HC Visigoth

A quick survey: yes, no, or not sure. Do you believe in the following:

1. Intelligent design

2. Global warming

3. Global warming, with man as at least a partial causative agent

4. Man landed on the moon in 1969

5. Oswald acted alone

6. Sandy Hook was staged

7. Obama's BC is fake

8. WTC building 7 was rigged

Optional: who did you vote for for US president in 2012?

Santorum in 2008:

"We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic. But the Judeo-Christian ethic -- sure the Catholics had some influence -- but this was a Protestant country. And the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is a shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."

It strikes me that most people who support Santorum do so for his hardline religious positions -- I would also guess that most of those people are not Catholic, and probably had no idea that he was as, anti-Protestant as he appears to be.

I'm wondering where the fundamentalist Protestant vote is going to go. Good news for Ron Paul, perhaps?

Just a quick survey: yes or no, do you believe in the following:

1. Intelligent design

2. Global warming

3. Global warming, with man as at least a partial causative agent

4. Man landed on the moon in 1969

5. Oswald acted alone

Optional: who did you vote for for US president in 2008?

It seems like before certain event happened, they were certain activity, and now after certain event, they're upset that everyone in my group is now same activity! Internet slang for laughter.

All will become clear.

Berg's remaining petition, to stop the Electoral College vote (!), has been denied.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/0...

Was this *really* a surprise to anyone? Is there anyone who truly thinks that Berg is the guy to pin one's hopes on?

What we have here is a lawyer who is now something like 0 for 15 in career cases, who has been censured and fined in the past for a "laundry list of unethical actions":

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=112202311726...

...and who even fellow wingnut Andy Martin has distanced himself from:

http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/2008/11/s...

Can we call this one done?

Does Berg now have Obama "right where he wants him" ?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/0...

If you're going to bring up Tina Fey, stand down. I'm looking for the real origin of the real statement.

The earliest sighting that I recall was Cindy McCain trying to find something nice to say about Palin's foreign policy experience, as in the following video:

http://www.236.com/feed/2008/08/31/cindy_mccain_dr...

Note that this is from August 31st, so we can't be too far from the origin, since three days earlier, most of us had never heard of Sarah Palin.

Was she basing that on something Palin had said earlier? Could it be that Cindy McCain, or whichever handler gave her that line, is to blame for the most notorious soundbite of the '08 campaign? (Not that Palin helped much, by actually trying to defend this very tenuous concept for so long, most notably in the Gibson and Couric interviews.)

The fact that Mrs. McCain popped up with this idea so soon after Palin's debut, and that Palin did try to stick with it, leads me to wonder if this truly was concocted by Palin's McCain handlers as the only thing they could think of to shore up her total inexperience in this area.

(If they were this incompetent, no wonder they later tried to feed her to the sharks in order to save themselves.)

So: anyone got a source for this meme that's any earlier than the August 31st Cindy McCain interview?

McClellan was clearly a bit ahead of the curve, but it looks like we're getting a bit of momentum here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081230/ap_on_go_pr_wh...

"It allowed everybody to believe that this Sarah Palin-like president — because, let's face it, that's what he was — was going to be protected by this national-security elite, tested in the cauldrons of fire," Wilkerson said.

Did you expect the slagfest to begin this early, or are you surprised most former Bush aides have held their tongues as long as they have?

Here's why I think things are getting incredibly intense on the Obama BC front:

Berg's petition to the Supreme Court for cert concerning the case he lost in Pennsylvania has to date been punctuated by three applications for injunctions: the first, to stop the election itself, was submitted to Souter and denied by him on November 3rd.

The second was filed on December 8, to stop the electoral college from voting, and was denied by Souter the next day.

The same application was refiled and submitted to Kennedy on the 15th, who denied it on the 17th.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

It's taking an ADDITIONAL DAY for these to be denied each time! Clearly his case is gaining traction in the Supreme Court, right? Something to stoke the fires of hope in the hearts of wingnuts everywhere as we get closer to the January 9th SC conference date.

Todays' Miscellaneous Order from the Supreme Court has been posted, and not a peep from anyone here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/1...

No mention of the Wrotnowski case. Last time around, I think the lack of mention of Donofrio was interpreted as being a good thing, because it hadn't been explicitly denied...

Kind of sad to see old warriors just fade away.

(PS: there won't be an explicit mention of Wrotnowski being dismissed until Monday's Order List is posted.)

According to World Net Daily:

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pa...

"Questions raised over Barack Obama's citizenship are reaching into the National Press Club now, with an event scheduled Monday at which an activist group will call for the release of documentation proving his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office."

What this means is that "WeThePeopleFoundation.org, which is scheduling the event", has rented a room at the National Press Club. According to

http://npc.press.org/host/

this is quite the exclusive distinction, limited only to "press conferences, forums, breakfast, lunch and dinner meetings, receptions, formal dinners, weddings and bar and bat mitzvahs" and, well, anything else you want to pay for.

If WND is reaching this far to make a connection, do you think they're exactly reporting the truth in any other aspect of this case?

This is a question that I'm sure many of you will consider addressing with a short answer along the lines of: "huh?"

Me too.

What the heck did Bush mean by this?

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/audio/player.phtml?clip_...

(I was going to mitigate this with 'at least he didn't say "uh"', but it turns out he did; sorry.)

Obama appears to be getting a lot of grief here for picking people who have had prior experience in the White House. So, a simple task: who would you pick for the following roles, without going to anyone previously in government?

Keep it simple if you want, but at least list the following:

Chief of Staff:

Secretary of State:

Secretary of Defense:

Attorney General:

Secretary of the Treasury:

National Security Adviser:

(Please note that this is not my personal reading of "change": change comes from the top, which is to say the platform architected by Obama; you then pick experienced people to *implement* change.

(And of course, the most significant change happens on January 20th no matter what.)

OK, epic fail last time around, so I thought I'd give y'all one more chance.

Your assignment is simple: come up with clever haiku related to the presidential election just past. Part of the challenge is to actually know what haiku is, of course; there are many fine web sites that can help you with this.

10 points to the person who can come up with a clever and persuasive argument in favor of their preferred candidate, position, or conspiracy theory beamed to them from the planet Kweldge, in 5/7/5 format.

Lay it on me. Can be about one or both. 10 point winner just might be the person who can convince me Obama was born in Kenya in 5/7/5 format.

This is the episode where Joey winds up not hosting the PBS telethon. In the tag scene, Monica and Chandler sneak separately into Central Perk, as a familiar classical music excerpt plays -- pizzicato violins in unison.

What's that piece of music?

Apologies in advance; the setup for this is a bit longwinded. Here we go:

The current meme associated with Obama's citizenship is that December 1st is the date it all hits the fan. This is apparently solely based on Philip Berg's press release of November 7th, titled "U.S. Supreme Court Awaits Response to Berg's Writ of Certiorari from Obama, DNC and Co-Defendants"

The press release says, "...the U. S. Supreme Court has set dates in which Barack Obama, the DNC and all co-Defendants are to respond to the Writ, which is on or before December 1, 2008."

To begin with, there's one major problem here: Berg can't file a writ. That's what the Supreme Court would do. What Berg has filed is a *petition* for SCOTUS to issue a writ - he is asking the court to ask the Philadelphia court to send them Berg's suit against Obama to them for review. Four judges will have to agree to this petition before the writ is issued.

So what the Supreme Court has done is scheduled Berg's petition on their docket, and said to all parties, "hey, tell us by December 1st why you think we should or shouldn't respond to this petition" See:

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570...

This has of course gotten spun wildly out of control, with a common interpretation of this situation being that Obama must provide his birth certificate by December 1st. This conveniently ignores that Obama *has* provided it, and the state of his birth *has* confirmed that it's the real thing. (They've also confirmed that the idea that their governor -- who by the way is a Republican who spoke at the RNC -- did anything to "seal" his birth records is a crock). See:

http://www.starbulletin.com/news/breaking/33670554...

Still with me? It's time for the question....

Given that the most likely response to this request will be for the non-Berg parties to say "here's why we think the writ should not be issued" and the most likely response from SCOTUS will be "makes sense to us", what will the next phase of the conspiracy story be?

Has anyone ever actually listened to the lyrics? I don't just mean

"Back over time we were all

Trying for free

You met the porpoise and me"

...it was the '70s and all, and we *all* wanted to meet the porpoise. I'll let that one go.

But...

"Kisses for real

And tales - it never fails!"

"You lying so low in the weeds

I bet you gonna ambush me

You'd have me down down down down on my knees

Now wouldn't you, barracuda? "

"If the real thing don't do the trick

You better make up something quick"

"Made for the western pools - silly fools!"

Ooo. Barracuda?

I've only recently begun to realize that the anti-obamistas aren't fully considering just how fulfilling the rest of their lives are going to be.

Don't you think Barack and Michelle would rock the robes as the first husband-and-wife Supreme Court justices? Take your time answering; you've got eight years.