GENIUS FORUMS

Aha, found that study.

Self-Funders Mostly Lose, Again

Following a long tradition, Tuesday's elections did not go well for self-financed candidates. Forty-nine congressional candidates spent more than $500,000 of their own money in 2008. Only 24 of them even made it to the general election, and just six House candidates and one Senate candidate won, although four House races had not been decided by Wednesday.

So what 'buys' you elections is not money, but people willing to give you money. Big difference. Your own money doesn't really help much. Talking about money buying elections is like blaming ice-cream for shark attacks (both shark attacks and ice-cream eating occur mostly in the summer).

I saw a meta-analysis of that study done, which showed that virtually none of the electoral success can be explained by the self-funding. I could have sworn that was at fivethirtyeight.com, but it doesn't seem to be there.

Monster campaign funding doesn't play a huge role in Australian elections;and Britain AFAICT.It may seem an inevitable fact of politics to Americans surrounded by it,but it need not be so.

A bit like guns really.

.


Supreme Court to talk about Obama 3rd time

-snip-

Perhaps the most perplexing detail, however, has been Obama's refusal to allow the public release of a signed "vault" copy of his original birth certificate.

Berg Case Set for 1/9/2009 Supreme's Conference

-Click URL for complete article-

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=83980
.

.


Barack Obama: The Naked Emperor

-snips-


'I'm hungry, mum, can I have some hope, please?'

'I'm so sorry, darling, you can't have hope today, only tomorrow - hope is always tomorrow.'

'So will I eat tomorrow, mum?'

'We can hope so now, dear, but when we get to tomorrow, we can only hope it's the next day.'


And a question, Does anybody really believe that someone, a 'man of the people', would simply appear from apparently nowhere to run the slickest and best-funded presidential campaign in American history? He was chosen long ago by those who wish to enslave the very people that Obama says he wants to 'set free'.

WE ARE THE ONES WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR
WE ARE THE CHANGE THAT WE SEEK

Obama's speeches are a mass of mind-control techniques and Neuro-Linguistic-Programming, or NLP, and they are carefully constructed to implant beliefs and perceptions into the mind of the viewer. Click here for a description of his psycho-babble, headed: An Examination of Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches. (see video)

-Click URL for complete article and video-

http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/18281

.


Indiana Men File Lawsuit To Challenge Obama's Eligibility

-snip-

Obama's birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii, but his father was not a U.S. citizen and some have claimed the document is fake.

-Click URL for complete article-

http://www.theindychannel.com/politics/ ... etail.html
.

.


Rezko attorney "owns" Obama mansion

Lawyer at firm where Democrat worked receives tax bill

An attorney for convicted fundraiser Tony Rezko is listed as the owner and taxpayer for Barack Obama's mansion. (see photo of William Miceli)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=84101
.

Even a cursory check would have revealed that Obama's house is held in 'land trust', and Miceli is the trust agent. This has been public knowledge for a long time.

.


Why would Rezko's lawyer own Obama's house?

This is another scandal that just keeps growing. (see photos)

But wait there's even more! Rezko borrowed money for the deal from his friend and backer Nadhmi Auchi, a British billionaire from Iraq who was mixed up in the oil-for-food scandal. Auchi has a very complicated past, and he's very litigous about any mention of his name.

Does Nadhmi Auchi effectively run or control the house Obama lives in?

Now there's word Patrick Fitzgerald is getting interested in these dealings.

-Click URL for complete article-

http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2 ... awyer.html
.

Tomas wrote:Why would Rezko's lawyer own Obama's house?

Because you are a lunatic completely uninterested in any facts which might disprove your conspiracy theories?..

vicdan wrote:

Tomas wrote:Why would Rezko's lawyer own Obama's house?

Because you are a lunatic completely uninterested in any facts which might disprove your conspiracy theories?..

No, that (Rezko's Lawyer Owns Obama's house?) was a quote from the article.

Me? No conspiracy theories regarding Brother Barack. He'll do as he pleases as long as he does the bidding of those who placed him in power .. just as all the other previous presidents have done before this one does as of Inauguration Day, that is.

He was born in Kenya, his real birth father is Frank Marshall Davis and the birth certificate is nothing more than a COLB.

As a politician, he's as phony as Bush, Clinton, Nixon, LBJ, Eisenhower etc..... the presidents who were murdered, I dunno.
.

.


WTF? Michelle Obama on 'Court Ordered Inactive Status"

-snip-

First off, the biggest ass-kissing media refers to Michelle Obama as a 'distinguished attorney' despite the fact that Michelle Obama has been "inactive" since 1993.

This ARDC is for discipline reasons...not for those volunteering to stop practicing. It is COURT ORDERED...not "Michelle Obama ordered." Their website is very clear about their function and why they step in. (Click to enlarge image)

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... le-ob.html
.

Conspiracy? Hardly. The factual relationship between the now convicted Rezko and now pres. elect Obama was certainly a bit too cozy by all standards, at the time. No wonder pitbull U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is poking around the issue too. Not likely he'll find much of interest though: the average carrier politician, especially the ones with senatorial and presidential ambitions, doesn't make his hands dirty if he can help it. Smudgy perhaps but not dirty :)

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Conspiracy? Hardly.

Conspiracy? Absolutely. I posted data which proves that Miceli's name on the papers is there for a perfectly legitimate reason, and he doesn't own the house. Thomas elected to ignore facts and forge on with his lunatic accusations. Yeah, it's a conspiracy theory.

Even if there is something shady between Obama and Rezko -- which nobody has ever demonstrated -- that doesn't excuse blatant rejection of reality that Thomas practices. That's kinda like taking the fact of the August '01 PDB, and using it to conclude that Bush had the towers demolished. It's rank tinfoil-hattery.

vicdan wrote:the fact of the August '01 PDB

Pastry Deal at Bakery?

Puberty Dance of Boyscouts?

Penultimate Debauchery with Bilderburgers?

Presidential Daily Briefing -- the one which said that bin Laden is preparing to strike USA, and might use hijacked airplanes. Bush simply ignored it, because he is a fucking moron slacker.

I was close!

vicdan wrote: Even if there is something shady between Obama and Rezko -- which nobody has ever demonstrated

Obama said: "I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr. Rezko..... I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it", commenting on his [over-valued] purchase of Rezno's land at the time Rezno was under investigation by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and everybody in the scene was distancing themselves from him.

Misgauging the appearance of being shady, dubious, questionable, he means. Being shady is an appearance by all means otherwise the word 'illegal' or 'wrong' would have been used.

Yeah, let's argue about what 'shady' means now.

vicdan wrote:Yeah, let's argue about what 'shady' means now.

If you want to go there: lets instead argue what 'owns' means. :-)

Rezko's lawyer (firm) as legal owner is indeed owner, even as trustee. This is the line you commented on.

No matter how you spin it, it's hardly conspiracy theory to point at the warm links between a convicted fundraiser and real-estate developer and Obama's property and political career. It's indeed speculation, suggestive and so on. But it's certainly worth questioning. This is a long shot from a "conspiracy theory", just when something is described as shady and questionable [which even Obama confirmed and regretted]. Perhaps with some minor inaccuracies here and there, it doesn't matter.

You just used the word here as insult and after scrutiny it appears to not have much connection to what has been written. Which happens a lot with the stuff you keep thoughtlessly writing here!

Now you say: "whatever dude".

The trust is the owner, dude. A lawyer is just the administrator of the trust. He doesn't own the property, he executes the trust in accordance with the trust charter (set up by Obamas) for the benefit of the beneficiary (also Obamas).

.


Obama The Chicken

-snip-

At the University of Delaware in 1970, a chicken was elected as Homecoming Queen, because her managers never let anyone see her or know her past or her associates, while they promised everything the voters wanted. The only major difference between that Chicken and Obama is the chicken's name was Cynthia. (see photo of Obama The Chicken)

-Click URL for complete article-

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/106642-0
.

vicdan wrote:The trust is the owner, dude. A lawyer is just the administrator of the trust. He doesn't own the property, he executes the trust in accordance with the trust charter (set up by Obamas) for the benefit of the beneficiary (also Obamas).

The legal owner is the trustee. The trustee is the formal "holder of property" for whole the world and its dog. That for all practical matters the beneficiary holds all the cards doesn't change the status of who is technically 'owner' for the law.

The article(s) you branded as conspiracy theory, while they might have been suggestive and incomplete, didn't make the false claim you suggest. It's exactly like discussing the August '01 PDB and wonder why Bush ignored it and if there could be more to it. Shady!

.


Ineligible Obama, Playing with Constitutional Fire

-snip-

Numerous legal challenges have been filed in an effort to force president-elect Barack Obama to validate his constitutional eligibility for the office he seeks and while it is true that suit after suit has been denied in the courts, it is also true that all of them have been denied on a technicality rather than on the merits of the case against Obama.

Why has Obama spent a million dollars in legal fees when he could have spent $10.00 for a certified copy of his birth records?

You have eighteen days to find the answer to this question, and then find someone in power who cares... Good Luck!

-Click URL for complete article-

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2009010231 ... -fire.html
.

.


Most covered up of 2008

-snip-

WND's editors, however, have long considered it far more newsworthy to publicize the most important unreported or underreported news events of the year - to highlight perhaps for one last time major news stories that were undeservedly "spiked" by the establishment press.

WND Editor and CEO Joseph Farah has sponsored "Operation Spike" every year since 1988, and since founding WorldNetDaily in May 1997, he has continued the annual tradition.

-Click URL for complete article-

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=82942
.