Do you ever get the feeling that those who believe in Global Warming don't want to be confused by the facts?

I fully support a person's right to believe what they please. That doesn't mean their beliefs are correct, but they do have the right to believe what they want. We call that free will.

But when their beliefs start infringing on my rights, limit my choices, raise food and energy prices, and cripple our economy, then I draw the line. Yet that is exactly what is happening in our government and President Elect Obama is marching lock step to the global warming drummer.

If you were paying attention, October was a chilly month around the world. Yet the Global Warming devotees stated otherwise. The UK Telegraph gave a startling explanation in The world has never seen such freezing heat: (My emphasis)

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

How do you explain that discrepancy? GISS says last October was "the hottest October on record", yet NOAA reported 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest temps, and we observe much the same. Plus, aren't scientists supposed to observe and question? If the data says one thing, but world wide weather reports of early snows show something else, wouldn't that make you look closer at the data? Thankfully, some did.

... when expert readers of the two leading warming-skeptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

The GISS admitted that some data was "obtained from another body" and they didn't "have resources to exercise proper quality control" over that data!  Amazing. The GISS figures are used by the UN "to promote its case for global warming." They use GISS because "they consistently show higher temperatures than the others."

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

More and more data shows that brief period of warming in the 1990s has ended, yet Al Gore, the media, and some in government stubbornly hold to their religion of Global Warming.

[Is it] wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.

Across the pond, they have the same problem, Climate Change Bill makes chilling reading:

Declining global temperatures continue to make a mockery of those computer model projections on which the whole global warming scare is based.

As I have asked before, has there ever in history been such a collective flight from reality?

Film-makers taking on our 'global warming hysteria':

A new Irish film claims that climate change guru Al Gore is an alarmist and that those who think they are saving the planet are only hurting the poor.

IF THE ADVANCE publicity is anything to go by, Not Evil Just Wrong will do for Al Gore what Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 did for George W Bush.

 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

When I first heard about that McCain insider who told tales out of school about Sarah Palin, I immediately thought those criticisms smacked of sour grapes and jealousy. Imagine a true McCain, cross the isle, centrist campaign worker now having to help the novice, but igniter of the conservative base upstart. No matter that she was happily minding her own business in Alaska when she got the tap for VP. She clearly energized the McCain campaign, and that can create jealousy.

One of the more scathing comments was that Palin did not know Africa was a continent. I immediately thought, well, 52% of Americans just elected a president who does not know America has 50, not 57 states or that Pakistan is an ally. Besides that, it could just be a slip of the tongue--much like we say Iran when meaning Iraq. We know the difference but misstate it. 

Now it seems the "insider" M. Eisenstadt, who confessed to be the source for Carl Cameron's story, might not even exist. Martin Eisenstadt Tricks News Orgs On Being Source of Palin Dirt:

But it's not at all clear that Eisenstadt exists. William K. Wolfrum of Shakespeare's Sister, who was suckered by Eisenstadt during the campaign, did some digging and concluded, "There is no M. Thomas Eisenstadt. There is no Eisenstadt Group. There is no Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. M. Thomas Eisenstadt is a hoax."

To be clear, none of this means the Africa story is false -- just that it didn't come from this source. Huffington Post has been told on background that Martin Eisenstadt was not one of Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron's sources.

Who knows who was the real source of Cameron's story. If we ever find him/her, there will probably be a bunch of sour grapes in their hand. But as for the confusion over Africa as a country or continent, was it just something like this? Chris Matthews Calls Africa a 'Country':

Matthews made his mistake in the course of posing a question to Larry Persily, a former member of Palin's gubernatorial staff. 

CHRIS MATTHEWS: I've got to go to Larry first. You've got to answer this question, sir.  Is this person unaware of basic grade-school information, like, Africa is a country of 57-or-so countries, it is not a country, it's a continent? South Africa is a country, not a region. 

Clearly, this was no more than a slip of the Matthews tongue [we wouldn't want to unfairly undermine Chris's incipient Senate run].  After calling Africa a country, he went on to call it a continent.  But it ironically illustrates how the alleged Palin knowledge gap might well have been nothing more than a similar slip. (My emphasis here)

Before the camera cuts away, Persily can be seen smiling wryly at Chris's miscue.  For the record, Persily answered that he didn't think it was plausible that Gov. Palin is unaware of the kind of information Matthews described.

Speaking of mistakes . . . note Matthews's reference to Africa's 57 countries.  Could that be what Barack Obama had in mind when he spoke of  having visited 57 states in the USA?

I had not thought of that 57 African country angle, but it fits. Should we make a big thing about that? (No)

It is a general principle of mine that insiders should not divulge confidences and things taken out of context--especially when it damages a greater cause: the Republican's future.

The candidates and staff are under tremendous pressure and grueling schedules during a campaign. If we want good people to run for office, they need to at least know they will not be attacked by their own before or after the campaign.

A Senior Fellow at the Institute of Nonexistence:  "...Martin Eisenstadt doesn't exist. His blog does, but it's a put-on." 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

It has become a family tradition to attended the Waukesha Republican's "Victory" party at the Country Springs Hotel.  Various local candidates stop in and give a pep talk along with Waukesha Republican leaders. This year most of us hoped for good news but were braced for the bad.

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner addressed the crowd first. He quipped something to the effect that after 8 years of Democrats blaming President Bush for everything, with them in charge of the legislature and the White House, we'll be able to pin the tail on the donkey. (Donkey being the symbol for democratic party.)

I am not so sure anything will stick, but I enjoyed the imagery.

Next up was Congressman Paul Ryan. I think most Republicans in the room see Ryan as the future of the Conservative movement. Ryan outlined a path for the next few years that went something like this: Stand up for what you believe in. Work with Democrats when they are going in the right direction and when they're wrong, propose alternative solutions. (My emphasis) 

Congressman Ryan, if you recall, came up with a plan to reform the entitlement problem of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, called "A Roadmap for America's Future". The Democrats just ignore the impending insolvency of that costly trio.

Last to speak was Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. He too urged that Republicans present clear, conservative alternatives to liberal tax and spend policy. He is living proof that conservatism, when properly communicated, will sell even in very Democratic territory!  The key was presenting that conservative message in a clear and concise way--something almost everyone in the room knew the McCain campaign never did. 

As John McCain gave his concession speech the room was quiet. Not much disagreement when McCain said "the failure is mine." There was cheering when he thanked Sarah Palin.

The road ahead is steep, very steep, for true conservatives. But Scott Walker is living proof that people will support the conservative message if it is presented clearly enough.

I fear most Republican politicians and party officials still don't get it.

These might be of interest: It was a great victory - but not for the Left and

It made me feel better: PALIN 2012 RYAN
 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

It is difficult for me to square last night's election results with the fact that when polled, more people consider themselves conservatives than the 1 in 5 who say they are liberal.  But the results are the results.

Senator Barack Obama won, but considering the amount of money he spent, it was not the huge landslide some expected in the popular vote.

Republicans managed to keep Kentucky's Mitch McConnel and it looks like Democrats failed to obtain their Senate super filibuster proof majority.

Conservative Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Ryan easily won reelection to the US House of Representatives. Unfortunately, John Gard did not defeat Steven Kagen.

You can check for local results by selecting different categories here.  

California's Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage looks like it will pass: Yes - 52%, No 48%, with 95% precincts in. But it still has not been called. On the darker side, Washington State voted to approve Doctor Assisted Suicide.

The State Republicans failed to maintain the majority in the Assembly. So for the first time since Governor Tony Earl Democrats will control both houses in the state. Can you say higher taxes? Healthy Wisconsin and the hospital tax are just 2 that will be coming our way. There is some talk that President Obama might whisk Jim Doyle off to Washington, but then we are stuck with liberal Barbara Lawton.

State Assembly Representative Leah Vukmir and Rich Zipperer will go back to the Assembly. Republican Dan Knodl will go for the first time. Republican Yash Wadhwa did not make it for Democrat Wasserman's vacated seat.

The Alberta Darling (R) vs. Sheldon Wasserman (D) State Senate race is very close. Darling is leading but the absentee ballots have not been counted yet. 

Germantown voted down their referendums. It will be interesting to see what their school board does about all-day kindergarten now. 

Go figure, Milwaukee voted to increase their sales tax and provide mandatory sick days. What entrepreneur will want to stay there? Will that help Brookfield gain new businesses? Maybe. If the Milwaukee County sales tax increase is adopted, Brookfield Square shopping just became more appealing than Mayfair or Bay Shore's. 

I have a few more things to talk about regarding the election and then it's time to move on. I don't think any of us will be missing the robo-calls, TV, and radio ads!

Wisconsin Department of Transportation OPEN HOUSE: Proposed changes to Bluemound Road (east of Moorland Road, west of Sunnyslope Road), Thursday, Nov. 6th, 7-9pm
 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Of course the BIG deal of the day is the presidential race and Electoral College count. Will Obama win big? McCain squeak by? Will we even know today or this week?

What will happen with the majorities in the House and Senate. It is difficult for me to understand how a Congress with the lowest approval rating can gain more seats for the party in power, but I have given up trying to understand people's irrational choices. 

If California's Proposition 8 passes, it would eliminate gay marriage. If it fails, gay marriage stays.

In Wisconsin I am watching the Assembly races. I think Leah Vukmir is safe. Hope Rich Zipperer does well too. Dan Knodl from the 24th Assembly District will attract my attention--remember the endorsement problems? Will Republicans still support him?

I'll also be watching Yash Wadhwa's race--not just because I want another Republican seat in the Assembly, but because I like his personal story.

In the State Senate, I am pulling for John Gard* and Alberta Darling. 

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner should be a sure thing, but Paul Ryan? I hope voters have the good sense to send him back to Washington.

As for Germantown's $22.5 million Elementary School Referendum (some tech and safety upgrades included too?), will voters there buy the Brooklyn Bridge, oh, excuse me, the idea that a new school won't really cost them because the state aid will make up for the added bonding expense?

Supporters of Tuesday's main referendum measure argue that the increase in property taxes needed to pay for the borrowing would be offset by additional state aid collected as a result of higher enrollment.

Remember the Germantown School Board discontinued full-day kindergarten next year because of space constraints. If this referendum does not pass, what will they do then? Go to all half-day or work out some other solution?

It should be interesting!

*Correction, John Gard ran for Congress not State Senate 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

At the last debate, John McCain stated his strong opposition to the horrible procedure, Partial Birth Abortion. Barack Obama, knowing his pro-abortion stance at the Saddleback Forum hurt him, must have decided that in a national venue such as a televised debate, he could not publicly support Partial Birth Abortion. So Obama said he was "completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life..." 

Yet he told Planned Parenthood he would make signing the Freedom of Choice Act that would reinstate Partial Birth Abortion, his top priority. "No, kick-starting the economy is not his number one goal and health care won't be top on his list of priorities." Obama said,

On this fundamental issue, I will not yield, and Planned Parenthood will not yield.

What is Partial Birth Abortion? It's a barbaric procedure in which doctors induce a late term pregnant woman to actually give birth. But before the baby is totally delivered, doctors puncture the child's brain to kill it. If any other culture did that we would be outraged. (Whether the mother's life is at risk or not, she still needs to deliver the child. What the doctor does to that child has no effect on the mother's health.)

Partial Birth Abortion was "banned by the Congress and signed by the President in 2003." The Supreme Court upheld the ban in 2007. Even pro-abortion Sen. Daniel Moynihan, Democrat from N.Y. voted to ban partial-birth abortion. He said the practice was "too close to infanticide." 

According to the Family Research Council, here is what the Freedom of Choice Act will do:

All sides in the abortion fight agree, if FOCA were to pass both chambers of Congress and be signed by a pro-abortion President, it would, among other effects, provide for taxpayer-funded abortion on demand even late in pregnancy, grant abortionists immunity from legal action, allow abortionists the discretion to perform abortions on minors without notifying a parent, and deny health care workers the right to refuse to make abortion referrals as a matter of conscience.

The other procedure, Late Term Labor Induced Abortion, occurs in the 2nd trimester, earlier in the pregnancy but still sometimes produces a living child.

These babies were the subject of the bill Obama voted against in the Illinois State Senate. It was the same as the identically worded Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act (which passed the US Senate unanimously). Obama has tried to say the State version was not the same as the Federal version, but this is not true. In August 2008, "His campaign ...acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate..."

Nurse Jill Stanek talked to Bill O'Reilly about her experience with born alive aborted babies at Christ Hospital in Illinois. Her account stunned O'Reilly.

Obama tried to wiggle out of the question, "...at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" at the Saddleback Forum by saying, "answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."

Well, even a janitor (someone below Obama's pay grade) could tell you an aborted, yet alive, infant discarded in a "soiled utility room" was living and entitled to better treatment. 

Click to view the video

Related info: Catholic Church has made no exception regarding abortion since ancient times, & Priests for Life 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

We are all growing weary of the campaign ads, but there is one ad I love to hear. It is Yash Wadhwa's radio ad for Wisconsin's 22nd Assembly district.

Yash tells how he came to America in 1969 with just $5 in his pocket and a dream in his heart. His story reminded me of my own foreign born grandfather who came here at age 13.

Yash says, I believe in this country you could do anything you were willing to work for, and it was true. From a graduate student to an owner of a consulting engineering company, I have been blessed to live the American dream...

This is the best country on earth. When I became a citizen in 1982 it was the happiest day in my life. 

This country has given me so much I am eager to go to Madison and give something back. 

Listen to his complete ad: Yash Wadhwa and the American Dream

He gets it. Work hard and succeed. It worked for him, it can work for anyone.

I spoke at length with a Pakistani woman at a party last week. She has lived all over the world, and she appreciated what America had to offer too. No one else works (or plays) as hard as you do here in America, she said.  

My sister-in-law lived in Canada for a year. She often commented how people were so different up there. We tend to think we could easily adapt to life in Canada. Not so, she said. They don't possess that same sense of entrepreneurship. There is none of that go get 'em attitude up there. They wait instead for the government to do for them what they could do for themselves.

I agree with Yash. We are privileged to live in the best country on earth. It breaks my heart that the front runner in this presidential race doesn't agree. Worse yet, Obama wants to copy the failed economic policies of socialist countries and restrict the freedoms we take for granted.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Obama's I'm against same-sex marriage but against ending it's practice via California's Proposition 8 rings about as true as Wisconsin State Senator Jim Sullivan saying, he is for Voter ID but not for a state constitutional amendment referendum question requiring Voter ID. It's doublespeak for I don't want the current situation to change, but don't want to be on the record as saying so.

Obama Says He is Against Same-Sex Marriage But Also Against Ending Its Practice In Calif.:

Barack Obama's nuanced position on same-sex marriage is on full display in an MTV interview which is set to air on Monday.

Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage." 

At the same time, Obama reiterated his opposition to Proposition 8, the California ballot measure which would eliminate a right to same-sex marriage that the state's Supreme Court recently recognized.

That's their Obama! Trying to be on both sides of the fence.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I've been wondering about this for some time. Are some independents reluctant to voice support for John McCain because they don't want to take flack for supporting the Republicans? Democrats have incessantly talked against George Bush during this election cycle, as if they are running against him, even though George isn't running.

Amongst African Americans, I think there is a Bradley effect. Remember J.T. Harris telling McCain that he was taking a ...whipping for supporting McCain? J.T. continues to feel the heat.

The Investor's Business Daily poll isn't as hopeful for McCain today as it looked yesterday, but Obama still isn't 5% points ahead of McCain or above 50%. There are still 9.5% not sure. Are they really not sure or are they just not saying?

One interesting sidebar, there is another segment obsessed with George Bush. al Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated": (Hmm, I wonder who they want to win?)

DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting...

Terrorism monitor SITE Intelligence Group said in a report on Wednesday that militants on al Qaeda-linked websites have for months been debating the significance of Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama or Republican John McCain.

...Others say his [Obama's] planned phased withdrawal from Iraq would be a boon to al Qaeda's affiliate and give it a base for Middle East expansion.

The only real poll that matters is the vote tally on election day. Go out and vote.

PS From Drudge: Interesting question: Can Obama win popular vote but lose election? And do remember that the early exit polls favored Kerry in 2004.

Sure, chances of Republicans retaining the White House are remote.

But some last-minute state polls show the GOP nominee closing the gap in key states — Republican turf of Virginia, Florida and Ohio among them, and Democratic-leaning Pennsylvania, too.

If the tightening polls are correct and undecided voters in those states break McCain's way — both big ifs — that could make for a repeat of the 2000 heartbreaker for Democrats that gave Republicans the White House.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

President Bill Clinton was known as the Teflon president. No accusations or even cold, hard facts stuck. Monica Lewinsky was not a fabrication of a vast right-wing conspiracy as Hillary claimed. No, Monica was real. She was an intern with whom the President committed unprecedented indiscretions with right in the Oval Office. But it did not stick. He was Teflon.

President Bush on the other hand, according to the left, is responsible for all the ills of the world. No matter that he has kept us safe for 7 years, he is the fall guy for every ill there is: Hurricane Katrina, the housing crisis, global warming...you get the idea. He isn't responsible for it, but he is Velcro--everything sticks.

Senator Barack Obama, however, takes Teflon to a new level. He is Teflon II. Nothing, and I mean nothing sticks to him. Democrats and the media have given him a free pass. Not his questionable associations with Communists, Socialists, and Terrorists, not his many ties to anti-Semites, and not his blatantly socialistic plans for the economy. Jay Weber made a list of all the things that don't stick to Obama. He called him Teflon Obama.   

A video from USA Wake up sums up how we got to this turning point in history. They call it, The Rise of the United Socialist States*. It not only illustrates the progression in creating a very liberal, radical congress that set the stage for an economic downturn, but it also lists Barack Obama's radical associates and friends. His many socialist tax plans are included too.

It's a good summation of the mess we are in. I do believe Obama is the candidate of CHANGE, and I believe he will change the US, possibly forever. The peasants during the Russian Revolution wanted change too. Unfortunately they got it.

Watch the video, send it to your friends. Clearly, Obama is made of Teflon II !

*I watched it a few times. The only stretches I saw were a statement that Obama lied when he "insists that he has never prayed in a mosque and was never a Muslim." Obama did attend a Muslim school in Indonesia for 4 years as a child. Muslims pray several times a day. I can't imagine they let him exercise freedom of religion there! (I've even seen them do it at Fun World in Brookfield in the middle of a children's birthday party.)  It also asks if he was born in Hawaii or Kenya. This one is a stretch too, but since he is so secretive about all of his background information, why was his birth certificate sealed?

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Are you ready for this? "If elected president, the Illinois senator would require women to register for the military draft. As commander in chief, he would also consider assigning women to roles in close combat, also know as 'the point of the spear,'" according to World magazine:

"Women are already serving in combat [in Iraq and Afghanistan], and the current policy should be updated to reflect realities on the ground," Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Oct. 13. "Barack Obama would consult with military commanders to review the constraints that remain."

...During a CNN/YouTube debate last year, Obama compared the role of women in today's armed forces to that of black soldiers and airmen in World War II.

"There was a time when African Americans weren't allowed to serve in combat," Obama said. "And yet, when they did, not only did they perform brilliantly, but what also happened is they helped to change America, and they helped to underscore that we're equal."

What about this: A Civilian National Security Force?  Obama's militia? Waffen-SS:

Obama said, "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we set. We've got to have a Civilian National Security Force that is just as powerful, just as strong,  just as well funded."

Is this new Civilian National Security Force and registering women for the draft what Sen. Joe Biden warned about? Is this the something their supporters wouldn't like in conjunction with that "major international challenge" if Obama was elected? Sen. Joe Biden said,

And he's [Obama] gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes. It's so much more important than that. It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it.

Is Obama planning on a draft for both our regular military and his new civilian force?

How is Obama going to pay for this new Civilian National Security Force that is "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded? Pretty ironic coming from a guy who begrudged all the money we spend on Iraq.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Another interesting turn on the road of politics. We just learned that Sen. Barack Obama's Aunt Zeituni lived in a Boston tenement.

Now we learn she isn't an American citizen: Obama has aunt living in US illegally:

Barack Obama's aunt, a Kenyan woman who has been living in public housing in Boston, is in the United States illegally after an immigration judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago, The Associated Press has learned.

Of course the first thing that comes to my mind is, was she planning on voting for him? She did send him a campaign contribution of $260*. Pretty rich for a woman living in less than stellar circumstances.

"Aunt Zeituni is now also living in Boston, and recently made a $260 campaign contribution to her nephew's presidential bid from a work address in the city."

Obama isn't responsible for his aunt's citizenship. It is pretty clear he doesn't have much to do with her.

His campaign should be responsible for checking if contributions are valid. but then, Obama isn't troubled with illegals getting drivers licenses or Social Security either.

*Foreign citizens who have a green card are allowed to contribute, foreign nationals are not. 

Fairly Conservative reports: Auntie's contribution will be returned. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Just a thought...If Obama is indeed such a shoe-in, especially in states like Wisconsin, why all the Obama radio and TV ads and mailings? Why the 30 minute infomercial?

On Mark Levin the other day, he discussed how Obama polled 5% higher during the primary than the actual vote tally. Dick Morris said Thursday night on Sean Hannity that unless Obama is above 48% in the polls, even if he is ahead of McCain, Dick didn't think Obama could win.

Even if Wisconsin goes for Obama, we all still need to vote. Not only for the other Republicans on the ballot, but also to send the message that Obama does NOT have a mandate for his socialist plans. My vote in Wisconsin still adds to the total vote count for McCain. It is on that total vote count the mandate is calculated.

Today, Zogby reports that McCain is ahead in one day polling, 48% to Obama's 47%. That news does warm my conservative heart.

Obama seems to be a little less...um...friendly? He kicked the 3 reporters from the 3 papers that endorsed McCain off his campaign plane.    

It is not over. Don't sit this one out!

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Remember last week when Sen. Joe Biden predicted an international crisis if Obama was elected? "Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy" (Actually, Kennedy's test came 22 months after taking office.)

Although the idea that an Obama presidency would generate an "international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy" is troubling, yet the comparison of Obama being like John F. Kennedy is flattering. Unfortunately, there is no comparison.

Yes, both men were young, but that is pretty much where the similarity ends.

JFK was a war veteran. He was squarely behind defending liberty throughout the world. From his Inaugural Address:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more.

JFK did not spurn the use of technology to keep the world safe as Obama has. In fact, the technological breakthrough of the solid rocket fueled Minuteman missiles served as a deterrent to the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We learned about the Minuteman deterrent when we visited an actual Minuteman II Missile Site while on vacation 2 years ago.

The National Park Service preserved this last remaining facility for its historic significance, and we were privileged to have Kerry Davis, a former Minuteman employee, as our tour guide.

(Photo is of huge bank style vault door)

Ranger Davis (pictured, but my family is photoshopped out) used to work in a Minuteman II facility just like this one. We were far below the surface of the earth in this vault-like bunker command station. Davis told us how he belted himself into the red rolling chair on tracks during his shift. They did this so in case of nuclear attack, he could still launch our missiles, God forbid, if needed.

He also told us why the Minuteman was nicknamed the Ace in the hole during the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Kennedy knew he could launch in 5 minutes, if needed. Presumably Khrushchev and Castro knew it too.

No longer did our offensive nuclear missiles require time consuming fueling before take off. Prior to the Minuteman, the fueling process took so long that missiles from Russia would already be blasting America before our liquid-fuel rockets could get off the ground. The Minuteman was a solid rocket system--always at the ready in 5 minutes, hence the name Minuteman.

If you look at the Minuteman Missile History, you see that Minuteman I became operational just 8 days after the crisis began...

and 1 DAY before we went to DEFCON 2.

(My emphasis throughout) 

LGM-30A/B Minuteman I:  In the late 1950s advances in solid-fuel propellants enabled the Air Force to develop its first solid-fuel ICBM, the Minuteman I (LGM-30A/B). Formal development began in September 1958, and after an extraordinarily rapid development program, the Air Force put its first ten Minuteman ICBMs on operational alert at Malmstrom AFB, Montana, in October 1962. Deployment proceeded at an equally furious pace, and within 5 years 1,000 of the solid-fuel missiles stood poised in their silos.

... On October 22, 1962, SAC placed its first flight of ten Minuteman missiles on operational alert.

On the night of October 23, the Joint Chiefs of Staff instructed Strategic Air Command to go to DEFCON 2, for the only time in history. The message, and the response, were deliberately transmitted uncoded, (unencrypted), in order to allow Soviet intelligence to capture them.^[3] Operation Falling Leaves quickly set up three radar bases to watch for missile launches from Cuba.^[clarify] The radars were experimental models ahead of their time. Each base was connected with a hotline to NORAD control.

NORAD was the central control for the 10 new Minuteman I stations. America played a gut-wrenching game of chicken with the Soviets and Cuba. By the grace of God, the crisis passed.

 ...After much deliberation between the Soviet Union and Kennedy's cabinet, Kennedy agreed to remove all missiles set in Turkey on the border of the Soviet Union in exchange for Khrushchev removing all missiles in Cuba.

If America did not possess the capability to launch before Russia or Cuba could, or if we had not developed new weaponry, would the Cuban Missile Crisis have resolved peacefully?

I doubt it.

Countries that were weak militarily in Europe were taken over by the Soviet Union.

I believe it was only Providence that caused the Soviets to believe America was a force to be reckoned with, that the situation resolved as well as it did.

Now contrast Kennedy's attitude toward military technology with Obama's on military spending and technology:

...I will cut 10s of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investment in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slop our development of future combat systems...

I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on production of fissial material and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMS off hair trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

Obama's naivete' on military technology and preparedness is frightening. Where would we be today if President Eisenhower and Kennedy had not embraced military technology? Maybe part of the Soviet Union?

President Kennedy might have been young and tested just 22 months into his presidency. At least he was realistic about the importance of new technology. Obama is not. 

After our tour of the Minuteman command bunker, the Ranger took us to an actual missile silo. We were told about how many warheads have been dismantled since the end of the Cold War and how the military was doing a soft standing down of Cheyenne Mountain/NORAD command center--they felt they didn't really need it anymore. Since North Korea had just fired a test long-range missile, I was not so sure a soft standing down was wise. Are there other Minutemen missiles I asked? Yes, the Minuteman IIIs are in service. I felt a little better. (Photo is of missile in glass topped silo)

The world is a much more dangerous place since our visit 2 years ago. North Korea and Iran continue to work on developing nuclear weapons. Russia is becoming more aggressive. Can we afford to "slow our development of future combat systems?" or "cut investment in unproven missile defense systems?" or "take our ICBMs off hair trigger," as Obama promotes? I would say, no, not in today's dangerous world. At least not if America wishes to remain a superpower.

P.S.--A serendipitous find: We stumbled on the ATK Corporation, out in the middle of nowhere in Utah. The T stands for Thiokol Chemical Corporation, the maker of solid rockets. Their entire front lawn held a collection of solid rocket history. Very interesting.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Remember when John McCain suspended his campaign and went to Washington to work on the economic crisis?

Obama just said, if you need me, call me. 

Turns out, Obama was making a fe