Warren Buffett Endorses Obama

on May 19, 12:37 PM ET

Warren Buffett, the world's richest man, is backing Barak Obama for US president and thinks current US economic policy will push the dollar lower against other global currencies

Buffett told a press conference here Monday he had offered support to both Obama and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton but that since it appeared Obama would win the party's nomination, "I will be very happy if he is elected president.

"He is my choice," Buffett said.

Commenting on the US economy, the 77-year-old investor who is known as the "Sage of Omaha," stressed that fiscal, monetary and trade policies were of great importance.

"I think that the US has followed and is following policies which will cause the US dollar to weaken over a long period of time," he said.

After voicing support for Obama, Buffett nonetheless noted the US economy had managed to do "awfully well" despite a depression, two world wars and many financial crises.

"They say in the stock market ... buy stock in a business that's so good that an idiot can run it because sooner or later one will," he added.

"Well, the United States is a little like that. We can take a little mis-management from time to time," Buffett said.

Buffet is far more optimistic than I am. That's for sure.

The chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, a holding company with 76 businesses, also said he was ready to add one or two more, on condition they were well-run and had annual pre-tax earnings on the order of 50 million euros (78 million dollars), he added.

"The bigger the better," Buffett said.

Almost all of his companies are in the United States but after investing in the Israeli industrial group Iscar, he was visiting Germany, Switzerland, Spain and Italy to spread the word that European groups were also welcome to give him a call.

"I kind of go the the office everyday and wait for the phone to ring and hope it isn't a wrong number," he quipped to describe his strategy of letting companies come to him rather than searching them out.

Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

For Obama: Good News In Purple States

Gallup's polling of 13,000 voters, released April 17, shows Barack Obama ahead of McCain in competitive so-called Purple states, as well as deep blue states. Here's the summary (link is found below).

Reading further tells you that Clinton would also better McCain in the purple states. However, it is Obama who has the larger margin in be trusty stalwart blue states. (Obama ahead of McCain by 14 points, Clinton ahead of McCain by 11.)

So all together that beats down the idea that Obama's not our electable candidate. The numbers show it's he who's the one who is more electable.

The new Gallup poll link is here.

I've also been following the Rasmussen poll numbers state-by-state for weeks now.

Turns out that in some of the states where Hillary brags she's won, Obama pulls stronger numbers against McCain than she does. Link shows graphic illustration.

Obama's general election advantage compared to Clinton shows in the paired Rasmussen polling against McCain in California [big, big prize], New Mexico, Nevada, New Hampshire, NJ.

Even in her own state, NY, Obama's margin is 1-point greater against McCain (O 51 - McC 38)than her own (C 50 - McC 38) in the Rasmussen polling. She can't claim an advantage against McCain even in the state she serves as a senator.

The numbers have changed some recently, where she now does better in Florida than Obama against McCain. And she has the edge in Missouri, a state that Obama won in the primaries.

The state-by-state summary is here at Rasmussen Reports.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Mike Huckabee Jokes About Assassination Of Obama

Think that's funny do ya, Mike?

Well, have yourself a little chuckle about this. If Obama is shot, there will be many we will hold responsible: NeoCons and TheoCons, and you, Brother Mike, are now at the top of the list.

We aren't putting up with anymore bullets instead of ballots. Anyone wanting to start with the bullets again will get bullets.


http://www.findingavoice.com/2008/05/17/the-non-apology-apology/


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

This Makes me Sick To My Stomach....No Joke....

....excuse me, while I puke.

High Standards at the Washington Post Op-Ed page

(updated below - Update II)

Last week, The Financial Times highlighted some of the ugly sentiment in West Virginia against Barack Obama, including comments such as "I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife's an atheist." The article reported that "several people said they believed he was a Muslim." It ended by quoting West Virginian Josh Fry as saying "he would feel more comfortable with Mr. McCain" than Obama because: "I want someone who is a full-blooded American as president."

In one of the most repellent columns one will ever read, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker defended Fry's claim that Obama is something other than "a full-blooded American." Advancing an argument that Atrios guest blogger aimai aptly described as "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!," Parker said "we now have a patriot divide" in America that "has nothing to do with a flag lapel pin . . . or even military service." Instead:

It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.

Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Josh Fry's political sense. In a country that is rapidly changing demographically -- and where new neighbors may have arrived last year, not last century -- there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity.

We love to boast that we are a nation of immigrants — and we are. But there's a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice.

It goes on and on like that. So according to Parker, what makes McCain a "full-blooded American," but not Obama, has to do with "blood equity," "heritage," "rapidly changing demographic[s]," and "bloodlines." She then wrote that "white Americans primarily -- and Southerners, rural and small-town folks especially -- have been put on the defensive," and that:

What they know is that their forefathers fought and died for an America that has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. What they sense is that their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative. And they fear what else might get lost in the remodeling of America.

Obama's grandfather fought in World War II -- for America -- and enormous numbers of people who are something other than "white Americans" have fought in one American war after the next. But never mind that. These arguments about "bloodlines" are Parker's reasons why Obama shouldn't be President and why he's not a "full-blooded American."

Today, The Washington Post has invited the very same Kathleen Parker onto its Op-Ed page to share her views on the Democratic candidates, and specifically to opine on the matter of John Edwards' endorsement this week of Obama. She abandons her White Pride argument today in favor of the important and Serious claim that Obama and Edwards are gay girls.

The Post promotes her Op-Ed on its front page this way: "Kathleen Parker: Two Democratic Pretty Boys." Here's how her Op-Ed begins:

Well, at least they didn't kiss.

I was bracing myself for the lip lock Wednesday when John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama.

That appears under the Post headline: "The Democrats Hug It Out." We then learn that "the two men exchanged a manly air-hug" when they appeared together; that "Obama and Edwards make an attractive picture -- Ultra Brite cover boys of youth and glamour"; that Edwards has a "28,000-square-foot house and $400 haircuts"; and that "Obama and Edwards look and talk pretty, but Clinton, unflinching and steely, exudes pure brawn." All of that makes Obama and Edwards too girly "to sit across from the likes of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

Those are some very Serious political arguments brought to us by The Washington Post from an important and Serious political commentator. As always, while everything to the Left of Marty Peretz's New Republic is too fringe and radical to be heard from, there simply is no such thing as being too far to the Right to fall off the mainstream spectrum. Is there any better proof of that than the appearance by Kathleen Parker on the Post's Op-Ed, fresh off her White Pride column, to write an Op-Ed that has little purpose other than to argue that Obama and Edwards are pretty, weak girls who wanted to hug and kiss each other?

UPDATE: Brad at Sadly, No notes a few other points about the Parker Op-Ed.

UPDATE II: Hilzoy notes that because Parker's columns are distributed by the Washington Post Writers' Group, the White Pride column by Parker noted above (Obama is not a "full-blooded American" because of his "bloodlines") "ran all over the place: in the Baltimore Sun, the Chicago Tribune, all sorts of places." So The Washington Post is distributing white supremacist cant about Obama's "blood equity" and "heritage," along with today's column insinuating that he and Edwards are pretty, girly gays who want to hug and kiss each other.

Hilzoy says of the Post: "they should be ashamed of themselves." They should, but they won't be. Then again, as uptoolate notes, accurately, in comments: "As for Obama vs. McCain, try to remember that this kind of tripe is just the warm-up act."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

NeoCon Claptrap

There's no good reason why you should give one solitary hoot as to what the New York Daily News thinks about the recent Bush-Obama "affair," but since its editorial mirrored what a much larger community of neoconservative voices is saying and will persist in saying, it's worth taking a look at. It's a sad and early sign of what's to come, lots of it.

The paper said Barack Obama "is stuck with" a problem: "that during this campaign he did in fact say, and moreover did in fact say several times, that as President he would be entirely willing to sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other rogues with no preconditions whatsoever." Just in case the flat "no" preconditions wasn't clear enough for you, "whatsoever" was added.

"That is why," the editorial continued, "for a second day Friday, the customarily unflappable Obama rather flappably chose to go on a tear over President Bush's remarks to the Israeli Knesset. He called those remarks 'appalling' and 'divisive' and much else, presenting himself as the victim of an untoward attack. He is no such thing."

In a way, the Daily News was correct on that last point. Because, as things soon became clear, Obama was far less a victim than a deliriously happy recipient of Bush's attack, since said attack was so mammothly stupid. Only afterward did the White House realize just how stupid, so only afterward did defensive rhetorical inventions such as the Daily News' neoconservative editorial become necessary.

Its principal invention in defense of Mr. Bush was the ho-hum approach. The president said, said the Daily News -- and this is stated emphatically three different times in three different ways -- nothing untoward. (The editors did not add "whatsoever," however, throwing their full-throated adherence to this claim into question.)

Raising the spectre of Hitler before the Israeli Parliament, denouncing domestic opposition abroad and characterizing that opposition's position as scurrilous "appeasement" -- none of this was deemed "untoward." It was, rather, or as the Daily News and similar outlets would have you believe, just another crack foreign-relations day at the office.

I'm still waiting for Bush's defenders to cite one specific example, or even one roughly similar occasion, in which a president of the United States stood on foreign soil and excoriated his own, or his would-be successor's, domestic political opposition as Chamberlainesque in cause and Hitlerian in effect.

None was offered by the Daily News, although one would think such offerings would abound -- it was, said the paper, "nothing that has not been said many times, by Bush and by others" -- in any legitimate defense.

Also stated as fact was that Ahmadinejad -- who, by the way, is not the ultimate power in Iran, which was left conveniently unstated -- "intends to attain nuclear weapons to get the job [of vaporizing Israel] done."

I wonder if he would settle for vaporizing the neoCons, if we can round them up for him. I will gladly volunteer!

It's just as simple and straightforward as that, no questions asked or skepticism raised. This Superman of an enemy will single-handedly build or "attain" a bomb and single-handedly drop it on Israel, with no other Persians intervening at any time to avert his nationally suicidal behavior.

Have you ever noticed? All of our enemies are supermen. Just take the latest, greatest Americans enemy, Osama bin Forgotten....er...bin Laden. Here is a superman of untold, even magical strength. Here is a man who did what the huge and horrible Soviet Union couldn't do in 40 years and he did it from a cave in Afghanistan, while on dialysis. If we had an army of people like him we would never lose a war. Until we do, we seem destined to lose all of them and that would include the one being planned even as I type. When will they ever learn.....

Ah, to live in the clean, simplistic, black-and-white world of the right, where never a complication arises in argument.

But I have saved the best of the Daily News for nearly last: "Obama has said he would treat unconditionally with Ahmadinejad. While far short of appeasement, that's a problem."

Sorry ... excuse me ... coming through ...

We were first told by the paper that what Bush charged -- "appeasement" -- was not only a rather commonplace attack for a president to launch, but, in this instance, an entirely appropriate one -- one that in no way was unfair or "untoward." Remember? Well, now, several paragraphs later, we're told that the policy which Bush attacked was, after all, something "far short of appeasement."

So it was appropriate for Bush to attack Obama for holding a position he doesn't hold and never has. And, it would seem, it's appropriate for Obama's opponents to belittle him as a "flappable" whiner when he quite appropriately strikes back. Furthermore, it's appropriate for the Daily News to write a blistering editorial based on an argument never made.

BushCo has so damaged this nation in the eyes of the rest of the world, has so weakened our military and our economy, that no one considers a visit from the president of the U.S.

Obama never said there would not be much back and forth between the State Department and their counterparts in Iran. What he said was that pre-conditions, which consist of everything the U.S. wants, before a meeting, are foolish. Iran would never agree to such a thing, not anymore than we would or anymore than the Soviet Union did, during over 55 years of cold war. What Obama sees, that the rest of the fools running for president apparently don't see, is that a visit from the U.S. president isn't worth much anymore Bush Co has so damaged this nation is the eyes of the world. The rest of America needs to get over that notion as well. After Bush's and Cheney's torture policy and other war crimes, like the mother of all war crimes, a war of aggression, we don't have a moral leg to stand on. As a matter of fact, our leadership (and that includes congress after congress, who allowed Bush and Cheney to run wild without any oversight of which to speak) can and should be considered amoral, because they believe that torure is a good and right thing to do. The only thing they worry about is getting caught in a foreign country and tried, like the Nazis at Nurenberg, because "old Europe" just isn't with it, as Rummy would say, and not because they have done anything wrong. (I once believed that "Rummy" was a nickname, but now I'm beginning to think he was called Rummy because he was at least three sheets to the wind the entire time he served as Sec Def. I mean, if you go back and look at some of his statements from the podium at the Pentagon, how could one think differently?)

Given all that, here's the even better of the best from The Daily News: its final, three-word editorial judgment on this matter -- that Obama possesses "insufficiently formulated thinking."

Oh, the irony of it all. Do you see the irony? I see the irony. Or should we just call it sufficiently formulated claptrap.

Insufficiently formulated thinking? Oh God, if that isn't rich, I don't know what is. The freakin' neocons have been planning the invasion of Iraq since 1995. Later they tried to sell the idea to Clinton, who was so bogged down in the Lewinski mess by that time, he could barely fire a missile at bin Laden without the Republican Congress screaming "wag the dog" on every news channel. Clinton declined, for reasons unknown, at least to me. This, again, points out the fact that Neocons have no party loyalty, much to Karl Roves chagrin, I'm sure. They don't give a damn about any political party, only their wicked, sick imperialistic ideology. They really don't care whether the next president is Hillary or McCain. They are pretty sure they can do business with either or both, but not Obama. He is the one they fear and if so much as a hair on his head is harmed, should he be elected, it is the NeoCons we will hold responsible.

Unfortunately, we're in for five, uninterrupted months of it.

Kinda makes ya want to drag out the bazookas and head for the Weekly Standard, does it not?

For personal questions or comments you can contact P.M. at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Edwards Endorsement Pays Off For Obama

I am, personally, glad that Edwards came out for Obama. Being an Edwards supporter from the beginning, it's good to know that he made the same choice that I did, immediately after he dropped out. I couldn't help but wonder, as I saw them on television together, is that the ticket?

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press WriterThu May 15, 9:33 PM ET

Barack Obama collected the support of seven of John Edwards' Democratic convention delegates on Thursday, then gained the backing of four superdelegates and a large labor union as he marched steadily toward the party's presidential nomination.

The fresh support brought Obama's overall delegate total to 1,898, compared to 1,718 for his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton. It takes 2,026 to clinch the nomination at the party convention in Denver this summer.

Ferchrissake, will the rest of you people get on board? It's time for this thing to be over!

Edwards, who bestowed his long-sought endorsement on Obama on Wednesday, won 19 delegates before departing the presidential race in January.

Within hours, Obama picked up the backing of five of them from South Carolina, one in New Hampshire and one in Iowa.

In addition, three superdelegates — Reps. James McDermott of Washington, and Henry Waxman and Howard Berman of California — endorsed Obama.

"I believe now is the time to unite behind Barack Obama so we can be in the strongest place possible to win in November," McDermott said.

Amen!

Waxman said in a statement: "I have the greatest respect and admiration for Senator Clinton and former President Clinton ... It is now clear, however, that the Democratic Party is nearing a broad consensus on our nominee."

Edwards had been backed by the United Steelworkers Union, which announced it would now support Obama. The union has 600,000 active members, many of them blue-collar workers of the type that have favored Clinton in recent primaries.

Obama also picked up the personal endorsement of superdelegate Larry Cohen, the president of the Communication Workers of America union.

Campaigning in Rapid City, S.D., Clinton spoke for the first time about Edwards' endorsement.

"I have a great deal of respect for Senator Edwards," she said in response to reporters' questions. "He and I have a lot in common ... I imagine that Senator Edwards' endorsement will be of some help to Senator Obama in Kentucky, but I think that what matters are the people who actually vote."

Senator Edwards is a person ans he does vote, I believe.

Clinton said she had not spoken with Edwards but had spoken with his wife, Elizabeth, about the endorsement. Clinton declined to discuss their conversation.

The delegate and labor support came despite Obama's overwhelming defeat in Tuesday's primary in West Virginia, and suggested that Clinton's argument that she would be a better general election candidate was not finding a receptive audience.

Oh, who cares about West Virginia? That is probably the most racist state in the Union and hasn't voted for a Democrat for president since, maybe, Kennedy. No big loss there. If the people of West Virginia want to remain poor as church mice and considered "hicks with sticks" by the rest of the nation, even the people of the south, let then keep voting for the party that only cares about the owners of the coal mines, not those who labor in them; the party who allows the safety standards to not be enforced.

The former first lady is favored to win next week's primary in Kentucky, while Obama is expected to win in Oregon the same day.

The delegates won by Edwards are not bound by his endorsement of Obama, but several said it is important to their decision.

"I will cast my vote for who John Edwards asks me to," said Robert Groce, a South Carolina delegate won by Edwards.

Arlene Prather-O'Kane, of Cedar Falls, Iowa, said she is a backer of Edwards but "I will support who he is endorsing — which is Barack."

With the primary season winding down, both Clinton and Obama have turned their attention increasingly to the superdelegates, the members of Congress and other party officials who have seats at the convention by virtue of their positions.

Obama long trailed Clinton among superdelegates, but overtook her last week, and has pulled further away despite suffering one of his worst defeats in the campaign in West Virginia.

Clinton spent the day campaigning in South Dakota, one of two states that closes out the primary season on June 3. Obama was home in Chicago.

Both rivals had avidly sought Edwards' endorsement, particularly in the weeks after he dropped out of the race. The former North Carolina senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee had campaigned as a champion of the working class, and in the wake of his departure, Clinton consistently drew more blue-collar votes than Obama did.

"We are here tonight because the Democratic voters have made their choice, and so have I," Edwards said Wednesday as he endorsed Obama in Grand Rapids, Mich. He said Obama "stands with me" in a fight to cut poverty in half within 10 years, a claim Obama confirmed moments later.

If Edwards says it, I believe it.

___

Associated Press writers Matthew Daly and Jesse J. Holland in Washington, Jim Davenport in Columbia, S.C., Amy Lorentzen in Des Moines, Iowa, and Sara Kugler in Rapid City, S.D., contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

McCain Wants Open debates? I Can't Wait!

I don't know which side is feeling more desperate: the McCain camp for having proposed the idea of a series of "unmoderated debates" throughout the summer, or the Obama camp for having seemingly accepted it.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

True, it's a vastly appealing idea -- the New York Times calls it "a sign of what could be an extremely unusual fall campaign"; "an idea that is by any measure unconventional" -- especially for anyone who covers politics, because the potential for impromptu, column-filling gaffes is limitless.

And then there's that civics stuff about vigorous democracy and an informed electorate, blah, blah, blah. Truth is, though, voters tune in mainly for the same reason they watch NASCAR; they anticipate a mangling collision or one of the candidates careening off the track in a blaze of smoke, fire and fury.

Yet, unfortunately, the open-debate proposal is only at the idea stage and it's not improbable that it shall remain there. The reporting says it was "floated by Mr. McCain’s advisers," so the former may not even have been aware of what was about to swirl around him, and the only indication of Obama having picked up the gauntlet was his response that it's "a great idea," which was what he said about public financing, too. So there the idea sits, and there it may stay.

Still, it is axiomatic in politics that whichever camp proposes a series of debates is the camp that has taken a good, long look at its internal polling and consequently feels desperate beyond measure -- even to the point of unleashing its candidate before voters without a script. And in this instance that camp is, happily, McCain's.

The dance then proceeds thusly: the opposing camp immediately ripostes that it's "a great idea," and, well, it'll take an even longer look at it only to assure itself that it benefits, above all others, the gaping multitudes. Don't call it; it'll call you. And that's the end of it; it's consigned to obscurity and finally oblivion.

Yet, again, in this instance it is reported only that the Obama camp believes it to be an exceedingly marvelous thing -- there was no reference to the senator needing to weigh its pros and cons, you know, for the voters' benefit. Which would further suggest the opposing camp -- Obama's, that is -- is equally nervous and therefore willing to go out on a limb to bring up some numbers or break a perceived deadlock.

But, perhaps the reporting in this instance just didn't go far enough. Maybe Obama's camp has no intention of staging "unmoderated debates" and that fact just didn't make the papers. We really don't know yet.

What we do know, however, is that somebody at McCain's HQ was nervously unhinged enough to propose such a thing, and that in itself is exceedingly marvelous.

They must be worried in Arizona.

If I were handling a candidate like, oh, let's say, Senator John McCain -- a candidate with a penchant for saying incomparably stupid things off the cuff and losing his famous temper whenever control of the situation is lost -- the last bloody thought I would ever entertain is that of propping him up on a stage for two or three months against a gleaming, handsome young intellectual and letting him rip extemporaneously. There would not be enough scotch, Valium and unfiltered cigarettes to see me through such a season.

Me either, but I would sure be willing to give it a shot! It would be far worse than Nixon v. Kennedy.

Unless, that is, I had just spent the last few days pouring over some excruciatingly painful polling results that left me -- and my candidate -- with absolutely no choice. It's either risk it, or watch the numbers go a little farther south with each passing day.

I won't play the age card. As far as I know, John McCain's mental faculties are all in working order. It's just that those faculties have never seemed to work that well -- not that the accumulating years have had any noticeable, unwanted accumulated effect. He's always had a big, uncontrolled mouth that spouts the most curiously unthoughtful things, which only now a lot of people are increasingly taking note of.

He doesn't need John Hagee, for he is, in many ways, his own Jeremiah Wright.

And may God grant us the enticing opportunity to watch him in un-moderated, uncontrolled, unscripted action, all summer long. It is this, I imagine, that Obama was thinking when he responded that it's "a great idea."

Amen!

For personal questions or comments you can contact P.M. at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

These Prople Need To Be Tracked Down

Seems they are missing an important thing in their religion; the fear of God!

Even missionaries botch their facts

By Amy Hollyfield

Published on Friday, May 2nd, 2008

SUMMARY: American missionaries who lived in Kenya have spun a conspiratorial tale about Barack Obama that's bouncing around the Internet, but the allegations don't hold up to scrutiny. Sound familiar?

The letter is personal, a friend or relative confiding to another about something important. It is written by an American missionary, offering insight from Africa.

“Thanks for sending out an alert about Obama,” Celeste Davis writes in an e-mail. “We are living and working in Kenya for almost twelve years now and know his family (tribe) well. They are the ones who were behind the recent Presidential election chaos here.”

Loren Davis, Celeste’s husband, says the letter was never meant to be forwarded to thousands, plastered on blogs and put up as the God’s truth about Sen. Barack Obama.

“It was written at a time of a lot of emotional things,” he said.

But that’s exactly what did happen. And before you read any more excerpts of the letter, understand that its contents are a gross distortion of a few kernels of truth, another example of the fierce, mostly anonymous chain e-mail attacks prevalent in this presidential campaign. This one differs in that it’s signed by a real person, a Christian missionary. That fact alone brings it more credence in the blogosphere.

The letter reads: “Obama under ‘friends of Obama’ gave almost a million dollars to the (Kenya) opposition campaign who just happened to be his cousin, Raila Odinga, who is a socialist trained in East Germany. ...

“What we would like you to know is what the American press has been keeping a dirty little secret. Obama IS a muslim and he IS a racist and this is a fulfillment of the 911 threat that was just the beginning. Jihad is the only true muslim way. We have been working with them for 20 years this July! He is not an American as we know it.

“Please encourage your friends and associates not to be taken in by those that are promoting him. ... By the way. His true name is Barak Hussein Muhammed Obama. Won’t that sound sweet to our enemies as they swear him in on the Koran! God Bless you.” ( Read the entire e-mail here. )

PolitiFact has previously ruled that Obama is not a Muslim, and was not raised Muslim. He is a committed Christian. We’ve also ruled that Obama did not attend a madrassa that taught Wahabism, an austere form of Islam. And that Obama was not sworn into office on a Koran. He took the oath of the U.S. Senate in 2005 with a family Bible.

So we’re focused on three new claims:

•“Obama under ‘friends of Obama’ gave almost a million dollars to the (Kenya) opposition campaign.”

Loren Davis provided PolitiFact with a document that he says shows Obama gave $1-million to the Kenyan opposition campaign led by Odinga. A header at the top of the page says it’s a “consolidated statement of campaign financial activities.” Under the header is a list of “incoming resources” with entries listed in columns of “from” and “amount.”

Handwritten notes amplify the point being made. A name on the list is underlined and the words “Barak Obama” are written in the margin, suggesting that donation is from the Illinois senator, even though his name is misspelled. The amount across from this name also is underlined and next to it someone has written “$1 million,” implying Obama contributed $1-million.

The Obama campaign strongly disputes this allegation and three Kenya experts who reviewed the document at our request called it fraudulent. The Obama campaign sent PolitiFact the same document and one other purporting to show Obama’s campaign contributions to Kenya. The first they heard of it was when these documents arrived by fax.

To see the documents, go here and here.

On the legible version, you can see the underlined entry says, “Friends of Senator BO.”

Only, there is no political action committee named Friends of Senator BO or Friends of Barack Obama. So says Obama’s campaign. And a search of the Federal Election Commission Web site and Opensecrets.org, the Web site of the Center for Responsive Politics, pulls up neither. In fact, there’s no PAC name even close.

Not to mention, the Obama campaign says the senator never gave money to Kenyan Prime Minister Odinga.

And Salim Lone, spokesman for Odinga, confirms that.

“That is absolutely ridiculous,” Lone said in an interview with PolitiFact from Kenya. “Mr. Obama did not donate a single cent to Mr. Odinga’s campaign.”

Just to be certain, we did an analysis of Federal Election Commission reports of disbursements from Obama’s principal presidential campaign committee, Obama for America, during the 2008 election cycle. We searched for “Kenya,” “Odinga” and “ODM,” the latter being Odinga’s political party, and came up with no matches.

• “Who just happened to be his cousin, Raila Odinga, who is a socialist trained in East Germany.”

This part of the claim stems from an interview Odinga did with BBC News in January 2008. ( Listen to it here. ) In a discussion about the political situation in Kenya amid fallout from a disputed election — where Odinga’s party rejected official results and vowed to install Odinga as the “people’s president” — the following exchange occurs:

Odinga: “Barack Obama’s father is my maternal uncle.”

BBC: “You’re related to him?”

Odinga: “Yes, I am.”

No, you’re not, says the Obama campaign.

We spoke to three Kenya experts who dismiss this part of the claim as well, suggesting Odinga made the connection to give himself more legitimacy during the political crisis. Odinga was one of two men who claimed to have won Kenya’s presidential election in December 2007 and the disputed results led to bloodshed.

Odinga ultimately agreed to share power with Mwai Kibaki. Odinga became prime minister and Kibaki president.

“It’s stretched to the point of ridiculousness,” said Joel D. Barkan, political science professor emeritus at the University of Iowa and senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. “To my knowledge, they are not first cousins in the normal sense. To my knowledge, there’s absolutely no relationship at all.”

Alex Awiti, a Kenyan postdoctoral fellow at Columbia University, says you have to consider the context of when Odinga was speaking, in the middle of a political crisis.

“Raila Odinga was groping all over the place, trying to find some political legitimacy to get on a high pedestal to claim leadership and using Obama was basically going to add some political points,” said Awiti, who lived in Kenya until three years ago. “This is very opportunistic and it should be totally disregarded.”

Lone, Odinga’s spokesman, said cousins in the African sense is very different from cousins in the American sense, so they might be distant relatives.

As far as being trained in East Germany, Odinga’s own Web site says he attended Herder Institute in Leipzig, Germany, and earned a master’s degree from the Otto von Guericke Technical Institute in Magdeburg, Germany. Both cities were part of the former East Germany.

But again, our Kenya experts say that doesn’t make him a socialist.

“It should have said he was a socialist trained in East Germany,” Barkan said. “He’s populist politics, but he’s no socialist.”

• “By the way. His true name is Barak Hussein Muhammed Obama.”

Let’s be clear: The senator from Illinois who is running for president of the United States is named Barack Hussein Obama Jr. His campaign has insisted that is his full name (no Muhammad). We’ve checked this before and found it to be blatantly wrong. But since the rumor persists, we decided to dig deeper.

We have now searched every public record we can access and find nothing to support the notion that Obama has a second middle name of “Muhammed” or “Mohammed.” Only in the ether of chain e-mails does this allegation fly.

We have a copy of Obama’s marriage certificate from the Cook County Bureau of Vital Statistics in Illinois. Barack H. Obama married Michelle L. Robinson on Oct. 3, 1992, in Chicago. (And, yes, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. officiated.)

We looked at Obama’s driver’s license record in the state of Illinois, and the name reads: Barack H Obama. (Senator, just a reminder that your license is up for renewal this year).

We searched property records for Obama and found listings under the names Barack Hussein Obama and Barack H Obama.

We also found Obama’s registration and disciplinary record with the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. ( You can see it here. ) Barack Hussein Obama was admitted as a lawyer by the Illinois Supreme Court on Dec. 17, 1991. (By the way, Obama has no public record of discipline.)

We tried to obtain a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, but his campaign would not release it and the state of Hawaii does not make such records public.

Loren Davis, whose wife wrote the e-mail, says he can’t substantiate the claim.

“That was what we heard there (in Kenya),” Davis said.

• • •

You’ll find versions of this chain e-mail and its absurd allegations all over the Internet. But what makes it different, more believable, more attractive for forwarding far and wide, is that it’s signed by a real person, an American missionary who has spent time in Africa.

Loren Davis spoke at length to PolitiFact about his wife’s e-mail. He says they’re back in the United States but doesn’t want to say where. He says he wants to stay out of politics, but he has a deep concern about Obama.

“Barack Obama seems like he has a good personality. I’m not against him personally,” Davis said. “But I think there would be a very legitimate threat if a Muslim becomes president of the United States. ...The squeeze is going to come down.”

When we reminded Davis that Obama has been an active Christian his whole adult life, Davis said even if Obama isn’t Muslim, he has plenty of Muslim support and the risk is the same.

“It is a massive roll of the dice based on his connections,” Davis said.

We called Davis after investigating the claims and explained we found nothing to substantiate them and in fact, more than enough evidence to disprove them.

He was unmoved.

“I’m not going to argue with you ... I’m just saying that there’s a pattern.”

Yes, there is. A pattern of Pants on Fire wrong.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

"Facts Are Stupid Things," Sen. Clinton.

Obama picks up superdelegates; undecideds moving his way

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press WriterThu May 8, 1:14 AM ET

Barack Obama's march toward the Democratic presidential nomination picked up support from four more superdelegates Wednesday, pushing him ever closer to victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton — even as their primary marathon staggered on.

She added two superdelegates herself in what has become the last big contest as their race winds toward a finish.

There are just 217 delegates to be chosen in the final six primaries, and neither candidate can win enough of them to claim final victory. Meanwhile, 265 additional delegates — the party elders and other "superdelegates" — have yet to be claimed, and their support will be the deciding factor.

Though Obama padded his delegate lead in Tuesday's primaries, most uncommitted superdelegates still want to remain on the sidelines. The Associated Press interviewed more than 70 undeclared superdelegates or their representatives Wednesday, and many said they don't want to get involved until the voting ends June 3.

However, the comments of some of the uncommitteds were anything but encouraging for Clinton.

"I'm just wondering about the viability of Clinton's campaign at this point," said Laurie Weahkee, an add-on delegate from New Mexico. "I really want to hear from her more about if she wants to stay in the race — if the reason remains very concrete."

Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Doyle said Clinton's pitch to superdelegates has been that she can win the popular vote, but that was undercut when Obama netted more than 200,000 popular votes in the Tuesday contests.

"The math just got very tough for her after last night," Doyle said. "I think most of us out of respect for her are content to wait a little longer. ... The absolute best way for this to end is for the candidates to end it, not the superdelegates. That's the ending we all dream about every night."

She picked up two in the wake of Tuesday's loss in North Carolina and narrow victory in Indiana. North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler had said he would support the winner of his district, and she won it handily. A spokeswoman for Texas labor leader Robert Martinez told the AP he is committed to Clinton, but it wasn't clear when he made the decision.

But she lost another supporter, Virginia state House member Jennifer McClellan. McClellan is one of at least nine superdelegates who have switched from Clinton to Obama since the Super Tuesday primaries on Feb. 5. There have been no public switches in the other direction.

"I think the time has come to support Senator Obama as the likely nominee," McClellan said in a conference call with reporters. "Given what happened last night, it's very unlikely we will have a different result, and it is time to come together as a party and prepare for victory against John McCain in November."

Obama also got the support of North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek, North Carolina Democratic National Committee member Jeanette Council and California DNC member Inola Henry.

Clinton met with undecided superdelegates at Democratic Party headquarters Wednesday. She said, "We talked a lot about Florida and Michigan," two states that she won but don't have any delegates to count toward her total because their early primaries violated party rules. "I continue to emphasize and stress that we cannot disenfranchise those voters."

Clinton said later that she would be sending a letter to Obama and Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean expressing her belief that seating the Florida and Michigan delegations is a civil rights and voting rights issue.

Obama was to make his pitch to the congressional fence sitters in meetings Thursday. He also planned to start traveling to swing states to signal that the general election has begun.

Superdelegates supporting Obama recently have given a number of reasons. They recognize he is the front-runner and want to end a divisive party fight. They were impressed with his handling of a crisis that confronted his campaign in the comments of his former pastor. They don't want to risk alienating black voters who are excited about Obama's chance to become the first black president. They simply think Obama would be a more attractive choice at the top of the ticket.

"I think that Senator Obama is going to be a tremendous boost for down-ballot races in North Carolina," Meek told the AP. "He's going to turn out segments of the electorate — particularly young people and African-Americans — who have historically low turnout levels. That will help candidates up and down the ballot."

Nancy Worley, Alabama's former secretary of state and the state Democratic Party's first vice chair, said she got calls Wednesday morning from Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine — both Obama supporters.

"It appears that the Obama supporters, just from my perspective, are working a little harder at getting commitments," she said. Clinton's campaign has mainly used letters and e-mails, with occasional calls from staffers, she said, while Obama has used more of a "personal touch" with direct phone calls.

Nonetheless, she said she still hasn't been convinced one way or another even though she said she would be reluctant to vote against the pledged delegate leader. That is almost certain to be Obama.

Arizona Democratic Chairman Don Bivens also appeared closer to backing Obama after receiving e-mails from both camps Wednesday.

"The Obama one was more fulsome and sort of laid out the mathematical facts," Bivens said. He said the Clinton e-mails were from multiple individuals sharing why they thought she was the best choice.

"I'm still uncommitted, but I do believe that yesterday's results put me at a decisional plateau." He said the rest of the contests' outcomes are more predictable. "I think that we're at a point where the track got shorter and you can see the finish line."

___

Associated Press writers Stephen Ohlemacher, Ann Sanner, Ben Evans, Kim Hefling and Liz Sidoti in Washington, Matt Mygatt in Albuquerque, N.M., Mike Baker in Raleigh, N.C., and Bob Lewis in Richmond, Va., contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2007 Yahoo All rights reserved.Copyright/

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

CNN's Anticonstitutional Abomination

No matter what else happens between now and November I'll give John McCain credit for at least one act of wisdom: He refused to attend that anticonstitutional abomination -- the misnomered "Compassion Forum" -- on CNN last night. It was the closest thing yet to a religious test, which the U.S. Constitution does not specifically ban, but does frown on pointedly: none "shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

We are treading on perilous ground. We have, for the first time to my knowledge, now lined up major candidates for the U.S. presidency and grilled them on personal, religious faith. The founders would have been appalled, and for good reason. It is precisely the kind of church-state entanglement that severed and factionalized Europe for centuries -- something the founders hoped to avoid by establishing the world's "first wholly secular state," as one scholar of the early American republic has put it.

But you wouldn't have been reminded of our secular founding from watching the "Compassion Forum," sponsored last night by Pennsylvania's Messiah College and characterized this morning by the NY Times as "an exercise in earnestness on pressing moral and social issues, a 90-minute break from the political thrust and parry of the presidential campaign trail" in which "candidates ... address[ed] religious beliefs in at times starkly personal terms."

And Brother, did they ever. They had to. That was the whole point. They had to wear their Christian religion on their sleeves (an act I could swear Christianity's founder admonished) so as to gather up as many Christians-cum-Democrats as possible.

It was more than an embarrassment; it was an insult to the Constitution. It was also -- and this is just one more reason the founders declined that whole religious-test business -- an embarrassment and insult to religion itself, since it dragged the theologically fanciful down into the mud of earthly infighting.

For instance right before Mrs. Clinton took the opportunity to assure us, "You know, I have, ever since I’ve been a little girl, felt the presence of God in my life," she took the opportunity, you know, to slam Mr. Obama as an "elitist, out of touch and, frankly, patronizing." She was nevertheless quite hesitant to call him an elitist, as she assured us, saying the elitist would have to speak for his elitist self. Far be it from her to speak for the ... elitist. That would be unGodly. So ask the elitist. Her lips were sealed.

When asked about the possibility of God's personal role in her political career, Clinton jokingly replied: "Well, I could be glib and say we’ll find out, but I — I don’t presume anything about God." Which was an excellent answer, which leads one to the more excellent question of why, then, they were sitting there seedily trying to answer these unanswerable metaphysical questions to begin with.

To the same question Obama replied: "It takes a certain self-righteousness where we think we have a direct line to God. The public square is not the place for us to empower ourselves in that way." Precisely. That's what the founders thought, too.

It's also apparently what John McCain thinks, as once did his ideological predecessor, Barry Goldwater, who nevertheless was responsible for getting this religious kickball rolling.

Keeping questions of "social morality" out of political campaigns had always been Goldwater's creed -- until he ran into the impenetrable 1964 juggernaut of Lyndon Johnson. Suddenly, raising questions about America's "moral decline" seemed to be catching on with large segments of the electorate, so, just as suddenly, Goldwater decided that further pressing these questions wasn't such a bad political idea after all.

Before long the New & Religious Right -- which grew out of the Goldwater movement and which he despised -- was holding his party hostage. He ultimately lamented his '64 comingling of religious morality and politics, since politics, as he later wrote, is nothing more than the necessary art of compromise, while religionists are all about "absolute moral right and wrong." That inherent conflict presented a "challenge to democratic society [that] is too great. It's simply unworkable."

McCain's refusal to take last night's religious test on cable-network television is at least an indication that he, too, understands this. But now, and largely because of McCain's reluctance, Democrats are chasing the religionists with fervor anew. As the Politico reports: "Many Democrats believe that with McCain as the GOP nominee, the ambitious prospect of narrowing the religion gap is within their grasp."

Hence two Democrats' willingness last night to take a religious test, which -- will these marvels never cease? -- they both passed with flying colors.

In the short term, that undoubtedly is a good bargain. In the long term, however, as presidential candidate Goldwater and many others discovered too late, it's a foul one. And it's why Article VI, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says what it says.

For personal questions or comments you can contact P.M. at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

The Breach Of Obama's Passport File

I'm going to try not to speculate on this, as every newscaster I've seen so far has done, but I may highlight a few sentences or words and make a few comments throughout the article.

However I am, firstly, off on a rant about ideological nut cases.

First of all, I just sat in amazement as both Joe Di Geneva and Tucker Carlson, on MSNBC, blamed this breech on, among other things, big government and the much hated, by them, bureaucracy. Are they saying that we should have no passports in this country?

Are they saying that we should be able to go wherever we want, whenever we want and it should be none of the state departments business?

Just try that, Tucker and Joe. You won't get very far because other countries demand that you have a passport.

(Tucker was also visibly upset that this had blown Jeremiah Wright off the TeeVee for at least a day or so and what's-her-face as well. Problem is, What's-her-face seems to have "spoken and she can't shut up.")

I have a libertarian streak in me that's about a mile wide, but even I'm not that stupid. Passports are necessary for many reasons, quite a few of those reasons are for the protection of Americans abroad. However, the information on those passport files should never be used against an American citizen, unless there is other evidence of a crime; a big crime. This is the kind of thing that keeps me from being Libertarian. More knee jerk, thoughtless plugs for your ideology. It's every bit as aggravating as the gun-hating far left using every school shooting to decry the existence of guns in America., when my question is "where the hell are these kid's parents?"

Besides, Americans should be encouraged to travel abroad (not the ugly American, please, but the curious, courteous kind.) I have witnessed an ignorance in this country about other cultures and countries that even I have found shocking and in people I knew and believed to be more informed and open to learning more. When that many people are that ignorant, you can tell them anything and they will believe you, especially if they are ignorant, frightened and looking for an authority figure who will protect them. That, my brothers and sisters, is one super dangerous combination for a Democratic Republic, that is if we still have one.

I grew up in the deep south with a father who had an arsenal, practically. I was never really sure how many guns he had until he died, and I didn't really care. My father wouldn't have shot a bird, let alone a human being, unless that bird or that human was threatening his daughter and/or wife, not to mention himself, by entering our house unbidden and in the middle of the night, through a window with a ski mask.

When will we learn? We should not frighten each other, on purpose.

Nevertheless, I did know where two of the guns were. My father showed me where they were and made a big deal of it. He didn't do that often, so I was always impressed when he did. He told me that I should never touch those guns unless he was with me. The calm, firm tone in his voice was all it took. I never touched the things. I wouldn't even open the sock drawer where his pistol was. When I did the laundry, on occasion, I laid his socks, neatly folded, on the top of the dresser.

Later, my grandfather taught me to shoot, on a farm we had back then, with Dad's permission, of course. No, not even that made me want to pick up a gun for any other reason than shooting those tin cans off the rock fence and even then, as a teenager, my grandfather was with me. We had contests by then. I would try to out shoot him. I don't think I ever did. But it was fun, like shooting arrows, which I also did, at a big stack of bailed hay with a homemade target on it. I would most certainly learn to shoot arrows, as that was a part of my heritage.

I realize that that rant had absolutely nothing to do with the real point of this article, but there is nothing that will bring on a rant from me like concrete-minded, knee jerk babbling of ideology, even when its absolutely stupid in the context.

So, I still ask, where are the parents? You all know who I'm talking about, those Americans who are held in such high regard that they get tax breaks, apparently whether they are doing their jobs or not.

WASHINGTON — The State Department says it is trying to determine whether three contract workers had a political motive for looking at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's passport file.

Two of the employees were fired for the security breach and the third was disciplined but is still working, the department said Thursday night. It would not release the names of those who were fired and disciplined or the names of the two companies for which they worked. The department's inspector general is investigating.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that for now it appears that nothing other than "imprudent curiosity" was involved in three separate breaches of the Illinois senator's personal information, "but we are taking steps to reassure ourselves that that is, in fact, the case."

BWAhahahaha. Couldn't help it! Excuse me while I get the coffee of my monitor

It is not clear whether the employees saw anything other than the basic personal data such as name, citizenship, age, Social Security number and place of birth that is required when a person fills out a passport application.

It's enough for identity theft, which could lead to all kinds of mischief!

Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama's presidential campaign, called for a complete investigation.

"This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years," Burton said. "Our government's duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes."

"This is a serious matter that merits a complete investigation, and we demand to know who looked at Senator Obama's passport file, for what purpose and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach," he said.

The breaches occurred on Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and March 14 and were detected by internal State Department computer checks, McCormack said. The department's top management officer, Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy, said certain records, including those of high-profile people, are "flagged" with a computer tag that tips off supervisors when someone tries to view the records without a proper reason.

I feel it necessary to add this: When an employee attempts to look into the passport records of certain high profile people, not only is there an immediate notification to the supervisor, but a warning appears on the screen that the file cannot must not be pulled up unless for certain necessary reasons and only with permission from higher-ups at state. This warning is immediate and given before a person commits the "error" of "imprudent curiosity." Ask yourself, would you let your own curiosity get the best of you in such a situation? In this economy would you risk losing your well-paying job over curiosity? Maybe the old saying is right; curiosity killed the cat. But cats don't have pre-frontal lobes which make executive decisions for us and, hopefully, keep us from ignoring warning signs.

The firings and unspecified discipline of the third employee already had occurred when senior State Department officials learned of the breaches. Kennedy called that a failing.

Therefore there can be no full investigation of this incident as two of the employees are gone, having been fired and beyond the reach of the State Department, though not beyond the reach of the FBI. If I were them, I would be camping out in Congress, begging to tell their story for immunity if a real crime has been committed.

"I will fully acknowledge this information should have been passed up the line," Kennedy told reporters in a conference call Thursday night. "It was dealt with at the office level."

In answer to a question, Kennedy said the department doesn't look into political affiliation in doing background checks on passport workers. "Now that this has arisen, this becomes a germane question, and that will be something for the appropriate investigation to look into," he said.

Nor should the State Department routinely check the political affiliation of any potential employee. That would be illegal. But political affiliation should have been checked immediately after all three breaches. Why are the names of the contracting companies being released. They have no right to privacy in this issue that I am aware of, especially since they have been accused of nothing.

The department informed Obama's Senate office of the breach on Thursday. Kennedy said that at the office's request, he will provide a personal briefing for the senator's staff on Friday. No one from the State Department spoke to Obama personally on Thursday, the officials said.

And say what, exactly? Mr Kennedy doesn't know anymore about this issue than I do, if he is telling the truth about when upper level management knew about it. The fate of the contracted employees was decided by the janitor it seems and no investigation was done. There is no one to investigate since the guy who would have done that left his position at State ahead of congressional subpoenas. (Remember Old Cookie Krongard?) He did have an assistant, but as I say, the two fired employees are out of the reach of the State Department now and as we all know referring anything to Justice is like shooting it toward a black hole from which no information ever emerges. They still do have the third "curious employee." Perhaps, she he should be called before a congressional ASAP, even if they have to offer immunity.

Obama was born in Hawaii and lived in Indonesia for several years as a child before returning to the United States. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has traveled to the Middle East; the former Soviet states with Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.; and Africa, where in 2006 he and his wife, Michelle, publicly took HIV tests in Kenya to encourage people there to do the same.

Obama's father was born in Kenya, and the senator still has relatives there.

The disclosure of inappropriate passport inquiries recalled an incident in 1992, when a Republican political appointee at the State Department was demoted over a search of presidential candidate Bill Clinton's passport records. At the time he was challenging President George H.W. Bush.

Maybe they learned a lesson from that; don't use political appointees for your political dirty work. Use contractors. It seems to work in Iraq. Joe Di Geneva, far right lawyer, said last night that the Clinton investigation, which he ran as a special "independent" counsel said that that the GHWB stunt was just stupid, but not a crime because none of Clinton's information could be used politically it was not "disseminated." Had it been, it would have been a felony. Let's face it, it wasn't disseminated because there was nothing there that would prove harmful to Clinton's campaign and I imagine that the Bush campaign, if not the W.H., was in formed of that.

But we can't help but wonder. Like father, like son?

The State Department's inspector general said the official had helped arrange the search in an attempt to find politically damaging information about Clinton, who had been rumored to have considered renouncing his citizenship to avoid the Vietnam War draft.

Not a very bright move for a man who had wanted to be president almost his entire life.

It seems to me that the use of government agencies against the political opposition, elected or rank and file, should be a felony in itself, whether such an effort bears fruit or not. Is my memory failing me or isn't that what finally did Nixon in; the use of executive branch agencies against people who were on his "enemies list"? (We are talking the IRS and other agencies, plus the use of rogue elements who came to be known as the Plumbers.) It wasn't the secret bombing of Cambodia and therefore the broadening of the war, and sending our soldiers and sailors into Cambodia, unknown to the American people or Congress that did him in any more than the war crimes of this administration will be the reason for their down fall. Presidents always get in trouble for what they do to the American people and the political opposition, unless, of course, the people are scared witless of an outside enemy and allow breaches of their own personal security, by allowing their own government to shred the constitution and throw their rights out the widow.

We hapless, stupid Americans: like lambs to the slaughter.

Just imagine Hillary with all the new powers afforded the new president under the unitary executive theory of government.

The State Department said the official, Steven Berry, had shown "serious lapses in judgment."

After a three-year, $2.2 million probe, a federal independent counsel exonerated officials in the incident, saying that while some of the actions investigated were "stupid, dumb and partisan," they were not criminal. The independent counsel also said that Berry and others who were disciplined for their involvement were treated unfairly.

What do you think should have happened to them, Mr. Di Geneva? Perhaps a medal of freedom?

Doug Hattaway, a spokesman for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former first lady who is challenging Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, said of the current breach: "It's outrageous and the Bush administration has to get to the bottom of it."

Yeah right, Hillary. Are you going to keep pushing for the truth on this one, are are you going to wait until it happens to you and it will. Oh boy, is it going to happen to you and it won't matter one bit whether it's the truth or a lie.

You and your campaign are using the kitchen sink strategy against Obama. McCain will use the airborne and special forces against you, Dear Lady, all the while saying he isn't doing it and he may be telling the truth. It may be the Rovian forces, now in darkness, who come after you.

Kennedy and McCormack said it was too soon to say whether a crime was committed. The searches may violate the federal Privacy Act, and Kennedy said he is consulting State Department lawyers.

Too soon? Given how long it's been going on and how many times it's happened, it may well be too late.

The State Department inspector general's power is limited because two of the employees are no longer working for the department. McCormack said it was premature to consider whether the FBI or Justice Department should be involved.

McCormack said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was informed of the breaches on Thursday.

I don't doubt that. Why on earth involve her?

For anyone who is interested, there are some curious correlations between the time of the breeches and what was going on concurrently on the political landscape.

But, here is what I don't get and what may make it clear that this was not political. Obama is now a presidential candidate, surrounded by secret service and the press. How could he have gotten out of the U.S. and come back in without everyone knowing any way on or around the dates of the breaches. Why did it take three times, if it is political. Admittedly, Obama's passport file is probably pretty long. But these days it's all on computer, easily pulled up and read.The contractors who committed the beaches were data entry people. Was there a plan afoot to alter Obama's file in some way in order to scare Americans, again?

Passport files contain much more than most Americans think they do. They are not simply a record of where one went and when, especially when one is an official in the U.S. or people who are being watched by the government for whatever reasons. Like maybe they are Quakers or other dangerous pacifists. (snark)

I wonder why no one finds McCain's or Hillary's file all that interesting, or even Bill's file, these days. God only knows what he's been up to! LOL

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Just As We Suspected; Sabatage Is Afoot!

But, it seems that Barack is still beating Hillary, even with her getting huge Rethug help. I think that they are scared witless of Obama.

Many Voting for Clinton to Boost GOP
By Scott Helman
The Boston Globe

Monday 17 March 2008

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.

A sudden change of heart? Hardly.

Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters.

Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.

"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."

Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.

About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to."

Local Republican activists say stories like these abound in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, the three states where the recent surge in Republicans voting for Clinton was evident.

Until Texas and Ohio voted on March 4, Obama was receiving far more support than Clinton from GOP voters, many of whom have said in interviews that they were willing to buck their party because they like the Illinois senator. In eight Democratic contests in January and February where detailed exit polling data were available on Republicans, Obama received, on average, about 57 percent of voters who identified themselves as Republicans. Clinton received, on average, a quarter of the Republican votes cast in those races.

But as February gave way to March, the dynamics shifted in both parties' contests: McCain ran away with the Republican race, and Obama, after posting 10 straight victories following Super Tuesday, was poised to run away with the Democratic race. That is when Republicans swung into action.

Conservative radio giant Rush Limbaugh said on Fox News on Feb. 29 that he was urging conservatives to cross over and vote for Clinton, their bête noire nonpareil, "if they can stomach it."

"I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose," Limbaugh said. "They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch. And it's all going to stop if Hillary loses."

He added, "I know it's a difficult thing to do to vote for a Clinton, but it will sustain this soap opera, and it's something I think we need."

Limbaugh's exhortations seemed to work. In Ohio and Texas on March 4, Republicans comprised 9 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, more than twice the average GOP share of the turnout in the earlier contests where exit polling was conducted. Clinton ran about even with Obama among Republicans in both states, a far more favorable showing among GOP voters than in the early races.

Walter Wilkerson, who has chaired the Republican Party in Montgomery County, Texas, since 1964, said many local conservatives chose to vote for Clinton for strategic reasons.

"These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall," he said. "That remains to be seen."

Wilkerson added, "We have not experienced any crossover of this magnitude since I can remember."

In the Mississippi primary last Tuesday, Republicans made up 12 percent of voters who took a Democratic ballot - their biggest proportion in any state yet - and they went for Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin.

John Taylor, the GOP chairman in Madison County, said he toured various precincts and witnessed Republican voters taking Democratic ballots to vote for Clinton.

"Some people there that I recognized voting said, 'Hey, I'm going to vote in this primary this year, right now. But don't worry, in November I'll be back,' " Taylor said. "They were going to do some damage if they could."

Another popular conservative radio host, Laura Ingraham, who had also encouraged voters to cast ballots for Clinton, crowed about her apparent success the day after Ohio and Texas voted.

"Without a doubt, Rush, and to a lesser extent me, had some effect on the Republican turnout," Ingraham told Fox News. "When you look at those exit polls, it is really quite striking."

Some political blogs have suggested that the influx of Clinton-voting Republicans prevented Obama from winning delegates he otherwise would have, by inflating Clinton's totals both statewide and in certain congressional districts. A writer for the liberal blog Daily Kos estimated that Obama could have netted an additional five delegates from Mississippi.

It is also possible, though perhaps unlikely, that enough strategically minded Republicans voted for Clinton in Texas to give her a crucial primary victory there: Clinton received roughly 119,000 GOP votes in Texas, according to exit polls, and she beat Obama by about 101,000 votes.

Not everyone casting ballots for Clinton did so primarily to sink her, however. Brent Henslee, 33, a Republican who works at a radio station in Waco, Texas, wanted to keep Clinton in the race to expose more about Obama, whom he sees as more "fluff than substance."

"I'm not buying into all the Obama-mania, is the main reason I did it," he said. "A lot of these people don't know a thing about this guy and they're crazy about him. And I thought that maybe keeping Hillary alive will just shed some more light on the guy."

Of the nine remaining major contests, four - Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oregon, and South Dakota - have "closed" primaries, which means only Democrats can participate.

If Republicans and conservative independents continue their tactical voting, it may be more likely in Indiana, Montana, and Puerto Rico, which allow anyone to vote, and possibly in North Carolina and West Virginia, which open their primaries to Democrats and independent voters.

"If you are a Republican you could pull a Democrat ballot and vote for the Democrat presidential candidate you think will stand the least chance of beating McCain in the fall general election," the assistant editor of the Greene County Daily World, in southwestern Indiana, wrote in a blog post earlier this month.

Meanwhile, Clinton, despite trailing Obama in delegates, is projecting confidence about her chances as the nomination race careens toward the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. The morning after her big wins in Ohio and Texas, she was asked on Fox News whether she had a message for Limbaugh.

"Be careful what you wish for, Rush," she said with a grin.

--------

Scott Helman can be reached at shelman@globe.com.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.