Archive for October, 2008

Media fraud is vote fraud is McCain-Obama rigged election

October 30, 2008

John McCain v. Barack Hussein Obama II is a rigged election. The owners have rigged it. We are dogs in their mind and they pick the dog food. McCain Obama is an experiment to see how bad they can take us down. They are seeing what they can do to us. The answer is anything.

George Carlin: Wake the F up America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nvbetio4fI&NR=1

Voting for McCain Obama is voters on crack. Get off establishment crack. Don’t be addicted to the Rove Axelrod parties. Whatever you do, vote 3rd party. Show them you are awake. Vote Chuck Baldwin rated by NumbersUSA excellent in stopping legal immigration.

Legal Immigration, Amnesty, Wall Street Bailout with dividends and bonuses is testing us to see what they can do to us. They are causing our genetic extinction. Wages are the same as in 1973 even though output per hour went up. Stop listening to the MSM TV which is lies. Home school if you can. Tune out PC lies. Speak truth to PC lies.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

They are taking our countries from us. That isn’t an accident. Wake up. Vote Chuck Baldwin.

http://www.baldwin08.com/

Andrea Bocelli & Sarah Brightman – Time To Say Goodbye
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp0ccQVy1og&feature=related

Sarah Brightman -Scarborough Fair

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjOjmCVmMZ8

Agnetha Fältskog (ABBA) : Sleep Well My Little One 1970
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6a_KT6bKWE

Viking pray – Sofðu unga ástin mín
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu0jncABVjQ&feature=related

Lo there viking prayer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxyqkz1pCyc

Nessun Dorma
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbGKQ8YASCY&feature=related

Pavarotti – Nessun Dorma
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VATmgtmR5o4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nessun_Dorma

“Dilegua, o notte! Tramontate, stelle! Tramontate, stelle! All’alba vincerò! Vincerò! Vincerò!”

(English translation: “Vanish, o night! Set, stars! Set, stars! At daybreak I shall win! I shall win! I shall win!”)

Pavarotti Last Performance “Nessun Dorma” @ Torino 2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0Sx5lbVlQA&feature=related

Immigration works: McCain may lose Arizona

October 30, 2008

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Dems_highlight_tightening_race_in_McCains_1029.html

John McCain might not be so lucky this year. The Arizona Republican is holding on to narrowing leads in several recent polls, causing local Democrats and Barack Obama’s campaign to contemplate a more concerted push for the state.

Takimag erases comments on CHRM2 DTNBP1 IQ immigration

October 29, 2008

Takimag deleted my comments on genes, IQ and immigration yesterday.

This is the thread they were taken from

http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/why_im_supporting_obama/

It was a former Reagan and Nixon speech writer endorsing Obama at Takimag. He was fired from National Review last month. He is endorsing Obama because he dislikes Bush. He said he was a Burkean conservative.

Someone using AC commented on my comment, negatively and that was erased and another comment from someone else and a comment I made back to AC.

Comments

“I am a Burkean conservative, that is, one suspicious of abstract theory in politics.”

Genes control IQ and much of behavior, e.g. CHRM2 and DTNBP1. One way migration causes genetic replacement, its called the Wright Island Model. You are being replaced by genes that pay attention to what’s happening.
Posted by Old Atlantic on Oct 28, 2008.

Click to flag this comment as abusive

Tranlation: “I have completely lost my mind. Please stop me.”
Posted by AC on Oct 28, 2008.

Click to flag this comment as abusive

My comment was about Hart’s post, but equally applies to Old Atlantic’s wind.
Posted by AC on Oct 28, 2008.

Click to flag this comment as abusive

Also this comment from another:

Burkean Conservatives for Black Marxist Dittoes, brother.

For the love of Mohammed’s Mother, THIS is where Burkean Conservatism leads?

Obama’s politics are as easily reconciled with Conservatism as Ginsburg’s Howl was reconciled to poetry.

However, unlike Ginsburg’s pestilential perversions, Barack’s poison is easier to swallow because it comes masquerading in the rhetoric of a soaring honeyed cadence and it is spoken publicly before Greek Columns in White Denver not in scuzzy New Yawk night clubs.

I swear, I can not for the life of me understand anyone voting for Barack just because Bush and The Republicans had a stuttering liar as its leader.

Far worse is a sweet-talking Mulllato who wants to steal from the Mr. Harts of the white Christian world and give the money to the black pagans Obama used to sit beside “every week” at Pastor Wright’s 11:00 A.M. “service.”

Get-up for Chuck. Vote Baldwin.

How any white man can vote for a Mullato who clearly hates him is, literally, beyond me.
Posted by I am not Spartacus on Oct 28, 2008.

Click to flag this comment as abusive

“My comment was about Hart’s post, but equally applies to Old Atlantic’s wind.
Posted by AC on Oct 28, 2008. “

“If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.” Nagylaki Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.

AC, aren’t your genes the ones blowing in the wind?
Posted by Old Atlantic on Oct 28, 2008.

Click to flag this comment as abusive

My initial comment and later one were perhaps a little cheeky but not enough to be deleted in my view.

Some of it still in Google

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=chrm2+dtnbp1&btnG=Google+Search

“Taki’s Magazine, edited by Taki Theodoracopulos
Oct 28, 2008 … Genes control IQ and much of behavior, e.g. CHRM2 and DTNBP1. One way migration causes genetic replacement, its called the Wright Island …
http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/why_im_supporting_obama/ – 20 hours ago -”

The above is the Google hit, which may not last very long from the search CHRM2 DTNBP1.

Those are two genes that control IQ with DTNBP1 explaining 1/3 of the black white IQ gap.

Richard Spencer the editor at Takimag or someone has deleted comments on the Wright Island Model before, 2 of them, as well as references to Iran’s Constitution on line in English and Khomeini’s Will which says the US is the Great Satan and Greatest Enemy of Islam as part of his will.

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2008/10/whos-to-blame-where-did-it-go-wrong.html

” Who’s to blame? Where did it go wrong?”

Maybe this is the answer. Its the PC “conservatives” like Hart and Richard Spencer who are busy settling scores and have pet peeves and can’t stand explicit discussion of genes and put their ego first who are part of the problem?

Jared Taylor comments on this problem of deleting comments and on Takimag (actually its a comment in his thread that mentions deleted comments at Takimag)

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/07/a_reply_to_taki.php

Thank you for this well-expressed response, Mr. Taylor. There was a long and interesting Comments thread on the link posted to it at Takimag, which I find has been deleted: must have contained too much embarrassing honest opinion, or something.

Posted by Prisoner of Berkeley at 9:42 AM on July 4

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/richard-spencer-deletes-comment-at-takimag-on-khomeinis-will/

Richard Spencer supported Indian ethno-nationalist Amrit Singh for the Republican nomination for Congress in a Virginia district to oppose Jim Moran over Mark Ellmore. Singh supports H-1B to replace white Americans in the US by Indians in high tech jobs including DoD where he worked with a security clearance. Spencer supported Singh and went to his events. I took issue with that at Takimag in the comments.

See following for some of this:

Mark Ellmore Richard Spencer

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/lessons-from-mark-ellmore-defeat-of-amit-singh/

Spencer’s comments about Mark Ellmore were demeaning, as if Ellmore was a primitive white who was loyal to other whites and to the survival of whites as a civilization. Isn’t that what Takimag’s is about?

http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/go_amit_go/

Spencer in above column and many others banged the drum for Amit Singh but lost to those commenting for Ellmore.

Its core science that Takimag is deleting from its comment threads:

“If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.” Nagylaki Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.

As well as the names of IQ linked genes CHRM2 and DTNBP1. Deleting standard science from their comment threads when they don’t like it undermines the value of their effort. Someone said you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. That goes double for core parts of science and math. Deletion of science and math indicates a real problem at Takimag.

This is also why James Watson and others are afraid to speak out. If even Takimag deletes the names of genes linked to IQ from comment threads it shows there is very little support for science. Even the MSM and liberal blogs sometimes support this more than Takimag appears to at times.

Search

James Watson IQ genes New York Times

This is draft and preliminary. Comments and corrections welcome. This is not to imply anything negative of any person. All other disclaimers apply.

8.9 percent say jobs easy to get so stop immigration

October 28, 2008

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/28/news/economy/consumer_confidence/?postversion=2008102813

The percentage of consumers saying jobs are “hard to get” rose to 37.2% from 32.2%. Those claiming jobs are “plentiful” decreased to 8.9% from 12.6% in September.

By Ben Rooney, CNNMoney.com staff writer

Amanda Knox Meredith Kercher

October 28, 2008

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/3272342/Amanda-Knox-to-learn-whether-she-will-be-tried-for-Meredith-Kercher-murder.html
The Italian police are acting like PC idiots.

By Nick Squires in Perugia
Last Updated: 10:51AM GMT 28 Oct 2008

Mr Guede, who came to Italy as a child from West Africa, admits he was in Miss Kercher’s rented cottage and that she had agreed to have sex with him.

But he felt ill after earlier eating a kebab and went to the bathroom, emerging when he heard screams and encountering a man who he says resembled Mr Sollecito fleeing the house.

He claims he also saw a woman escaping the whitewashed cottage and that her voice sounded like that of Miss Knox.

He then discovered Miss Kercher in her bedroom, partly covered with a duvet but drenched in blood and dying from deep slash wounds to her neck.

Prosecutors say that Mr Guede’s DNA was found on a bloody hand print left on Miss Kercher’s pillow and point to the fact that he fled to Germany in the days after the killing, from where he was extradited back to Italy.

Italian prosecutors would be racist to just charge the black guy, so they invent a fantasy scenario based on what?

Prosecutors claim that in a sex game inspired by Halloween fantasies and Japanese ‘manga’ comics about vampires, Mr Sollecito held Miss Kercher down on all fours while Mr Guede tried to rape her and Miss Knox slashed her throat with a kitchen knife.

What reason do they invent for this? Because they don’t want to be racist. That’s their whole case against the whites. The bottom line is that Amanda Knox is charged with being white in the vicinity of a rape murder committed by an African.

The Italian authorities realize if they just charge the African it will be admitting that immigration from Africa was stupid and evil to begin with. It simply brought a race of violent low IQ people who could only attack the Eloi (as Lawrence Auster would say). Rather than admit the Italian government was stupid and evil to bring blacks from Africa to Italy, they charge the two whites, when its obvious this black man did it. This is the disease of PC. It is a mental disorder.

==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher

Go to press links at bottom of Wikipedia article and click on ones in chrono order. You find they are saying 3 are guilty, Knox, boyfriend and Lumumba, even the Italian judge says it basically and then Guede is arrested Nov 20 2007 and he is the one with real physical evidence linking him. The police then just substitute Guede in for Lumumba even though there is no evidence Guede had ever met Knox or her Italian boyfriend.

If Knox and the Italian boyfriend went home in his car and then to the laundromat next day to clean their clothes, then they would have left blood in his car. If he took his clothes off at the murder flat, what did he wear home, girl clothes? Isn’t he too tall and big to wear their clothes?

Substituting Guede for Lumumba and keeping the theory the same is absurd. The police are fixated on the two whites.

We start with Guede is involved. If the others were too, he would rat them out. He hasn’t said he ever met them. He says he saw some Italian in the hallway in the apartment while he went to the bathroom. This guy’s story makes no sense according to the police. Once we accept that Guede is guilty, then it follows he would rat out the others if they were involved. That hasn’t happened. So they weren’t. That’s why the car etc didn’t have blood traces.

==

The police theory is that the 3 accused had sex and killed the victim during that over an extended period with massive blood. That would have covered the 3 accused in blood including their clothes. Then they had to clean up so that few traces of blood were found in Amanda Knox’s room, or the boyfriends apartment or car, except for one knife in the boyfriend’s apartment the police claim. The defense claims contamination on that.

How plausible is this near perfect clean up? Were they drunk and/or stoned? They did the almost perfect clean-up after getting drunk or stoned?

The police say a witness say them together the night before, the 3 of them, but also that it was not planned. Which is it? If planned, they didn’t plan it would go so far? But then they cleaned it up almost perfectly?

The police need to produce a timeline from several days before to several days after.  This should cover who was where when and how they moved from place to place, whether they had blood on them at a point, at what times while traveling, etc.

If they cleaned clothes at the laundromat the next day, how did they travel without getting the car or other transport bloody?  If the Italian boyfriend was at home the whole time of the evening of the murder, how did Amanda Knox get to his place, if she did?  How did she avoid getting blood on whatever transport was used?

Barack Obama unbuilding the great white society

October 27, 2008

Barack Obama is the anti-white agent of change.  His program is to unbuild the great society whites have built.  Lyndon Johnson started it and Barack Hussein Obama II means to end it.

Obama will give your money away both your land away

October 27, 2008

McCain says Obama will give your money away to someone else.  But both are happy to give your country away to someone else, like Bush. Vote Chuck Baldwin who is rated excellent by Roy Beck of NumbersUSA in fighting legal immigration.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/population-genetics-island-model-one-way-migration/

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/

http://www.baldwin08.com/files/ImmigrationIssues.pdf

McCain aides admit hate Palin for being white spoof

October 27, 2008

John McCain’s aides give tell all interview to Daily Kos, they hate Sarah Palin too, and for the same reason, she is a white woman with 5 babies.  Here is part of the interview.

Kos:  We are here with two of John McCain’s top aids, John Sycohead and John Hispanohead.  First, why are your names so much alike?

Sycohead:  Are not.

Hispanohead: Are not neither.

Kos:  Now that we have that settled.   What is all this talk of Sarah Palin being a diva?

Sycohead: She won’t do as we say.

Hispanohead: She’s an uppity white woman.

Kos: What in particular?

Sycohead:  Abort her children.

Kos: They’re already born, even liberals don’t abort live children.

Sycohead: They don’t?

Hispanohead: Well she could leave them out to die.  Its been done.

Kos: I thought Republicans had family values?

Sycohead: Not for white people.  Down with the diva.

Hispanohead:  She should divorce the redneck and marry a Hispanic.  Have a Hispanic baby.  Then it would be vibrant.

Sycohead: Yeah.

Both laugh in a thuggish way.

Kos: Isn’t her husband part Eskimo?

Hispanohead: Part Eskimo-pie.

Sycohead:  Yeah.

They both laugh in a sneering contemptuous tone.

Kos: What’s the story with the dresses?

Sycohead: My idea.

Hispanohead: I told her she looked like trailer park white trash from dead Alaska.

Sycohead: Yeah a state so white its dead.

Hispanohead: I told her to get clothes to make her look vibrant.

Kos: Is Sarah Palin the reason John McCain is losing?

Sycohead: She did it to us deliberately.  She’s a Buchananite Alaska independent.

Hispanohead: She is white people’s revenge on the leader of the Hispanic nation.

Berg v. Obama dismissed on standing grounds

October 25, 2008

Order to dismiss in Berg v. Obama, DNC, FEC.

http://mobiusinformer.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/court_order_and_memo_dismissing_berg_v_obama.pdf

Paradox of Voting (POV)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

There is injury in fact in light of the Paradox of Voting. This is the POV of Anthony Downs not Arrow.

POV is that people vote even though the chance they change the outcome times the dollar value of the outcome is less than the cost of their voting.

Note that under POV their stake in the election is greater than zero and meaningful, it can even break them. But the chance they change the outcome is so low, esp if not a 50/50 case, that when multiplied by their stake the expected value is less than the cost of transport and time to the voting place.

To avoid the POV, the government has to make people feel they have more stake in voting than their generalized interest or specific interest actually is.

Allowing a candidate who isn’t qualified undermines how voters feel so that they don’t vote. Because the POV says they shouldn’t vote anyhow on a straight dollars and cents basis, allowing unqualified candidates or giving voters no standing to challenge candidates undermines their willingness to vote in light of the expected benefit of their vote being less than the cost of transport.

Because judges swear to uphold the Constitution and the Constitution relies on elections and voting despite the POV, judges have an obligation by their oath to make voters feel they matter. That means letting them challenge a candidate’s qualifications for office. This is especially true when candidates can challenge voter’s qualifications. Allowing the latter but not the former makes it seem rigged for those in power by those in power. That undermines voting which undermines the Constitution which relies on people voting.

Section 1983 claim. Since Obama can sue Berg to challenge his voting qualifications, but Berg can’t sue Obama to challenge his candidate qualifications, this is denial of due process of law, civil rights, and equal protection.

Its the same controversey and if Obama can sue Berg in that controversey, then Berg can sue Obama in it. Standing must be the same.

==Suppose Obama sues a voter claiming they are not qualified.

The voter then makes a motion to dismiss on the grounds Obama lacks standing. The voter says the reason that Obama lacks standing is that Obama is not qualified to run for office, i.e. is not a qualified candidate.

Obama can’t be injured by the voter not being qualified if Obama himself is not qualified. The voter says Obama has to prove qualification.

By challenging a voter’s qualifications, Obama, the DNC, and local parties implicitly plead that Obama is qualified. A defendant has a right to challenge a fact plead by the plaintiff. Thus Obama, the DNC and local Democratic parties have already implicitly plead that Obama is qualified in cases and proceedings across the country.

That means Berg can challenge what Obama has plead in court. Each defendant whose voting qualifications were challenged could challenge Obama and the DNC and Democrats implicit pleading Obama is qualified in each case, but its simpler to consolidate it. If necessary, Berg could find a person whose voting qualifications were challenged by the Democrats.

==More detail on this argument

Suppose the DNC sues a voter or challenges them as not qualified and the voter makes a motion to dismiss on the grounds the DNC lacks standing because the candidate of the DNC, Obama, is not a qualified candidate. Thus the DNC can’t show it is injured in fact.

Or a local Democrat party challenges a voter and the voter seeks to dismiss on the grounds the Democrat candidate is not qualified for office, thus the Democrat party state organization is not injured in fact and thus lacks standing to sue.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf


So-called “Article III standing” has three requirements: (1) the
plaintiff has suffered “an injury in fact,” (2) that injury bears
a causal connection to the defendant’s challenged conduct, and
(3) a favorable judicial decision will likely provide the
plaintiff with redress from that injury. Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The party bringing the
claim–Hollander here–bears the burden to show his or her
standing to bring it. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow,
542 U.S. 1, 12 (2004).

If Obama is not qualified, then the DNC and state parties and Obama are not injured in fact by a non-qualified person being registered to vote or voting.

Moreover, the chance they change the outcome is almost zero, i.e. are the deciding vote. So the Democrats have failed to show an injury in fact,

Since the Democrats don’t know who the person will vote for, its speculative for them to claim they are damaged by the person voting when not qualified. They have failed to prove injury in fact.

Since the probability is so low they fail on (2) as well.

They fail on (3) since the person’s vote is not likely to change the election.

Thus Obama, the DNC, and state Democratic organizations only have a generalized interest in challenging a person’s qualifications to vote. They lack standing.

Since Obama is not qualified to take office, he and the Democrats also are not injured in fact, haven’t shown a causal connection and haven’t stated a grounds for relief. They just have a generalized interest in voters being qualified. Its totally speculative who a person will vote for, so the Democrats never have standing to challenge a person’s qualification to vote or their signature on a referendum or ballot initiative or to get a candidate on a ballot.

Its a violation of due process of law, stare decisis, equal protection of the law, etc. to have one rule of law for when the DNC or Obama sues or challenges a person on their qualification to vote, and another when its the other way.

The Democratic party gets to appoint judges, election officials, legislators, etc. So they have many ways to protect themselves against those they don’t want to vote who they believe are not qualified. Individuals don’t have that power. They don’t appoint judges, etc. So they need the courts to give them standing to get equal protection, to challenge the qualifications of officials for office.

The reason the qualification for president are what they are is the irreparable harm a foreigner being commander in chief can cause, the complete loss of our liberty and constitutional government. With nuclear weapons in our forces or the potential for Iran to gain them because Obama is a foreigner who doesn’t care, are exactly why its irreparable harm on a historic scale for an unqualified foreigner to become president and cinc.

==

Obama is running to be president, whose job is to protect the civil rights and Constitutional rights of each citizen. Obama has taken away Berg’s civil rights by denying him equal protection of the laws, the right to sue to challenge Obama’s qualifications when Obama and the Democrats are challenging the qualifications of voters or of those trying to register voters, as in California by state officials.

Individuals are not powerful parties. The officials in the 3 branches of government are all linked into powerful party organizations, two of them. Individuals are not. They need officials to protect the civil rights of individuals even when the powerful parties don’t want it. That is the case here.

Obama has already violated the job duties of president in this case and so has already disqualified himself. He has already violated the oath to uphold the Constitution which includes the civil and Constitutional rights of Berg and voters whose qualifications were challenged by Obama or the Democrats.

==

It is not true that only parties have an interest in qualified candidates in an election. The Founding Fathers didn’t want parties. So to say the parties have rights under the Constitution and individuals don’t is to turn the Constitution on its head. Yet parties do challenge the qualifications of voters to vote. They do many other things to, and are given money by the government as well. The two parties also control the FEC jointly.

The two parties have acted to keep 3rd parties off ballots. They have acted to exclude them from debates. They have demeaned them. They have given out the spoils of government to the two parties while denying them to 3rd party supporters or members. Party members get jobs in powerful law firms and can lobby government and get well paid, even for foreign countries.

==

The paradox of voting shows that its easy to undermine the vote and to keep people from voting. The Constitution relies on people voting since it relies on elections. So anything that reinforces the paradox of voting undermines the Constitution, which judges are supposed to uphold. Denying voters the right to challenge the qualifications of candidates when candidates and parties can challenge the qualifications of voters reinforces the negatives of the paradox of voting. Its like a see-saw. Its already ready to tip against people voting. Anything in the balance against voting risks irreparable harm to the Constitutions’ dependence on people voting despite it not being rational individually. The decision in this case of denying standing to voters to challenge the qualifications of the two major party candidates does exactly that.

== POV and Parties existence are linked.

The Founding Fathers hoped to avoid political parties. But the Paradox of Voting calls parties into existence, as happened. Parties are necessary to get people to vote despite the paradox of voting. They get people to the polls. They create excitement. They monitor who votes. Parties overcome the paradox of voting. So the POV causes parties to come into existence.

Our entire political system revolves around the POV and related interests. The public interest is no man’s interest is a recipe for the corruption of democracy, which is what has happened throughout our and human history.

Making people believe they have a stake in the truth and honest government is part of what makes it work. Judges have a role to make people believe we have a government of laws and not men. That means excluding unqualified candidates from office. That means giving the people standing to sue or challenge the candidate of a party, when the candidate or th party can sue or challenge the qualifications of a voter. The latter happens all the time. Obama challenged signatures on petitions to get his opponents on the ballot in the 1990’s when he first ran for office. Its fairness and equal protection of the laws and due process for Obama now to have his qualifications challenged by the voters.

When Obama challenged the qualifications of voters to sign the petitions in the 1990’s, he implicitly plead that he was qualified for office. But there is evidence he was not. That is in this case.

Obama turned down Judge Abner Mikva’s offer of a federal appeals court clerkship and the NY Times wrote about it at the time in 1991. His only rational reason is he feared an FBI background check. If he had taken the clerkship he could have been a professor at University of Chicago instead of a lecturer. Obama is still trying to conceal his records. McCain was open with his in 2000. The people have a right to challenge him as he challenged them in the 1990’s. Anything else is denial of due process of law, fairness, civil rights, Constitutional rights, and undermines getting people to vote despite the paradox of voting.

==

Following are comments posted at Texas Darlin. These may be repetitive.

==

on October 25, 2008 at 3:28 pm132 Old Atlantic

A candidate can sue a voter to be removed, and a voter defend the lawsuit against the candidate. Equal protection implies the voter can sue the candidate to be removed and the candidate has to defend the suit.

The probability that an individual voter will change an election that is not polling 50/50 is low. As the odds deviate from 50/50 and the number of voters, n, goes to infinity, the probability goes to zero rapidly. (It becomes the tail of a Dirac Delta Function in this case.) But this is true whether the candidate sues the voter or the voter the candidate.

However, the cost of the candidate to the voter does not go to zero. If the candidate will impose a cost on the voter of 10,000 dollars, that doesn’t go to zero as n goes to infinity and as the odds deviate from 50/50.

Thus a voter has more economic standing and specific damage to challenge or sue a candidate over credentials to hold office than a candidate or party to sue or challenge a voter over credentials to vote.

==

In this suit, its known that no entity whatsoever has gone over Obama’s records. There is a constitutional requirement that this be done.

If a nuclear power plant was being built someplace, and the builders admitted they never had the plans reviewed for safety by anyone, then an individual in the area should be able to sue.

In such lawsuits in actual practice, the defendant would say they have done the analysis and many government entities have reviewed the plans for days. Often there have been public hearings before agencies.

Then some disgruntled citizen comes before the court to stop the power plant and the court rules no standing. But that’s after the safety has been reviewed over and over.

If no hearings were ever held, and the plans for the plant had never been filed with any government agency, then that is a different situation. Its the law the plant’s safety has to be reviewed by the government.

Its wrong to carry over precedents of activists challenging nuclear power plants in court after the government reviews the safety with public hearings over many years with this case where no government review ever happened, there were no public hearings, and Obama has never turned the papers over to anyone.

Papers here means the complete files: Entire Hawaii file, the entire US passport file, all the records of Indonesian, and for Obama, his mother and his father.

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/berg-lawsuit-dismissed/#comment-20467

==

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/berg-press-release-appealing-to-us-supreme-court/

on October 25, 2008 at 4:48 pm8 Old Atlantic

Judge’s ruling in case of dismissal of challenge of McCain.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf

We can distinguish as follows: McCain did in fact turn over all his documents in the 2000 election for review. That distinguishes with Obama’s case, who has not.

The DNC, the states, etc. have a constitutional duty to check Obama’s full papers, full Hawaii file, full US Passport file, all Indonesian records, all Kenya records, school, etc.

We can distinguish from McCain and other cases: Only one person in the history of the world turned down a clerkship with a federal appeals court out of lawsuit and it was written up in the New York Times at the time that it was inexplicable.

But it makes sense if Obama was not a citizen and had to pass an FBI background check. Obama has asked his Harvard classmates to keep silent. Did he ask them to analyze the law for him at the time of the clerkship offer?

The New York Times in 1991 by publishing an article saying it was inexplicable and quoting the Chief Judge of the DC Court of Appeals, Judge Abner Mikva, has already shown evidence that can only be explained by some problem in Obama’s history, and citizenship is the most likely one. If Obama wants to say he was involved in some activity in Chicago he didn’t want the FBI to know or in his Pakistan trip, then he can plead that.

When the government has a duty to check and an individual has a duty to disclose, and neither does it, then the case can’t be compared to one where the government has checked a disclosure and a citizen challenges it after the government has checked it.

The main precedents these judges are pointing to, in terms of US Supreme Court decisions, are not about cases where the government never checked plans of a nuclear power plant, or a chemical plant or something like that and someone said you have to do this and the Supreme Court said no they don’t. Those US Supreme Court precedents are about cases where people sued after the government went through years of hearings on nuclear power plants or chemical plant safety or the like. Those don’t apply, because Obama never turned over and the government never examined the complete files, Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, US Passport, etc.

on October 25, 2008 at 5:01 pm16 Old Atlantic

From judge’s ruling in McCain case:

“To be sure, courts have held that a candidate or his
political party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an
allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that
doing so hurts the candidate’s or party’s own chances of
prevailing in the election. See, e.g., Tex. Dem. Party v.
Benkiser, 459 F.3d 582, 586-87 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2006); Schulz v. Williams, 44 F.3d 48, 53 (2d Cir. 1994); Fulani v. Hogsett, 917 F.2d 1028, 1030 (7th Cir. 1990). But that notion of “competitive standing” has never been extended to voters challenging the eligibility of a particular candidate. See Gottlieb v. Fed. Elec. Comm’n, 143 F.3d 618, 622 (D.C. Cir. 1998).”

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf

Page 11.

Candidates can challenge voter’s qualifications. The above
admits that candidates can challenge candidates qualifications. Equal protection implies that voters can challenge candidates qualifications.

36 Old Atlantic

“he Stranger

RE: POST #16 – OLD ATLANTIC

Can you elaborate more on your post. It seems that precidence has been set by the McCain ruling, no?
Thx”

The judge’s ruling in that case admits that a candidate can challenge another candidate’s qualifications to hold office. I believe that candidates often challenge voters qualifications, e.g. Obama challenged the signatures on the petition in the state election referenced by a poster above. So it would seem that fairness and equal protection of the laws would imply that if a candidate can challenge a voter’s qualifications and another candidate’s qualifications, that a voter could challenge back a candidate’s qualifications.

on October 25, 2008 at 6:10 pm43 Old Atlantic

Judge ruling in Berg case:

http://mobiusinformer.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/court_order_and_memo_dismissing_berg_v_obama.pdf

If we look at page 8 the judge quotes Judge Posner on the issue of standing to sue.

This does not address that a candidate can sue a voter on the voter’s qualifications to vote. If one party can sue another, has standing, then the other has standing to sue the other back in the same case. If the candidate sues the voter as unqualified, the voter has the standing to sue back.

The probability that a voter will cast the tie vote is the same whether its the candidate suing that the voter is not qualified or the voter suing the candidate is not qualified. This probability is low if the odds are not 50/50 and is even if they are. Thus a low generalized interest does not disqualify a candidate suing a specific voter as unqualified, and the interest of the voter to sue the candidate as unqualified is as great or greater.

==

on October 25, 2008 at 6:20 pm50 Old Atlantic

Lujan 3 prong test is cited in both opinions, McCain and Berg v. Obama:

“So-called “Article III standing” has three requirements: (1) the
plaintiff has suffered “an injury in fact,” (2) that injury bears
a causal connection to the defendant’s challenged conduct, and
(3) a favorable judicial decision will likely provide the
plaintiff with redress from that injury. Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The party bringing the
claim–Hollander here–bears the burden to show his or her
standing to bring it. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow,
542 U.S. 1, 12 (2004).”

Page 8:

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf

Page 9:

http://mobiusinformer.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/court_order_and_memo_dismissing_berg_v_obama.pdf

If we look at a candidate suing a voter over the voter’s qualification to vote, the 3 part test is the same as a voter suing a candidate over a candidate’s qualification.

The election has not happened yet, so its prospective in each case. So (1) is the same. Moreover, the probability the voter changes the election is the same probability in either case.

(2) causal relation. This seems the same or better for a voter, a voter voting for a candidate has a low chance to change the election. Removing one of the two major candidates has a larger chance to change it.

(3) Removing a voter has a low chance to change the election. But removing a major candidate has a high chance. So the voter has a better case to sue the candidate on the candidate’s qualifications than the reverse.

The judge in the Berg case cited Judge Posner who is known as being part of the law and economics school of though at U Chicago. Posner was recruited from Stanford Law School by George Stigler, an econ prof at Chicago GSB c. 1969 to teach at Chicago as part of the law and econ group. Posner wrote papers with econ profs such as Merton Miller. Miller and Stigler both won Nobel Prizes in econ.

The paradox of voting was taught in one of Stigler’s class at U Chicago that the probability of changing the outcome was lower than the cost of voting. So if the judge in the Berg case quotes U Chicago prof and now judge Posner, then the low probability of a vote changing an election is also valid to consider.

The paradox of voting requires judges to make people feel their vote is more important than the actual chance to change the election to get people to vote. If everyone stayed home because the chance their vote wouldn’t matter kept them away then elections wouldn’t work. Judges are supposed to help sway individual voters to vote despite the paradox of voting, not make rulings that the low interest of voters in elections means they can’t sue and shouldn’t bother to vote either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

The relevant paradox of voting is Anthony Down not Arrow in this case.

==

67 Old Atlantic

49 socalannie

“So Barky can challenge & disqualify the voters in his state, but voters can’t challenge him! Unfreakingbelievable!”

Sums it up exactly. Thanks.

==

on October 25, 2008 at 6:37 pm2 Old Atlantic

Good points. If one swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, doesn’t the very administration of that oath mean you do have an interest and the ability to uphold it?

Doesn’t every new citizen swear such an oath? Doesn’t that mean every citizen has the interest and the ability to uphold it? If not why is the oath administered?

Its also administered in other situations, and its always to the Constitution not the president or the Chief Justice or the leaders of Congress.

Citizens are asked to fight and when they do they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution not an oath of allegiance to the person who is president at the time. Same thing. They are considered to have an interest.

If a person is drafted can they say in court, the probability my service will change the outcome of the war is so low that I don’t have to serve? Call it the paradox of the draft?

Lujan 3 prong test is cited in both opinions, McCain and Berg v. Obama:

“So-called “Article III standing” has three requirements: (1) the
plaintiff has suffered “an injury in fact,” (2) that injury bears
a causal connection to the defendant’s challenged conduct, and
(3) a favorable judicial decision will likely provide the
plaintiff with redress from that injury. Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The party bringing the
claim–Hollander here–bears the burden to show his or her
standing to bring it. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow,
542 U.S. 1, 12 (2004).”

Page 8:

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf

Page 9:

http://mobiusinformer.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/court_order_and_memo_dismissing_berg_v_obama.pdf

If we look at a candidate suing a voter over the voter’s qualification to vote, the 3 part test is the same as a voter suing a candidate over a candidate’s qualification.

The election has not happened yet, so its prospective in each case. So (1) is the same. Moreover, the probability the voter changes the election is the same probability in either case.

(2) causal relation. This seems the same or better for a voter, a voter voting for a candidate has a low chance to change the election. Removing one of the two major candidates has a larger chance to change it.

(3) Removing a voter has a low chance to change the election. But removing a major candidate has a high chance. So the voter has a better case to sue the candidate on the candidate’s qualifications than the reverse.

The judge in the Berg case cited Judge Posner who is known as being part of the law and economics school of though at U Chicago. Posner was recruited from Stanford Law School by George Stigler, an econ prof at Chicago GSB c. 1969 to teach at Chicago as part of the law and econ group. Posner wrote papers with econ profs such as Merton Miller. Miller and Stigler both won Nobel Prizes in econ.

The paradox of voting was taught in one of Stigler’s class at U Chicago that the probability of changing the outcome was lower than the cost of voting. So if the judge in the Berg case quotes U Chicago prof and now judge Posner, then the low probability of a vote changing an election is also valid to consider.

The paradox of voting requires judges to make people feel their vote is more important than the actual change to change the election to get people to vote. If everyone stayed home because the chance their vote wouldn’t matter kept them away then elections wouldn’t work. Judges are supposed to help sway individual voters to vote despite the paradox of voting, not make rulings that the low interest of voters in elections means they can’t sue and shouldn’t bother to vote either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

(The relevant paradox of voting is Anthony Down not Arrow in this case.)

Apply the 3 prong test to the draft.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf


So-called “Article III standing” has three requirements: (1) the
plaintiff has suffered “an injury in fact,” (2) that injury bears
a causal connection to the defendant’s challenged conduct, and
(3) a favorable judicial decision will likely provide the
plaintiff with redress from that injury. Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The party bringing the
claim–Hollander here–bears the burden to show his or her
standing to bring it. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow,
542 U.S. 1, 12 (2004).

When the government sues a draft dodger, and we apply the 3 part test, can the draft dodger say my relation to the war’s outcome is so small, my generalized interest is so little, that I can’t be sued/charged by the government for not showing up to be drafted?

==

24 stevec I join with you in asking Chuck Baldwin to challenge Obama. Also Bob Barr was a US Attorney and is now the Libertarian candidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr#Early_career

“In 1986, Barr was appointed by President Ronald Reagan[9] to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia—a post Barr held until 1990.[8] Barr’s office prosecuted state and local officials, members of the Medellin drug cartel, and got a perjury indictment on then-sitting Republican Congressman Pat Swindall,[19] who ultimately served a year in prison on the charges. From 1990 to 1991, Barr was president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation,[8] an Atlanta-based law firm and policy center that litigates in support of “limited government, individual economic freedom, and the free enterprise system”.[20]”

Sounds perfect.

I also agree with you and TD in 37, 39 above. The judge got it backwards. If Obama is unqualified, the millions who voted for him were cheated in the primaries. We don’t cheat millions more because it would mean exposing the fraud done on millions already. If defendants who cheat millions could use this line of reasoning, we can’t make our victims feel bad because by exposing the fraud, then that would be a license for fraud by the powerful and well funded.

That line of reasoning in the opinion suggested the judge had an outcome he wanted or was afraid to rule against Obama and the Democratic Party. The two parties have secrets in common that we don’t know about. They see information together or one after another that we never see. Universities, big law firms, and Wall Street have a lot of information the public never sees or doesn’t have the time to put together into larger wholes.

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/the-law-is-an-ass/

==

Search George Stigler “paradox of voting”

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m356751g62203u31/

http://www.ces.fas.harvard.edu/conferences/cpeworkshop/CES_Abrams2PDF.pdf

The research of Anthony Downs, Stigler and others shows that getting people to vote is a delicate balance. If people feel its rigged, or their vote doesn’t count, then they don’t vote. The cost of time and transport to vote is greater than the expected monetary value to the person (which can be large) times the chance the election is n+1 to n, and thus their vote was outcome determinative if they are in the n+1.

The Constitution doesn’t work if people don’t vote. Not voting is rational according to the Paradox of Voting. Judges swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. That requires them making people feel their vote matters, not telling them their vote is so unimportant they can’t even stop an unqualified person, i.e. foreigner, being CINC in a nuclear armed world. With nuclear weapons the CINC can change history and lead to the death of millions of voters by bad decisions. So that they are not foreign as the Constitution defines is critical to every citizen.

==

Search Posner “paradox of voting”

==

Each party and candidate implicitly pleads all their candidates are qualified each time they challenge anything or anyone, another candidate, a voter, a contribution, an ad, a procedure, etc.  Obama has requested DOJ investigations. By doing so, he implicitly plead that he was qualified. When they take funds or benefits they do so as well.

Every person or entity charged or claimed against by any candidate or party or party auxiliary has standing to challenge the qualification of any or all of the candidates of the associated party.  This includes all the campaign contributions, etc.

Each such claim by Obama brought against a voter, contributor, etc. has an implicit pleading by Obama that he is qualified.  That pleading can be challenged by each party charged or claimed against by Obama or the Democrats.  Obama’s requests for DOJ investigations certainly are an extreme example of that.

Obama has sent at least one letter to DOJ:

Search Obama DOJ

That contains an implicit pleading or claim that he is qualified.

All his fund raising appeals and every contribution he took and every vote in the primaries or in early voting has contained an implicit claim that he is qualified.  All have standing.

Berg could also bring a class action on behalf of

  1. All voters whose voting qualifications were challenged by Obama or the Democrats.
  2. All those who contributed funds to Obama or the Democrats.
  3. All those challenged otherwise by Obama or the Democrats.

Immigrants for Obama door to door Northern Virginia

October 25, 2008

Two people were just canvassing at my door in Northern Virginia for Obama, this is a Saturday, midday.  They were both female. One was a short woman of Hispanic native American stock, central American.   The other was East Asian, tall and thin and young, and hardly able to speak English it seemed.  One wonders if they are even eligible to vote.  Illegals for Obama?  Certainly for the end of America as a white Western civilized country.

They were pushing Obama for the AFL-CIO.

They had a yellow flyer from Working America as the name of their group.  See

http://www.workingamerica.org/

Search “Working America” AFL-CIO

The flyer says Obama “Will protect our jobs.”

How is that?  The immigrants going door to door are taking our jobs and have not protected our wages.

Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973 and women’s are what men’s were before 1960.  See graph page 19:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

The labor force participation rates of white and black men were 80 percent in 1965 and are now down to around 74 and 67 percent.  Male teens for both groups have seen an even faster fall in labor force participation rates.  We are now entering a bailout recession engineered by the same crowd that brought them here to keep our wages down and take our jobs.

Search:

historical labor force participation rates white men black men

The AFL-CIO is working against jobs and against wages.  They have sold out workers and are liars.  So are the press.  So are the schools.

See Ian Jobling

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/articles/articles/immigration_krikorian/

==

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/population-genetics-island-model-one-way-migration/

%d bloggers like this: