Stanford Law Professor: Counter Terrorism Czar Claims Plans exist for an i-9/11 And An i-Patriot Act

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Amazing revelations have emerged concerning already existing government plans to overhaul the way the internet functions in order to apply much greater restrictions and control over the web.

Lawrence Lessig, a respected Law Professor from Stanford University told an audience at this years Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference in Half Moon Bay, California, that “There’s going to be an i-9/11 event” which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet.

Lessig also revealed that he had learned, during a dinner with former government Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, that there is already in existence a cyber equivalent of the Patriot Act, an “i-Patriot Act” if you will, and that the Justice Department is waiting for a cyber terrorism event in order to implement its provisions. To watch the video and read more, click here.

Report Reveals Obama Birth Certificate is a digitally modified Forgery

UPDATE: According to Puma Radio, there is an individual attempting to place an injunction against Obama's candidacy until an authenticated Certificate of Birth is provided.

By TechdudecloseAuthor: Techdude

Foreword by TexasDarlin: Techdude’s latest report, written exclusively for the TD and No Quarter blogs, is mind-blowing. This report solves the “security border” mystery AND exposes THE SMOKING GUN that will be conclusive in proving that the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) proffered by Barack Obama on his official campaign website IS FAKE.

The author’s previous report and professional credentials are at the end. He is the REAL DEAL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This follow up report, although it is more of an addendum, is about to reveal enough proof, beyond any doubt, that the KOS COLB is a digitally modified forgery and was based on another individual’s post-2006 COLB.
To read more click here

Big-Dollar Donors Are Major Force in Obama Campaign

New York Times

Big-Dollar Donors Are Major Force in Obama Campaign
By MICHAEL LUO and CHRISTOPHER DREW
Published: August 5, 2008

In an effort to cast himself as independent of the influence of money on politics, Senator Barack Obama often highlights the campaign contributions of $200 or less that have amounted to fully half of the $340 million he has collected so far.

But records show that one-third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more: a total of $112 million, more than Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama’s Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries, raised in contributions of that size.

Behind those larger donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama “bundlers,” fund-raisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more. Many of the bundlers come from industries with critical interests in Washington. Nearly three dozen of the bundlers have raised more than $500,000 each, including more than a half-dozen who have passed the $1 million mark and one or two who have exceeded $2 million, according to interviews with fund-raisers.More...

While his campaign has cited its volume of small donations as a rationale for his decision to opt out of public financing for the general election, Mr. Obama has worked to build a network of big-dollar supporters from the time he began contemplating a run for the United States Senate. He tapped into well-connected people in Chicago prior to the 2004 Senate race, and once elected, set out across the country starting to cultivate some of his party’s most influential money collectors.

He courted them with the savvy of a veteran politician, through phone calls, meals and one-on-one meetings; he wrote thank-you cards and remembered birthdays; he sent them autographed copies of his book and doted on their children.

The fruits of his efforts have put Mr. Obama’s major donors on a pace that almost rivals the $147 million raised by President Bush’s network of Pioneers and Rangers in contributions of $1,000 or larger during the 2004 primary season.

Given his decision not to accept public financing, Mr. Obama is counting on his bundlers to help him raise $300 million for his general-election campaign and another $180 million for the Democratic National Committee.

An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries: law, securities and investments, real estate and entertainment. Lawyers make up the largest group, numbering roughly 130, with many of them working for firms that also have lobbying arms. At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses: nearly two dozen work for financial titans like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs or Citigroup. About 40 others come from the real estate industry.

The biggest fund-raisers include people like Julius Genachowski, a former senior official at the Federal Communications Commission and a technology executive who is new to political fund-raising; Robert Wolf, president and chief operating officer of UBS Investment Bank; James A. Torrey, a New York hedge-fund investor; and Charles H. Rivkin, chief executive of an animation studio in Los Angeles.

“It’s fairly clear that this is being packaged as an extraordinary new kind of fund-raising, and the Internet is a new and powerful part of it,” said Michael J. Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute. “But it’s also clear that many of the old donors are still there and important.”

The care and feeding that top Obama fund-raisers have received underscores their significance to his campaign. Members of his National Finance Committee who fulfill their commitment to raise at least $250,000 are being rewarded with trips to the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Finance committee members participate in conference calls with top campaign officials every other week. The fund-raisers meet quarterly, often with Mr. Obama dropping in. He lingered after the most recent meeting in June in Chicago, telling his staff he wanted to thank every person in the room. Some fund-raisers who knocked on doors for Mr. Obama in places like Indiana, Iowa and Pennsylvania got to spend time with Mr. Obama backstage before and after speeches on primary nights.

His fund-raisers invariably say their support for him is not rooted in any kind of promise of access, but rather their belief in him.

“This is about Barack Obama and changing the direction of our country,” said Jonathan B. Perdue, a business consultant in Mill Valley, Calif., who has raised more than $250,000 for Mr. Obama’s campaign.

Mr. Obama has pledged not to accept donations from lobbyists or political action committees registered with the federal government. But some top donors clearly have policy and political agendas. Hedge-fund executives, for example, have bundled large sums for Mr. Obama at a time when their industry has been looking to increase its clout in Washington.

Kenneth C. Griffin, chief executive officer of Citadel Investment Group in Chicago, has collected more than $50,000 for Mr. Obama. But Mr. Griffin, whose $1.5 billion in income in 2007 made him one of the country’s highest-paid hedge-fund executives, has given generously over the years to Republicans as well, and he recently helped to hold a fund-raiser for Mr. McCain. Citadel has spent more than $1.1 million, dating back to 2007, in lobbying against higher tax rates for hedge-fund gains. (Mr. Obama has supported the higher tax rates.)

Similarly, Paul Tudor Jones, a billionaire hedge-fund manager from Connecticut, has raised more than $100,000 for Mr. Obama. But he also gave to Mr. McCain, to Rudolph W. Giuliani and to Mitt Romney. Mr. Jones, who has given more than $900,000 over the last decade to federal candidates and political organizations, helped form a trade association that has fought hedge-fund regulation.

Many fund-raisers sit on the campaign’s array of policy working groups, getting a chance to weigh in on policy positions and speeches. Mr. Genachowski, a Harvard Law School classmate of Mr. Obama, leads the technology working group. Fund-raisers from private equity and hedge funds sit on Mr. Obama’s economic policy group.

Despite Mr. Obama’s image as a newcomer, many of his bundlers are Democratic Party stalwarts, including people who were some of the top fund-raisers for Senator John Kerry in 2004. At least 58 of them appear to have personally made more than $100,000 in contributions to federal candidates and committees over the last decade. Updated bundler lists released recently by the McCain and Obama campaigns show that they have similar numbers of high-dollar fund-raisers.

The Obama fund-raising operation is meticulously organized. Bundlers are assigned tracking numbers, and the finance staff sends them quarterly reminders of how they are doing in meeting their goals.

“There’s no price for admission,” said Alan D. Solomont, a top Democratic fund-raiser in Boston who made his fortune in the nursing home industry and has given more than $1.5 million to Democratic candidates and causes. “We value every donation and every donor equally. But we are a performance-based organization. We want everybody to feel like they’re included, but at the same time we’re not here to have tea together.”

Mr. Obama began courting many of his fund-raisers soon after he burst upon the national scene with his rousing speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Mr. Solomont, a major fund-raiser both for Mr. Kerry and for Bill Clinton during their presidential runs, received a call on his cellphone in February 2005, a year after Mr. Obama’s election to the Senate, from a member of his staff who asked if he would like to get together with Mr. Obama.

They met for Chinese food in Washington the following week, and Mr. Obama scored points with Mr. Solomont when he pointed out that they had both been community organizers earlier in their careers.

“I’ve been involved in politics a long time,” Mr. Solomont said. “Nobody’s bothered to know that about me.”

Early that same year, Mr. Obama attended a dinner in the Bay Area for about 20 major Kerry supporters. The dinner was organized by Mark Gorenberg, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who was Mr. Kerry’s single biggest fund-raiser, after Mr. Obama’s staff members contacted him. Several of those on hand, including Mr. Gorenberg and John Roos, head of a Silicon Valley law firm, became among the earliest and biggest check collectors for Mr. Obama’s presidential bid.

In 2006, Mr. Obama became a vice chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, giving him the opportunity to campaign across the country and to cultivate other potential benefactors.

When his book “The Audacity of Hope” came out later that year, his staff members organized book parties at the homes of major Democratic donors.

In December, Mr. Obama visited the New York office of the billionaire investor George Soros to court a roomful of high-powered Democratic fund-raisers, hoping to lure some of them away from Mrs. Clinton. Not everyone was swayed, but Mr. Obama won over Orin Kramer, a hedge-fund executive from New Jersey, and Mr. Wolf, the UBS executive, both of whom are now among Mr. Obama’s biggest fund-raisers.

Mr. Obama signed on as his finance director Julianna Smoot, who had led fund-raising for Senate Democrats and, before that, for Senator Tom Daschle when he was majority leader.

With guidance from Ms. Smoot, a key part of the campaign’s fast start was its success in scooping up top former Kerry fund-raisers, including Lou Susman, a Chicago investment banker who was Mr. Kerry’s national finance chairman, and Kirk Wagar, a lawyer in Miami who became Mr. Obama’s finance chairman in Florida.

Even so, the initial meeting of Mr. Obama’s national finance committee, held in Chicago the day after he officially announced his candidacy, was a relatively small affair, numbering about 75 people.

Penny Pritzker, the billionaire heiress to the Hyatt hotel fortune whom Mr. Obama asked to become his finance chairwoman, challenged the group to double in size.

The number of bundlers ballooned quickly. The Obama campaign made important inroads among affluent people under age 45, including Silicon Valley engineers and hedge-fund analysts, many of whom had not been on the political radar screen.

Donations in June, the latest month for which Mr. Obama has disclosed his donors to the Federal Election Commission, illustrate the double-barreled nature of the campaign’s fund-raising. Mr. Obama brought in nearly $31 million in contributions of less than $200, his best month for small donations. But he also collected more than $12 million in contributions of $1,000 or more, the most since the first half of 2007.

The share from large contributions appears poised to increase, as Mr. Obama has stepped up his fund-raising schedule.

“In 2007, the campaign relied on the tried and true methods like fund-raisers, for both large- and small-dollar donors, with the candidate or his surrogates, and the Internet largely financed it in 2008,” said Kirk Dornbush, the president of a biotech firm and a top fund-raiser in Atlanta. “When you combine the traditional fund-raising methods with the continued online contributions, you have a very, very powerful fund-raising engine.”

Denver Police Brace for Convention

Security was heavy for the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004, including state troopers in riot gear the day before it opened. This year’s convention is in Denver on Aug. 25-28.

By DAVID JOHNSTON and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: August 5, 2008

WASHINGTON — Federal and local authorities are girding for huge protests, mammoth traffic tie-ups and civil disturbances at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this month, fearing that the convention will become a magnet for militant protest groups. More...

Officials say that what makes Denver different than past conventions is the historic nature of Senator Barack Obama’s nomination, a megawattage event whose global spotlight could draw tens of thousands of demonstrators, including self-described anarchists who the police fear will infiltrate peaceful protest groups to disrupt the weeklong event.

The Secret Service is wary of discussing threats against the people they protect, but with Mr. Obama poised to become the first black presidential nominee, there are special worries. While law enforcement officials say there are no specific, credible threats against Mr. Obama, they expressed concern about low-level chatter on Web sites frequented by white separatists who spew hate about Mr. Obama’s race and what they perceive as his liberal agenda.

One recent scheduling change caused a major shift in security plans. When Mr. Obama announced last month that he would accept his party’s nomination not at the Pepsi Center in downtown Denver, where the convention is being held, but at Invesco Field, home of the Denver Broncos, the Secret Service scrambled to work out plans with local authorities to secure the open-air stadium, which seats more than 75,000 people. Invesco is also adjacent to Interstate 25, a major corridor through the Northern Rockies that will most likely be closed for at least part of Mr. Obama’s acceptance speech.

“The magnitude of the event has expanded,” said John W. Hickenlooper, the mayor of Denver and a Democrat. “It’s bigger and more profound than we expected.”

Officials acknowledge that their projections for the number of protesters are based more on a worst-case chain of events than specific information about who will show up, but they say they cannot take any chances.

As a result, the Secret Service, the Pentagon, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and scores of police departments are moving thousands of agents, analysts, officers and employees to Denver for the Aug. 25-28 convention. They will operate through a complex hierarchy of command centers, steering committees and protocols to respond to disruptions.

National political conventions are a chance for federal agencies to test their latest and most sophisticated technology, and this year is no different. There was a brief flare-up recently between the F.B.I. and the Secret Service, when each wanted to patrol the skies over the convention with their surveillance aircraft, packed with infrared cameras and other electronics. The issue was resolved in favor of the Secret Service, according to people briefed on the matter.

Both Denver and St. Paul, where the Republican National Convention will be held Sept. 1-4, are enlisting thousands of additional officers to help with security. Even so, their numbers will be only about a third of the 10,000 police officers that New York City fielded for the 2004 Republican convention, just three years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The Denver Police Department will nearly double in size, according to federal officials involved in the planning. The city is bringing in nearly 1,500 police officers from communities throughout Colorado and beyond, even inviting an eight-person mounted unit from Cheyenne, Wyo. State lawmakers changed Colorado law to allow the out-of-state police officers to serve as peace officers in Denver.

The expressions of concern about security at the convention could have more immediate political and legal implications, too. A federal judge, Marcia S. Krieger of United States District Court in Denver, is expected to issue a decision this week in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union seeking to ease security provisions at the convention. The A.C.L.U. has suggested that the Secret Service and the Denver police have exaggerated risks as part of a crackdown on dissent.

The case centers on whether the security zone around the Pepsi Center is so large, and the designated parade route through the city for marches and rallies so far away, as to unnecessarily stifle free speech. New worries about protests and anarchy could bolster the government’s case that the plans are justified.

Last month, under pressure from the A.C.L.U. lawsuit, the city released a list of expenses related to the convention showing that the police were preparing for large demonstrations and mass arrests and that the department had spent $2.1 million on protection equipment for its officers, $1.4 million for barricades and $850,000 for supplies related to the arrest and processing of suspects.

In disclosing the cost breakdown, city officials denied rumors that had circulated for weeks that they had contemplated buying exotic nonlethal weapons that fired an immobilizing goo, or that used radiation or sonic waves to incapacitate people or vehicles.

Similar preparations are under way for the Republican convention in Minnesota, but without the harsh glare that, at the moment, seems to be focused on Denver. St. Paul’s 600-member police force will grow nearly sixfold with about 3,000 additional officers arriving from around Minnesota, as well as from Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin and the Dakotas, said Tom Walsh, a spokesman for the St. Paul Police Department.

“St. Paul isn’t New York,” he said. “We just don’t have the staffing.”

Kenneth L. Wainstein, the White House adviser on homeland security and counterterrorism, recently visited Denver and St. Paul, a trip that reflected the administration’s interest in the conventions. “In the post-9/11 world, you have to prepare and plan for all contingencies,” Mr. Wainstein said. “That means preparing for everything from a minor disruption and an unruly individual to a broader terrorist event. We need to plan for everything no matter what the threat level is on any particular day.”

Intelligence analysts, however, have not reported a heightened threat from Islamic extremists or domestic threats from antigovernment groups or environmental militants like the kind that operate in many Western states, according to federal officials. “We just aren’t seeing a credible threat,” said James H. Davis, the F.B.I. agent in charge of the Denver office.

Each convention has been designated a National Special Security Event, which makes the Secret Service the lead federal agency responsible for protecting dignitaries and providing overall security. Other agencies will be on standby.

The National Guard in Minnesota and Colorado will each have hundreds of troops on call to their governors to help civilian medical personnel or bomb squads, for instance, if needed. National Guard specialists trained to deal with biological, chemical, nuclear and radiological weapons will also be available.

“There won’t be a visible military presence,” said Maj. Gen. Guy C. Swan III, director of operations for the military’s Northern Command, which is in charge of the military’s response to threats on American soil.

Each city has been awarded $50 million in federal funds for convention costs, a substantial part of which is being spent on security-related equipment and training. And each city has been enlisting the help of neighboring communities to provide more officers to help police the conventions.

The security and safety of convention delegates and visitors has become an increasingly significant issue in Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul, where local officials were hoping to avoid complaints, heard in 2004 after the Democratic convention in Boston and the Republican convention in New York, that restrictive security arrangements had nearly locked down the convention sites.

From the start, the Democrats’ decision to hold their convention in Denver and the Republicans’ choice of St. Paul stirred concerns about whether local police in each city had enough officers to deal with a wide range of threats, including terrorist attacks or a lone gunman.

The most pressing fears, particularly in Denver, are that as many as 30,000 demonstrators may sweep into the city to disrupt the convention. Much of the city’s planning, in conjunction with federal authorities, has been based on the possibility of such protests, according to federal officials.

Still, these officials acknowledge that they have little concrete intelligence indicating that such large or unruly demonstrations are being planned. But, officials said they had based their assessments on groups like Recreate 68, Tent State and other activist coalitions. Organizers insist the groups are nonviolent, but to the authorities their names alone raise the specter of violent confrontations like those at the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago.

In Denver, federal officials have expressed concern that demonstrators could try to shut down regular business at several major offices, including the Federal Reserve Bank, the United States Mint, and the federal courthouse.

“Because of the Internet, the ability of protesters to mobilize and share information has metastasized,” said Troy A. Eid, the United States attorney for Colorado. “That would be fine if it were peaceful, as we expect. But we have to plan accordingly.”

In recent days, domestic security officials issued a heightened awareness bulletin urging greater attention because of a number of factors, including the election and the conventions. But law enforcement authorities say they are trying to strike a balance between planning for every conceivable threat, including terrorist attacks and large public demonstrations, and not strangling a city’s commercial life in the process.

“We’re not looking to shut down an entire city,” said Malcolm Wiley, a Secret Service agent involved in security planning for the convention in Denver.

Kirk Johnson contributed reporting from Denver.

The Molten Core of Barack: Why Obama Can't Win

SUMMARY: John McCain is a complete and well-formed man. Barack Obama is completing himself. As he moves to fit what he perceives to be a right-of-center country, he distances himself from the simple and authentic passion of a young candidate who once pledged "Change We Can Believe In."

This is the trap Barack Obama has made for himself, the one he cannot escape, the one Hillary Clinton foresaw, the one that may doom him. The Obama campaign knows it too. In fear the dream is being lost drop-by-drop, they are going negative on John McCain. Maybe the aliens should ask to meet McCain, as well. (Click on the header to read the full article)

Critical of McCain, Obama Quiet on Own Energy Vote

Not only is Obama running a negative campaign, he's flip flopping himself in an apparent display of hypocrisy...More...

Tom Raum

Democratic candidate Barack Obama criticized Republican John McCain on Tuesday for taking a page out of "the Cheney playbook" on energy, overlooking his own support of oil-friendly policies that the unpopular vice president helped to craft.

Vice President Dick Cheney, a former oilman, early in the Bush administration helped draft an energy policy that Obama asserted is biased in favor of tax breaks and favorable treatment for big oil. Obama's remarks were an attempt to capitalize on Cheney's unpopularity.

"President Bush, he had an energy policy. He turned to Dick Cheney and he said, 'Cheney, go take care of this,'" Obama said. "Cheney met with renewable-energy folks once and oil and gas (executives) 40 times. McCain has taken a page out of the Cheney playbook."

In stumping Tuesday in this key battleground state, Obama sought to link the troubled economy with Republican policies and offer his own energy plan in contrast. He has tried to cast McCain as more concerned about oil company profits and drilling than an overall energy strategy.

However, Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure Cheney played a major role in developing. McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.

The Obama campaign has said the Illinois senator supported the legislation because it included huge investments in renewable energy.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds, said, "Barack Obama is opposed to offshore drilling and is also opposed to admitting that he voted for the same corporate giveaways for Big Oil that he's campaigning against today."

With polls showing concern over gas prices a prime concern of Americans, Obama has been depicting energy as the nation's most pressing national security and economic issue.

Obama has proposed a $1,000-per family energy rebate to be paid for by a tax on excessive energy-company profits. He called for ending U.S. reliance on oil from the Middle East and Venezuela over the next 10 years, a project he said would cost the U.S. $150 billion.

Obama has also proposed borrowing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve as a short-term measure to reduce gasoline prices, a conditional and limited resumption of offshore drilling, and a new emphasis on alternative energy sources and hybrid vehicles.

"Our economy is in turmoil, I don't have to tell the people of Youngstown," Obama told a high-school gymnasium audience in this rust-belt city. "People here have known some hard knocks and hard times."

Ohio is a bellwether state, having voted for the winning candidate in all 11 presidential elections since 1964, including handing Bush a close re-election victory in 2004.

Increasingly, with his appearances this week and with a new ad, Obama has been seeking to tie McCain to the oil and gas industry, although McCain, unlike Bush and Cheney, did not previously work in the industry.

A new Obama ad says Big Oil filled McCain's campaign with $2 million in contributions and that he "wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks."

That $4 billion consists mainly of potential revenue from a McCain proposal to lower corporate taxes on all American businesses.

The McCain campaign pointed out that the ad doesn't mention Obama has taken some $400,000 from oil company executives.

"We have to end the age of oil. "Obama said. "If we fail to act, there are severe indications for national security, our economy and our environment."

Obama has had trouble connecting with white working-class voters, who are a major factor in Ohio. Clinton won the state in its Democratic primary earlier this year. Gov. Ted Strickland, who had been a Clinton supporter, gave a rousing endorsement of Obama, calling him "bright, young, energized and compassionate."

Obama's focused on economic issues. He said that oil giant Exxon-Mobil "makes in 30 seconds what the typical Ohio worker makes in a year."

"We need more jobs and economic development. Why don't we focus on clean energy and reopening factories and putting people back to work? Nobody is benefiting from jobs that are leaving the community," he said.

Obama has proposed a $15-billion-a-year program to help promote clean-energy jobs.

In a question-and-answer session, Obama was asked if he would support term limits for members of Congress by a questioner who noted that many senators were elderly.

"I've got colleagues in the Senate who are doing absolutely outstanding work, and they're well into their 70s," Obama said. He praised ailing Sen. Edward M. Kennedy as one.

"I'm generally not in favor of term limits," he said. "Nobody is term-limiting the lobbyists or the slick operators walking around the halls of Congress. I believe in one form of term limits. They're called elections."

Obama had a 6 percentage point lead over McCain in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Tuesday. He leads McCain among women by 13 points, among young voters 33 and younger by 30 points, and by 55 points among minorities, according to the poll. McCain leads among whites by 10 points.

A poll released Monday by The Washington Post showed Obama with a 2-to-1 edge with low-income voters.
The Associated Press
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/Aug/05/critical_of_mccain__obama_quiet_on_own_energy_vote.html at August 05, 2008 - 03:11:00 PM PDT

The Oborg continues its collapse.

In the past few days, a raft of new polls have documented the depth and severity of voters' reactions to Obama as they get to know the so-called "presumptive nominee" better.

For the second day running, Rasmussen shows McCain leading by 47-46%.

Zogby shows McCain ahead by 42-41%, a stunning reversal of a Zogby poll earlier in the month that had Obama ahead by 46-36%. Zogby noted that Obama's collapse was swiftest and sharpest amongst voters he has always taken for granted, and especially voters aged 18-29 and women.More...

-Among voters aged 18-29, Obama lost 16 percent and McCain gained 20. Obama still leads, 49-38;

-Among women, McCain gained 10 percentage points. Obama now leads 43-38;

-Among independents, Obama lost an 11 point lead. They're now tied;

-Among Democrats, Obama's support dropped from 83 percent to 74 percent;

-Among Catholics, Obama lost the 11 point lead he had in July and now trails McCain by 15.

The Rasmussen and Zogby polls come hot on the heels of the Gallup tracking poll that showed Obama's support evaporating over the course of of last week, and the Gallup/USA Today poll last Monday that showed McCain ahead 46-43%. We are no longer talking about outliers: this is a sharp trend that coincided with Obama's most recent policy reversals, his make-believe "presidency in waiting," and McCain's most recent ads inviting viewers to laugh at Obama's pretensions. He has gone from Messiah to national joke in almost no time flat.

Pundits seem taken aback at how quickly the Chosen One is cratering. They shouldn't be. From the beginning, PUMAs have warned that Obama's lack of principle, his complete inexperience, the cultishness of his campaign and his overbearing arrogance would turn off voters in the general election. Since he was crowned by the media (and without even waiting for the Democratic Party to formally nominate him) Obama has gone out of his way to alienate his base of inexperienced young voters, upper-mid-income "progressives" and blacks at virtually every opportunity.

Obama's has betrayed his constituents on almost every single signature issue of his: campaign finance reform, FISA, NAFTA, Iraq and now offshore-drilling. No wonder his support is going through the floor. It's hard to draw much of a meaningful distinction between him and George Bush or John McCain on policy, except that McCain seems to have more conviction. Obama gives the impression of being "willing to do anything to win," something that progressives used say about Hillary back when Obama was against NAFTA, for public campaign funding, against FISA, against staying in Iraq and against offshore-drilling.

Remember those days?

Of course, some things haven't changed since then. And they may also have something to do with the Dear Leader's plunging poll numbers. Just as he did in the Winter and Spring against Hillary, Obama spent last week trying to tar the McCain campaign as "racist" for having the temerity to campaign for president at the same as him. Not surprisingly, the Clintons didn't jump to Obama's defense. Clinton campaign communications director, Howard Wolfson, had this to say on Fox News about the McCain campaign's slapping Obama down after the Precious One accused John McCain of running a "racist" campaign against him:

I think the McCain camp watched our primary on the Democratic side very carefully, and they know that any accusation of racial divisiveness can be very, very harmful for a candidate's prospects.

The Obama campaign's bullying tactics worked in a Democratic Primary season when many of the Democratic electorate were pining for an excuse to vote for a black man no matter how unqualified he was and when young male Democrats were given license to exercise their sexist impulses, as long as it was in the service of the Oborg.

But now we're in a general election, and the general electorate is less in thrall to the idea of "making history" by electing Obama as President. They want to know what the next President will do about Iraq, about jobs, about energy, about national security.

Obama has no answer for them: he has no experience, he has no record. All he can do is talk about his wonderful self. He blew any credibility he could have as a principled politician with his constant policy flip-flops and his arrogant preening as "president in waiting."

Voters have seen the man for what he is, and they don't like him. Unlike in the Democratic primaries, general election voters can't be guilt-tripped into voting for Obama.

As they head into the nominating convention in Denver, superdelegates need to take their responsibility to the Democratic Party and to the country seriously. They need to ask if the Democratic Party can afford to nominate yet another loser in a year that by all rights a Democrat should win -- but that this Democrat cannot.

OP Ed with a little Humor: The Obama derangement syndrome.

Obama causes derangement. I am convinced of it. Much has been said about the "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" - that is the media and individuals having irrational hatred for the Clintons based in ...well...nothing...it is just mindless hatred.More...

There is an "Obama Derangement Syndrome" as well. ODS is a malady that causes people to shove their rational abilities aside and fall into an adoring trance for BHO. I came across another advanced case of ODS today.

DISCLAIMER: Not everyone who intends to vote for Obama (should he become the nominee) has ODS. Those who do not have ODS usually fall into the "I can't vote for the Republican and don't care to think about it much" camp. I really can't take issue with those voters. They don't vote GOP - ever. I respect party loyalty - to a degree. I have often been in this camp. I have never voted for a Republican in a presidential race. In presidential races I have voted FOR the Democrat 3 times - 92, 96, and 2000. Though I was queasy about Clinton for a long time in 1992. In 84, 88, and 04 - my "Democratic" votes were out of resignation. Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry were sad excuses for nominees. But they were qualified for the job. (Dukakis would have been a disaster - but he had executive experience. Besides he had no chance of winning so I felt safe in sticking to my - former - party.) The presumptive Democratic nominee this time is not even qualified to be a Senator much less a President. Still I understand sane voters resigning themselves to Obama and hoping it turns out alright.

It's the delusional BHO people that alarm me. Even the most committed Kerry or Dukakis people never gave up their common sense. Even the fiercest labor unionists for Mondale did not delude themselves about who Walter Mondale actually was. This is not the case with the hard core Obamites. They believe in someone who simply isn't there. Like Santa Clause.

Today I had a brief conversation with a young guy who had come to my building to check on some landscaping. Without getting to detailed, in short order "news" came up. The conversation went something like this:

ME: I restrict my news intake at this point.
POD: I know. It's so depressing. McCain is ahead in the polls.
ME: Actually it's a tie now. I don't find that depressing, though.
POD: Well, I just can't understand how people would want McCain. He's awful.
ME: I'm not crazy about McCain but better him than the other guy.
POD: WHAT?
ME: Obama is a joker. I don't trust him at all.
(his eyes glazed as he probably decided I must be a bigot)
POD: But you're not going to vote for McCain.
ME: I might.
POD: Why?
ME: At least McCain has experience. I don't trust Obama has far as I can spit. Why are you for him?
POD: He's great. I just love him.
ME: Why?
POD: Because McCain wants war forever. I used to like Hillary until she started eating her own.
ME: Clinton ran a much cleaner campaign that Obama. Do you know who Tony Rezko is?
POD: Who?
ME: Rezko.
POD: No
ME : You should.
POD: Come on. Obama is great. He'll be good for the country.
ME: How?
POD: We just can't afford McCain
ME: Don't his flip flops bother you?
POD: What flip flops?

We went on like this for a while and nothing got out of hand. But you'll notice that he could not defend Obama in a meaningful way.He followed a set pattern for Obama fanatics:

Rule one: Obama is a great man. Period. No back up needed. (or available)
Rule two: Insult Clinton or Clintons
Rule three: Attempt - however lamely - to imply McCain is bad, evil - whatever.

I wish I could report that this conversation I had today was unique. It is not. I have never seen anything like this year. When I volunteered for McGovern in 1984 and Clinton in 1992 I could give you solid reasons, based in fact, as to why they would make good Presidents. I knew about McGovern's WW2 record and had a basic knowledge of his work in the Senate. By August of 1992 I could report - albeit weakly - on some of Clinton's accomplishments as a governor. I knew about Hillary's work with Marian Wright Eldeman and the Children's Defense Fund. I did not know a lot but I knew something. I have yet to find a strong Obama supporter on the street who can quantify Obama's qualifications beyond a speech here and a speech there. However, and most disturbingly, their adoration for the man is in direct inverted proportion to their knowledge of him.

Facts don't matter.

How appalling is this year? Cynical as I have become I am still shocked by the gleeful emptiness embedded in Obama fanatics. Contempt for experience is a badge of honor.

We've seen this campaign already. 2000. I knew no - zero - zip - Bush voters in 2000. But my father who resides in Texas knew plenty. In many conversations he reported the same thing about Bush voters that I now see in Obama voters. The gulf between the actual man and the man presented by handlers and the press was enormous. The difference is that W came from a long line of politicians. There were experienced adults in his entourage. I did not agree with them - but they had experience. Bush was a buffoon to be sure. Be he had back up.

Later in the day I was at a social gathering. An older Edwards supporter told me that she felt she had no choice but to vote for McCain. Obama was simply unacceptable. I told her I knew exactly how she felt.

Does BHO have the potential to be a good or great President. Sure, I guess. Any number of people do. If BHO wins and becomes a good or great President will I admit I was wrong?

You bet.

Hold me to it.

If after a few years of President Obama things have changed for the better I will eat my words and I will get on board for Obama 2012. My anger at Obama is much less personal than it sometimes seems around here. I'd like to be wrong about Obama - and Peak Oil - and hope I and many others are.

What I won't do now is vote on a hope and a prayer. This is not American Idol. This is our country and our lives.

Finally, I do not understand why the DNC is forcing this man on us. Clinton's claim on the nomination is as strong or stronger than Obama's. Neither has enough delegates. The super delegates can make a sound and sane choice in Denver. A race between Clinton and McCain for the White House is a contest of titans. A contest between Clinton and McCain can be run on ideas and issues. McCain versus Obama is not a choice a concerned citizen in an established democracy should be forced to make. The man with experience who I don't agree with much or the mystery behind door number three...

The DNC should be ashamed.

If you are maxed out but still want to help support Hillary Clinton, Here Are Some Options

1. Starting a Matching Fund Drive where you will agree to match a contribution to Hillary Clinton with a contribution to a candidate who has been loyal to Hillary (Sheila Jackson Lee and Stephanie Tubbs Jones come quickly to mind, but there are countless others). If you don't have a blog or website and want to conduct the Matching Fund Drive on any one of PUMA's blog sites.
2. Donating to Heidi Li's Denver Group.The group's goals are: An open convention; Senator Clinton's name on the ballot; Speeches allowed by supporters of Senator Clinton on behalf of her candidacy; A roll call vote; and No coronation.

In White House Race, Strong is Often Wrong

The image of Michael Dukakis in a tank haunts the Democratic Party

Photo: AP

By: Mark J. Penn
August 5, 2008 07:50 AM EST

In many recent presidential elections, Americans have had a choice: pick the candidate they think is a stronger leader or pick the candidate they believe is right on the issues. Almost always, they have chosen the stronger leader — even though they have often come to regret that decision.More...

Strong and wrong or weak and right — that is the choice that Republicans have tried to present to the voters. They will try it again this year; as conditions in the economy worsen and with two wars in the background, Americans are again looking for a tough leader for tough times.

We hear less and less about who the voters would rather have a beer with or ask to baby-sit for their kids — the voters have had it with those kinds of choices.

So take key issues such as the economy, health care and Iraq. Once again, the Democrats lead on those issues by large margins. Americans don’t want their troops in Iraq for a hundred years or even for two years — they want to see the war end and the money spent on military action in Iraq going instead to help relieve our country’s problems at home. They favor alternative energy over drilling and nuclear energy, and they see the health care system falling into increasing disrepair.

So if they overwhelmingly favor the policies of the Democrats, why is the presidential horse race not reflecting a 10- or 15-percentage-point edge for Barack Obama? Because of the same concerns that the public had about past Democratic presidential nominees Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John F. Kerry. The image of Dukakis in a tank still haunts the Democratic Party.
See also

* Pelosi: At-risk Dems back drilling
* Book says White House ordered forgery
* Hell freezes, coalition melts

In response, Democratic candidates have tried to show that they, in fact, are strong leaders, too — that is why Dukakis got in a tank in 1988 in the first place. And that is why Kerry held a convention in 2004 that was about his war record instead of his war policies. Dwight D. Eisenhower easily defeated the stirring rhetoric of Adlai Stevenson, and President Jimmy Carter’s inability to deal with the Iranian hostage crisis cost him the presidency in 1980.

I sometimes joke that for presidents and large figures, “being human is overrated.” And by that I mean that Americans really look for a superhuman leader as their president — someone who can do what can’t be done: fight terrorists and solve the problems of the Middle East at the same time; lower energy prices and stimulate alternative energy; cut taxes and balance the budget. The great presidents have been those who had incredible resolve in the face of danger at home and abroad, people such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who took strong stands even when those stands sent us to war. The public is always looking for the next larger-than-life person who can do the big things that the job often demands. That is at the core of many voters’ attraction to Obama, who promises change and draws audiences of hundreds of thousands of people, even in Germany.

So when John McCain mocks Obama’s drawing power as mere celebrity, it is a significant volley in the battle over who can be the right leader for these difficult times. Obama is running as the candidate of leadership for our new times, and so his convention will be judged by how effectively his leadership offers Americans solutions to the tough problems facing the country.



In this election, it is McCain who will be playing the war hero card to project an image of having the strength necessary to protect America from danger. But evidenced by the losses of Kerry and Bob Dole, both decorated war heroes, that’s no longer the only yardstick for measuring leadership.

In polls, the public consistently chooses two qualities as most important for the next president: honesty and strength. The media tend to conflate the public’s desire for someone who is genuine with the idea that the public wants someone warm and fuzzy. The public has made clear over and over again that it does not judge presidents by their personal lives; rather, the public cares deeply about promise-keeping. When a candidate vows to cut taxes or end the war, voters want that person to cut taxes or end the war. “Read my lips” had better mean “read my lips,” or voters can turn on a president very quickly. And remember that when President Bill Clinton beat back the Republicans’ efforts to impeach him, he had kept his promises to revive the economy and balance the budget.

The past few elections have been dominated by images of Democrats mountain climbing, duck hunting and motorcycle riding. Obama’s attempt at bowling was in this tradition. Once again, Democrats will face a choice: do the equivalent of putting their candidate in a tank or do something completely different. And if the Democrats go in this direction again, they will face a torrent of ads ridiculing them. Republicans have proved adept at convincing voters that there is too much risk in electing a Democrat, and that is where they are likely to focus their energies again.

So here is a radical suggestion: Rather than sparring on the Republican playing field to determine the rougher and tougher leader, Democrats should introduce more clearly substantive differences. How about this for a message — ending the war in Iraq now, making an Apollo-like investment in alternative energy and starting a revolution in health care to cover every American. I suggest making clear that this election is not about who is strong or weak, but about who is right or wrong. Maybe the key will be to emphasize that there will be real policy differences between a Democrat and a Republican in the White House next year and that those differences will — as they did in the past eight years — make all of the difference in the world to the country and the lives of its people.

Mark J. Penn served as chief adviser to President Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential election and to Hillary Rodham Clinton through her Senate and presidential races. He is author of the best-selling book “Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes” (Twelve, 2007).

Two Articles on Obama's Reversal on Energy Positions

The New York Times Article "Critical of McCain, Obama quiet on own energy vote" describes how Obama has been seeking to tie McCain to the oil and gas industry, even though McCain has no direct ties to the industry, unlike Bush and Cheney, who both worked in the industry before their election. In fact Obama voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by President Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure for which Vice President Dick Cheney played a major role. McCain opposed the bill, saying at the time that it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.

The second article titled "Obama Reverses Two Positions in New Energy Plan" describes Obama's reversals on tapping the oil reserves and opening up off-shore drilling.

To use Obama's own words "The same old Washington politics won’t fix our problems. We need honest answers — and a president we can trust." (ref: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/5/16528/47565). Those are Obama's words in an advertisement responding to the McCain/Hillary Gas Tax holiday proposal as a potential way to give citizens short term relief on the rising gas prices.

The hypocrisy is simply amazing...

Anti-Obama Bloggers Say They Were Silenced

UPDATED: AUG 5, 2008 12PM PST Obama Campaign Accused of Criminally Suppressing Free Speech(Additional info added below)

Election 2008

By ANNA PHILLIPS, Special to the Sun | August 5, 2008

Web loggers who are campaigning against Senator Obama's presidential run are accusing Google and Obama supporters of silencing them after their Web logs were marked as spam and their accounts temporarily frozen.More...

On Thursday, hours after publishing a post about an online petition demanding that Mr. Obama publicly produce his birth certificate, an associate professor of business administration at Brooklyn College, Mitchell Langbert, found that he could no longer access his Web log.

Google's Blogger hosting service had suspended "Mitchell Langbert's Blog," which Mr. Langbert describes as "two-thirds academic stuff I'm working on and one-third politics," until it could verify the Web log was not a "spam blog," or a site designed solely to increase the page views of associated Web sites.

A day later Google lifted the block on the account, but the incident and earlier Web log freezes in late June have led Mr. Langbert and other anti-Obama bloggers to accuse the Illinois senator's supporters of intentionally identifying their blog addresses to Google as spam blogs. They also say the company has reflexively suspended the sites.

"These tech-savvy smart alecks have figured out that if you report a blog you don't like, you can do some damage to a person," Mr. Langbert said.

A spokesman for Google, Adam Kovacevich, said in a statement that an overzealous antispam filter was responsible for the blocks.

"We believe this was caused by mass spam e-mails mentioning the 'Just Say No Deal' network of blogs, which in turn caused our system to classify the blog addresses mentioned in the e-mails as spam," he said. "We have restored posting rights to the affected blogs, and it is very important to us that Blogger remain a tool for political debate and free expression."

Several of the blogs that were blocked, including hillaryorbust.com and comealongway.blogspot.com, are part of the "Just Say No Deal" network of anti-Obama blogs. But Mr. Langbert's blog is not, leading him to conclude that Obama supporters had targeted him.

On her right-leaning blog "Atlas Shrugs," Pamela Geller keeps a list of blogs that Google has temporarily blocked. "The blockings do come in waves," she said. "The last wave was this past week, and now it got very quiet."

Some writers have had their blogs unblocked, while others have moved them to WordPress, a rival blog host.

"I don't think" Google has "malicious intentions at all, it's just that spammers can literally overrun a service if you're not careful, so their defenses have become overzealous," a spokesman for WordPress, Matthew Mullenweg, said in an e-mail.

"We always have human review before turning off an active blog," he said. "People invest so much time into their blogs, to treat it with anything less than the utmost respect is criminal."

But wait, there's more:

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/08/blog-shutdowns-attack-from-ips-assigned-to-barackobamacom/

"We have reported twice in the last two weeks about the attacks on anti-Obama websites. ["Google, Blogger, Obama: Obamanation Shut Down My Blog!"]] & [BabbaZee's "Anti-Obama Blogs Shut Down by Google, Obamabots"]

Speculation on who was behind the attacks has ranged from “Obama supporters” to “it’s no one, just a glitch” “to “it’s a browser problem”. [Site Meter causing Internet Explorer failure ]. This latter is a completely different issue from the blogs that got shut down by Google/Blogger.

A few liberal blogs and Instapundit have said there is no connection between this latest wave of blog shutdowns and the Obama camp.

Speculation can now be set aside–at least, in one instance.

We came across this post by MacRanger at MacsMind [Macsmind Hacking UPDATE] yesterday, where Mac presents “one fact that can’t be explained away”.

On July 22-25 Macsmind was DOS’d (Denial of Service) that originated from three IP addresses that are assigned to Barack Obama’s website. This isn’t a theory but was confirmed via law enforcement through an inspection of the site logs from those dates. The IP address in question; 66.39.4.254 66.39.143.229 216.146.206.181, are all registered via “Go Daddy” under the name barackobama.com.

On those dates, beginning at At 5:48PM Central on the 22nd, the hosted server that contained our site was hit by a 1.6 gigabyte flood of illegitimate traffic. The attacks never abated and only stopped when our host provider took us off line.

Spam traffic originating from three IPs assigned to the barackobama.com would seem to be compelling evidence to the disinterested reader. We haven’t been able to reach MacRanger yet, but the real question isn’t “Is the Obama camp involved in this?”

It’s “Will this story be publicized?”

MacsMind finishes with

Speculation is one thing, but facts are another. This time however we’ve taken protective measures to prevent this from happening again. Additionally the investigation will continue and appropriate interstate authorities have been notified.

Texas Hill Country [] makes the comment, “Translation: People using computers at the Barack Obama Campaign are using them to systematically hack, attack and shut down websites that don’t agree with him. This is so messed up. It’s some Orewellian type business and it’s stuff like this that makes Obama scary as hell…”"