David Frum, Ed Rollins, and Andrea Tantaros agree that Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and other controversial people will NOT be able to hurt Obama politically right now because of the economic crisis:

http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmE5Njk3NDBlZGZhYWU4YTMyMGFkNjYyNjJmNzYwNTg=

David Frum's Diary

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Obama in the Corner

"Let me say at the outset:

I’ll be voting for John McCain on November 4...

American voters are staggering under the worst financial crisis since at least 1982. Asset values are tumbling, consumer spending is contracting, and a recession is visibly on the way. This crisis follows upon seven years in which middle-class incomes have stagnated and Republican economic management has been badly tarnished. Anybody who imagines that an election can be won under these circumstances by banging on about William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright is … to put it mildly … severely under-estimating the electoral importance of pocketbook issues.

We conservatives are sending a powerful, inadvertent message with this negative campaign against Barack Obama's associations and former associations: that we lack a positive agenda of our own and that we don’t care about the economic issues that are worrying American voters.

Republicans used negative campaigning successfully against Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, it’s true. But 1988 and 2004 were both years of economic expansion, pro-incumbent years. 2008 is like 1992, only worse..."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/09/acd.01.html

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES

Money Meltdown; Rising Rage on Campaign Trail; Top Ten Culprits of the Collapse: Richard Fuld; Conservative Women Excited about Palin; Voter Registration Group Accused of Fraud

Aired October 9, 2008 - 22:00 ET

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: "Ed, let me start off with you.

Do you believe this race is over for John McCain?

ED ROLLINS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: I do. I mean, and, you know, I'm for McCain. I am going to vote for McCain. But the momentum is going all -- all the other way.

And, equally as important, you can't break through with the economy being so overwhelming.

COOPER: So, all this Bill Ayers stuff, all the -- even if they bring up Reverend Wright...

(CROSSTALK)

ROLLINS: No one cares about it anymore. I mean, if it was a month ago or two months ago, people might have cared. Today, they don't care.

Barack has met the threshold, where people think he's going to be a leader. He has tied McCain to the past and to Bush. And I think people clearly want to make a move.

It's like Carter. When David and I were involved with Reagan in 1980, people -- once Reagan met the threshold, people clearly wanted to get rid of Carter, and they did, in a landslide. This is going to turn into a landslide..."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/09/lkl.01.html

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Obama Calls McCain Erratic; Is Sarah Palin Helping or Hurting John McCain?

Aired October 9, 2008 - 21:00 ET

LARRY KING, HOST: "Andrea, we have a question from Jody on our blog on CNN.com to Larry King.

"Hi, Larry, why is there such a disconnect between the American people and presidential candidates? Most people will tell you they hate negative politics, but presidential campaigns always turn negative. Almost every person I know wants the candidates to focus on platforms and policies."

Why, Andrea, does it get negative?

ANDREA TANTAROS, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR, SUPPORTS MCCAIN: Because negative campaigning, sadly, it works. But the risk with negative campaigning is you drive your own negatives up, oftentimes, when you choose to do it. But right now, look, I think the American people are so angry that the mudslinging back and forth that's going on, it's not getting John McCain anywhere with this Ayers stuff, because people are saying, I want to hear about the economy. I want to hear about the issues.

Barack Obama, he's just playing not to lose right now, so he doesn't have to go as negative. But I agree, it's turning off a lot of the voters, they feel disconnected from the entire political process and they blame Congress for getting them into this mess.

KING: Tanya, could it defeat you?

TANYA ACKER, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, SUPPORTS OBAMA: I think that Andrea is right. Negative campaigning, unfortunately, does work. I think that, right now, when we're in these economic waters, which are so perilous, when, you know, you've got the Dow now poised to lose 17 percent this week, people's retirements are in jeopardy, people are in foreclosure, they're losing their homes.

So I don't think it's going to work this time..."

Now I agree that controversial people like Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, and company are fair issues to bring up BUT the polls show and honest Republican strategists agree that none of this is hurting Obama politically right now because of the economic crisis:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16717

A bipartisan consensus agrees that Obama should win because of the bad economy!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 7, 2008 - 3:00pm.

I do not like this (I think that every issue should be on the table with BOTH Obama and McCain when they are running for President) BUT I am just recognizing it as being the political reality that I think it is. Complaining about it will not change anything about it in my opinion!

elected President with Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. Here's why:

1. Many Republicans don't trust McCain, particularly if there is a Democratic majority in the House and Senate.

2. Many Republicans probably realize that our next President and Congress are going to be saddled with unbelievable problems.

3. Some of them may actually be holding off on going after Obama because they have reasoned it will be better to let Obama win this so they can then go for the jugular and Democrats will have no excuses. It's even possible that these include the "honest Republican strategists" you mention.

Neither of us likes this, and it's fine with me if you think it's a "political reality". However, I've never let one of those prevent me from trying to learn the facts, and I don't intend to start doing so now. And with regard to "complaining about it", I'm not complaining. I'm just researching and asking the questions I hope someone will answer, sooner rather than later.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

I think that your points are interesting and may be valid.

Believe me that I am always "trying to learn the facts" which is why I do all of the hours of media monitoring and research that I do for my posts. If I see something new that I consider to be a significant game changing event, then I will always reexamine my position on an issue!

I have just come to a conclusion about this issue after examining the facts that the handwriting is on the wall right now that Obama will win the election because of the economic crisis short of a very huge game changing event happening in McCain's favor or the polling being wrong because of the race issue.

and it is still possible that new facts will emerge (or something unexpected will happen) which cause swing voters to swing to McCain (at least in enough numbers and enough states to give the election to him).

I agree with you that it presently looks like Obama will win in November. However, a long time ago, someone said something very astute like 'One week is a long time in politics', so until we enter that final week, I'm of the opinion that it still doesn't matter who is currently in the lead.

And, btw, I know you look for answers Mitch; and I appreciate all the great research that you do.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

I would definitely agree with your "written in chalk" analogy Nick. However I think that John McCain needs an awfully big "eraser" of a game changer to happen very quickly in order to erase that chalk!

As of right now, I think that the economic crisis and being tied to Bush have hurt McCain so badly that either you or I could probably beat McCain right now if we were the nominee with a "D" next to our names as long we just appeared to be sane to the country:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15297

Hillary said Obama is electable; How even I or Mickey Mouse could be electable!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 18, 2008 - 4:45am.

Thank you for your nice compliment, I really appreciate that!

of Pennsylvania has filed a lawsuit questioning Senator Obama's eligibility to be President. That is not news. What is news is that there is now a rather troubling video about all of this that today has reached the bot first pages of the most discussed and the most discussed political videos at YouTube, as well as the second pages of both the most viewed videos and the most viewed political videos at YouTube.

Fair or not, I think the question of Obama's eligibility is about to reach the boiling point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

Whether this issue has any merit or not (I do not know because I have not examined it) is totally irrelevant right now in my opinion!

If you think that the mainstream media will seriously cover this, if McCain will risk being perceived as going too negative by bringing this up as an issue, and if people who are being hurt by the economic crisis will even care about this, then I have some land to sell you in Florida!

This will NOT erase any chalk unless the media seriously covers it, unless McCain brings it up, and unless an awful lot of people care about it and I honestly do NOT see that happening right now!

Anything can always happen but you and I will both be million dollar winners in the lottery before election day before this issue will hurt Obama politically in my opinion!

be attempting to derail it with matters of procedure. They would counter it substantively.

Personally, I don't think McCain has to bring it up. All that needs to happen is for someone in his audience to ask him why the Obama campaign hasn't yet settled the lawsuit regarding his eligibility, and for him to say that he doesn't know the answer but maybe someone should ask the Obama campaign that question before election day.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

The bottom line Nick in my opinion is that the media will not seriously cover this story and not enough people will care about it in this economic crisis to hurt Obama politically!

However you are totally free to think what you want to about this and we will see who is right on election day!

many reasons to doubt that Senator Obama will be a good POTUS. And when a Democratic former Pennsylvania Attorney General asserts that his campaign is not substantively answering a lawsuit that says he is not even be eligible to be President, that gets my attention. I know that our MSM is corrupt, but still, it's very hard to believe that this story will not hurt Obama's chances even if it is only posted on the internet and circulated by word of mouth and email.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

 Philip J. Berg, Esquire, of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit? Mr. Berg is a wing-nut. 

    From FactCheck.org  
The truth about Obama's birth certificate. 

Summary: In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake." 

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said. 

 http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

More documented details and photos at the page. You really need to give this up, Nick.  

you dismiss as a "wingnut" might give this up, and maybe then the circulation of the video will slow down.

But the video itself maintains that factcheck.org has a conflict of interest. Hence, it is easy enough to understand how some people will doubt the veracity of their assertions regarding this matter.

Therefore, unfortunately, the argument you present merely prolongs the agony.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

A Video Portrait of Barack Hessein Obama...the same guy who produced

Ep.6: October Surprise which you posted the link to above.

Wondering who the filmmaker is behind the 13-minute attack video A Video Portrait of Barack Hussein Obama? So were we. Though the narrator identifies himself as "Lorne Baxter," and e-mails to the production company are answered by "Rodney Talmud," it turns out the man behind the video is a 28-year-old Christian television producer from North Carolina named Jason "Molotov" Mitchell, who has priors for inflammatory YouTubing.

The video, you'll recall, has supposedly racked up a million-and-a-half views on the conservative-leaning Eyeblast.tv. Among other things, it regurgitates the false viral e-mail claim that Obama refuses to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem, and claims that the Democratic candidate has been a disciple of racism, Marxism, quasi-Christianity, Islam and anti-Semitism.

"When we are at war with Islamic terrorism, can Americans elect a man with not one, not two, but three Islamic names?" the video poses. The viral video provides a rare opportunity to examine the source of a pseudonomous internet political smear, the type of which is widely expected to play a role in November's presidential election. Recent press reports have shown that such attacks have already gained traction with some white voters, who erroneously believe that Obama is a Muslim, based on internet chain letters making the claim.

The video was made by Mitchell's company, Illuminati Pictures. Mitchell is former wedding videographer who now produces and hosts a weekly Christian television show called Flamethrower, which began airing on the satellite network Faith TV last October.

A round-table show featuring Mitchell and three other Christian panelists, Flamethrower is best known for a segment that never aired. Produced in January, Mitchell's video Making Mohammed Cookies! shows a chef, wearing Islamic headdress, baking a cookie in the shape of the Muslim prophet. He's interrupted at one point by his roommate, whom he shoots with a handgun while yelling, "Jew!"

Faith TV refused to broadcast the video, setting off controversy with some conservatives. Mitchell subsequently put a portion of the video on YouTube.

more: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/behind-the-obam.html

more on "Molotov" Mitchell...

FLAMETHROWER: TV Christians who don't "get" it ... yet

Yesterday I read a story on WorldNetDaily about a new TV show called Flamethrower, on the Faith TV network. The show describes itself as "The View if it was produced by Ann Coulter. Four panelists, all young men and women, all four believe in Judeo-Christian values, all four want political change and none of them are afraid to say what they think."

For this week's show, they had scheduled to broadcast a segment where the show's creator, Molotov Mitchell (already I've got a baaaaad feeling about the nature of this series), devours a cookie emblazoned with the frosted visage of Muhammad, the founder of Islam. The whole thing is apparently meant to be a stunt intended to offend Muslims, particularly since according to Islamic tradition images of Muhammad are forbidden... which has always struck me as funny 'cuz how do we know what Muhammad looked like, anyway? Here's a pic of "Molotov" Mitchell committing sacrilege while satiating his sweet tooth...

If that isn't sickening enough for anyone in their right mind, there's more...

http://theknightshift.blogspot.com/2008/01/flamethrower-tv-christians-who-dont-get.html

Kindly desist from posting links to this trash in your efforts to defame the Democratic candidate on Wes Clark's website. Enough is enough!

would want to go into politics. Kooks abound in the great old US of A.

Proud to be an American.

It's stomach-churning at the very least.

even those you and/or I may think of as kooks do occasionally discover truths we would rather not face. Even seemingly wild reports first appearing in the National Enquirer do occasionally uncover some very wrong behaviors.

Thanks for the heads-up, though.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

I completely agree with your comment "I just wish there weren't so many reasons to doubt that Senator Obama will be a good POTUS" and I agree with what Bill Clinton said that Obama is a roll of the dice:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/us/politics/16clinton.html

Bill Clinton Says Obama Isn’t Ready

By PATRICK HEALY
Published: December 16, 2007

"Former President Bill Clinton made an unusually direct attack Friday night on Senator Barack Obama, one of his wife’s leading rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, suggesting that voters who would support someone with Mr. Obama’s experience were willing to “roll the dice” on the presidency...

“When is the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running?” Mr. Clinton said. At another point, he appeared to compare Mr. Obama to a “gifted television commentator” running for president. “They’d have only one year less experience in national politics” than Mr. Obama, he said..."

But my honest analysis is that Obama will probably win the election because of the economic crisis and if he does, then we will just have to hope for the best with him.

You and I can vote however we choose to (I plan on voting for a third party candidate on the Presidential ballot as a protest vote based based on principle in order to punish the media for what they did but my vote in Texas will probably not matter when it comes to who wins the election) but outside of that, there is absolutely NOTHING we can do about Obama's election!

...is actually using the same procedures and tactics the McCain campaign used to dismiss a simular lawsuit in California.

Tell me why we're Democrats again?

....from either party?

I'll share with you what I posted on "Americas Right". Namely the fact that questions have been raised about both McCain and Obama on this issue shows that there may be need for a certifying body or system to confirm that a candidate is eligible for the office they are seeking.

Perhaps, as part of the filing with the FEC, the candidate could provide a copy of the birth certificate, passport info, and releases allowing the FEC to confirm the information. The FEC does so, and issues a "certificate of compliance", confirming that the all the information provided is legitimate and that the candidate is qualified to hold that office.

In the event of a problem, a FEC panel of judges, equal numbers from each party, will examine legal issues and if they apply in this circumstance.

This way, the confirmation is at the very start, and doesn't waste the time of the candidates or the courts.

"I am asking you to come together and make sure Barack Obama is our next president. This is a critical mission." - Gen. Wes Clark

http://www.yestodemocracy.com/

McCain has already filed his b.c. and it was ruled OK; obama hasn't.

Obama; a reminder: "I will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." Then guess who proceeded to vote FOR the FISA bill.

McCain showed his birth certificate to reporters. It was never entered into court documents.

Robinson v. Sec'y of State et al, C 08-03836 WHA

Hollander v. McCain et al, Civil No. 08-cv-99-JL

Obama has also shown his COLB to reporters. However, like the above mentioned cases, it has not been entered into court records.

This came up with a vengeance in a Hillary-turned-PUMA group that is now defunct. I saw no shred of evidence that Obama was NOT born on Hawaiian soil of an American woman and a Kenyan father. That being the case, the age of the mother, often used to question the legalities, is irrelevant.

I think this can be put in this in the same drawer with Michelle's alleged use of "whitey," the reported tape of which has never surfaced after being promised.

My bigger question is why are so many people working so hard to get questionable things to stick on Obama?

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
"We're no better than our own sense of humility."

The POTUS is at stake. All sorts of things will happen between now and election day. We cannot just brush them off as irrelevant, delusions of a PUMA group, or something our ex-wife once told us something about. We need to answer them authoritatively.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

...about my ex-wife. She checked the facts and came to that conclusion. I just passed along her conclusions, which you have summarily dismissed, joking along the way.

That aside, I still wonder what you and others will do even if you find that you can't answer your questions. If you can't find a refutation that Obama might have benefitted from his association with Ayers, what will you do then? Help him get defeated?

By the way, that was the negative you tried to prove. You wanted proof that Obama did NOT benefit from his association with Ayers. IF he did NOT benefit from it, there will be no proof that he did not. There will only be an absence of proof that he did benefit.

I haven't seen any allegations that Obama did benefit from the association. I'm left with the conclusion that he did not until such proof is demonstrated.

But, again, that's a side issue. It seems you're looking for reasons not to vote for Obama. I have two to vote FOR him: John McCain and the Republican Party.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
"We're no better than our own sense of humility."

I certainly didn't make any inference concerning your ex-wife.

I simply did my best to repeat what you told me.

Also, you should have gathered by all I have posted on this matter that I was not looking for proof of anything, but rather links that (as I said) "refute" what the CNN video suggests. The definition of refute that I had and still have in mind is rebut, not disprove. I was asking for evidence, Stan; and I wonder how you can continue to fail to grasp that. Such evidence could include (for examples), written documents that show that someone other than Bill Ayers promoted/selected Obama to Chair the committee that oversaw the Annenberg grant, or better yet, a written or spoken denial of the accuracy of that CNN video by some Obama campaign official.

That video contains some very plain suggestions that Obama's political career was helped by his administration of that Annenberg grant. If you haven't seen those, you must not have been paying close attention when you watched that video.

Why on Earth would I come here asking for refutation of that video if I were looking for reasons not to vote for Obama? The fact is quite the opposite. I have been virtually begging for evidence that will counter the various reasons I (and many others) have difficulty trusting and supporting him. The trouble with the standard two reasons you give is that they do nothing whatsoever to win my trust in Senator Obama. Moreover, since I already know that John McCain is neither a Bush clone, nor a Republican Party puppet, neither of those two reasons strike me as all that powerful.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

But I have less trust in McCain than I do in Obama that he will do things I agree with. I KNOW I won't like what McCain will do. I have some hope that I will at least partially agree with what Obama will do. And frankly, I just don't care much at this point about most of the things that Obama may or may not have done in the past.

I also don't care to argue the fine points of the semantic distinctions among proof, refutations, and rebuttals.

Finally, even if what you find out supports your worst suspicions, I don't think that the things you're asking about will have much of an effect on an Obama presidency. What I've observed in Obama tells me that he makes his own decisions and will continue to to so. I believe he's a strong INTP that way, especially the introverted-intuitor that way.

Anyway, for me, this discussion is now over, 'cause I cast my ballot for Obama about three hours ago.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
"We're no better than our own sense of humility."

This is part of what another Democrat wrote to explain why he doesn't support Obama. Although I'm pretty certain I don't distrust Obama as much as he does, I think his ideas on the choice I must make are worthy of consideration.

Once upon a time I was filled with sick horror at the thought of a McCain Presidency. Now? Not so much. He hasn’t changed. He does have a new running mate, but she doesn’t scare me....
...
The Republican chickens are going to be coming home to roost in a big way in the next four years. If the Democrats have the House and the Senate and the Presidency, they’ll be cleaning up the mess and getting the blame. People, too many of them anyway, pin the fault on the visible target. Based on his record, there is no reason to think Obama is a millennial statesman capable of leading us away from the mountain range of shit. He may turn out to be, but he hasn’t been so far. If he doesn’t succeed, the Republicans will gain power in 2012 for another eternity. And they’ll get the benefit of however much clean-up the Democrats have managed to accomplish. I say let the Republicans deal with their own mess. Then we have a hope of getting thirty years of actual improvement, such as, just maybe, actual universal health insurance instead of “We radically changed [the health care bill] in response to concerns that were raised by the insurance industry.” (Obama, 2004/05/19)

The other reason, the even bigger reason, is that I think Obama could do more damage to the country than McCain. People pretty much know what McCain stands for and whether they’re for it or against it. Good-looking governors make it a warmer ticket, but don’t change the fundamental equation. Obama, on the other hand, does one thing, says another, and enough people are so desperate to believe in him that they lie to themselves so that they can keep doing it. Look at the reaction on the left when he started promoting faith-based government. Suddenly the left, the left, was trying to find reasons why it wasn’t such a bad idea after all. The ability to make people believe night was day was Reagan’s talent. He succeeded in making selfishness respectable, and then even admirable. He could make people forget which way was up. It’s very hard to climb out of a morass if you can’t even see that.

Obama, judging by the evidence so far, has the same talent. Based on what he’s done rather than what he’s said, he’s a Republican. Maybe Republican-lite, but that’s not the important part. What scares me is the large majority who, a year ago, finally understood that they don’t want that crap. But he can make them think they do.

McCain can’t.

That’s why I think Obama may be a bigger disaster for the country than McCain.

http://www.molvray.com/acid-test/2008/09/handsome-is-as-handsome-does/

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

I understand the reasoning, but its conclusion is very short-sighted. I simply don't think we can afford to suffer the next four years under Republican rule. We want the Republican Party, as currently constituted, completely repudiated by their shenanigans and ideologies. If, as the analysis indicates, they come roaring back in 2012, maybe at least it will arise with different philosophies and different players, perhaps with different philosophies and different players.

If an Obama administration makes any significant progress in its four years, they can say in 2012 that the country shouldn't change horses in the midstream of progress.

If an Obama administration is an abject failure, I can think of a couple of Dems who can jump in to right the ship. Or left the ship, as it were.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
"We're no better than our own sense of humility."

I don't share any distrust though.

I remember when Wes was running and we'd go through lists of who we would like to see fill Wes's cabinet. Take a look at McCain's wishful thinking cabinet list.

I think McCain has an excellent chance to make friends with some people who don't like him by picking a good set of cabinet officials and advisers.

So, who do you think would make a good what?

Please, only realistic ideas. None of this "Mike Savage for Secretary of Defense" stuff.

Secretary of the Treasury - Phil Gramm (This is a no-brainer)

National Security Adviser - John Bolton (Does not require Senate confirmation. Would make some who oppose him VERY happy)

Secretary of State - Rudy Giuliani (Iran would $#!t it's self. Of course, he could also be AG or Homeland Security)

Attorney General - Fred Thompson (If he'd take it. If not, how about Ted Olson? Paul Clement?)

Deputy Chief of Staff/Political Adviser - Newt Gingrich

Anyhow, those are the ones that spring to mind.

That's a fun group, huh?

Somebody over there posted a bi-partisan cabinet and was laughed off the blog. Somebody else was foaming about Rove being adviser.

If McCain picks his cabinet like he picked Palin I think there is a good chance they'd be the Seven Dwarfs.

http://redstatenetwork.com/blogs/randomguy/2008/feb/06/lets_pick_out_mccains_cabinet_advisors

The PUMA site "TexasDarlin" is one of the sites heavily promoting the story. Indeed, much of Berg's suit looks cut and pasted from posts by "Judah Benjamin" at that site

Philip Berg has an interesting history. I've been posting regular updates on his case and the "Cult of the COLB" over at "Yes To Democracy" for several months now.

In 2005 Berg was fined and sanctioned $10,000 for having committed a "laundry list of unethical actions."

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1122023117263

""Other attorneys should look to Mr. Berg's actions as a blueprint for what not to do when attempting to effectively and honorably perform the duties of the legal profession," Joyner wrote.

"This court has grown weary of Mr. Berg's continuous and brazen disrespect toward this court and his own clients. Mr. Berg's actions ... are an enormous waste of judicial time and resources that this court cannot, in good conscience, allow to go unpunished," Joyner wrote."

He's also been very big in the 9/11 "truth" community.

He originally filed this suit before the convention in an attempt to get the court to issue a restraining order against the DNC prohibiting them from allowing Sen. Obama to accept the nomination. And as early as March, Berg was making demands to Obama to withdraw from the race.

The website "What's Your Evidence" has been posting legal analysis of Berg's claims. ( http://www.whatsyourevidence.com/ ) And regular updates have also been done on the right-wing blog "Americas Right" ( http://www.americasright.com/ ) It's interesting to note that the gentleman who runs "Americas Right" has stated in the past he believes Berg's suit will be dismissed due to lack of standing, same as simular suits against McCain.

If you take a look at the filings Berg's case, you will find a very poorly written case. Early versions even cited a supposed "Canadian birth certificate" signed by JFK and Dudley DoRight. Not to mention forgery claims by "Polarik" and "TechDude", (in the case of "TechDude", his claims got to the point his work was pulled from "TexasDarlin" and "NoQuarter" because they couldn't be proven by the standards of THOSE sites. Which is a very low bar indeed.)

Much of the rest of the filings relies on statements made by "Judah Benjamin" at "TexasDarlin", as well as Wikipedia entries. At this time, neither Berg, or any of the other people in the "Cult of the COLB", have shown any proof of their claims.

One of the stickiest areas is Berg's claim that Sen. Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and as a result, he lost his US citizenship because Indonesian law prohibits dual-citizenship. This gives the appearance that Berg is arguing that Indonesian law supercedes US law. In fact, according to US law, a minor US citizen cannot be deprived of US citizenship for any reason before the citizen's 18th birthday. Berg argues that there's no "naturalization certificate" for Obama, so he didn't reclaim his citizenship. However, native-born citizens don't require such - and if, by US law, he never lost his citizenship, no naturalization certificate would ever be required.

His amended filings have made other demands in addition to a birth certificate - college records and the like, that give a more than slight impression of a fishing trip. And his recent claim that Obama was "an illegal alien" didn't help his case either.

There's other- well, a great many holes in Berg's argument. Even if his case was airtight, a judge could still rule lack of standing, but in this case, I cannot see how it wouldn't get bounced out of court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100903169_pf.html

Anger Is Crowd's Overarching Emotion at McCain Rally

By Michael D. Shear and Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 10, 2008; A04

WAUKESHA, Wis., Oct. 9 -- "There were shouts of "Nobama" and "Socialist" at the mention of the Democratic presidential nominee. There were boos, middle fingers turned up and thumbs turned down as a media caravan moved through the crowd Thursday for a midday town hall gathering featuring John McCain and Sarah Palin.

"It is absolutely vital that you take it to Obama, that you hit him where it hits, there's a soft spot," said James T. Harris, a local radio talk show host, who urged the Republican nominee to use Barack Obama's controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., and others against him.

"We have the good Reverend Wright. We have [the Rev. Michael L.] Pfleger. We have all of these shady characters that have surrounded him," Harris bellowed. "We have corruption here in Wisconsin and voting across the nation. I am begging you, sir. I am begging you. Take it to him."

The crowd of thousands roared its approval.

In recent days, a campaign that embraced the mantra of "Country First" but is flagging in the polls and scrambling for a way to close the gap as the nation's economy slides into shambles has found itself at the center of an outpouring of raw emotion rare in a presidential race.

"There's 26 days and people are looking at the very serious possibility that there's a chance that Obama might get in, and they don't like that," said Ian Eltrich, 28, as he filed out of the crowded sports complex.

"I'm mad! I'm really mad!" another man said, taking the microphone and refusing to surrender it easily, even when McCain tried to agree with him.

"I'm not done. Lemme finish, please," he said after a standing ovation. "When you have Obama, [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and the rest of the hooligans up there going to run the country, we have to have our head examined.

"It's time that you two represent the rest of us. So go get 'em."

The crowd burst into loud chants of "U-S-A! U-S-A!"

Standing at the center of the crowd, McCain and Palin drew on the crowd's energy as they repeatedly trained their fire on Obama.

"Senator Obama has a clear radical, far-left, pro-abortion record," McCain said after being asked about the issue.

The answer prompted a shower of boos from the crowd members. They booed again when he mentioned William Ayers, who bombed U.S. facilities to protest the Vietnam War as part of the domestic terrorist group the Weather Underground. They booed again at the mention of Rep. Barney Frank, a liberal from Massachusetts..."

If there was no economic crisis going on right now and if so much of the mainstream media were not in the tank for Obama where this could get seriously covered, then Farrakhan and Ayers would more than likely be hurting Obama politically right now in my opinion:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=77539

ELECTION 2008

Farrakhan on Obama: 'The Messiah is absolutely speaking'

'Barack has captured the youth,' will bring about 'universal change'

Posted: October 09, 2008
8:03 pm Eastern

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, another powerful Chicago-based political figure associated with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and other long-time associates of Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama, is leaving no doubt about what he thinks of the leader in the campaign for the White House.

He says when Obama talks "the Messiah is absolutely speaking."

You can watch it for yourself on a newly posted YouTube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OowxMcVTjTE

Louis farrakhan Calls OBAMA the messiah! Helter Skelter (0:48)

Added: October 08, 2008

Addressing a large crowd behind a podium Feb. 24 with a Nation of Islam Saviour's Day 2008 sign, Farrakhan proclaims,

"You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That's a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking."

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
"We're no better than our own sense of humility."

My answer to your question is "No" BUT that is not my point.

My point is that enemy swiftboat attacks based on things like this were working against Obama less than a month ago in mid-September before the economic crisis and they would probably have continued to work if there was no economic crisis:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16555

Mark Halperin explained why Obama is having problems with GOP attacks right now!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 15, 2008 - 9:58am.

Many Democrats were very concerned about these attacks and Obama's apparent lack of toughness before the economic crisis which I credibly documented in that post!

However since the economic crisis came, even you or I could probably beat John McCain right now if either of us were the nominee with a "D" after our name:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15297

Hillary said Obama is electable; How even I or Mickey Mouse could be electable!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 18, 2008 - 4:45am.

"However Obama under the right set of circumstances and by getting a very lucky break could possibly be electable just like how even I or Mickey Mouse could possibly be electable against John McCain under the right set of circumstances!"

If elected I shall not serve.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
"We're no better than our own sense of humility."

I am sure that you would do a great job Stan!

Go ahead and toss the "flaming bobcat on meth" * into Stan's lap.

Stan - lock yer door. The People are on their way over with a screeching, feral feline. In flames.

* Apt metaphor for current mess that is the US governing bodies and current crises (pick one or all) courtesy Mike Ruppert.

do a great job Dormaphaea!

Maybe I should write-in Stan and you as my ticket!

LOL!  You lay off the cough medicine young man!

Seriously, I don't look good in flames.  So if you even thing about tossing that thing at me, I'm just gonna duck. 

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
"We're no better than our own sense of humility."

Absolutely snuggly adorable and all, and I'm certain he loves you in that cat-like ownership way...but he seems to be more than a lover than a fighter.

Just in case, you should train him in the how-to's of fire extinguisher operation.

:-) 

At least to the extent to which a cat can BE insulted.

That's a look of scorn if I ever saw one! "You woke me up for THIS?"

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
"We're no better than our own sense of humility."

That's what my cats say when they're insulted. They sit with their butt toward me. They don't leave the room for fear that I might forget they're insulted--or the even greater fear that I'll stop opening cans for them.

On a related note, Horatio enjoyed the Massa-Kuhl debate last night. We have a reclining sofa; Karl was reclined on one side, I was snuggled up next to him and the laptop was on the coffee table. Partway through the debate, Horatio sat (sitting up, not lying down) on the foot rest next to Karl's feet and stared at the laptop, with his head cocked in that cat-like "this is interesting" pose.

We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
"We're no better than our own sense of humility."

and for being able to send an e mail which McCain can't do!

Here is Topper's VP running mate Willie Bean who I will also write-in.  I think that he is setting his sights too low running for Mayor right now:

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/labrador-runs-for-mayor-in-alabama/104299?icid=200100397x1206726359x1200342926

Labrador Runs for Mayor in Alabama

John David Mercer, The Mobile Press-Register / AP

2008-07-28 15:02:25

see what the obamabots are up to:

http://tinyurl.com/4yyf97

Obama; a reminder: "I will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." Then guess who proceeded to vote FOR the FISA bill.

for those who haven't the stomach to make a hit on that site

I swear, I'll never fall for one of donjo's tiny urls again

get ready to get snarked, but in the meantime, please don't let her decide what you should or should not read.

Obama; a reminder: "I will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." Then guess who proceeded to vote FOR the FISA bill.

for the sake of "transparency" that you post the link directly from whatever diary it is at noquarter (or anywhere else for that matter) that you deem note-worthy over to this site and identify it as such? With the title perhaps?

rather than duping CCN users into visiting Larry C. Johnson (or anywhere else for that matter) via your use of little_tiny_urls? That way readers may in fact decide for themselves what they would or would not read?

too cute by half

tinyurl as a courtesy to keep over-long links from making the site go wide. No quarter is one of the few sites around that's not afraid to go after the phony one. If you don't like the facts posted at no quarter, that's your choice, but to try to keep others from reading them due to your bias is not acceptable.

Obama; a reminder: "I will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." Then guess who proceeded to vote FOR the FISA bill.

I could care less about yours or anyone else's select reading choices

If you're going to use TINY_URL as a "courtesy"? Do those of us who find anti-Dem sites offensive the courtesy of identifying your link.

Let us decide.

walk on by. Don't let curiosity kill the cat! You alone have the power to click or not to click! Do not cede the power of your click to anyone! Let freedom ring!

Or anti-messiah?

Obama; a reminder: "I will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." Then guess who proceeded to vote FOR the FISA bill.

oh, pa-leese - like you didn't know what donjo was going to post "see what the obamabots are up to:" gee no clue there, it was all a big surprise to you - you thought he was posting something else, not like you noticed what donjo has been posting lately - no, not you, you are a poor unsuspecting victim after all - pa-leese. And if you really did "care less" you wouldn't be going around correcting others post with your selective "fact check" either.

Such as the "whitey" tape that has never materialized?

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
"We're no better than our own sense of humility."

Existence of tape proven?  Still don't know.

But the source for the existence of tape and confirmation of source are interesting...

Clues for source of story include "MM" (any websites spring to mind?) and for confirmation? 

Think "Casablanca."  As in "A sigh is still a sigh..."

Basically, Johnson didn't make it up.  Perhaps someone did - but not Johnson.   

Stan, if you can stop drinking from your kool-aid sippy cup for a few minutes. Larry Johnson NEVER said he saw the tape nor did he say that it existed. He REPORTED that several people, who he trusted, had seen the tape, but that he, himself, could not confirm it. You snipe at anyone else who may not have 100% verifiable facts; I suggest you start examining your own mirror.

Obama; a reminder: "I will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." Then guess who proceeded to vote FOR the FISA bill.

Johnson's timeline dissembled..... 

 http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126883.html

 Everything's Gonna Be All White

David Weigel | June 5, 2008, 12:12pm

On Monday I blogged about the rumors of a video that shows Michelle Obama making hateful comments about "whitey." I'm now convinced that Larry Johnson, the blogger who's done the most to make the rumors public, is spreading misinformation. At the least, he's been unable to stick to his story.

Johnson starts getting attention for this on May 26, recounting intel from "someone in touch with a senior Republican."

I know for a fact that Barack and Michelle Obama would like the tape of her blasting “whitey” during a rant at Jeremiah Wright’s church to never see the light of day.

On the night of May 31, Johnson fires up the speculation by promising an update by 9 a.m. on June 2. "Now I know why people who have seen the videotape say it is stunning." The blogs start churning, and reporters fish around. On June 1, Roger Stone appears on Fox News and says he's heard rumors about a Michelle Obama tape. Gleefully, a NoQuarter blogger completes the Mobius strip and claims Stone has given Johnson "new credence."

A little before 8 a.m. on June 2, Johnson reveals what he learned from "five separate sources who have spoken directly with people who have seen the tape."

It features Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan. They are sitting on a panel at Jeremiah Wright’s Church when Michelle makes her intemperate remarks. Whoops!!

The bloggy frenzy increases, with a few possible "transcripts" of the speech making the rounds. Booman posts a theoretical transcript ("from what I understand") in which Obama says "why'd he" and it sounds like she's saying "whitey." Blogger MyTownTalks posts part of "an e-mail with part of the alleged speech," in which Obama says both "whitey" and "why'd he," and rants about "the white man" who "let Katrina happen."

Later in the day, Johnson gleefully updates:

Major Obama donors went to the campaign demanding explanations after the posting of my story on No Quarter about the contents of the videotape confirmed to me by several reliable sources, all Republicans with access to knowledge but who do not know each other. So the campaign created a would-be transcript of the video it says doesn’t exist. In the Obama campaign produced transcript Michelle says “why’d he” instead of “whitey.” Very clever. Then the campaign sent this transcript to key Obamaton bloggers to circulate. And the campaign sent it to the donors to prevent them from having a nervous breakdown.

On the morning of June 3, B-list Democratic pundit Bob Beckel goes on Fox News and speculates that "there might be a big shoe dropping on Michelle Obama tomorrow." Later that night, after all the polls are closed, SusanUnPC posts a photo of Michelle Obama at a June 28, 2004 luncheon from the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition convention in Chicago, posing alongside Louis Farrakhan's wife. It kicks off another wave of speculation. On June 4, a blogger at "HillBuzz" posts a new explanation of what's on the tape and claims it was actually recorded at this luncheon.

For about 30 minutes, Michelle Obama launched into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to blame for the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton for the deaths of millions of Africans and said America is responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She then launched into an attack on "whitey", and talked about solutions to black on black crime in the realm of diverting those actions onto white America. Her rant was fueled by the crowd: they reacted strongly to what she said, so she got more passionate and enraged, and that's when she completely loses it and says things that have made the mouths drop of everyone who's seen this.

Louis Farrakhan isn't there, nor is Hurricane Katrina (which happened a year after this luncheon, of course) mentioned. Nonetheless, Johnson links the post as "BREAKING NEWS from Hillbuzz."

I am not trying to steal thunder from HillBuzz. That blogger is breaking important news.

National Review's Jim Geraghty finds the schedule of the Rainbow/PUSH event. First, the event was held at a Sheraton 14 miles away from Trinity United, yet Hillbuzz claims that Trinity United was selling a tape of this on the church web site. Second, Bill Clinton spoke at the conclusion of the conference, days after this event, yet Hillbuzz theorized that Obama was raging against Clinton. Third, Obama wasn't a featured speaker at the event: Rev. Jesse Jackson was. Michelle Obama was, with freed POW Shoshanna Johnson, a "special guest." There was no panel. It seems strange that the state senator's wife would give a 30-minute speech during a 2-hour luncheon at which she wasn't even the speaker. Later in the day, Johnson whinesabout the pro-Obama bloggers causing a "diversion."

I learned last week that Republicans have a tape of Michelle in a racist rant. She does so while part of a panel discussion. I do not know where this occurred.

That's my emphasis because two days earlier Johnson reported that Obama was sitting with Louis Farrakhan at Trinity United, and a week before that Johnson was already reporting that Obama's rant was at Trinity United. Johnson starts walking back the story by sputtering that "with or without said tape, we do know that the Obamas participated for almost 20 years in a church that espoused racism." But "without said tape," there's no story. Let's rewind it back. Johnson, on June 2:

It features Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan. They are sitting on a panel at Jeremiah Wright’s Church.

Johnson, two days later.

I do not know where this occurred.

In his peddling of this story, Johnson has altered his description of what was in the tape. I e-mailed Johnson, asked about the holes in the HillBuzz story, and called him a liar. He e-mailed me back.

You and Reason in the same sentence? Now that's funny. I don't recall soliciting an email from you so fuck off.

Until he comes out with a video tape that shows at least one of the many rumored "Michelle speeches," I think that's the last we need to hear from Larry Johnson. 

~~~~~~

 Who knows what "Sherlock" ( http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/ - another anti-Obama site) brought to noquarter? Johnson's Whitey Tape Smear Series on Michelle Obama is loaded with lies.

...has been claiming that "Whitey tape" will appear "any day now" since May. At this point, he's got zip credibility left.

As for Joseph Cannon, well, him and NoQuarter have quarreled before. Example being the claims of falsified birth certificates. NoQuarter and TexasDarlin are two of the sites in the PUMAsphere that have been heavily pimping that story, whereas Joseph Cannon has been one of the PUMA sites actually debunking that story.

NoQuarter of late has been having a lot of crossover traffic from Free Republic and Atlas Shrugs as well.

Simply put, Larry Johnson has no credibility save with those who want to believe the worst anyway.