Obama’s Sword of Damocles: October Surprise Won’t Surprise Us

The Husaria: For Our Freedom and Yours ^ | 5/12/08 | Winged Hussar 1683

[L,TOWM]

Riiiiight. ;-)

You’re always good for a smile, buddy.

[SaxxonWoods]

I applaud your good work. Unfortunately, I am afraid that Obama, being black, is immune to all scandals.

[marron]

I also agree with you. People know instinctively that the campaign finance laws are absurd. If anything, the very existence of these laws disqualifies McCain from office.

And, McCain himself fell afoul of his own laws.

So, no, this isn’t the knockout punch.

[Jack Black]

Having a national church (the ENTIRE UCC, not just the Chicago branch) lose its tax exemption because of Obama’s willful misuse of its resources will be a non-event??? Only if our side is too weak-willed (what Machievelli calls ozio, the opposite of virtu) to do anything with it. That's not going to happen. The UCC is extremely distributed in organization, no way the entire UCC loses tax exempt status.

This post reminds me of Doug From Uplands long series about the Stan Lee / Peter Paul campaign finance bruhaha that was going to put Hillary on the stand and end her run. I told him, too, that's not going to happen. And somehow, mysteriously, the whole thing has fizzled out without any court dates. Peter WHO?

[Winged Hussar]

“This post reminds me of Doug From Uplands long series about the Stan Lee / Peter Paul campaign finance bruhaha that was going to put Hillary on the stand and end her run. I told him, too, that’s not going to happen. And somehow, mysteriously, the whole thing has fizzled out without any court dates. Peter WHO?”

That is why viral E-mails were invented. One good viral E-mail can do more harm to Obama’s campaign than a million dollars of campaign contributions from his impressive fundraising machine can fix. This is why we need to circulate this material and use it for letters to the editor.

And we don’t have to convict Obama in a court of law beyond any reasonable doubt (in fact, since no one was accused of an actual crime, no one has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt). We need only prove him guilty in the court of public opinion, and I think the facts I cited in this post are more than enough.

(1) He was told the rules in advance
(2) His written speech is a clearcut violation of those rules, and the fact that it was written shows a premeditated intention to break the rules

That ought to do it.