.

If the worse fears about Obama's birthplace prove true, Hafeman said, the court will have to decide the consequences for providing inaccurate assurances of eligibility.

"Second, what process will be used to designate someone who will assume the office?" he wrote.

"Since all the secretaries of state will be forced to nullify the Obama-Biden ticket, the Electoral College votes would go to the next highest contender. The principle would award McCain-Palin with the total possible Electoral College votes – all 538 electors," he suggested.

"In the national-interest scenario, the question that might be asked by the Democrats may focus on the question as to whether or not they could hold an emergency national convention in order for the party to re-nominate a president and/or another vice-president candidate. If the Supreme Court declares the entire election invalid, then that may be a possibility, but it is highly unlikely since every other presidential team on the ticket were legitimate," he wrote.

"The Supreme Court may decide a new election is in order and would have to waive the two-term limitations of George W. Bush so that he can remain in office until the conclusion of the election. The continuation of his term is a viable course of action, but it may not be an action favored by the Supreme Court. Instead, the justices may simply view the anomaly as a political race with an illegitimate and disqualified opponent, which would result in a win for the McCain-Palin ticket."

On WND's new forum page, the level of frustration was rising. Dozens contributed their thoughts immediately after the forum was posted:

"What makes Obama non-respon[sive] to the simplest of requests?" asked one reader. "Does he think that it is politically incorrect to ask for authentication of the myriad of facts about himself … Is he testing the grounds to see how far he can play with this charade?"

Other comments included:

• "Obama won his first election ever by getting three Democratic opponents thrown off the ballot? He's all for using the law to help himself win. Wouldn't it be ironic if he is not allowed to serve as president due to the law? … Turn around is fair play!


• "Even the left-wing liberal news media is beginning to ask the question: 'Who is this man we have elected? We really do not know much about him.'"
  
  
• "Obama's refusal to produce the ORIGINAL given birth certificate gives us all pause. His silence on these allegations is deafening. The anointed one believes that if he can hold us all back until he's in the Oval Office he's hit a home run and he's 'safe.' Ah, not so! Check your law, Obama, and you will see that even if were to make it to the White House you will no longer be able to hide behind those red velvet ropes."
  
  
• "There must be something that would have caused him great harm prior to the election, and would have stopped him from becoming elected. What could that little piece of information be?"

I'm the one who answers when freedom rings

give this a listen

"I've got thirty rounds of justice in my magazine. I back it up with a Navy F-18. The business end on an Apache Is trouble like you ain't seen. I'm the one who answers when freedom rings"

 

http://www.amaze.fm/artist/Perry/when-freedom-rings/

Lies in the Wind

 

This past election season every politician on both sides of the isle had them in their commercials. Every oil, gas, or major energy company advertises with them in their publications, brochures, and public announcements. They are the answer to our energy problem, the solution to the global climate crisis. I am speaking of wind turbines; the massive structures being erected at break neck speeds across the Midwest and coastal regions.

As an electrical engineer working for a power generation company, I have been naturally curious as to the actual application of this technology, its cost, performance abilities, and overall impact on the industry. Simply put, we are constructing them, how are we going to use them? The answers I have found are not only startling, but down right disturbing when put in the context of consumers being sold something they are not being told the truth about. The following is a 2 part series of reasons wind power is not the answer to our problems, and the corresponding half truths and bold lies being sold to the public on the issue.

Part I… Feasibility

Wind turbines today are being manufactured to provide much more power than those of even 5 years ago. It is not uncommon to hear about 2 megawatt machines being put into service in farm sizes that may be thousands of megawatts. So the average person can look at a 4,000 MW (megawatt) wind farm and comfortably believe this will eliminate the need for say 4 power coal fired power plants of 1,000 MW each, correct? Well, not so fast. First we must understand what this 4,000 MW number means. When wind farms are installed they advertise their size on a total "Max Capacity" number. Meaning this is the amount of power they will generate if the wind is blowing at exactly the right speed, in the right direction, 100% of the time. Studies have shown however that average onshore wind farms will produce about 22% of their max capacity annually. Suddenly we are down to 880 MW. Well, you think, we can still get rid of almost one small coal fired power plant. Wrong again. To explain this we must realize the difference between "base load" and "peaking" power generation. Base load power is the "cheap" power that the majority of your electricity comes from, and the power plant generating it is generally running at close to full output the entire time. (ie. coal, nuclear) Peaking generation plants are called into service only during times when electrical demand is higher than normal. Typically times like afternoons in the summer when everyone's AC is running the hardest. Most peaking plants are natural gas fired because of their ability to ramp up and down quickly. Keep in mind this is also much more expensive generation than your cheap base load facilities, primarily because of the price of natural gas.

So where does the wind fit in? Due to the nature of the wind itself, it generates rapid ups and downs as far as electrical outputs, sometimes hundreds of times per month. It is because of this characteristic that wind power could NEVER be a substitute for base load power. From an engineering standpoint, these ups and downs must be backed by quick start gas turbines in order to balance the frequency swings on the electrical grid. Simply put, if the wind falls off, and the power is not replaced from somewhere else almost immediately you will experience either a "brown out" or a "black out" if the loss is large enough. Since base load power plants cannot ramp up and down nearly fast enough to match the erratic output of the wind farms, power companies end up running natural gas turbines in a fashion that would compare to you driving your car by going 0-100 as fast as possible, slamming on the brakes, and then repeating. This creates inefficient power, tears up machines (which costs money), and also ……creates CO2 emissions. Aside from having to balance wind with "quick start" peaking power, engineers really have no idea how to accomplish even this if the wind power on the grid is more than just a few percent of the total grid capacity. Earlier this year, Texas had a massive power outage because the wind fell off one day, and they did not have enough "quick start" replacement power to inject into the grid. So best case scenario you will be running gas turbines like a teenager who just swiped the keys to dad's Corvette, and worst case… your lights will go off. In conclusion, not one pound less coal will be burned because of the wind, and more CO2 will be created to chase it.

Power companies across the country are installing wind turbines at record speeds simply because they are being forced to by laws requiring certain amounts of "renewable energy" by a certain date. Thus they are also building a lot of natural gas fired "peaking" plants.

Knowing T. Boone Pickens didn't become a billionaire because he was stupid, I couldn't figure out what he was thinking when he starting pitching his wind/natural gas energy solution. The more I learn about wind generation, the more I'm convinced he's a financial genius. He's going to make another billion drilling for and selling natural gas.

Part II .....Cost

In my investigation into the true cost of wind power I started at the residential level. As a staunch advocate of the free market, I was a bit skeptical of the true feasibility of wind power since if we could all install wind turbines, spin our electric meters backwards, and pay back our initial investments after just a few years, wouldn't we all have one?

After realizing that installation is typically twice as expensive as advertised, and that the "payback" assumes the machine will last for 20 years or more virtually maintenance free, I started to see the catch. These machines are money pits. They break and cost a lot of money to fix unless you happen to be one of the few who owns your own crane.

The situation with commercial wind turbines is not much different with a few additional complications. First of all, they start with an inherent advantage because they are heavily subsidized through federal and state governments. In the northern plains subsidized wind energy costs about 5 cents a kwh to produce. Compare this to the fact that electricity in the same area can be made for 2.5 cents per kwh with coal. So WITH tax incentives and subsidies from the government, wind is already way behind. Adding to the problem is the fact that in order to comply with new standard and renewable energy quotas, power companies have to take the wind power whenever it is available. Study after study has shown that the wind is generally more stable and produces best at night, and other "off-peak" hours when electricity is not worth as much because demand is low. So to make a long story short, power companies are being forced to buy wind power at 5 cents per kwh and sell it at night for 1.5 cents per kwh(or whatever their off peak rate is). They are losing money on the wind. This also does not take into account the capital cost for construction of gas fired peaking plants, their operation, and maintenance costs. The bottom line is that the more wind turbines you see your local utility erecting, the higher your electric bills are going to be. When you see the term "power cost adjustment" on your bill, a major culprit is blowing in the wind.

To risk sounding like a pessimist I must mention that wind proponents do have a solution to fix the cost problem. The answer that is being proposed is a tax on coal. Cap and trade, CO2 emissions restrictions, carbon sequestration laws, etc… These are all phrases that mean coal is about to be taxed to the point, where it is no longer the cheapest solution available. As an engineer this troubles me. We aught to be striving to fix these problems of feasibility and cost, not tax the other guy to the point that suddenly wind becomes competitive.

Conclusion

The biggest problem with the renewable, "green power" industry today is its blatant dishonesty to the public. If a select few want to pay more for a less reliable source of power that would be one thing. However, it is being sold to the masses as a complete and better solution, when that is simply not true. Let's tell the truth and make it better, after all this country is the world's birthplace of new ideas and innovation. Leave the lies out of it.

-knowseverything

The night we waved goodbye to America... our last best hope on Earth

This is Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column

Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.

The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.

I really don't see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.

It already has all the signs of such a thing. The newspapers which recorded Obama's victory have become valuable relics. You may buy Obama picture books and Obama calendars and if there isn't yet a children's picture version of his story, there soon will be.

Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa, are little-read and hard to find.

If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular saviour, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn't believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves.  It was what you would expect from someone who knew he'd promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.

He needn't worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America's Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton's stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to.

Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a 'new dawn', and a 'timeless creed' (which was 'yes, we can'). He proclaimed that 'change has come'. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn't know what 'enormity' means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don't try this at home).

I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff.

And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated – but rather hesitant – invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will – 'Yes, we can'. They were supposed to thunder 'Yes, we can!' back at him, but they just wouldn't join in.  No wonder. Yes we can what exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice. He'd have been better off bursting into 'I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony' which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship.

Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidised slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.

They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King – in schools, streets, neighbourhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.

If Mr Obama's election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn't. Mr Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lot of so many young black men of his generation.

If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination programme aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn't get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them.

And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn't vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.

I was in Washington DC the night of the election. America's beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street – which runs due north from the White House – the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America, it also now has a new division, and one which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan.

As I walked, I crossed another of Washington's secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.

They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.

Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.

These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America's conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.

They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

TCWatch note: Obama agents have been in contact with the terrorist HAMAS outfit for months before the election.

 

Voter Fraud Underway in Philadelphis

TCWatch note: Tennessee Co-ordinator of Elections, Brook Thompson, is doing his part to support voter fraud. Thompson ruled yesterday that an OUT OF STATE drivers license could be used for voter id.


Powerline ^ | 11/4/08 | John Hinderacker
 

It's a time-honored tradition in some Philadelphia precincts: commandeer the premises and start running ballots through the machines, voting for Democrats. It's happening again this year. Amanda Carpenter reports:

GOP Election Board members have been tossed out of polling stations in more than half a dozen polling stations in Philadelphia because of their party status.

A liberal judge previously ruled that court-appointed Republican poll watchers could be removed from their boards by an on-site election judge, citing their "minority" status as cause.

It is the duty of election board workers to monitor and guard the integrity of the voting process.

Those on site as describing it as "pandemonium" and there may be video coming of the chaos.

... The City of Brotherly Love was roiled in controversy during the 2004 election because of rigged voting machines that showed nearly 2,000 votes for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry before the polls had opened. A man also used a gun to intimidate poll workers at Ward 30, division 11 in 2004.

Both campaign finance fraud and voter fraud have become significant elements of the Democrats' electoral strategy. Reform is urgently needed, but the Democrats won't let it happen.

Obama staff knew Aunt Zeituni was illegal but lied about it

Washington Prowler

Aunt Zeituni's Protectors

By The Prowler on 11.3.08 @ 10:49AM

ALL IN THE FAMILY
Senior aides to Sen. Barack Obama and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick were aware that Obama's aunt, Zeituni Onyango, was living in the United States illegally and in a South Boston public-housing project, and were monitoring her at the request of senior Obama campaign officials, according to a current employee for Obama's key political consulting firm, AKP&D Message and Media.

Back in early 2007, as Obama's chief campaign strategist David Axelrod was organizing and planning the Obama campaign, he identified Obama's unique family situation -- a number of half-brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, some living overseas -- as a potential problem, says an employee for Axelrod's political consulting firm, and who has done work on the Obama campaign. "Given [Obama's] father's family history here and in Africa, David wanted the campaign to know who was who, where they lived, and what they were doing. No surprises. We knew she was here illegally. We knew her income levels, but I don't think anyone from the campaign had had contact with her."

Instead, according to the source, Axelrod reached out to his former client, Patrick, who had retained Axelrod's firm for his run for governor. Onyango was living in a state-funded housing project, "so Patrick's people could just as easily keep track of things, and could do it without drawing a ton of attention," says the AKP&D Message and Media employee, who requested anonymity as he hopes to get a job in an Obama administration should the candidate win. "If we had Obama people around, the media would probably have found her much sooner. She was in [Obama's] book, it wasn't like she couldn't be found." Indeed, that is exactly how the London Times found her.

While the South Boston housing project is managed by the Boston Housing Authority, it is a state-funded facility, according to the BHA press office, and so it would not be uncommon for state housing officials to be on the grounds or in the area. "Patrick was the go-between, he's trusted by David and Senator Obama," says the aide.

In fact, Patrick spent most of the past two or three days stumping for Obama up and down the East Coast. His and Obama's relationship goes back a couple of decades, and the two actually represented ACORN together in a civil suit back in 1993. Some Republican political operatives believe that Patrick and his political team have been cutouts for un-reported cash distributed to ACORN officials around the country for Democrat "get out the vote" projects.

Some Obama aides believe that Obama was briefed at least twice by Axelrod or campaign manager David Plouffe on the status of family members. "We tracked who was talking to the press, we kept in touch with some of these people," says an Obama campaign media aide. "Anyone who thinks we didn't doesn't understand just how nervous we were about all of these people, particularly the members of [Obama's] father's family. Axelrod had everything covered." The aide said she was never present for such a briefing, but "we all knew the candidate's family was being taken care of, to protect their privacy and try to contain any damage."

The Obama campaign has denied knowing anything about Onyango's illegal status or her poor financial situation.

Obama says he will bankrupt the coal industry

Barack Obama actually flat out told the San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate) that he was willing to see the coal industry go bankrupt in a January 17, 2008 interview.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It's just that it will bankrupt them.

TCWatch Note: Is Obama bin Biden out of his ever loving mind.

In 2006 coal produced 50% of all electrity in the US

US Department Of Energy ^ </^http://www.energy.gov/energysources/coal.htm>

Coal is one of the true measures of the energy strength of the United States. One quarter of the world's coal reserves are found within the United States, and the energy content of the nation's coal resources exceeds that of all the world's known recoverable oil.

Coal is also the workhorse of the nation's electric power industry, supplying more than half the electricity consumed by Americans.

Coal-fired electric generating plants are the cornerstone of America's central power system. To preserve this economically-vital energy foundation, innovative, low-cost environmental compliance technologies and efficiency-boosting innovations are being developed by the Energy Department's Fossil Energy research program.