Drive me nuts!

My Pandora station has been running a bunch of anti-Romney ads recently: "Romney Economics: It didn't work in Massachusetts, and it won't work now":

Mitt Romney ran for governor claiming his corporate experience made him uniquely qualified to grow the economy and decrease debt.

Here’s what Massachusetts got instead:

• Long-term debt: Increased more than $2.6 billion
  
• Bigger government: State spending increased more than $6 billion
  
• Slower job growth: 47th out of 50 states in job creation
  
• Higher taxes and fees: Increased by $750 million per year

Powerful. Hard-hitting. And there are plenty more stories and statistics where those come from, complete with references--about Romney's dismal record of increased debt as governor of Massachusetts; his dismal "reform" record; his astonishing expansion of government in Massachusetts ("six times the rate of private sector jobs"); his retrograde tax policies . . . and so on and so forth.

Oh. And I have only touched on his government record. You may not want to look at his record at Bain Capital. That appalls me as well. Truly shocking. If you think the banksters' and large corporations' rip-off of taxpayers over the last four or five years was worthy of at least a few tsk-tsks (if not some hardcore lawsuits for fraud: How dare these men who drove their companies into the ground demand government aid to keep their companies going even as they pay themselves multi-million-dollar bonuses?!?) . . . --Maybe you want to look at Romney's record at Bain as well.

Oh, yes, there are only a "few" examples of open malfeasance and absolute destruction. But read the stories. They certainly give me pause.

And the Republicans want to offer this guy as an alternative to Obama?

What is particularly galling, however, is that this entire negative ad campaign and website isn't--and never was--sponsored by a Republican opponent of Romney. It's sponsored by the Obama campaign! Indeed, the Pandora ads end with Obama approving them.

Amazing! And he offers us something better than Romney? I don't think so! Do we have to go through the next five months of electioneering?

No!!! . . . I can't believe this! . . . The birth certificate from h*ll! It just keeps coming back.

So last night I receive a response to my first post on Obama's birth certificate.

Forget the PDF layers. Why is Obama's registration number out of sequence (higher number than that of two others who were born and registered after his birth)?

The Big Question now is what is the reg'n number for Virginia (Tamyia) Sunahara, born on that day. One site w/ a lot of info: www.birthers.org/misc/sequential.html.

My respondent continues:

[S]suppose Obama is actually NOT qualified. What would actually happen? Would the US Supreme Court (current makeup!) vote to impeach him? Probably civil war before that. Why start civil war over this? There's plenty of other things far worse going on... and I doubt we'll have a civil war over any of it.

My thoughts: There probably won't be a full-fledged civil war over this. At least not over this, per se. But if the birthers were found to be correct all along--at least, if they were to be proven correct within the nearer rather than the longer-distant future, I expect several "heads will roll" in the federal government.

I mean, who is supposed to vet presidential candidates? Who failed to do his or her job? Who authorized the failure? Who said, "Stop looking?"

And what might it do to political relations if, indeed, it were found that the one side, who consistently and forcefully denied any hanky-panky, were to be found to have been wrong all along?

*******

And in case you don't notice within the linked article--I had not heard this one before, and I didn't catch it the first time I read the article:

We know that Obama has been using a social security belonging to Jean Paul Ludwig who died in June of 1981 in Hawaii.

So birthers are now claiming Obama has been using someone else's Social Security number?!?

No big deal, you say? That's a felony (see, especially, subsection (7))!

But what is this? Wikileaks 2? More fraudulent "information" (that is no information at all) from the web?

Anyone who has absolute trust in Obama's trustworthiness who has been able to find a counter-balance to these charges?

As I said above, I didn't even know people were raising these charges and I couldn't find any decent opposing evidence in the time I allotted to this story. . . .

Back on Uncle Sam's Plantation

It's been more than half a year since Star Parker wrote this column. I was just introduced to it this morning. It is worth our deep consideration:

Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems -- the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Through God's grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by a Democrat president. A few years after enactment, welfare roles were down fifty percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America 's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education."

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability."

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the SynfuelsCorporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty."

Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.

Parker concludes her column:

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

My answer: Yes. For most of us, it is not an easy choice. We are like the false prophets of Israel (about whom I read just yesterday morning in Lamentations 2:14). They were unwilling to expose Israel's iniquity--the one behavior (exposing Israel's iniquity) that could have restored the nation's fortunes. Instead, they "[saw] for [Israel] false and deceptive visions, . . . oracles that [were] false and misleading."

And I sense we tend to be the same today. We prefer the message of "love" and "forgiveness" and "tender mercy" in the midst of our self-seeking. We prefer not to listen to the message of judgment and condemnation for our foolish and wicked ways. (It struck me, as I read Jeremiah how many of his "positive" statements were among the Scriptures I was urged to memorize when I was involved with the Navigators in college. I can't remember a single exact-opposite verse I was ever urged to memorize. [Consider, for example, Jeremiah 29:11--"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope."--and compare it to Jeremiah 21:10--"For I have set my face against this city for harm and not for good, declares the Lord: it shall be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire." --Which one do you think we were urged to memorize while I was in Navigators? . . . Yeah. It was definitely not Jeremiah 21:10!])

When those who "even" claim the name of Christ have their ears so tuned to listen in only one direction, why would anyone bother to speak the truth to power (much less to the mob)? Jeremiah himself told the king why he was disinclined to speak the truth (though he always did, as far as we can tell): "If I tell you, will you not surely put me to death? And if I give you counsel, you will not listen to me" (Jeremiah 38:15).

How about you? Are you willing and able to speak the truth to yourself, much less to others?

I try to keep in mind what Jesus said: "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much" (Luke 16:10).

I pray I will be faithful in the little things--even in holding myself accountable with the wealth put at my disposal--so that I will be faithful in much (whatever the "much" may mean).

Whoa! Is Sonia Sotomayor going to make a great Supreme Court justice?

I listened to Obama's 4:12 announcement of Sonia Sotomayor as his candidate for Supreme Court justice to replace David Souter:


His reasoning sounded "too good." "There has to be a catch somewhere!" I thought.

So I went to Wikipedia to find out what else there is to know.

I was stunned at her decision on at least one "litmus test" case having to do with abortion:

In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush [304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002)] Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the Mexico City Policy which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". Sotomayor held that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as the government "is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds" (Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush).

But I wonder: Will Democrats go for such a nominee?

ETA 5/27/09 6:40 AM: Interesting to discover she also served as a member of the board of the Maternity Center Association, rebranded in 2005 as Childbirth Connection, "Helping women and health professionals make informed maternity care decisions." --Is it possible we might have someone serve at one of the highest levels in the United States' judiciary who could be closely involved in issues related to reproductive rights, but/and who is not primarily focused on abortion (either pro or con)?

I'm astonished!

Childbirth Connection, does, however, seem to be somewhat interested in judicial activism. (I can't be sure. I'm not confident in my ability to make out the implications of Childbirth Connection's statement concerning The Rights of Childbearing Women. Whenever I see statements having to do with "entitlement," it makes me queasy. On the other hand, I read their Vision, Mission & Beliefs statement about the Cascade of Intervention in Childbirth, and I think, Yeah. Having a few clearly delineated legal rights in this area really wouldn't be a bad idea!)

I guess I'm saying, based on what little research I've done so far: I'm rather impressed with the nomination.

. . . But/and maybe, now, I'd better see what others have to say.

[On a relevant sidenote: Check out Stanley Fish's New York Times Opinion piece on Empathy and the law. And, as far as you can, the follow-up comments. Very interesting. (So far, I have read down to Comment #3.)]

Change we can believe in!

My son showed me this video last Sunday. Humorous and thought-provoking at the same time. A 2:56 analysis of Obama's inaugural address with references to Bush.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Changefest '09 - Obama's Inaugural Speech
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

The passing of a culture

Today I read the end of 2 Kings (23-25) and the first three chapters of 1 Chronicles (1-3).

I "know" just enough Hebrew to enable me to use the standard tools . . .

Look up a verse in the Blue Letter Bible, then click on the "C"
and you'll see all kinds of lexical aids, including hotlinks to Strong's Concordance . . . and more:

. . . and also to be curious about the meanings of such things as some of the names we run across.

That's why I took the time to check Eliakim and Jehoiakim in 2 Kings 23:34 where we read that "Pharaoh Neco made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the place of Josiah his father, and changed his name to Jehoiakim." What do those names mean?

I knew Eli-akim or El-yakim had to be "My God akim" [Eli-akim] (whatever akim might mean) or "God yakim" [El-yakim] (again, whatever yakim might mean; El means "God").

And Jeho-i-akim (or, more likely, Jeho-yakim) had to be something about "Yahweh (or Jehovah) ________akim or yakim." But what does akim or yakim mean?

I looked up the names.

Eliakim--pronounced El-yah-KEEM; ah! Correct pronunciation leads to correct split: El-yakim--means "God raises" or "God sets up." And, as one might then expect, Jehoiakim--pronounced Yeh-ho-yah-KEEM--means "Jehovah (or Yahweh) raises up."

Once I recognized that, however, it raised a question in my mind: Why would Pharaoh Neco want to change Eliakim's name to Jehoiakim? --Could it be an attempt at ironic mockery: "Jehovah set you up as king! (Ha-ha-ha-ha!) No, I, Pharaoh Neco, established you as king over against your vaunted 'Jehovah.' --And don't you forget it!"? (That was the best I could come up with.)

Anyway.

You can imagine, after doing this kind of study every now and then, one begins to pay attention to the names and the name forms. If you haven't happened to pay attention, let me point out how common the name forms are that begin with El- or Yeh- or Jeh- and/or that end in -iah. --All related to "God" or "YHWH"/"Jehovah."

So I finished 2 Kings and got over to 1 Chronicles where I got the genealogies going back to Adam and Eve, and, suddenly, it was very obvious I was/we are dealing with a very different culture. None of the names included any of those "El" or "YHWH"/Jehovah pre- or postfixes. Yahweh/Jehovah isn't named.

It got me thinking about how the American culture is shifting. You can see it in "our" names.

It wasn't that long ago, the vast majority of names in the United States were "Christian" or "biblical" . . . or exhibited an affinity for or aspirations toward some kind of biblical relations.

But today?

The biblical books of Kings, of course, focus on the names of the civil leaders in Israel and Judah. I got thinking about the head of government in the United States today. Whether or not he identifies himself as Christian, it struck me that Barack Obama is the first U.S. president whose name [Barack = "Blessed" in Arabic] comes from a cultural stream whose names do not reflect Christian or Biblical roots.

Is that, itself, also a sign of a cultural shift?

Are future American presidents/rulers going to feature Islamic/Qur'anic rather than Christian/biblical roots?

Speaking for myself, may I say that, if I had to choose, I would prefer a Christian over a Q'uranic law system!

NOTE: Despite the Arabic roots for his name, the Luo people, from whom Mr. Obama comes, are, today, 97% Protestant Christian by affinity.

---

Just before I posted, I happened to note this interesting commentary by Eric Schansberg on a similar (but differently-focused) front.

Fund-raising three quarters of a billion dollars

Denny Hatch's Business Common Sense offers fascinating commentary if you like to learn about history and business.

Today's issue, comprised primarily of a lengthy quote from Walter Weintz's The Solid Gold Mailbox (Wiley & Sons, 1987), is right up there with the best of them as Weintz tells the story of how political fundraising got its start back in the 1950s. . . .

Hatch himself begins the column, as he always does, with a brief newspaper clipping (this one about Obama's $750 million fundraising campaign), and a discussion of the clipping (this time, about how astonishingly successful Obama's group was . . . because they ran "textbook campaigns in the primaries and general election" and what are the hallmarks of such a campaign). Weintz, who really started the entire politica fundraising industry, tells the story that forms the background of what makes a textbook political campaign.

Enjoy!

PS: Want to subscribe to Business Common Sense for FREE? Notice the sign-up on the right-hand side of the page.)

Brilliant viral marketing

Love him or hate him (i.e., I hope, love or hate his proposed policies), Obama's campaign has done a brilliant job of marketing.

Who would have thought? --For the price of an iPod Nano and a little website development, you can create this kind of outpouring of creative "love"?

Yes, We Carve! -- Carve your own Barack-o'-Lantern:

Don't you just love listening to this guy?

I have noted before how soothing--statesmanly, actually--Obama sounds. Boy! If he were to prove as good in practice as he claims to be in his speeches, I think I could follow this man . . . except for his obvious commitment to a culture of death . . . and his inability--any more than McCain--to explain where he is going to get the funds from to underwrite all his messianic desires. . . .

[And this is why I gagged the entire time I filled in my vote for McCain last week: who will pay for all the ridiculous big-government-will-save-you, liberal, borrow-and-spend policies of the Republicrats who have been running our country for the last eight years? Can't we just throw all the bums out?]

Oh, for more Ron Pauls and Davey Crocketts.

Still, supposing Obama wins next Tuesday, I pray he might prove even half as good in practice as he comes across in his speeches.

I've had this strange feeling in the pit of my stomach . . .

Now I hear the evidence to suggest my "strange feeling" may have legitimate roots.

Check out this video of school children singing in praise of Obama:



And then read the comments of a woman named Lori Kalner after she saw the movie:

In Germany, when Hitler came to power, it was a time of terrible financial depression. Money was worth nothing. In Germany people lost homes and jobs, just like in the American Depression in the 1930s, which we have read about in [Bodie and Brock] Thoene’s Shiloh books.

In those days, in my homeland, Adolph Hitler was elected to power by promising “Change.”

He blamed the “Zionists” around the world for all our problems. He told everyone it was greedy Zionist Bankers who had caused every problem we had. He promised when he was leader, the greedy Zionist bankers would be punished. The Zionists, he promised, would be wiped off the face of the earth.

So Hitler was elected. . . .

Yes. Change came to my homeland as the new leader promised it would.

The teachers in German schools began to teach the children to sing songs in praise of Hitler. This was the beginning of the Hitler Youth movement. It began with praise of the Fuhrer’s programs on the lips of innocent children. Hymns in praise of Hitler and his programs were being sung in the schoolrooms and in the playyard. Little girls and boys joined hands and sang these songs as they walked home from school. . . .

Read more here.

Personally, I find the entire interaction quite sobering.

But others do not.

On the Sonlighters Club forums, where I first saw this, I've seen comments along these lines:

• Needless fear-mongering! . . . If you (general, non-specific you) really are experiencing abject terror about an Obama presidency I would seriously recommend speaking to your doctor. In all honesty, its probably something that could be treated pharmacologically.
  
  Its one thing to disagree with someone's politics. Its another thing to be so completely terrified by people who think differently that you see the rise of Nazi extremists behind the election of a democratic candidate.
  
  That is wacko. If it were about John McCain and Sarah Palin it would STILL be wacko.
  
  It is ridiculous to compare the possible election of Barack Obama to the rise of Hitler, Castro or others.
  
  This country has survived 8 years with Bush at its helm. And still I wouldnt sink to comparing Bush with Hitler.
  
  This is a disgusting propaganda maneuver. I suggest you read up on propaganda and fear mongering.

And,

• This is a disgusting variation on Godwin's Law. It denigrates the horror and memory of what happened, bit by bit, in the 10 years following the Beer Hall Putsch, to the Jews, gypsies and others. It also uses make a clumsy attempt to hijack that fear and that horror for its own petty political purposes.
  
  This is the musings of self-serving paranoia and while anyone can say and suggest anything in a free society (a good thing!), this is the very lowest kind of political speech, the most destructive and base kinds of rhetoric there is.
  
  This email is much more a threat to the virtues and ideals of America as a free, healthy, productive and civil society than any kids song for Obama is. Goodness, think of what is being presented here: a salutatory song to Obama AS PRECURSOR TO A HOLOCAUST.
  
  It's also a variation of Poe's Law.
  
  Seriously, you CANNOT parody this kind of stuff, as it's so ridiculous any possible attempts at parody would be indistinguishable from the real thing. Reading this the first time, I wondered what the wry punchline was at the bottom, only to find it was serious. Ayiyi....
  
  There's never any shortage of fools and opportunists who will happily trade on the living memory of REAL horrors and REAL atrocities as fodder for fear-mongering and demonization, and this is what we have here, in spades. Disgraceful, it is. A shameful thing to pass on. . . .
  
  It's *because* of these stories of the people who lived it, of the accounts of what really happened and why that this kind of cheap stuff is so obnoxious.
  
  Do you suppose I don't know the story, what happened? I've been to Birkenau, and I've been to Auschwitz. I spent a day at Dachau just this May. If there's any single genre of books that have dominated my reading in the last thirty years, it's been WWII, and the European Theater. . . .
  
  I'm more happy at a party when I find a Vet who fought in WWII finding a corner and making him tell me stories of back in the day than anything else that might happen at that party.
  
  But if [you're] going to tell me [you see] a HOLOCAUST coming because of a bunch of KIDS singing in a video praises to Obama, I will start to wonder. . . . Because when you read, listen, talk and immerse yourself in that story, this kind of flip connection just trivializes the atrocities of that time.
  
  If you're gonna raise the spectre of the Holocaust -- the ultimate emotional appeal -- you better make sure you've got a good case, and a strong argument. Because if you don't, it's easily exposed for what it is, the cynical theft and misuse of the comapssion for the victims and the horror of those times for petty purposes -- cheap political advantage.
  
  I don't mind people bringing it up, but bringing it up in such a flimsy, transparent way, that's demeaning to the memories of those who lived through that storm, and who died in it.

And then the responses to these replies:

• It's not Obama that bothers me, but the reaction to him. I can't understand why a school teacher would have such a concert. Why would you want to indoctrinate kids like that? It also seems that people credit him with a power I don't think he has, that of "change." I wanted to yell at that parents, for pete's sake, he can't walk on water!
  
  I believe the real danger is a country with citizens who are struggling, or perhaps depressed, and will latch onto anyone with charisma. That's a vulnerable situation.
  
  I haven't seen anything in Obama that suggests he would be the sort of person that takes advantage of this. It's just that kind of hero worship bothers me, no matter who it is directed to.
   
• Everything about Hitler's rise to power was wacko. BUT it still happened! He was a slick talker for sure....He talked people into hating an entire race of people.
  
  It really troubles me when I hear someone as "educated" (intellectual may be better there....hence the " " marks....unsure of the right word there...no slam meant) as _______ [one of the people who objected to Kalner's correlation] talk [in other threads] about liking Obama because HE TALKS BETTER! Sure, [Obama] may be against XYZ that [______, the Obama supporter] believes in, but, darn it, he sure can talk with the best of them.
  
  This woman is right to fear this happening again. It may not be Obama....but! What if it is?
  
  Only those who know the "warning signs" can shout out the alarm. If no one chooses to listen...well...who knows what can happen?
   
• You know, I kept hearing about how charismatic Clinton was... and about how much everyone liked him so much even if he was against everything they believed in. I've had some personal experience with such people and I see the same thing in Obama. I can't TELL you how incredibly leery I am of such people, based on personal experience, and I just don't trust him.
   
• From what I've been reading in the news, the Democrats expect to increase their majorities in the US Senate and House of Representatives dramatically, which means carte blanche for a liberal president to roll his policies and his judicial appointments through without dissent.
  
  Those policies and appointments take us in a direction that may be hard to turn back from.
  
  So it's not that conservatives are quaking in our boots over what damage one man, Barack Obama, can do, even though he is one of the most extreme liberals in Washington. It's what damage the entire federal government can do in the hands of a filibuster-proof liberal majority just because the voters decide they want "Change" for change's sake.
   
• Why is it that every time that someone examines an issue and comes to an opposite conclusion than the liberal one, that person is "wacko" or "needs help" or, more commonly, is "terrified".
  
  This elderly woman who wrote this isn't "terrified". She is simply in a position to draw conclusions from historical parallels and you aren't. You may be in a similar position someday, but right now, she is qualified to speak to such a comparison and is entitled to do so.
  
  Whether she is correct in her conclusions or not is entirely another issue, and certainly remains to be seen. But to dismiss anyone in her unique position as "terrified" or "in need of pharmacological help" is immensely disrespectful as well as shortsighted.
   
• My grandparents came from Germany before the war, although most of their family didn't and there are great-aunts and uncles who died in the camps.
  
  But from what I hear of people who lived there, life was great. Jews held all sorts of positions of prominence. Many were war heroes from WWI. Germany was full of education and progressive thinking. None of them ever imagined that something like the holocaust could happen there, of all places.
  
  I don't have it in me to jump and say that something similar will happen in the U.S. I pray not. But it is a very real possibility and one that we all need to be cautious of.
  
  [To this last comment, about being cautious, an Obama supporter asked, "It's a real possibility when? Just if Obama is elected? Or always?"
  
  And the original poster replied, "At any time. Hopefully never."]

And your thoughts?

Kolbe Presidential Survey

Fascinating "take" on the two major party presidential candidates. And here I've had the invitation letter sitting in my in-box, unopened, for a week and a half.

Greetings!

We all bring our instinctive, conative talents to our jobs. John McCain and Barack Obama are no exception, but do we know who they are?

Kolbe Corp's new website, www.presidentialinstincts.com, is a fun way for you to say how you think the candidates solve problems, and to see what others are saying.

Although we're sprinkling some science into our approach, we aren't claiming the results are scientific – just compelling. You can see how other people voted based on age, gender, race and who they plan to vote for in the election. Since the results are continuously updated, you'll be able to see any potential shifts in the electorate as we get closer to Election Day.

We aren't endorsing or supporting either candidate. We're just curious to see how you and others view them. You can decide whether you agree or disagree with the results, and whether it will affect your vote on November 4th. We hope that by focusing on instinctive talents, people who visit the survey can find something positive about both candidates.

Maybe Senators Obama and McCain will take us up on our offer to get their Kolbe results for free so each can better understand this part of what will drive his success should he have the honor of being our next President.

I encourage you to take a moment to cast your ballot at www.presidentialinstincts.com. It will change the way you look at selecting people for a job, including the upcoming opening in the Oval Office.

Sincerely,

David Kolbe
CEO, Kolbe Corp

Check it out!

Our firm uses the Kolbe A test to evaluate new managers. It really is revealing. And as I "took the test" for Obama and McCain, I was shocked at my responses . . . but/and I think the answers helped me to understand a bit better why I feel as I do about the two candidates.

Sorry. You've only got a few hours before the "test" will be completed.

Whazzup?

I don't watch much TV, so I wasn't familiar with the original Bud "Whazzup?" commercial apparently from 2000:



If you're not, it might help to watch it. It provides some good context.

But whether you watch it or not, I think the following ad speaks to our country's current emotional state in a hilariously sad way . . .

Enjoy!

Interesting perspective on a possible Obama victory from Peggy Noonan . . .

I thought this opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal had a number of good insights. But I particularly liked one of Noonan's broad observations, and two of her broad conclusions.

The observation:

People wonder if [Obama] is decisive.

It is clear he is decisive in terms of his own career: He decides to go for president of the law review, to move to Chicago, to roll the dice for a U.S. Senate seat, to hire David Axelrod, to take on Hillary, to campaign with discipline and even elegance. When it comes to his career, his decisions are thought through and his judgments sound.

But when it comes to decisions that have to do with larger issues, with great questions and not with him, things get murkier. There is the long trail of the missed and "present" votes, the hesitance on big questions. One wonders if in the presidency he'll be like the dog that chased the car and caught it: What's he supposed to do now?

And the two conclusions.

First:

If Mr. Obama wins, and governs as a moderate liberal, not veering left, not seeming to be the cap that pops off a kettle that's been boiling for eight years, but governs to a degree, at least in general approach, as Bill Clinton did--as a moderate Democrat well aware of the terrain—he may know some success. And he may be able to tamp down the insistence of the long-simmering left by the force of his own popularity, which will grow once he is president among grateful Democrats, and others.

But if he goes left--if it comes to seem as if the attractive, dark-haired man has torn open his shirt to reveal a huge S, not for Superman but for Socialist, if he jumps toward reforms such as a speech-limiting new Fairness Doctrine, that won't yield success. It will yield trouble, and unneeded domestic arguments. We have enough needed ones.

And second:

In a way, Mr. Obama can more easily go left in foreign relations for the precise reason no one knows what going left is, because no one knows what going right in foreign relations is, at least if "right" means "conservative."

Mr. Obama has a great chance, in this area, to confuse the world. And a confused world is not all a bad thing. His persona, name, color, youth and approach will, at least initially, jumble up long-settled categories. Radicals enjoy hating America, but a particular picture of America. He is not that picture. He will give calculating Western European leaders an opening to be friendly to America again; they will feel that Mr. Obama's victory constitutes the rebuke of the Bushism they desire. They will befriend the rebuker.

******And now I wonder what I'm doing . . . and what Noonan and other conservative and/or Republican commentators are doing as we write things like this in which we imagine a potentially decent--rather than disastrous--outcome from an Obama presidency. Are we attempting to come to terms with--settle ourselves about--what appears to be a likely Obama victory?

Berg's case dismissed on technicality. Now what?

As America's Right reports:

Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States [due to questions about his citizenship] ha[s] been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing. . . .

[A] plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress. . . .

[M]uch of Berg’s basis for injury-in-fact could be considered threatened injury–he felt that the country was at risk for “voter disenfranchisement” and that America was certainly headed for a “constitutional crisis”--and, while threatened injury can certainly be injury enough to satisfy the injury-in-fact element, such satisfaction depends upon the threat being perceived by the judge as being not too creative, speculative or remote. . . .

The harm cited by Berg, Surrick wrote, “is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”

So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that's completely up to Congress to decide.

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.

Berg replied: "While the procedural evasions may be proper, it only makes me believe more that we were correct in the first place, that Obama does not have the documentation we've requested."

[Berg] says that he is learning more about [Obama] with each passing day. For example, regardless of whether it could be attached to the proceeding as it goes through the appellate process, Berg said, he is in possession of a native-language audiotape of Sarah Obama, Barack Obama's paternal grandmother, stating on the day of the last presidential debate that her famous grandson was indeed born in Kenya, and that she was present in the hospital for his birth.

"The tape is in the native language there," Berg said. "I will release it as soon as translation is confirmed by affidavit, and we are waiting on affidavits from contacts over here and in Kenya."

As for the case itself, Berg has issued a statement:

I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?

So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.

According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.

What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States.

I am most fascinated by the commentary that comes after the America's Right article, comments like these:

iatsair1 wrote,

[O]n the issue of standing, as a Hillary Clinton supporter, Berg has likely contributed both time and treasure to her campaign. Both his time and treasure are now forfeit, due to the fraudulent actions of both Barack Obama and the DNC. You now have: (From the FEC motion)
(1) an injury-in-fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct of the defendant (traceability), and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision of the court ...

Doesn't this give any Hillary contributor, including Berg, standing?

And Phil wrote,

I can see why the judge would determine Berg’s lack of standing, per this take-away paragraph:

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.

In other words, what the judge is saying is that there is no mechanism [yet] by which a citizen, voter or anyone else can directly challenge a presidential candidate’s eligibility; this is a responsibility that is currently left up to the Legislative branch, i.e.: Congress.

I actually agree with this, and believe that for the judge to have ruled otherwise would constitute “legislating from the bench,” regardless of how beneficial such “legislation” would be.

Previously, back in the 1800’s, my understanding is that Martin van Buren was challenged on his eligibility for POTUS [President of the US] because he was apparently born in a US territory. Obviously, he prevailed.

Berg is planning on appealing to the . . . SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the US]. While Berg has every right to pursue this course of action, I think he would be better served — and may be doing this anyway — helping other citizens across the several States in bringing up suits against respective SOSs [Secretaries of State] to determine eligibility.

How would this be better? A few reasons:

* Each State’s Secretary of State’s role is to specifically confirm the eligibility of all candidates for all offices

* Since the US doesn’t have federal elections in the truest sense of the word (the US has a “national” election in which all States happen to vote on the same date), one could theoretically push this concept forward with less encumbrances at the State level

* Each State has its own laws in how the SOS is to be held accountable, so, in theory, it may be better defined exactly how to challenge a respective SOS

Lawsuits in the several States would probably do well to only go after the SOS and not Obama/DNC directly, as the real issue is eligibility and not one of political expediency

Nevertheless, the election isn’t over yet. I really don’t think that this issue is going to be resolved (as much as it’s a fascinating issue to observe) by November 4, 2008.

And now, having given you this much commentary, I should note I just discovered a thoughtful, well-researched, dispassionate website dedicated to hunting down the truth concerning Berg's allegations against Obama.

Check out What's Your Evidence?. Even without the technical finding about "no standing," I have to agree with the blogger who is doing the yeoman's work of analyzing the data: in all but the most minute and irrelevant details, Berg's suit lacks merit: he produces little if any evidence for his allegations, and when we can find evidence, it is either weak, at best, or detrimental to his case.

The latest on "mild-mannered" Bill Ayers . . .

. . . the guy who--together with his wife--has repeatedly said he wishes they had done more bombing and done more damage. . . .

Get a load of Bill ("Billy") Ayers' and Bernardine Dohrn (Ayers') view of the world from their political manifesto Prairie Fire reprinted with commentary at ZombieTimes.

Please notice what they say:

Revolutionary war will be complicated and protracted. It includes mass struggle and clandestine struggle, peaceful and violent, political and economic, cultural and military, where all forms are developed in harmony with the armed struggle.

Without mass struggle there can be no revolution.

Without armed struggle there can be no victory.

My sense: as far as they are concerned, we are "merely" involved in the "clandestine struggle, peaceful, . . . political and economic, [and] cultural."

And lest you think Ayers and his wife have given up on any of their beliefs, listen to the interviews. Here's just one . . .



"We were young, we were foolish, we made mistakes . . . and we would do it again."

But perhaps you would like to see some more:

Bill Ayers speaking at the MSU SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) meeting in 2007:



Bernardine speaking at the same meeting:



("Doing everything possible to overthrow capitalism . . .")

So Obama and the DNC admit Obama is not a legitimate candidate?

Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced [on Monday] that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

So what happens if the party is scheduled and no one comes?

Check out the complete story at ObamaCrimes.com.

The Clever Hans effect and opinion-poll stuffing . . .

Fascinating analysis of a major Obama campaign strategy . . . from ZombieTime. I find it hard to imagine the author's fore-stated conclusion is correct, but the psychological tactics he describes are certainly worth considering. Check out The Left's Big Blunder: The disastrously counter-productive strategy of Obama's supporters.

-- With thanks to my brother for the link!

I sure hope Powell has Obama pegged accurately . . .

A powerful video in favor of Barack Obama.

Obama, the good-looking Trojan horse?

Yipes!!!!

So, here I've been posting about how I can hardly see a large enough difference between the two major-party candidates to decide to vote Republican rather than Democrat; "I'll vote third-party."

And then my brother sends me links to articles that blow the lid off of Obama's pretense of neutrality.

We've seen indications, before, that his relationship with ACORN is nowhere near as inconsequential as he would like us all to believe.

But now the evidence that he is lying, too, about his relationship to Bill Ayers and other radical leftists. (No. Let us speak forthrightly. He has been carefully hiding evidence about his relationship with Communists . . . y'know, the people whose governments seem, regularly, to cause the deaths of millions of people even as they have also lowered the standard of living for almost everyone except the Party apparatchiks?)

Check out the results of research by VerumSerum's friends, advanced a bit more by Gateway Pundit. Also, the research done by see-dubya and Conservative Politics Today.

These all reaffirm and strengthen what I quoted concerning a chart from an article in the American Thinker of September 28th:

puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of an incestuous stew of American radical leftism. . . . Taken together, they constitute a who's who of the American radical left, and guiding all is the Cloward-Piven strategy.

Conspicuous in their absence are any connections at all with any other group, moderate, or even mildly leftist. They are all radicals, firmly bedded in the anti-American, communist, socialist, radical leftist mesh.

So what can we expect under an Obama presidency . . . a person who has had no background checks concerning his potential security risks?

Follow-up on Obama citizenship lawsuit . . .

I posted about this lawsuit two weeks ago. Apparently Berg is not giving up.

In case you'd prefer to listen to the guts of Berg's concerns, take note of this video: