Global Warming Not Political? Satellite That Can Disprove Global Warming to Be Launched, But ONLY AFTER STRIPPING IT OF EARTH FACING SENSORS

Bet you didn't hear this on the main stream news:

"Here is the latest twist in the bizarre story about the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR). Apparently, the US Air Force is in discussions with NASA to take over the mission, with one important catch: that all the Earth observing instruments be removed.
It seems the Air Force is more interested in looking at the Sun than our warming planet and plans are being made to send the spacecraft one million miles distant – only to look the other way.

DSCOVR is unique experiment that would place a spacecraft at a gravitational parking spot one million miles away where it could continuously observe the Earth as it circles the sun.

This unique vantage point would allow us for the first time to directly measure the energy budget of our warming planet. This spacecraft would also immediately lay to rest any remaining scientific questions about the origins or seriousness of climate change. Strangely, this fully completed spacecraft remains in a box somewhere in Maryland, eight years and $100 million after it was built.

DeSmog Blog has written a series of investigative articles on the status of this strange mission. NASA has repeatedly refused to release any internal documents relating the status of DSCOVR or why the space agency refuses to launch it, even when requested through the Freedom of Information Act.

This spring, Congress submitted a bill that included a clause requiring NASA to explain to the taxpayer within 180 days why this mission remains in storage and what it plans to do with it. The bill was signed into law last week by president Bush, meaning NASA must present their plan regarding DSCOVR by April 13, 2009.

Assuming that there are senior scientists within NASA that are threatened by the novel methodology of the DSCOVR experiment, or well placed oil interests that want to keep the so-called climate debate going, this legally mandated deadline presents a problem. What to do?

The latest bizarre development with the Air Force would perversely get NASA off the hook. The spacecraft would be launched, NASA would met the strict legal requirements of resolving the mission, yet DSCOVR would return no data for which it was designed. Problem solved.

This latest twist is entirely consistent with the eight years of foot-dragging and obfuscation from the leadership of NASA. For those of us with a growing suspicion about why DSCOVR remains in a box, we can only wonder how all of this will play out."

Bookmark this blog.

What It Will Be Like Under an Obama Regime: Reporters Kicked Off Plane If Their Paper Endorsed McCain

Drudge Report states that reporters from the NY Post, Washington Times, and Dallas Morning News were told to get off the Obama plane once their newspapers endorsed McCain.

He told you there would be change. Change you can believe in. You just didn't believe he meant a return to extremely partisan politics.

Obama has already argued to get rid of moderates out of the Democratic party. Here is what he wrote for a liberal blogsite in 2005:

"Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist." In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough."

Read the whole article here.

There aren't going to be any centrist, no meeting of both sides of the aisle, no reporters from papers that don't support him.

You haven't seen nothing yet.

Story here.

LA Times Admits It Is WithHolding a Video of Obama Praising a Palestinian Hamas Activist

The LA Times admits it is withholding a video of Barack Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet.

LA Times reported:

"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb. " . . . The election is one week away, and it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job -- make information public."

The Times on Tuesday issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape.

"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."

Wait a minute. Aren't newspapers supposed to expose the truth? Well not if it would hurt your candidate.

Full story here.

Tina Fey Puts on Blackface and Makes Fun of Michelle Obama Growing Up Black!!!

Can you believe that Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live put on black face, and mimicked Michele Obama talking to her black friends in a beauty shop???

Well I'd like to sell you some swamp land in Florida, because if you think the main stream media woud allow Tina Fey to make fun of Michelle Obama the same way she makes fun of Sarah Palin, you are gullible.

But they sure will make fun of Pain's middle class roots and Alaska heritage. I say, what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander.

Read this great post by Patrick Buchanan here for more on the subject.

Where Is There An Honest Journalist?

Read this article. You won't believe these quotes from a journalist, who is also a Democrat, because he tells it like it is: Democrat journalists are not pursuing stories against Obama that they would be in a frenzy feed over if it involved McCain.

"So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?"

You have got to read this article. Here is the start of it. The rest of the story is in the link below:

"Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed."

Read more here. This is good. It is a must read.

Ann Coulter: Polls Since 1976 Always Wrongly Favored Democratic Candidate in Last Month of Election

Could polls be skewed to convince the American public that one candidate will surely win (so therefore all of you for the other candidate might as well stay home)?

Well you may remember the suspicious election day exit poll of the last election that said that Kerry was going to win Ohio big and therefore the entire race. It was "accidentally released" mid day. The effect might have been to keep Bush supporters home. In fact, Bush won Ohio, significantly, and therefore the race. The poll was dead wrong.

Ann Coulter has discovered the pattern has been consistent since 1976 - in favor of the Democratic candidate. In my opinion, it smells like the same thing is happening this year. The polls said that Biden beat Palin, yet the debate was the most watched VP debate ever, and had 7 million more viewers than the presidential debates. After the last debate, the NYT said that Obama was ahead by 10 points, but Gallup and Rassmussen said it was only 3 and 4 points. That's a huge - read statistically significant - difference.

One way it is done is by the underlying assumptions. Most polls assume that there is a ratio in America of Democrats to Republicans which is something like 3:2. Therefore when they get the raw data, if they have more Republicans answer than a 3:2 ratio to Democrats, they adjust the Republic opinions to make them a smaller factor in the poll.

But in this election season (read the spring primaries) was there a reason for so many more Democrats registering to vote than Republicans? Sure, Obama v. Clinton on the Dems side and McCain versus nobody on the Republican side. I didn't even vote in my primary - I was out of town and didn't get an absentee ballot. But I am interested in the general election.

The other big difference is between registered voters and "likely" voters. Republicans, conservatives, and middle aged people are more likely to vote than Democrats, liberals, and young. This isn't an insult, it is just a fact. This will effect who will win an election. Go to a college cafeteria and take a poll and you're going to get a vast majority of Democratic Obama supporters. Take a poll at the factory, or in the office and you're going to find more Republican McCain supporters. But the percentage of people who will actually vote is higher in the factory or office than in the college cafeteria.

Here are some of Ann Coulter's findings:

"Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points -- down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.

Reading newspaper coverage of presidential elections in 1980 and 1984, I found myself paralyzed by the fear that Reagan was going to lose.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.

In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, -- the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan's actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4 percent to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had Bush leading the Greek homunculus by a statistically insignificant 2 points -- 45 percent to 43 percent. (For the kids out there: Before it became a clearinghouse for anti-Bush conspiracy theories, CBS News was considered a credible journalistic entity.)

A week later -- or one tank ride later, depending on who's telling the story -- on Oct. 13, Bush was leading Dukakis in The New York Times Poll by a mere 5 points.

Admittedly, a 3- to 6-point error is not as crazily wrong as the 6- to 15-point error in 1984. But it's striking that even small "margin of error" mistakes never seem to benefit Republicans.

In 1992, Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush 43 percent to 37.7 percent. (Ross Perot got 18.9 percent of Bush's voters that year.) On Oct. 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent, and a CBS News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent.

So in 1992, the polls had Clinton 12 to 15 points ahead, but he won by only 5.3 points.

In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent. And yet on Oct. 22, 1996, The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton leading by a massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent.

In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October polls accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either Bush or Al Gore 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of the latest polls to give either candidate a clear advantage, The New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 percent to 39 percent. "

Read the entire article here.

This discrepancy could be in play again this year with some polls saying that there is only a 3 point difference while other polls say 10 point. And some major media is saying the Dems will have a super majority in Congress. I don't know what the truth is. The economic crisis on Wall Street is not going to help the Republicans but then again, 18 days is a long time in American politics.

Obama's Associate: Bill Ayers - Then and Now

Is the right making too much of the fact that Obama associated and worked with Bill Ayers, a terrorist with the Weather Underground?

Does the right make too much of anti-American billionaire George Soros' donations to Obama?

Does the right make too much of the 20 years Obama sat in the pews of Black Liberation Minister Jeremiah Wright?

Does the right have the right to question Obama's presence at the million man march led by Louis Farrakhan, the racist leader of the Black Muslims?

Maybe, but when we used to live in the country, we'd check the dogs for ticks before we let them in the house.

Who will Obama bring with him if he is elected?

(By the way, the picture on the right is Bill Ayers now, standing on an American Flag).

Spoiled Child Screams for Attention: Top Scientist Claims Global Warming Will be Affected by Economic Crisis

Crying like a spoiled child who is not the center of attention, atmospheric scientist Paul J Crutzen came up with some lame brain connection between the economic crisis and global warming.

See having the focus on global warming means big bucks to guys like Crutzen. If we're not thinking about global warming, we may not fund his next grant.

Crutzen - take a time out and go sit in the corner. We don't want to hear about your stupid global warming right now.

What Does America's Leading Feminist Think of Sarah Palin? You Might Be Surprised to Know that It is Quite Favorable

Camille Pagliais a noted feminist, Yale PHD and writes for one of the biggest left leaning blogs in the nation, Salon.com.

So why would she have a good opinion of Sarah Palin? Paglia has been honest in pointing out that the left only thinks a woman is a feminist if she espouses the standard leftist causes: pro-abortion, secular humanism, anti-marriage, etc. But Paglia says that the feminist movement is about empowering women to be who THEY want to be, not want the left wants them to be.

I've had strong females in my family all my life. My wife has been a broadcaster, a business owner, a school teacher, a realtor and a care-giver. All this while boosting me up and raising 2 tough kids. My mother and grandmother were both in the business world and worked long, hard hours. My paternal grandmother outlived 2 husbands, ran a farm, and raised 7 kids. These women were strong, but they didn't and don't believe in the things the left believes in.

Anyway, here is part of what Camille Pagilia says. I encourage you to read the rest at her site.

Yes, both Todd and Sarah Palin, whom most people in the U.S. and abroad had never even heard of until six weeks ago, have emerged as powerful new symbols of a revived contemporary feminism. That the macho Todd, with his champion athleticism and working-class cred, can so amiably cradle babies and care for children is a huge step forward in American sexual symbolism.

Although nothing will sway my vote for Obama, I continue to enjoy Sarah Palin's performance on the national stage. During her vice-presidential debate last week with Joe Biden (whose conspiratorial smiles with moderator Gwen Ifill were outrageous and condescending toward his opponent), I laughed heartily at Palin's digs and slams and marveled at the way she slowly took over the entire event. I was sorry when it ended! But Biden wasn't -- judging by his Gore-like sighs and his slow sinking like a punctured blimp. Of course Biden won on points, but TV (a visual medium) never cares about that.

The mountain of rubbish poured out about Palin over the past month would rival Everest. What a disgrace for our jabbering army of liberal journalists and commentators, too many of whom behaved like snippy jackasses. The bourgeois conventionalism and rank snobbery of these alleged humanitarians stank up the place. As for Palin's brutally edited interviews with Charlie Gibson and that viper, Katie Couric, don't we all know that the best bits ended up on the cutting-room floor? Something has gone seriously wrong with Democratic ideology, which seems to have become a candied set of holier-than-thou bromides attached like tutti-frutti to a quivering green Jell-O mold of adolescent sentimentality.

And where is all that lurid sexual fantasy coming from? When I watch Sarah Palin, I don't think sex -- I think Amazon warrior! I admire her competitive spirit and her exuberant vitality, which borders on the supernormal. The question that keeps popping up for me is whether Palin, who was born in Idaho, could possibly be part Native American (as we know her husband is), which sometimes seems suggested by her strong facial contours. I have felt that same extraordinary energy and hyper-alertness billowing out from other women with Native American ancestry -- including two overpowering celebrity icons with whom I have worked.

One of the most idiotic allegations batting around out there among urban media insiders is that Palin is "dumb." Are they kidding? What level of stupidity is now par for the course in those musty circles? (The value of Ivy League degrees, like sub-prime mortgages, has certainly been plummeting. As a Yale Ph.D., I have a perfect right to my scorn.) People who can't see how smart Palin is are trapped in their own narrow parochialism -- the tedious, hackneyed forms of their upper-middle-class syntax and vocabulary.

Continue reading.

A tip of the hat to all the tough women we know and love. We wouldn't have made it without them.

Anti-Obama Author Detained in Kenya Before a Press Conference to Announce Obama Links To Kenyan Leader

Jerome Corsi, who authored the book "Unfit for Command - Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" and this years best seller, "The Obama Nation" was in Kenya, the land of Obama's father to investigate links between Obama and the Kenya Prime Minister Raila Odinga was about to hold a press conference about his findings when he was taken into custody.

A Corsi friendly web site reported:

Obama has a long history of connections in Kenya, where his father worked as a government economist. Corsi documented this history in his book and went to Kenya to find answers to lingering questions – particularly about the links between the presidential candidate and Kenya Prime Minister Raila Odinga.

Corsi had promised a news conference today that would "expose details of deep secret ties between U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and a section of Kenya government leaders, their connection to certain sectoral groups in Kenya and subsequent plot to be executed in Kenya should Senator Obama win the American presidency."

Meanwhile, the management of the hotel where Corsi was scheduled to hold the press conference has repudiated its plans to provide the facility.

In a press release, the hotel said: "We would like to assure our business partners and the public at large that Laico Regency Hotel is a law-abiding institution and does not condone any smear campaigns. The management cannot allow such activities to take place."

Corsi told WND he has been assured he will be released soon. He had planned to leave the country tomorrow, arriving in London first and the U.S. Friday.

A hotel worker in Nairobi told Reuters Corsi was picked up as soon as he walked into the hotel for the scheduled press conference: "He was walking in and then some immigration officers who were following him snatched him. It happened so fast, they just vanished with him."

"Obama is revered in Kenya for his paternal roots here and as a flagbearer for Africa on the international stage," explained the Reuters dispatch.

Other news sites have reported the same here and here.

CBS Poll: Race Has Tightened Again After VP Debate

Sarah Palin pulls one out again as a new CBS poll shows McCain-Palin pulls within 4 points 47% - 43% amongst registered voters. Before the VP debate, Obama led McCain by 9 points. So I guess all that baloney about polls showing that people thought Biden did better than Palin at the debate was fabricated by the main stream media.

McCain still has an uphill battle as he gave up the lead he had by hiding Palin after she accepted the nomination. His task is also made difficult by the financial markets meltdown.

Has McCain Finally Let Palin Off Her Leash?

Bloomberg News is reporting that Palin is now out on the stump criticizing Obama's association with terrorist and Weatherman founder Bill Ayers.

It's about time. McCain and everybody else ought to get a clear idea of who is exciting in this campaign.

I personally don't trust these main stream media polls that say America thought Biden did better at the debate. Why? Because pollsters often lie (remember last election exit pollsters announced Kerry would win Ohio by a landslide, when in fact Bush took it big.)

If they don't lie, it might be the way the question was asked:
1. Who do you think won? or
2. After watching the debate, which politician seemed to have more experience with debates?

The reason I say that, is the numbers. Almost 70 million people turned into the VP debate. [Post here.] That's 33% more than the number of people who turned into the presidential debate.

Why were these people turning in? To see Joe Biden? Of course not. They were turning in to see Sarah Palin. That means 23 million more people turned into see the VP debate than turned into see Obama and McCain go at it.

That was almost twice as many as the 38.4 million who watched Obama's acceptance speech, the 38.9 million that watched McCain's speech and the 37 milion that watched Palin's acceptance speech.

That tells me that Joe SixPack and Hockey Mom were watching the debate. And I don't think they were disappointed (Tina Fey and Saturday Night Live notwithstanding. The video of Fey is funny. Watch it below.)

Now I think the bailout will hurt McCain more than Obama. I think McCain's only chance is to let Palin off her chain and go on attack mode.

This is our election John, let her out of the cage to say the things you should have been saying all along.

LA Times story on how Palin says Obama pals around with terrorist.

Is Eva Longoria Related to Evan Longoria of the Tampa Bay Rays? (With Pic of Eva)

Is Eva Longoria Related to Evan Longoria of the Tampa Bay Rays?

The answer is no according to SI.com and Wikipedia here and here.

You might ask what does either Eva Longoria or Evan Longoria have to do with this blog?

Well, I am learning how to drive traffic to this site. A couple of weeks ago I posted a sarcastic post about a statement Pamela Anderson made about Sarah Palin.

I have software that monitors where my hits come from. I noticed a number of hits from overseas. Some hits were obvious: South Korean defense installation IP address checking stories about the death of "Dear Leader", a London Business School IP address looking at my posts on the bailout and how the FDIC works, and an English language German paper ID checking a posting that had linked to it.

But a significant number of hits came in to look at the Pam Anderson posting. At first I thought it was due to my wit, but then I realized that the reader was probably searching for pictures of Pamela Anderson and came across my entry in their search engine results.

The nice thing is that some of these searchers stayed and read a few other posts.

So when my wife casually said she thought Eva and Evan Longoria might be related, I looked it up on google and found that they weren't. But I also found that there are a ton of hits on Eva Longorio and many on Evan Longorio as a misspelling.

So I thought I'd put their names in the title and a pic of her, to see how many hits come into this site for this blog. I'll let you know.

O'Reilly Blasts Mass. Rep. and Banking Chairman Barney Frank as a Liar and Coward on Oversight of Fannie Mae

Right before this clip, O'Reilly had played an audio clip of Barney Frank in July of 2008 saying that while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had had troubles, going forward, it would be swell. As you know, in September, the Feds had to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.



H/t to the Drudge Report for the tip.

33% MORE People Watched the VP Debate Than Watched the McCain/Obama Debate

Who do you think THE PEOPLE were tuning in to see? We've heard all week about how the VP candidates don't make a difference, only the main candidates. Then why did so many people tune in?

Do you think they were tuning in to see Joe Biden?

Come on, McCain, let our Hockey Mom out of her cage and do what she does best.

See the early numbers post on The Live Feed.

Who Won? Palin or Biden?

I personally think that Sarah Palin beat out Joe Biden in the debate, but I was impressed with how smooth Joe Biden was. Neither side scored a knock-out punch, but I thought Sarah did a great job of "answering the questions that the Joe Six-Packs and Hockey Moms want to have answered instead of the ones Joe [Biden] or the moderator wanted answered" [Note: Palin did say something like this but the quote is from my memory not my notes so she probably said it in a different manner but the essence was the same.]

From Tom Brokaw's comments afterwards, it appears that he thought Palin did very well (although a fellow political junkie from the left coast called me then to discuss it so I don't know how he finished his analysis).

Noted bloggist Michele Malkin thought that Palin not only won, she rocked:

SARAH ROCKS!
By Michelle Malkin • October 2, 2008 10:50 PM

First, I would like to see all the Sarah doubters and detractors in the Beltway/Manhattan corridor eat their words.

Eat them.

Sarah Palin is the real deal. Five weeks on the campaign trail, thrust onto the national stage, she rocked tonight’s debate.

She was warm, fresh, funny, confident, energetic, personable, relentless, and on message. She roasted Obama’s flip-flops on the surge and tea-with-dictators declarations, dinged Biden’s bash-Bush rhetoric, challenged the blame-America defeatism of the Left, and exuded the sunny optimism that energized the base in the first place.

McCain has not done many things right. But Sarah Palin proved tonight that the VP risk he took was worth it.

Her performance also underscored the underhandedness of the hatchet job editors at ABC News and CBS News, which failed to capture her solid competence on the whole array of foreign and domestic policy issues on the debate table tonight. (I didn’t care for all the “greed” rhetoric, but I understand they are trying to appeal to independents and Dems. They’re trying to win the election.)

Pause to reflect on this: She matched — and trumped several times — a man who has spent his entire adult life on the political stage, run for president twice, and as he mentioned several times, chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sarah Palin looked presidential.

Joe Biden looked tired.

Sarah made history.

Biden is history.
***
Prediction: Watch for a whole new, severe strain of Palin Derangement Syndrome to begin tonight.
They hated her before tonight. They are going to pour on more unfathomable hate at a level we have never seen before.

Sarah, we’re praying for you.

This Women Will Be the "Neutral Moderator" for the VP Debates. Her Book on Politics in the Age of Obama Comes Out on Inaugural Day

This woman, Gwen Ifill has written a book called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama" and it will be released on the day of the inaugural. She stands to make a lot more money on the book if Obama wins.

Why is she the moderator for the VP debate on Thursday?

Read about it here and here and see a video of how she reported Sarah Palin's speech at the RNC convention.

China Releases Article Saying Spacewalk Trip Went Great, With Extended Astronaut Dialogue BEFORE LAUNCH

The Chinese - ever so honest about Olympic footage, Tibetian suppression, the milk scandal and more - accidentally released an article about their Shenzhou 7 mission (which will include a spacewalk) BEFORE THE SPACE CAPSULE WAS EVEN LAUNCHED. Dated 9/27/08, the article was released on 9/25 by the Chinese official news agency Xinhua on its web site. The article even had detailed dialogue between the astronauts, reports Yahoo News.

I say, why wait for the truth to develop, when you can make it up now.

Here's One We Would Never Have Guessed: Clay Aiken is Gay!

Surprising up to a half dozen of his followers, American Idol runner-up and Raleigh resident Clay Aiken revealed today that he was gay.

Reports also revealed that the same half dozen people were also surprised to find out the world was round and that the US had succeeded from Great Britain.

Clay had previously denied being gay and Rosie O'Donnell had blasted Kelly Ripa after an incident occurred on the Live with Regis and Kelly show. On that show, Clay had jokingly put his hand over Kelly's mouth to stop her from speaking. Kelly said: "Don't put that hand over my mouth, I don't know where's it been."

Clay's half dozen fans stood in disbelief as the news sunk in.

Video of Clay's hand over Kelly's mouth:

Does Poll Show Obama Will Lose Because of Race?

You probably have heard broadcasted from every media outlet that an AP-Yahoo poll found that racism may keep Obama from being elected President.

Racism, racism, racism. If Obama loses, we are supposed to believe that racism is the cause.

But if you dig deep into the poll you'll find that blacks are almost unanimously for Obama - which is a race bias that somewhat negates the alleged racism against Obama.

But if you dig even farther - you'll find something that almost no media outlet is reporting: that many more people doubt Obama's qualifications to be President than have concerns about his race:

"Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.

Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain." Report here.

Now you've heard the rest of the story.