McCain

-- did very well (where was this calm strength and assertion earlier but it has, finally, come forth);

-- looked rested, was calm, direct, focused on issues, especially confronted Obama when and as it was needed and appropriate;

-- issues analysis, to follow later (early tomorrow morning).

Obama

-- did not look his best (tired or drawn, just did not appear convincing or even healthy);

-- smirked at the moderator, at McCain's remarks, maintained a sarcastic "non-smile-smile" when McCain was speaking, when he was not attempting to get moderator reeled in by "special smiles" and silent "mouthed" remarks to the moderator -- Obama looked overall untrustworthy for this reason alone (though there is more, to follow later);

-- began speaking too loudly, too rapidly, was irritating accordingly;

-- never assumed responsibility for his negative ads and campaigning and reiterated lies about his relationship with Ayers and ACORN -- stating neither "have anything to do with my campaign" while he is clearly associated in his politics with both, as also, benefitting from both; an evasive dance around significant problems by Obama.

So, tomorrow morning I'll remark about the specific issues, but overall, I'm very pleased to have seen McCain come forth (finally) as strongly and directly as he did tonight.

I feel: much better about McCain, far worse about Obama.

Many of us voters have been raising this issue repeatedly and for most of the same reasons that Berg is now pursuing through a federal court case -- which Obama has attempted to have dismissed, then postponed when his motion to dismiss was denied -- so I am pleased to see more exposure of this potentially incindiary issue (and ongoing likely crime by Obama and the Democratic Party).

READ:

THIS COULD BE A GAME CHANGER -- from American Thinker

Interesting question posed in comments section at American Thinker, not raised in the Berg video:

Posted by: DanSchwartz - Oct 11, 12:35 PM

One question not raised by Berg was Obama's trip to Pakistan as a college student. This was not mentioned in either of his two books; but he admitted it in a speech on Sunday, April 5th in San Francisco. This was documented in the New York Times on April 10th at: [www.nytimes.com].

The problem is that at time in the early 1980's, it was unlawful for Americans to travel to Pakistan, so he had to travel there on his Indonesian passport.

And Michelle Obama proves (if the story is true) that she really is monstrous in a phone call to an African news source (African Press International, or, "AIP") - a conversation that, if true, affirms the opinions about Michelle Obama that she's more than a troubled person.

The Obama campaign says it's "bogus - a lie" as a story (never occured), yet the media source in Africa says, if contacted, they'll verify the story and releases their phone number for that purpose: (to call from the USA), 011-4793299739.

From WorldNetDaily's story about Michelle Obama's alleged phone call and comments:

The Obama campaign immediately denied the telephone call happened.

Tommy Vietor, a campaign spokesman, told Byron York on the National Review Online blog "The Corner," the conversation didn't happen.

"The answer is no, it's not real, the report is made up. She did not speak to the organization," Vietor said.

However, in an e-mail to WND, a man who identified himself as API's "Chief Editor Korikr" confirmed the exchange.

"API hereby confirms to you that the story is true and if the huge interest on this particular story continues, we will post the recording on our website in the next immediate days.

"When we published the story we did not intend to cause any chaos but we are shocked by the huge interest the story is receiving from the Americans and the American media," he continued.

"Mrs. Obama called us just to ask API to stop joining the mainstream hate online media that is trying to destroy her husband's opportunity to get the presidency," he wrote.

Let's see if the Obama-aligned media, so-called, in the U.S. will acknowledge with any seriousness, either story, or both (though the first one is the zinger -- Obama's qualification to be President, or lack thereof, and his lies inorder to seize the Presidency if he isn't qualified and how it is that any organization in the U.S. could and might exist that would sponsor such corruption [that'd be terrorism-times-infinity]).

Also, the most deplorable negation about the Obama-aligned media is that they've ignored this immensely significant story (discussed on more than a few websites by concerned citizens, many of whom have provided professional examination of the Obama-"documents" he's released and all concluded they were fraudulent).

Obama may not be qualified under our U.S. Constitution for the U.S. Presidency -- and just as important a story is why has Obama behaved with pretense that he was qualified if he isn't (what's his motivation for lying and in such profound terms).

We appear to be, as a nation, on the cusp of either remaining civilized or else descended into a third-world anarchy. These two stories reflect rotten roots with pretty buds exposed: either we're intelligent enough to confront and eradicate this sort of decay, or, we aren't and our collective produce is desperately foul.

OBAMA CAMPAIGN ISSUES TALKING POINTS TO MEDIA AHEAD OF DEBATE -- Drudge Flash...

The scurrilous, cheating email from the cheaters reads pretty much like any crib-sheet sent to other cheaters: the Obama campaign relies on the willing, useful fools in the media to join in, thus, rendering cheating the common fare: "it's not really wrong if everyone does it."

Another lowdown, sliding scale by the amoral Left: just when you think they won't sink any lower, they do. The issue is, cheating IS wrong, even when it's done with a great big smile and giant type or a bellowing "spokesperson". I'ts not unusual (and it is smart) for political campaigns to keep in close contact with media as to "talking points" advised and deployed by a campaign, but, what the Obama campaign has done and continues to do is "co-campaign" with many in the media, going so far as to secure modified -- or, propagandized -- content in the media posing as neutral (thus, it's propaganda and "media" is reduced to political activists, devoid of journalistic character).

This IS a process of corruption, a corrupting process if not yet another violation of terms by Obama and campaign and by the complicit media involved, to such an extent that it removes our civilization's very regard for language: "tax cuts" actually means "welfare," "spread (the wealth) around" actually means "taking individual assets by government force," things of this critical nature. And accusing political opponents or "issues in the way" as "smears" and "distractions" respectively, is itself smearing, demeaning, lying and avoiding discussing liabilities, all of which Obama is notoriously common in doing.

I note IN that crib-sheet from the Obama campaign, that they're again efforting to identify Obama's relationships with shady, corrupt, and/or despicable characters as "distractions" ("from the economy" or whatever else they can figure out there to fill-in the blanks).

In which case, they're too late. Obama's got more relationships with the despicable than can be explained by happenstance or even stupidity (both tacts he's tried), and, the reality is, relationships define who individuals are. Meet or find oneself mired in a problem, get unmired as quickly as possible and refuse to return to the mire, but, in Obama's case, he's sought out individuals with bad character and despicable intents and messages, indicating his individual choice. And by remaining in ongoing relationships with people of ill-or-low-regard, he's secured his own identity as one as despicable as theirs.

Reading:
PINCH YOURSELF - by Melanie Phillips (On Obama's scurrilous relationships)

THUS, read this from Patterico:
OBAMA'S TAX PLAN AND SMALL BUSINESS

From Rush Limbaugh:
EXPLAINED: OBAMA'S LIES ABOUT RAISING TAXES ON SMALL BUSINESS

Obama does not know what he's talking about ("tax cuts" for "people making under $250,000.00 a year -- the majority of small businesses make under $250,000.00 a year...") , and he's selling snake-oil to people who either don't care that it's snake oil, or, they are not interested in electing anyone who might make sense, so they support Obama's nonsense, repeating it while themselves being unable to explain just what they're then repeating, what it may mean.

Obama harps about "tax cuts" when what he is describing, instead, is welfare as to those indivdiuals (not necessarily businesses, because Obama's selling his oil on this "$250,000.00" annual income figure by combining his pretense of being fair to "small business" and to individuals) who comprise his "90%" who he alleges he'll "cut taxes" for, even for the forty percent among those who don't pay federal income taxes (if you get a check from Obama and you haven't paid income taxes, you are not getting a "cut" or even an actual refund, but you're getting some of the personal property of other Americans that Obama has lifted so he can you off).

ON THE OTHER HAND, maybe Obama DOES know what he's talking about but he's using his snake-oil explanations to fool a lot of people who know very little to nothing about snake-oil.

Which is what I think Obama is doing: intentionally misleading people inorder to gain control over other people's property. Is there anything other than a deceptive Marxist? No, no there isn't.

Obama made many irregular and contradictory statements, the most glaring and problematic of which -- also why I say he is "erratic" and "unreliable" -- was when Obama lapsed into his visibly emotional, angry verbal harangue as to Pakistan and Afghanistan. I'm never sure when Obama gets into this issue (as he did in the first of the Presidential debates, in which he displayed just about identical display of emotion and obtuse statements), I'm never sure when he gets into this issue, vague and negative as he is, just what his intentions are: is he going to incite a region and then betray the U.S.A., is he going to harass the U.S. military by betrayal if not worse, is he going to use the Pakistan/Afghanistan region for what, exactly, what's riling him so here, especially when Obama has been decidedly opposed to a strong U.S. military. His display and statements and implications, and his unreliability on all things national-defense and military-deployment, don't add-up.

And, following that, when McCain remarked about Obama's reckless speech in that regard, Obama declared McCain to not be truthful, while McCain was, indeed, being truthful, as he also was being accurate and accurately observant about Obama's problematic, disturbed speech.

As in the first Presidential debate:

-- When asked about the Middle East, Obama declares, "when (he's) President," (another offensive and repeat declaration by Obama -- he's not President, he's applying for the job and his assumptions that he's President are creepy as they are also unsettling about his psychology);

-- When asked about the Middle East, Obama alludes to a weakened Middle East -- "justified" as Obama then qualifies his justifications by degrees -- but blares out aggressive possessiveness and use of Pakistan and Afghanistan, as if it's his realm to use at will;

-- When asked about Pakistan and Afghanistan, he declared -- as he did in the first debate, his face and body language angry, stiff, embittered (obviously Obama is emotionally involved in "Pakistan" and "Afghanistan" in a severe degree that remains publicly not explained, based upon how his body language and voice changes to agitated whenever this issue is posed of him) -- Obama declared...

...we haven't finished hunting down Bin Laden and crushing Al Queda...(conditions) now destabilising North Pakistan and...Afghanistan...we have to reverse course...the terrorism began in that region and that's where it will end...eliminate some of the drug manufacturing that's funding terrorism...reverse course in Pakistan...encourage democacy in Pakistan and expand our non-military aid in Pakistan...insist that they go ater these terrorists...and if the Pakistan miitary is unable to take them out, we will have to go in...we will kill Bin Laden, we willl crush Al Queda.

And in that, Obama sounds particularly like Putin, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Napolean, Stalin, Mao Tse Tsung and Hitler all at the same time. He speaks like an immature man -- irrational even, an insecure mind acting out at being "macho" or "big." In other words, not someone I'd feel comfortable with in the White House, not a responsible individual.

Following that, McCain confronted -- in expert, mature and gentlemanly fashion -- Obama's statement (my transcription, so there are likely a few dropped phrases) -- McCain said:

My hero, Teddy Roosevelt, used to say, 'walk softly and carry a big stick.'

Senator Obama says we are going to attack Pakistan.

Senator Obama likes to talk loudly. He's said that he's going to invade Pakistan. You know, if you announce you're going to attack another country...it turns public opinon against us.

Let me use another example: Russian, Pakistan (dropped phrase here)...the border regions are being used by Al Queada and terrorists...now, General Patreaus has a strategy and the same strategy that existed in iraq (dropped phrase here), we have to get the support of the people, to work with the people, to get them to work with us...

But where necessary, use force but to walk softly and carry a big stick.

Obama's retort was:

Nobody said we're going to invade Pakistan. Senator McCain keeps repeating this...

...and Obama turned his back to McCain when he declared that.

So what did Obama say if he didn't declare his (emotionally heated) intent to invade Pakistan? What Obama DID declare is his ongoing intent -- if not outright plans given how he's repeated this now -- to invade Pakistan.

I understand, as a citizen, that the Asian region requires a great deal of security "improvement" -- I'm not so naive as to assume that there's not a need and a serious one for U.S. military and security presence in that region, as also the Middle East (for everyone's security, not just theirs nor ours). But, situations such as these are the expertise of individuals such as General Patreaus and others of his skill and training, and not the stuff for political blustery for anyone other than irrational, erratic and irresponsible individuals.

There's so much more as to what was covered in this Debate, but, this point being made now in more than this evening's Debate by Obama and handled accurately by McCain is a very big reason as to why I deem Obama untrustworthy. I find his demonstrative, negative emotion associated with this issue to be particulary unsettling and problematic and his motivations remain, suspiciously, unexplained.

I also note that in a general reference to Afghanistan and Pakistan and undue force or invasion of either or both as declared by Obama, is Obama's ongoing allusion to "aid to" "allies" and "other regions" that pops up each time Obama is questioned about domestic economic conditiions.

Also, that Obama continues to declare himself "President" ("when I'm President..." he continues to say), is just more of why he sounds all too awfully like the Hugo Chavez's of our world. In other words, he walks loudly and carries a crazy stick.

I'll take the old hero guy any day -- John McCain -- and leave the crazy-stick man to flounder with his anti-American "associates."

Barack Obama's Presidential campaign has received a lot of financial donation that remains unidentified. While no Presidential candidate is required to identify sources for donations under $200., John McCain does make this information known, while Barack Obama does not.

When examined, Obama's many donations come up rickity:

Ken Timmerman at Newsmax:
Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign

From Hot Air:
Kim Timmerman on Obama's Unreported Campaign Donations

From Andy McCarthy at The Corner on National Review:
Obama's 'Funny Money' or Who's "Loving" "You," Barry?

Adding this article from Michelle Malkin
Homeless Ohioans for Obama registering in droves; Plus: Meet Mr. "Good Will" and "Mr. Doodad Pro"

Related to this, I urge everyone to pay very close attention to the following article -- though from 2004, it's a continued eye-opener, particularly since George Soros is an advisor to the Obama campaign at this time, if not, perhaps, always has been (note Soros' financial involvement in Obama's career from years ago forward):

The Hidden Soros Agenda: Drugs, Money, the Media, and Political Power

Obama's trapped himself -- not hard to do, I realize -- by his stated intentions, among which is: he "wants to make government cool again" as he declared in a recent appearance from Columbia University.

So Obama goes before the world last night and is not cool, mostly because he's declared himself to be being cool: the way of that pesky, illusive coolness factor, it slips through your fingers when you try to grab onto it. And it decidedly runs away when you try to maintain you are being it, as Obama has done.

The Presidential Debate last evening (Friday, 09/26/08) from Mississippi, showed us John McCain not only direct and strong but also steady and self-contained, a man with a mission who was not baited into any street fight by a street-fighting, taunting Barack Obama.

Obama, to the contrary: those glares, those stares, that fidgeting, stuttery, nearly seething undertow of anxiety, all the indications of a individual not only not cool but ill-equipped psychologically for much, it appears, other than jive. His ongoing interruptions of McCain's comments, his visually demanding glares even at the moderator when his interruptions count wasn't as high as he sought, his insistence (despite a pre-event agreement) on referring to John McCain as "John," all added up to a surly personna I would not only not trust in the Presidency but I do not now trust to be a participant in the Senate.

The epitome of callousness from last evening in what I viewed and heard from Barack Obama was his cranky attempt at oneupmanship after McCain described the bracelet he wears in memory of a fallen U.S. soldier. Obama retorted -- resentment in his voice -- "I have a bracelet, too."

Followed by Obama fidgeting, stammering, more of his 'uhhs' and 'ahhs' while he didn't even know the name of the soldier inscribed on his alleged bracelet, followed by Obama looking down and grabbing his wrist in an attempt to read the soldier's name so Obama could complete the Obama salespitch about Obama's pride. Obama relented and opted to refer to the soldier's mother's last name, then went on to declare, "we have the highest number of casualties in Iraq than in any other war..."

Our brave U.S. soldier was never mentioned, Obama used the man's legacy to inflate Obama's political needs and to deride the U.S. military, and the U.S., yet again. If Obama was a tent pole, he'd be in the fire.

Moreover, I've had my political-issues' concerns with John McCain over the years and written often enough about them, but with every passing appearance by McCain, my confidence in the man grows. I'm now quite proud to be voting this November for McCain/Palin.

But something more needs to be done about Barack Obama and his followers -- what that is to be remains to be determined, but I think I know an enemy when I see one and I saw one last night in Mississippi, the guy standing on stage glaring at John McCain and the rest of the world, stuttering, interrupting and approaching something I'd call the irrational.

UPDATE: Obama's Uncool Feevah has been noticed by others. Among them, Michelle Malkin, who writes that the soldier whose name Obama didn't know is Ryan David Jopek.

UPDATE 2: The name of the soldier on the latest Obama-bracelet is revealed to be Cpl. Matthew Stanley -- and the parents of fallen soldier Ryan David Jopek asked Obama to stop wearing a bracelet with their son's name on it:

Family Told Obama NOT To Wear Soldier Son's Bracelet... Where is Media?
September 28, 2008 - 03:53 ET

Barack Obama played the "me too" game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier that lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.

Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family...(Read the full article...).

Former Fannie Mae Interim-CEO, Daniel Mudd, declares to the Congressional Black Caucus, and to Barack Obama, that they are (both) "the conscience of Congress and the conscience of Fannie Mae."

Barack Obama received "126,000.00" from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And, "Barack Obama is the second biggest recipient of political money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the last ten years. And he's only been in Washington for four years." The other individuals in the "top three recipients of political money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" are Democrats, Chris Dodd and John Kerry.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac execs now offering advice to Obama

Senator's links to mortgage giants also include campaign contributions

A review of Federal Election Commission records back to 1989 reveals Obama in his three complete years in the Senate is the second largest recipient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae campaign contributions, behind only Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the powerful chairman of the Senate banking committee. Dodd was first elected to the Senate in 1980.

According to OpenSecrets.com, from 1989 to 2008, Dodd received $165,400 in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, including contributions from PACs and individuals, followed by Obama, who received $126,349 in such contributions since being elected to the Senate in 2004.

In contrast, McCain warned of the coming mortgage crisis as he pressed in 2005 for regulatory reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Read the full article...)

I write "rangey" as to this issue because the hacking of Sarah Palin's private email account -- a criminal offense and I hope the offending criminals get a heavy-handed dose of legal remedies applied to them -- appears to involve the same general group of Leftists on the internet who have been harassing the public for a long time now, nearly everywhere any opinion is contributed that isn't among the Far-Left kind, and certainly as to Conservatives and those who discuss Conservative opinions.

It's becoming easy to spot these offenders: they suggest or allude to private information associated with otherwise public, non-disclosing online identities and they create websites and forums for that purpose, making baseless, disgusting allegations as to those they target. In my experience (having been targeted before by such activity online), the predominant motive shared by this criminal behavior or borderline criminal offensiveness is to harass and harm anyone who does't support "'gay' marriage," who is Christian and/or trends toward the Conservative in life and opinions, certainly as to anyone not voting for the Left.

But make no mistake: this is criminal activity by those involved, and I include the naming of a few high-traffic websites in that, sites that exist to brew the hyperbole involved and keep it agitating. In other words, they're the allegedly credible sites that assist in this sort of defammation and other harms.

Malkin's written a good review of most of this.

Among the most amusing but insane -- certainly desperately irrational -- accusations made by one of the websites involved in this (as also previous) online smear-and-attack efforts by the Left, is this:

Gawker complained that Palin has since "deleted" the (hacked email) account, and suggested she was trying to "destroy evidence."

Meanwhile, let's look at actual destruction of evidence and informatioin trails, and that'd be by the political interests eager to see Palin hacked, abused, harassed and ridiculed, meaning, the Barack Obama Democrats:

Iraqi Billionaire Threatens Reporters Investigating Rezko Affair

...read the whole article, access the links included there, it's time-consuming and a difficult read, but well worth the effort to gain increased insight into the disgusting, abusive world of Barack Obama.

UPDATE:

More droll idiocy from another idiot via domain register "markmonitor.com" -- also registration-home to the ridiculous GAWKER and other pond scum (the "Denton" Spamhole in the ground) -- writing to me from IPA 67.76.202.152 in Indiana ("embarq.com" hosted by "embarqhsd.net" - "Embarq Corporation", Winter Park, FLA if their WHOIS can be believed) . The comments are left by someone referring to "it"self as as, "Anonymous" and they quote the icky Anonymous subheader -- then refer to me as "nigger nigger nigger" (<==actual reprint of what "they" or it wrote).

IP address [?]: 67.76.202.152 [*Whois] (below quoted)

[*Whois]
OrgName: Embarq Corporation
OrgID: EMBAR
Address: 500 N New York Ave
City: Winter Park
StateProv: FL
PostalCode: 32789
Country: US
NetRange: 67.76.0.0 - 67.77.255.255
CIDR: 67.76.0.0/15
NetName: EMBARQ-GLOBAL
NetHandle: NET-67-76-0-0-1
Parent: NET-67-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS9.EMBARQSERVICES.NET
NameServer: NS10.EMBARQSERVICES.NET
Comment:
RegDate: 2004-01-28
Updated: 2007-02-22
OrgTechHandle: ESC36-ARIN
OrgTechName: Embarq Services - CDS
OrgTechPhone: +1-407-741-0500
OrgTechEmail: ipsupport@embarqservices.net
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2008-09-17 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

(IP information, continued):
IP address [?]: 67.76.202.152
IP address country: ip address flag United States
IP address state: Indiana
IP address city: Vevay
IP postcode: 47043
IP address latitude: 38.796001
IP address longitude: -85.086304
ISP of this IP [?]: Embarq Corporation
Organization: Embarq Corporation
Host of this IP: [?]: oh-67-76-202-152.sta.embarqhsd.net [Whois]
Local Time of this IP country: 2008-09-18 14:45
[Whois] Information:
Registrant:
Domain Administrator
Embarq
5454 West 110th Street
Overland Park KS 66211
US
domains@embarq.com +1.9133456209 Fax: -
Domain Name: embarqhsd.net
Registrar Name: Markmonitor.com
Registrar Whois: whois.markmonitor.com
Registrar Homepage: http://www.markmonitor.com
Administrative Contact:
Domain Administrator
Embarq
5454 West 110th Street
Overland Park KS 66211
US
domains@embarq.com +1.9133456209 Fax: -
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Domain Administrator
Embarq
5454 West 110th Street
Overland Park KS 66211
US
domains@embarq.com +1.9133456209 Fax: -
Created on..............: 2006-05-22.
Expires on..............: 2010-05-22.
Record last updated on..: 2008-04-20.
Domain servers in listed order:
ns2.embarqservices.net
ns1.embarqservices.net

This latest message (comment from a few hours ago, trash deposited on this site), refers to me as "nigger nigger nigger". My parents and other ancestors from Northern Europe would find that, also, idiotic, as I do. At least get an insult correct, call me "white person white person white person" and be done with it -- since race seems to be the sticking point by this latest and previous spam and other harassing crud on the internet about me, at least get the "insult" right, since, in my experience, it's "White people" who these crazy spammers and harassers have a problem with.

More indication that the Obama Left is not only desperate, they're depraved. Must be why Hollywood is involved. And other idiots on the inernet.

Some history (this has occured before):

The two Spam memes by idiots about me:

(1.) Accusation about me that I am "nigger nigger nigger" -- their statement in the latest junk message left on this site -- as mirrored by previous (what looks to have been Nick Denton or Denton-affiliated) Spam about me, that whole "Black" thing; and,

(2.) Accusation about me of being "a lesbian" (also involved in [1.] -- this lie about me has been intertwined with the racial denigration many times in spam, referrer spam, insane comments and other derisive, hate-filled Leftist screed about me); Denton's "kinja" site directed massive "lesbian-p0rn" spam to my site address and tried cross-linking their gunk to me -- this isn't a new occurence, unfortunately, and then there were several spamsites created for that purpose (also, by "Anonymous" under various ridiculous identities).

For a group so keen on both those two issues ("racial minoritiies" and "homosexaulity"), the Liberal/Left sure is haplessly unable to restrain themselves from using both contexts to ridicule others, thus rendering their own credibility to be something less than zero.

And, my family surname, "Rice," is the same surname of individuals such as Condoleezza Rice and the abusive "Susan Rice" (who rants for Obama and "black people" on HBO and in our government).

But neither of those two persons are related to me. There are other "Black people" today whose surnames are, also, "Rice" but they're not relatives of mine, either.

In the U.S. today, there are many Black people with English and other European surnames ("Smith," "Jones," "Fleming," "Washington," "Wright," etc.) -- this does not mean that all persons of those surnames are related (no shared ancestry on various later branches of that same family surname), but that at some past point in time, some male with such surname fathered a child with a Black woman who either arrived here from Africa/Middle East or whose ancestors did. Not all males with one surname are actually related, beyond, perhaps, the time of Adam and Eve.

In my ancestry, family history, as to the Rice surname, my branch of relatives (names, dates of birth and death, places of both, spouse and children's names) have been reasonably well identified, including way back to Norman, Celt and Anglo-Saxon years in the British Isles. The "Rice" family name is Welsh, originally, and remains today in the U.K. all over Ireland, Wales and England, either known there as "Rice" or "Rhys" -- there's even a Gaelic spelling of the name which remains active in, mostly, Wales. All of those people are and were, "White" or "Caucasian" of the Northern European variety. So am I, then, since these are my ancestors.

Some of the first and earliest Rice immigrants from mostly, Wales, settled in the Southeast U.S. where they grew tobacco and other cash-crops. They ALSO "owned" "slaves." That's not unusual in many family histories that span pre-Civil War years.

My grandmother, whose childhood was lived in the years just after slavery ended -- and whose family did have slaves before that -- told the story that many Blacks who lived as slaves assumed the surnames of those who "owned" them and from whence they later were set free (though some remained on in those same locations, not chosing to leave those areas even after the Civil War, regarding both location and situation as "home" as also the European surname/s they'd assumed). So, just being named "Rice" or anything else does not establish any genetic relationship -- the history of the South and early U.S. is more complicated than that (then there's also the folks who immigrated and whose surnames were rewritten at that time for various reasons).

I've looked at my own family tree, however, and there aren't any branches that were created by a deed or deeds such as that, not among anyone known to be my ancestor (not that there'd be anything wrong with that, except, of course, to the Left who works these racial issues into their useful frenzy). that means, no one of African ancestry was my ancestor (again, except in the context of Adam and Eve). The name originates in the U.K. with some more distant ancestors in Europe. They were all Caucasians.

In the case of individuals such as Condoleezza Rice and the screeching Susan Rice, however, (both of whom are "Black" people), if there's curiosity about their ancestors, go ask either or both of them -- don't ask me because we're not related, I don't have the foggiest idea who their ancestors were, how they and others of their race came to be named "Rice," but I do know there's no known "shared ancestor" as to any family-branch known to exist between them and me. There was either some lone man whose name was "Rice" who fathered a child or children with a woman of African origin, or, there were enough people from Africa living on after the Civil War who adopted the surname of Rice and that's multiplied by today, but that lineage is aside from my own.

Let's look at this more closely:

(1.) If there WAS some "Black woman" somewhere in times past who bore a child or children to a man whose last name was "Rice," whose child or children then grew up to be one of my ancestors, so what? It wouldn't bother me and I would not be spending any time or concern to either fretting about it or losing any sleep over the idea of such.

My ancestry as a Rice, as to my known ancestors of Rices, is well identified by now, so, that whole line of denigration (so the Left tries to use this issue as) is what I'd call a junkyard-variety lie.

(2.) I'm heterosexual. I've never had so much as a fantasy sexually about another woman, I don't desire women sexually, I have no history of "experimentation" sexually with any woman throughout my entire lifetime, there's just nothing there to even associate me, realistically, with anything homosexual.

I worked in the entertainment industry for a number of years and the obvious about that is that there are a lot of homosexuals IN that industry. And, after living and working in Los Angeles and San Francisco, it was my experience that there are a lot of homosexuals who congregate/live there also, so, to live/work in either or both locations is to eventually interact with some who are homosexual, either as next door neighbors, coworkers or people you meet with some regularity in stores, social groups, dinners with friends, in the course of business.

In my time in both cities, i was always polite with homosexuals and never used the context of what their behaviors were, versus mine, as any topic of conversation or took issue with them accordingly. So much for tolerance, apparently -- mine has been wasted on the nitwit Left. And ridiculing heterosexuals is no way to "sell" "'gay' marriage" -- in fact, it does everything to ensure that the rest of us work to disassociate from that whole pool of interest.

So, to the Left, it appears, if someone's ever so much as known a homosexual, unless you're Liberal, you "must be one" -- it takes a complete lack of rationality and reason to even try to understand that methodology by the Left, which I think can be boiled down to they're insane and demand everyone else be insane, too . So that's another junkyard-variety lie by the Left about me.

I can imagine that WHY these lies occur about me -- as also about others on the Right -- is that we aren't suffering, nor supporting, indoctrinations about Barack Obama and/or the Democrat Left. Also, as to those of us who do not agree that there is something in the area of "marriage" that involves being "gay," I guess the Left just has no context to grasp other than to call people names of whatever seems useful to them while revealing they're both liars and idiots in doing so.

So, I write again, no wonder Hollywood throws money at that: there's grubby profits to be had by lying about other people. They throw money at some people walking Santa Monica Boulevard, too.

Our Democrat-Pelosi-Led House of Representatives passes a "no energy exploration" bill that declares they're "for drilling" (petroleum exploration and development) while they are not but saying they are. If you can make any sense of this, then you are among the Gang of 10 20, Republicans who fell for the ruse and joined in the Democrats' mind game. Which is invisible. Also a game. It is "HR 6899".

Democrats Pass Hoax Drilling Bill by Michelle Malkin

No-Energy Nancy's Phony Energy Plan by Marlo Lewis on National Review Online

Today's Greenwire (subscription required) reports that the House is expected to vote as soon as tomorrow on Democratic legislation that would "allow drilling more than 100 miles from the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and as close to 50 miles from the shore if coastal states agree to it."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is spearheading this legislation -- an obvious sign that the Green Left's longstanding opposition to drilling has become a political liability for Democrats in this election cycle.

However, although Pelosi appears to be bowing to political and economic reality, her proposed "compromise" is a cynical ploy that no self-respecting supply-sider will touch with a 2,000-foot oil rig.

Our friends at the Institute for Energy Research (IER) posted a devastating exposé of the Pelosi plan. As announced last week, the plan would:

-- Permanently ban access to about 97 percent of the undersea oil lying within 50 miles of the California coast.

-- Continue the ban on energy production in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.

-- Impose a brand-new ban on oil and gas leases in Alaska's coastal waters out to 50 miles.

-- Not allow states that approve new leases beyond 50 miles to share royalties with the federal government, thus stripping any financial incentive for states to stand up to environmental pressure groups, who will continue to agitate against any new oil and gas operations offshore.

The plan also includes poison pill provisions that President Bush is on record as opposing, such as new taxes on oil companies and a first-ever nationwide renewable-energy production quota for the electric power sector.

Nothing puts Pelosi's charade in clearer focus, though, than IER's charts showing how much oil the plan would lock up off the U.S. West coast. By banning new leases out to 50 miles, the Pelosi plan would permanently deny access to 100 percent of the technically recoverable oil off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, Northern California, and Central California, plus 95 percent of the oil off the coast of Southern California.

Pro-drilling lawmakers on the Hill would be well advised to wave these charts in front of the television cameras as often as possible...

(Continued, with graphics -- )

Obama glorifies doom and gloom: if the U.S. economy is floundering ("in ruins...devastated"), then Obama justifies his intents and goals ("take money from the evull and undeserving rich and give it to the not evulll 'poor and oppressed minorities'" -- as long as they vote for Obama).

These comments say it best:

"The dems can only get elected by promising free money"
September 16, 2008 - 11:35 ET by c5then

"They promise to take the money from the evil and undeserving rich and give it to the poor and oppressed minorities. That's their entire strategy in a nutshell. So of course, it helps to have an economic downturn or a nice juicy banking crisis to help sell this message. The MSM has been trying to talk down the economy for 5 years now. Well, it looks like some of the wall street gang have listened.

"IMO any financial company that can't withstand 10% of it's balance sheet becoming worthless without declaring bankruptcy shouldn't be around anyway. They took a gamble on buying and selling mortgage backed securities and derivatives and so should pay the price.

"Obama yesterday actually equated what was happening with the Great Depression of the 1930's. That is beyond lunacy, it's actually very irresponsible and an obvious ploy to get people scared. The man proves over and over again that he has no morals."

Months ago, I published a funny cartoon after Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania (before her eventual drop-out as to the Democrat's nomination, such as has later woefully developed).

Here's the cartoon, entitled "Arrugula":

...from this entry, "HILLARY WINS PENNSYLVANIA, OBAMA'S WAFFLES DON'T SELL".

Today, I received the following profane email from some hapless, stupid Liberal, about that cartoon:

-----BEGIN QUOTE OF PROFANE LIBERAL IDIOT'S EMAILED COMMENTS (from IPA 86.201.153.139)-----

'Arrugula'
Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:02 AM
From corumpia@yahoo.com Tue Sep 16 09:02:39 2008
Return-Path:
Authentication-Results: mta172.mail.re3.yahoo.com from=yahoo.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 80.12.242.17 (EHLO smtp19.orange.fr) (80.12.242.17) by mta172.mail.re3.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:04:44 -0700
Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1911.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4D6071C000A4; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:02:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.87] (APoitiers-156-1-154-139.w86-201.abo.wanadoo.fr [86.201.153.139]) by mwinf1911.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 17E8B1C00088; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:02:40 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From:
corumpia@yahoo.com
Subject: 'Arrugula'
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:02:39 +0200
To: writesuzyrice@yahoo.com
Content-Length: 154
320wde_HillaryClintonWinsPenn.jpg>

1. Can't even spell the word.
2. Too stupid to look it up first.

FUCKHEAD.

-----END QUOTED EMAIL BY STUPID LIBERAL------

THE POINT OF THAT CARTOON -- what was funny -- is that the word, "arugala," IS MISSPELLED:

The misspelling IS the joke. Hillary "won" nothing, it's an erroneous celebration (her win in Pennsylvania earlier), THAT WAS THE JOKE of my cartoon.

Pin some people down, they start sputtering profanities: I guess that's the "best" that the Left has to offer. No sense of humor with any innocence about it, or, if they laugh, it's at the presumed suffering or "handicaps" of others.

About that, let's examine: HAD I ACTUALLY, intellectually erred and misspelled by happenstance or misinformation the word, "arugula," I'd have been -- literally and only -- wrongly informed about how to spell some one word, or else, suffering some limitations (not capable of understanding how to correctly spell words in general), or both. Easily corrected as to the first condition, if pointed out that there was a misspelling. And, in fact, that's how we all learn to use written language (I've yet to encounter any human being who is fluent in any written language, active in a written language free of any errors independently of anyone else -- language is learned, it's acquired, it's a shared, or mutual accomplishment, requires human interaction inorder to be mastered and remains an ongoing accomplishment by all and any).

HOWEVER, in this case, this profaning emailing poser (from IPA 86.201.153.139) actually kicks me around -- or tries to -- for what that poser perceives as a misspelling of a mere word (example of someone "feeling good" by ridiculing "weakness" or otherwise, suffering -- at least as they perceive it to be). I don't like to think what that emailer does to puppies who may be trying to master house-training, or, a gradeschooler who doesn't (yet) understand the distinction between "pearl" and "PERL."

HOWEVER, the joke -- the real one here -- is on this profaning idiot emailer because they don't get the joke: the word, "arugula," is intentionally misspelled and that's the joke in the context of the Hilary "win," politically. She and other Democrats "misspelled" the context of the Pennsylvania win. So apparently the frustration-expression of someone uttering "arrr" is also lost on this profane emailer (as in, "arrugula").

"Arugula" reference in this context: IT'S NOT RACE, IT'S ARUGULA

And, of course, the emailing idiot uses a forged email address. Do these idiots ever get tired of being illigitimate (and profane accordingly)? I guess registering and using actual, legitimate email is too big a deal for them, like, also, winning elections in honest and genuine terms.

What they can't steal or lie about, they ridicule.

And, what dictionary is their word, "f***head" from, anyway? The Internet Screed Dictionary of The Humorless? Did he/she/it use their Thesaurus of the False to capture another "imaginary" email address? Hapless, stupid, profane, humorless, which just about wraps this issue up, save but for one added term: cowardly.

I guess me writing of the beauty of the Cathedral of Notre Dame and Pope Benedict's sweet visit there recently, was too much for the cowardly humorless, using a France Telecom connection, to bear.

Here's what SpamCop reports about the message source, for ongoing reference:

Tracking message source: 86.201.153.139:
Routing details for 86.201.153.139
Cached whois for 86.201.153.139 : postmaster@wanadoo.fr
Using abuse net on postmaster@wanadoo.fr
abuse net wanadoo.fr = postmaster@wanadoo.fr, abuse@wanadoo.fr, abuse@orange.fr
Using best contacts postmaster@wanadoo.fr abuse@wanadoo.fr abuse@orange.fr
postmaster@wanadoo.fr bounces (205 sent : 103 bounces)

Report Spam to:
Re: 86.201.153.139 (Administrator of network where email originates)
To: postmaster#wanadoo.fr@devnull.spamcop.net
To: abuse@orange.fr
To: abuse@wanadoo.fr

Meanwhile, locusts Democrats now rummaging through the state of Alaska announce that a man who tazed his ten-year-old son, physically (and otherwise) abused his wife and threatened to shoot his then-father-in-law isn't being investigated, but Sarah Palin (and husband, Todd) are because they expressed outrage about the man hired on in Alaska as a member of law enforcement (who certainly was not qualified for law enforcement).

Obama's Certificate of Birth? His Medical Record? Academic record? Anyone? And isn't Barack Obama not qualified for, say, an FBI security clearance? Mysteriously, he's running for President. Democrats beat this issue of a bad-cop-since-fired into representing cause to investigate Sarah Palin but ignore Obama's absent Certificate of Birth (or the forged versions), Obama's absent Medical Record and Academic record, nor will they acknowledge Obama's actual -- not the hyperbole with sugar-coated grinnings -- history (and relationships, say, with Rezko and Ayers) (or Obama's job with ACORN which they like to dress-up with "community organizer" seasoning) (or wife, Michelle's, racial-supremacy affiliations and beliefs) (list goes on and on and on -- the Media acknowledges none of this)...

There is a huge pile of information blocks now accumulated on and about Barack Obama. And yet, his recent declaration -- on the seventh anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 -- that he "wants to make government cool again" -- is the aroma of salvo to a dumbstruck or hypnotized (or both) media, stuck on this, his only appeal: that he makes hyperbole "happy stuff, fun, with a grin."

In reality, there are these building blocks of truth about Barack Obama that continue to stack-up to the sky, revealing a construct of celebrity or personna-imagined, while the Democrats attempt to munch away on Alaska and Sarah Palin.

READING:

WHY OBAMA IS MUM ABOUT HARVARD

REDS, RADICALS, TERRORISTS AND TRAITORS -- PROGRESSIVES FOR OBAMA

OBAMA'S PLUMBERS (what I refer to as "Locusts for Obama")

And from The New Dope's lipsticky animal farm, the latest "cool" ad that denigrates John McCain's disabilities (discussed well by Ace of Spades -- with visuals):

Obama: Ha, Ha, McCain Is Old, He Can't Use a Computer -- North Vietnamese Captors: Yeah, Ha Ha, We Did That to Him; Pretty Good Gag, Eh?

The choir of the Cathedral of Notre Dame -- which I've been listening to for about an hour now -- is exquisite, formidable, au-delà de comparer.

And now I'm pausing to participate. Pope Benedict is being welcomed and will preside at this service.

These disgusting, utterly decrepit, needlessly crude remarks by Barack Obama, via Politico:

Obama poked fun of McCain and Palin's new "change" mantra.

"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said as the crowd cheered. "It's still a pig."

"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."

"We've had enough of the same old thing."

The crowd apparently took the "lipstick" line as a reference to Palin, who described the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull in a single word: "lipstick."

Obama has received abundant tolerance and extensions of understanding such that they could reach to Pluto and back and yet here we go again, having to strive to give this guy the benefit-of-the-decency-doubt -- he couldn't possibly be referring to Sarah Palin, he couldn't really have meant what he said, his choice of words just had to be misspeaks or gaffes, it can't actually be he's saying that -- regardless of good graces extended to and about Obama (including as to the rough insults from his wife), he continues to declare these crude or improper or downright bungled and badly elucidated statements, and my expectations of decency from this man are now at an end.

Reading a few commnets on Politico associated with this article, I see a few people alleging that the remarks by Obama quoted above are not "about Sarah Palin" but about the politics of "change" that the McCain/Palin team is working for.

That's a decent, reasonable allegation by the still-Obama-supportive, but, my point of offense here (and it's not going to change from here) is that his speech is crude, reckless and damaging and ALLUDES to a female ("lipstick") and thus, to Sarah Palin. If Obama was utterly clueless when he said this -- not aware that he'd (OhMyGosh) actually sound like he was referring to a Palin, then he's even more a bumbler doofus than even I have originally thought.

And, never fear, there's Obama-rationalization about his crudeness: he says he was using a statement made by John McCain earlier in the year (or last year) in which McCain said, referring to Hillary Clinton's health care plan, "you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig."

However, Obama did not limit his crude remarks to mere lipstick. Nor did he direct his comments to Hillary's health care plan. He wandered over into scurvy "body odor" territory in reference to the "lipstick" image and even his own crowd gathered gasped in assuming he was referring to Sarah Palin. A crude, rude, irresponsible man, Obama, can't even hone up to his own loose speech.

In other words, a creep.

Tomorrow, more creepiness about Obama's indecent "pastor and mentor and spiritual guide" who ___ damns America, and more about Obama's exceptionally indecent communist mentor from his Hawaii years (and after), the very creepy "Frank."