Democrats say voter ID laws are unnecessary, but there seems to be enough #Votefraud for them to have advisors on how to go about it
The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee have filed a lawsuit to block a new state law allowing men and women in uniform to vote up until the Monday right before an election, while the cutoff on early voting for the rest of the public is three days earlier.
If you’re a Seal Team 6 member from Ohio, Obama thanks you for your
usefulness in campaign propaganda service, but he doesn’t think you’re mature enough to vote.
He’s not the first Democrat to attempt this, of course. So did AlGore.
I suppose the rationale is that military voters already have picture ID’s, so they should lose their franchise, no matter their superficial melanin content. Anything else would be racist.
Ever since ACORN employees counselled a young couple on the best way to open a brothel employing underage illegal aliens – and avoid taxes on the booty – I’ve been thinking election fraud, the former ACORN trademark, would decline as well. Apparently the message didn’t get through to Michigan Democrats.
Jason Gillman is on this.
Almost too stupid to be believed. NOAA and Michigan State University collaborate.
Al Gore could not be reached for comment.
A roundup of news on the latest Anthropogenic Global Warming scam.
Al Gore could not be reached for comment, but no plans have been announced to delete the scene of the Himalayan glaciers disappearance from the movie that won him an Oscar and a Nobel prize.
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
…Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
So much for the importance of “peer review.” For Dr. Lal it means nobody catches the lie.
…The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.
But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.
…Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes until they were reported in the media about 10 days ago, at which time he contacted other IPCC members. He denied keeping quiet about the errors to avoid disrupting the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen, or discouraging funding for TERI’s own glacier programme.
But he too admitted that it was “really odd” that none of the world’s leading glaciologists had pointed out the mistakes to him earlier. “Frankly, it was a stupid error,” he said. “But no one brought it to my attention.”
So much for “consensus.” And another lie:
…But even before the 2007 report was published, it now emerges, the offending claim was challenged, not least by a leading Austrian glaciologist, Dr Georg Kaser, a lead author on the 2007 report. He described Dr Hasnain’s prediction of glaciers disappearing by 2035 as “so wrong that it is not even worth dismissing”.
…Last week, the IPCC, led by its increasingly controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to issue an unprecedented admission: the statement in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis, and its inclusion in the report reflected a “poor application” of IPCC procedures.
What has now come to light, however, is that the scientist from whom this claim originated, Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general. Furthermore, the claim – now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC – has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America’s leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU.
“Poor application” of IPCC principles? No, business as usual.
…On Wednesday, the IPCC got around to acknowledging that the claim was “poorly substantiated,” though Mr. Pachauri also suggested it amounted to little more than a scientific typo. Yet the error is of a piece with other glib, and now debunked, global warming alarms.
Among them: that 1998 was the warmest year on record in the United States (it was 1934); that sea levels could soon rise by up to 20 feet and put Florida underwater (an 18-inch rise by the year 2100 is the more authoritative estimate); that polar bears are critically endangered by global warming (most polar bear populations appear to be stable or increasing); that—well, we could go on without even mentioning the climategate emails.
Finally, while we are on the quality of IPCC and AGW data, see here and here. You will find the Canadian data for everything north of the 65th parallel is based on one thermometer located in an anomalously warm site.
ACORN is changing their name to Community Organizations International.
Sort of like changing “Global Warming” to “Climate Change.” Or “Liberal” to “Progressive.” Or “Terrorism” to “Man Caused Disaster.” Or “Extraordinary Rendition” to “Friends Helping Friends Executive Order.”
New brand. Get rid of the baggage.
I think they missed a bet with BHOGUS, myself. The GUS could be Gutting the United States, for example. A little work might improve that.
If they had to have COI, though, they could have picked from several better expansions –
- Conflict Of Interest
- Confluence Of Idiotarians
- Congress Of Indigents
- Chicago Oligarchy Imperative
or my personal favorite:
- Comrade Obama Internationale
And if they’d asked me I could have saved them some money on redoing the signs. Community Organizations Respecting Nothing only requires selling a vowel. It stays in the vegetable kingdom too, instead of rhyming with pampered fish.
Well, here’s to publicizing the fact that ACORN is becoming COI. A nut by any other name…
Update 24-Jun, 7:54PM
Nice related graphic here.
The Grass Mud Horse is a Chinese dissident construct representing those who resist authoritarian censorship, particularly censorship of the Internet. The horses are visiting Iran. You can help them.
Twitter is a major communication resource for Iranian protesters. Twitter has delayed a major software patch to their service so as not to interrupt this communication. Because Twitter is an aid to the protests and in getting information out of Iran, the Iranian intelligence services are attempting to use it to entrap dissidents. You can do a little thing that might help. From Wired:
Help cover the [Iranian] bloggers: change your twitter settings so that your location is TEHRAN and your time zone is GMT +3.30. Security forces are hunting for bloggers using location and timezone searches. If we all become ‘Iranians’ it becomes much harder to find them.
Also, change your location if you filled it in. Pass this on – via email, not Twitter – to other twits you know.
An amusing bit here about the cyber battle in Iran. The Iranian Revolutionary Photoshop Guards still can’t get it right.
Hungary 1956. Prague 1968. Tiananmen Square 1989. The only thing missing in Tehran are the Communist tanks.
Our President broke 3 days of silence on the Iranian election fraud today. Maybe it was pictures of people being murdered by the Quds Force and their ilk that bestirred him.
Barack Obama is “deeply troubled” by violence in Iran. He urged the Iranian theocracy to “respect free speech and the democratic process.” He promised to continue pursuing “tough dialogue” with Iran.
Where’s Jimmy Carter when you need him?
Barack Obama has made much of executive experience gained in running his campaign, so when a major decision is taken, it’s his. For example, he decided to bypass normal credit card verification procedures that would help ensure the legality of contributions to his campaign. This laxity not only encourages illegal contributions, it allows robbery from people whose credit card number was used without their knowledge.
At least four credit card holders in Missouri have recently opened their statements and found unauthorized transactions, which charged $2,300 to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama.
It happened to Tom Brown and his wife a couple weeks ago. They became aware of it after Discover sent them an e-mail about an unusually large purchase.
“My wife said, ‘Oh my God!’ Right away, she called Discover to cancel the card,” Brown said. “I talked to Discover about it, and they said it looks like it was keyed in from Chicago.”
Specifically, the e-mail indicated the charge came from Obama for America Chicago Illinois.
Sandy Pogones of Camdenton and Steve Larman of North Kansas City each found a $2,300 charge on their credit card bills recently for the Obama for America campaign.
CALLER: My best friend had the same thing this month, three times on her credit card.
RUSH: Your best friend had a charge of $2,300 bucks to the Obama —
CALLER: No, no, not $2,300, but she had three separate charges to the Obama campaign, and she is a staunch Republican.
RUSH: What was the total, do you recall?
CALLER: I don’t. She told me one of them was small, like $15. She said none of them were very big, but anyway, she called and immediately wanted it removed from her card, which the credit company did. The Obama campaign, she called them, and they tried to talk her into letting it stay, and she said no, I want it, and I want it before the election.
There was a charge for $2,300 to the Obama for America Campaign. This was pretty shocking for Michael. He is a Republican. He is not supporting Senator Obama for President.
Well, he says he wants to spread the wealth.
Check out Obama Shrugged for updates.
PS, I noted that:
An honest, prudent person would not turn off an effective verification system and assume the costs of vetting contributions themselves unless they were convinced they could do a superior job. As we’ve seen, this ideal is unrealized.
I was naive, the increased risk of turning off verification incurs processing higher fees from the credit card companies – before any after the fact scrutiny. This decision cost Obama hundreds of thousands of dollars even before his inept vetting team went to “work.”
In line with their own campaign staff illegal registrations and a coziness with ACORN and its decade spanning voter registration frauds under the rubric of ensuring no voter is disenfranchised, the official position of Barack Obama’s campaign appears to be that illegal campaign contributions are all in the eye of the beholder. For example, they may well argue, a person named Jgtj Jfggjjfgj probably views it that way.
Obama’s website has* all credit card verification procedures turned off for campaign contributions. The default is “On,” you have to turn it off deliberately. When you do, many wonderful things happen. You can accept contributions from Della Ware, John Galt, and Jgtj Jfggjjfgj. These fictitious people, though actual donors, may submit any address whatsoever, including foreign countries or Second Life.
Obama’s people claim they vet the legality of their donors after the contributions are made. The effectiveness of this technique is demonstrated by a pair of donors noted at the New York Times: “Derty West” and “Derty Poiiuy.” They both live at “rewq, ME” and are both employed by “Qwertyyy.” They even do the same job – “Qwerttyyu.”
This is a fine example of the ethical acuity of Chicago machine politics, because it shows how to facilitate anonymous, falsely sourced or foreign contributions while simultaneously evading contribution limits. All of that is illegal, of course. It’s why an honest person would not disable credit card verification. An honest person would not want to encourage illegal campaign contributions. An honest, prudent person would not turn off an effective verification system and assume the costs of vetting contributions themselves unless they were convinced they could do a superior job. As we’ve seen, this ideal is unrealized. Obama had good intentions, though: No one should be discontributionized.
The McCain campaign does not knowingly encourage such donations. They did not turn off the credit card verification system.
Commenter stevieray at thenextright.com sums it up:
“…Obama’s system doesn’t care what name is used, only that the credit card number is valid.
Obama’s system doesn’t care what address is used, only that the credit card number is valid.
Obama’s system doesn’t care if the security number is valid, it doesn’t even ask for it.
Federal law limits the amount anyone can give to the campaign, and requires the campaign to keep track of the donors and report the info to the feds.
Obama cannot report his donors accurately, because he can’t prove who gave ANY of the money to his campaign.
Every report he sent to the FEC is a fraud.
He can’t prove ANYBODY is below the limit, because he doesn’t know. His system made sure of that.”
A good summary of how this was discovered and has been documented may be found here.
Oh well, just another failure you can chalk up to the good intentions and false promise of McCain-Feingold. Strictly enforced donor disclosure requirements would have prevented it.
*Or had, there are reports credit card verification has been reinstated after this fraud-hole was discovered – proving they knew what they had done.