Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Atlas Shrugs' Pam Geller posts a letter from a friend, which she agrees with. I'm sure you'll be shocked to see that the letter is full of misspellings, bad grammar and almost entirely lacking punctuation.
i do not recognize obama as my president, nor as the legitimate president of the united states. it is all pretty simple and straight forward to me. the man is a political fraud. he hid who he was. he hid what he is. he denied his friends, and he denied their beliefs, and he denied his adherence to them as friends and their shared beliefs. so, while this son of a bitch paraded himself as an honest, open and fresh breath of air, ... , a rebirth of honest politics, he did so while running a campaign of deceit about who he is, what he believes, and what his convictions are. i believe that there can only be one reason for this. he is also hiding what he intends to do as president. he says he is a democrat. i think he does so to hide that he is a committed marxist leninist who intends to impose a marxist dictatorhip upon this country, which advancig the interests of islam. he will attempt to either impose or import sharia, and sharia financing into this country. he will stifle free discussion by the use of the "fairness doctrine," and he will seek the imposition of hate speech law, laws prohibiting discussing islam critically, and will seek added preferential treatment for muslims in our immigration law. and, then there is the matter of the promised "civilian security force" the size, prestige, force and cost of the united states military. i do not believe this to be idle chatter on his part. finally, i have grave fears, mortal fears, for the fate of israel. i do not believe that he will rise to her defense, and believe that he is in cohoots with those who seek to destroy her. pelosi's and reid's trip to the middle east convinced that such is the general agenda of the democratic party for several years now, and obama recent "chats" wiht abbas have done nothing to dissuade me from that feeling. so, no, i concede nothing with regard to obama. he was elected under false pretenses, and he will govern under false pretenses, and the only reason for doing so is to hide his evil intent with regard to the fate of the country he "rules."he is not my president. i do not accept him we have no deals, mr. obama and i, as he has vitiated them by a fundamental and far reaching fraud. he has evil designes and intents upon me and mine, upon thee and me.
I love how, in the middle of that virtually illiterate screed, he throws in words like "vitiate." I'm guessing that word popped up on his "Build Your Vocabulary in 365 Days" desk calendar. I also love, as Jason Kuznicki did, the talk about how Marxist dictatorship supposedly advances the cause of Islam. Because if there's one thing Marx was for, it was Islamic theocracy.
Geller also posts this screed from someone calling himself Sultan Knish (hey, is that Arabic?):
Today I unpacked my winter clothes in preparation for a long winter, and a long winter is coming if not of the thermometer, then of the soul. A man that represents not simply an opposing view but the view of those who oppose America and all it stands for, will sit in the Oval Office. Worse still he did not get there through a democratic election but through fraud, voter intimidation and every dirty trick culminating in a campaign that had little in common with conventional American politics and a great deal in common with the cults of personality cultivated by totalitarian dictators.Our disappointment has come tonight. The disappointment of those Democratic party voters who are still of the party of Jefferson rather than the party of Ayers will come later and it will be far darker because we were innocent of it, while they will be complicit in all that he does. But we are not simply "Don't Blame Me" voters. We did our best to fight against this and while that may be small comfort against what comes, it is important to remember that, just as it is remembered in every age the people who stood against the rise of evil and took no part in the mass madness that brings tyrants to power and overturns nations.
But we are a long way from surrender. The battle is over, the war begins. The United States government now falls into the hands of the enemies of this country and civilization for a time or forever. And that is part of what the war is about. The country has been in the hands of people we disagreed with, but never in the hands of people whose views are as diametrically opposed to ours as anything in the Third Reich or the Kremlin. In their hands Federal power becomes enemy power. The more ineffective and tied up they are, the less damage they can do.
The battle against them must be twofold, first to limit the damage they can do while in power, and secondly to plan and prepare to retake Congress and then the White House in a coherent and orderly manner without the chaos and backbiting that has characterized the last year of this campaign. It will be all too easy to fall into the blame game and to let it devour us, too much of the conservative movement and the anti-jihad blogsphere is already fractured. The goal now must be to heal those fractures, to create unity around a single purpose, to liberate America again.
It will not be an easy struggle. The Obama years will make the worst of the Clinton years look mild by comparison. We have seen the thuggish abuses of power that brought Obama into office, but that is only a taste of what an Obama administration in control of the Federal government will be able to do. We have seen only a shadow of the ruthless methods that were used to bring him to power, and even that shadow is mostly dismissed as conspiracy theories. But that is also our best hope. Obama's only real calling card has been an empty promise. Now he will have power and responsibility and we know he will abuse them. Arrogance was and remains his Achilles heel and the Achilles heel of his backers. And when their revolution runs into the reality of voter expectations, there will be the opening to begin the political downfall of this government.
For my own part I do not recognize Obama as my President, nor will I refer to him as such. He has no legal right to serve in office nor has he won a legal election. Nor do his cronies have any right to serve in any position they are appointed to.
Godwin's law, Schmodwin's law.
Politics
Comments
Apologies for going off-topic, but the day before the election, Gingerbaker wrote:
On a related note, don't forget to fill up your gas tank today. Prices will start shooting up tomorrow!
But on election day, gas was $2.12 at the station down the street from me, and today it's $1.97. And I live in a blue state.
So apparently, one of the insane right-wing reactions is not to jack up gas prices for us blue staters.
Ginger, you made the prediction, and it's been falsified. I cook a mean dish of crow, and even serve it with a good beer, so whenever you're ready, come on over.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 7, 2008 9:55 AM
But... but, we're at war. Real Americans unite behind their president in times of war, right? To do otherwise is an insult to every person who has ever fought and died for freedom. Why do they hate America?
::eye roll::
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 7, 2008 10:03 AM
The worst of the Clinton years?
When I read that, I thought of the comment... who was it by, "The Onion"?... upon Bush's inauguration in 2001: "At last, our long dark night of peace and prosperity is over."
At the time, I thought it was a joke. I wish I still did.
Posted by: flatlander100 | November 7, 2008 10:09 AM
This is a true statement. Until 20Jan2009.
Posted by: ShadowWalkyr | November 7, 2008 10:25 AM
So much for patriotism. Too many on the GOP are showing they are just like the Islamic terrorists and communists they so fear: only recognize elections that go your way. Traitors.
Posted by: Science Avenger | November 7, 2008 10:27 AM
I'm actually surprised that people believe this. I had assumed that the daft rumours about President Obama were created to give power to those that created it. When I come across someone that actually believes it, the mind boggles. How can they believe he is anything other than what he is? How can they look at one thing, and see another? This is very strange to me.
Posted by: Walls | November 7, 2008 10:27 AM
You know, I used to think I was over-the-top for referring to Bush as "Acting President" during this first term (mainly because I think the Supreme Court overstepped its Constitutional authority in Gore v. Bush and should have sent the issue to the House of Representatives, where it belonged). Looks like I was reasonable in comparison to these freaks.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | November 7, 2008 10:29 AM
"He has no legal right to serve in office nor has he won a legal election."
I really boggle trying to figure out how a landslide win of EC votes, and the highest number of votes cast for president can equal an illegal election. I don't comprehend how the people who said that Bush had a mandate can turn around and say that Obama doesn't and doesn't deserve to be President.
We need to put more emphasis on critical thinking in public school. Too many people don't even notice that they are carrying around contrary ideas!
Posted by: kodiak | November 7, 2008 10:43 AM
Apparently his first act in the promotion of sharia law in America and the destruction of Israel is to be the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as CoS.
Posted by: csrster | November 7, 2008 10:45 AM
I've never seen anything demonstrate the concept of "King Baby" so perfectly as these two "letters". I want what I want and I want it now. True Authoritarians.
What's really starting to bother me is the fact that I'm coming to expect this type of ridiculous hyperbole from certain people - both inside the toobz and outside of them.
Posted by: Tribe | November 7, 2008 10:49 AM
This kind of self-indulgent histrionics baffles me. I cannot accept that these people actually believe this drivel, that if they engaged in a modicum of reflection they wouldn't recognize that they've worked themselves up into a lather of wingnutty irrationality.
Please, tell me that a goodly portion of the world's largest nuclear-armed state don't actually think this way.
Posted by: Tulse | November 7, 2008 10:50 AM
What, pray tell, is "sharia financing"? Is that like when you make all kinds of money off of House of Saud?
Posted by: Spidergrackle | November 7, 2008 10:52 AM
Hey James
What is the time frame for a typical gasoline speculator cycle? Give it a day or two. But, you are right, I did say prices would go up on Tuesday, and I was wrong.
I will be happy to eat some crow, especially if it comes with a good beer. But you better make enough for two.
I don't think the case you made for simple supply/demand being the natural cause for the blistering rise in retail gasoline prices can stand the light of day either. Evidently demand must be down about 60%. I guess every single person in the country sold their Ford 150 and started driving a Prius.
From Senator Sanders web site:
"Some of my Republican friends claim that the increase in the price of oil has nothing to do with speculation, but it is interesting to me that we have had executives of major oil companies--major oil companies--who have come before Congress and who are saying, ``Why is oil $125, $130, and $140 a barrel?'' Do you know what they say? The CEO of Royal Dutch Shell testified before Congress and said: 'The oil fundamentals are no problem. They are the same as they were when oil was selling for $60 a barrel.' This is not some radical economist. It is not some leftwinger. This is a guy who is the head of Royal Dutch Shell.
"The CEO of Marathon Oil recently said: "$100 oil isn't justified by the physical demand in the market."
"...we have heard from people in the oil industry themselves who tell us that 25 to 50 percent of the cost of a barrel of oil today is not due to supply and demand or the cost of production but is due to manipulation of markets and excessive speculation."
In other words, manipulate supply and it looks just like demand drives the market.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 7, 2008 11:00 AM
The insane right wing reaction doesn't startle me. I currently live (again) in BFE Florida. Last week someone told me that the financial crisis was caused by Beel Cleenton.
Posted by: steve s | November 7, 2008 11:05 AM
You know what, you Right-Wing Fundie elitists?
If you don't love America, it's belief in democracy, it's electoral process, it's people and it's newly elected President - you can take your disloyal, unpatriotic, un-American, bible-misquoting @sses outta here and go to some dire, undemocratic, theistic hell-hole (like Afghanistan for example.) America neither wants nor needs traitors like you!
America love it, OR LEAVE IT!
(Whew! I've been waiting eight long years to say that! Sauce for the goose, sure is good for the gander) :D DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 7, 2008 11:08 AM
What surprises me the most is that they somehow managed to misspell cahoots.
Posted by: MRL | November 7, 2008 11:09 AM
If I'm not mistaken, "sharia finance" is something that is in line with the prohibition of interest by Islamic law. Money is lent, but the borrowers don't pay interests; instead, they give a definite extra sum of money, a certain part of which being then given to charities (or something to that effect). To me it looks a bit silly: you have to make things in a special way because of religious prescriptions. But frankly I don't really see anything frightening in this specifically...
Posted by: Christophe Thill | November 7, 2008 11:12 AM
someday we will be telling you liberals i told you so! i hope it's not to late!
Posted by: jane davidian | November 7, 2008 11:16 AM
flatlander, it was indeed The Onion.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | November 7, 2008 11:20 AM
You mean Jane, the liberals can make a bigger dog's breakfast of America, than George the Least? That's a stretch of the imagination (or perhaps a leap of faith). You really think President Obama will cause havoc? Did FDR wreck America, and in similar circumstance?
"You're dreamin'" - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 7, 2008 11:27 AM
Sorry Tulse but many people do think this way, they do believe this drivel, and they hardly ever engage in reflection, especially of the self- kind.
It's hard for some people to think rationally when they are afraid. They see only the boogeyman and Obama represents that on so many levels (black man/"muslim"/"foreign"/socialist/lawyer/liberal) to people who haven't had much experience in a wide-open world beyond their small limited lives.
Posted by: marnk | November 7, 2008 11:28 AM
Been seeing this alot, These conservatives need to read their own bibles. Romans 13 says (paraphrased) all power comes from god. If a government comes into power it is because he is backed by god. Disobeying your government is an act against god.
I also like to point out Jesus was a liberal hippie.
Tim
Posted by: Mr P | November 7, 2008 11:30 AM
Well I saw McCain supporters like this on "South Park" so I know they exist.
Sharia financings can be an equity investment. Instead of getting a loan to buy a house and pay interest, the banks buys the home and you pay rent under a long term lease, with an agreement to buy the house for a set price at the end.
If you want to buy a TV on credit, your credit card company buys it and charges you a usage fee.
Posted by: Kevin | November 7, 2008 11:57 AM
This is a serious misunderstanding. The quantity demanded is on one axis, the price is on another. If the functions are steep, the quantity needs shift only a little bit to produce a huge price swing.
I'm really interested in these claims. There are only three things that can cause price spikes: Oil producers cut output, we burn more oil, or somebody is buying a bunch of oil and hiding it in a lake somewhere. I'm not averse to the idea that somebody is building up a large reserve in secret, but there was no evidence of reduced output during the price run-up, and there was plenty of evidence for a steady increase in consumption.
I'm still looking for a story that explains *how* one would manipulate the markets the way people are claiming.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 7, 2008 12:04 PM
Christophe Thill:
Okay, this is a first (for me at any rate), you used the word "prescription" where I think you meant "proscription." I've been seeing these two words get confused a lot in the past couple of years, but usually it's people using "proscription" where they mean "prescription." Well, I suppose it had to happen sooner or later.
As for Sharia Finance, I am not acquainted with any notion of surplus funds needing to go to charity, but I was aware that, e.g. while charging interest is forbidden, a lease-purchase arrangement is not.
Posted by: Inquisitive Raven | November 7, 2008 12:07 PM
I remember the conspiracy-mongering that attached to Bill Clinton, back at the start -- some crazy story about how he'd had someone offed to cover up his involvement in Whitewater (something like that -- this was early-90's and I'm not a USAian). There was a cottage industry in videos explaining it all.
This anti-Obama crap is like that, only cubed. Just what the US (and the rest of us, by proxy) needs: along with all the real problems the new administration must deal with, this undertow of wingnut tin-foil-haberdasher hate.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 7, 2008 12:13 PM
Of course they believe this stuff. Don't you people remember Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City; the entire decade of bank robberies, abortion clinic bombings, assassinations of doctors and radio show hosts, the handful of lynchings and gruesome murders of homosexuals?
Those people didn't just go away when Bush got elected; they didn't just stop believing this bile. They went home and prepared for the rapture soon to come. And now that it hasn't, now that their chosen-by-god president is leaving office without having reduced the planet to a wasteland of searing nuclear ash, they're going to come right back out of the wood work. I hope it doesn't get as bad as the 90's.
Posted by: Julian | November 7, 2008 12:15 PM
If you don't like Sharia finance, then lets support some good old fashioned Biblical finance.
A jubilee day is long overdue and would stop the foreclosure crisis in its tracks.
Posted by: snoey | November 7, 2008 12:20 PM
That's a reference to Bush, right?
Posted by: No One Of Consequence | November 7, 2008 12:25 PM
Thuggish? Arrogant? Fraudulent? A silencer of free speech? Good Zarquon, you'd think the poor guy was George W. Bush or something.
And anyone who can imply that Clinton was a dictator and still stand up for GWB is several blue dresses shy of marital fidelity.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | November 7, 2008 1:01 PM
To all those who have been throwing around the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" over the last 7 years, I invite you to behold above true derangement. Even the most rabid of the Bush haters at least tried to tie their accusation, however tenuously, to things the Bush administration was actually doing, instead of fabricating elaborate fantasies utterly disconnected from reality like the two examples above.
And it's only going to get worse. Remember the '90s? Remember how right-wing talk-radio was accusing the Clinton administration of being puppets of the Chinese government, how Clinton was going to turn control of our country over to Beijing, all because they let some Chinese diplomats stay the night in the White House? Remember all the conspiracy theories being spread by right-wingers surrounding Vince Foster, that Clinton had him assassinated? (You could by videos explaining the conspiracy at Republican conventions, IIRC.) Remember how the UN designation of the Grand Canyon as a World Heritage Site (or whatever it is called) was, according to the right-wing, ceding our sovereignty to the One World Government and a certain omen that the UN's black helicopters would start swooping through our neighborhoods any day now? Those suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome far out deranged those suffering BDS, at least relative to the weight of what Clinton was actually doing wrong. Now we have before us every indication that Obama Derangement Syndrome sufferers will reach Rage-Zombie-Epidemic levels of derangement.
Posted by: jpf | November 7, 2008 1:14 PM
Eamon Knight posted while I was still writing :)
Posted by: jpf | November 7, 2008 1:16 PM
jane davidian "someday we will be telling you liberals i told you so!"
Will that be before or after we force you into gay marriage (with a complementary double latte and a mandatory abortion)?
"i hope it's not to late!"
The Constitution is in tatters. Iraq is in flames. We're slowly losing Afghanistan. A ten point six trillion dollar debt. At this point there isn't much else to ruin.
...
Lastly, most of that second letter fits BushCo in 2000 disturbingly well.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 7, 2008 1:19 PM
It's not great writing, but it comes close to summing up my feelings on McCain. Before the "do this to win" handlers got their greasy little claws into him, he wasn't half bad as far as I could tell. Then he took off his dignity like a horny teen dropping trou, and went back on most of the cool things he ever claimed to believe in.
Posted by: pough | November 7, 2008 1:22 PM
Ginger,
Whatever beer you like!
But may I say that "speculators" are market actors, not government or otherwise political conspirators? Just greedy bastards who've found a way to make a buck.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 7, 2008 1:27 PM
I got that "civilian security force" thing from someone I dearly love. It took me a whole day to stop wanting to cry, and then less than FIVE MINUTES on Google to (a) find the video, then (b) find the context of the speech, which was all about the PeaceCorps, AmeriCorps, and the desire to instill an ethos of volunteerism in the American public. Dear god. This frothing at the mouth is just...appalling. And the worst is that it's suckering in normally sane and sensible people.
Posted by: OmegaMom | November 7, 2008 1:52 PM
More importantly, exactly how are speculators able to drive up the delivery price of oil in the long term? They can't affect the actual supply or demand of physical oil. They can only affect the supply and demand of futures. It makes sense that speculators make the futures market a weird place, but when the contratcts come due, they shouldn't be major players.
By what mechanism have speculators driven the price over the past couple of years? I just don't see it.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 7, 2008 2:56 PM
wow...so do we get to call them unamerican traitors now for dissing the president-to-be?
The thing that saddens me most is that a functioning democracy needs a dedicated, coherent, and rational opposition to keep the folks in power in check. As much as I like Obama, I am absolutely convinced that he will need some periodic reality checks from an intelligent opposition, if only to avoid the dangers of hubris.
Unfortunately, the insanity that has engulfed so much of the right wing seems unlikely to fill this function.
Perhaps the expelled conservatives, the Andrew Sullivans of the world, or perhaps the folks at Culture11, can fill the void.
Posted by: DanM | November 7, 2008 2:57 PM
Obama Derangement Syndrome--I like it. I think I will
call up one of my local right-wing radio pundits this
afternoon after work & float the idea.
Posted by: conelrad | November 7, 2008 3:18 PM
...and in 4 years, when none of this comes to pass, one of two things will happen: the whackos will be completely oblivious to their current claims, or they will thump their chests with pride in the knowledge that their vigilance has kept the nation safe from the nefarious deeds that they have predicted.
Posted by: natural cynic | November 7, 2008 3:28 PM
Conservatives - sore losers full of fear, hatred, and now treason.
Which is probably why President-Elect Obama thanked God in his gracious, nuanced acceptance speech. Besides probably being a believer, I mean. "If I don't mention God, sore losers are going to be all over my ass 4ever and I don't need any more problems getting the country back together than we already have."
You can't really blame him.
Posted by: Monado in Toronto | November 7, 2008 3:31 PM
Tulse:
"Please, tell me that a goodly portion of the world's largest nuclear-armed state don't actually think this way."
I don't think they do.
The portion that control's the largest Nu-Q-Lar armed state, otoh...
Posted by: democommie | November 7, 2008 4:13 PM
DanM, I assume you're referring to my comments at the top of the thread. To clarify I was mocking a popular conservative trend during much of Bush's presidency. People who questioned the Patriot Act, Gitmo, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. were often branded traitors for not supporting their president in a time of war. Pam Geller was one of many who engaged in this.
It's been a long wait to be able to reflect her own rhetoric back at her. But for the record I didn't buy it when she was hawking it and I hope no one else reading my comment takes is as anything other than mocking the sentiment it contains.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 7, 2008 4:20 PM
...And of course, in four years when the US of A still isn't a Marxist state, or an islamofacist nation, and gays aren't running the country and Xtians are still allowed to do all of the stuff they enjoy doing (basically all of their ridiculous predictions will have fallen through and not come to pass), then these same foul nutjobs will shriek about how they won their hard fought battle against the terrorist Obama!
I love America, but am often at odds with so many of it's population.
Posted by: Paul | November 7, 2008 4:50 PM
Troublesome Frog said:
"More importantly, exactly how are speculators able to drive up the delivery price of oil in the long term? They can't affect the actual supply or demand of physical oil. They can only affect the supply and demand of futures."
Imagine a relationship between Exxon and oil speculators. Speculators make money when they know that oil or gas or gasoline will go up or down. Exxon makes more money when it goes up and stays there, but they make money even if it doesn't. They are the most cash rich industry in the world, making something like 5 to 10 million dollars of profit every hour.
Oil speculators must have contacts at oil companies, and no doubt they talk to their friends every day. Basically, whenever the time seems ripe, (say, another 100,000 hectare plantation comes up for sale in Paraguay, and the CEO's wife wants it) Exxon lets them know that a shortage of supply is coming up. They know this, because they can cause it any time they like, simply by having any of their refineries go on the blink or have reduced output.
Oh dear, a crisis! Oil futures go up, the price goes up. And everybody makes twice as much money. Except for consumers.
And so far, they make WAY more money then they could possibly pay in fines even if they were caught.
The large oil companies have not built a new refinery in something like twenty years. They do not intend to build any in the future. Yet, supply is always a tad short.
Exxon made something like over 40 Billion in profit last year, and they spent at least as much, if not double, by purchasing their own shares (no doubt a business expense). So, that is around $80-120 Billion with a "B" dollars of profit last year. That is about $230,000 of net profit every single minute of every hour of every day of every year.
I would love to see how fast they would rebate our money back if Obama used the words "Fiscal crisis demands that we consider the need to nationalize the petroleum industry" in a speech.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 7, 2008 5:02 PM
My eyes are bleeding. Bleeding!
Posted by: Ingersoll's Revenge | November 7, 2008 5:28 PM
Pamelamadingdong never changes. She's so full of shit that she makes mroberts look like a sage.
Posted by: democommie | November 7, 2008 6:42 PM
Abby Normal,
nah I was being generally snarky in my opener. I've held the folks who used that sort of insane language over the past few years in a certain degree of...let's just call it contempt. I find it highly amusing that they are having such a full-blown freak out now that we have a Democratic president.
They really have no sense of shame or perspective. It's pretty sad, actually.
Posted by: DanM | November 7, 2008 7:19 PM
What is most entertaining to me is that after a little while of a return to a democratic presidency, a return to civility between citizens, and the end the eight year experiment in American divisiveness and isolationism, the people that say these absurd, irrational, bizarre things, will no longer be taken seriously.
The people with these crazy views will be seen as kooks, just like they were before Bush was president. In the old days, these types would have to scrawl out their crazy on paper, make photocopies, and wheat-paste them onto walls and poles in urban areas. Or hand out pamphlets to disinterested people in malls.
Posted by: mrradon | November 7, 2008 7:29 PM
Gingerbaker:
What you've described is the oil companies manipulating supply. I don't see how futures speculators are a necessary part of the equation.
The artificial shortage theory is a reasonable one, but not in the "cutting output to game the market in the short run" sort of way. The markets show a relatively long upward trend, which indicates to me that capacity isn't growing as fast as demand. This could be artificial, and I certainly won't make a judgment on that front. It doesn't have much to do with the futures market, though, and that's the demon everybody seemed to want to blame.
My theory is that it's easy for the left to blame futures traders because the faceless evil of Wall Street plays well with their base. It's equally easy for the right to tell the same story because saying, "Well, it looks like the price of oil is going up, even though our policies have always been to act like oil is infinite and efficiency is for pussies," wouldn't play well with anybody. Best to blame it on some futures speculation scheme.
The reality is that any story people tell about this sort of manipulation actually involves *real* changes in the quantity of physical oil produced or demanded. Futures contracts are a red herring.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 7, 2008 7:32 PM
What's most disturbing to me is that someone as obviously nutty as she is was granted an interview by John Bolton. Hell, at one point she was championing a European neo-fascist party (her Muslim hatred apparently blinded her to its anti-Semitsm) against the people at Little Green Footballs who were mocking her for supporting it.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | November 7, 2008 7:54 PM
"someday we will be telling you liberals i told you so! i hope it's not to late!"
Well, all righty then...
(Anyone care to question the fact there are total gits running around loose? With no keepers? All on their own? Right here?)
And by the time it's "to late" it's likely to be "too late" for people like you, ma'am.
Posted by: bonefish | November 7, 2008 8:07 PM
Inergsol's Ghost - "...and obama [sic] recent "chats" wiht [sic] abbas [sic]..."
Maybe President Obama was planning a surprise Birthday present for John McCain. Several covers, a few impersonators, some drag acts and the real ones, all performing "Dancing Queen" on the White House grounds. (Or maybe "The Winner Take It All"). John would be THRILLED. Now THATS how to heal rifts and reach across the aisle. :D DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 7, 2008 8:15 PM
The projection.
The projection!!!
It burns.
BTW, here's a bit on fraud -- on Grand Theft Election 04.
Posted by: David Marjanović | November 7, 2008 8:44 PM
Bush v. Gore. Bush is the one who sued.
Where it belonged? You mean you agree with the SCOTUS that it is ever acceptable to stop the counting of votes in a democracy??? In my book, that's a coup, pure and simple.
Posted by: David Marjanović | November 7, 2008 8:48 PM
Uri Geller, spoon bender.
Pammy Geller, logic twister.
Two frauds.
Posted by: democommie | November 7, 2008 9:10 PM
If I'm not mistaken, "sharia finance" is something that is in line with the prohibition of interest by Islamic law. Money is lent, but the borrowers don't pay interests; instead, they give a definite extra sum of money, a certain part of which being then given to charities (or something to that effect). To me it looks a bit silly: you have to make things in a special way because of religious prescriptions. But frankly I don't really see anything frightening in this specifically...
The only thing that bothers me about sharia finance is the charities the money is being given to. Some Muslim charities fund terrorism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18257-2004Jul27.html
Posted by: mroberts | November 7, 2008 10:01 PM
Mrroberts - In fact, Buddhist, Hindu and Christian Charities have been used to fund terrorism at different points in history. Taking this to it's logical extreme ALL religious charities should be de-funded, with or without HARD evidence* or wrong doing ('cause it might be true, wouldn't want the "smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" would we?).
But that wouldn't fit the current administration's 'Muslim = Terrorism' meme, and it sure wouldn't sell any TV/Newspaper/Website advertising now would it? -DJ
*BTW what actual, creditable evidence is there to support the often repeated "Muslim charities support terrorism" factlet? Some high school student's creative writing class homework perhaps?
Posted by: DIngoJack | November 7, 2008 10:49 PM
"In fact, Buddhist, Hindu and Christian Charities have been used to fund terrorism at different points in history."
Yeah like right this second - see the links between the Sri Lankan Sangha and Singhalese terrorists; between extreme Hindu groups such as the Shiv Sena and the current campaign of terror against Dalits who convert ot Christianity and the ongoing role of the Serbian Orthodox Church in sheltering Serb war criminals.
If we go back a couple of years we also have Jerry Falwell and other US evangelists backing former Liberian President Charles Taylor. Taylor is one of the great monsters of modern history but is largely ignored in the west because most of his victims were black Africans.
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 7, 2008 11:22 PM
"...And of course, in four years when the US of A still isn't a Marxist state, or an islamofacist nation, and gays aren't running the country and Xtians are still allowed to do all of the stuff they enjoy doing (basically all of their ridiculous predictions will have fallen through and not come to pass), then these same foul nutjobs will shriek about how they won their hard fought battle against the terrorist Obama!"
Unless he's assassinated in the interim in which case he'll become a great guy who they always supported.
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 7, 2008 11:36 PM
Ginger,
Huh? Everyone does not make twice as much money. Speculators who bets on higher future prices at the wrong time get their clock cleaned when prices fall. There are many speculators who have taken big hits.
Posted by: Dr X | November 7, 2008 11:36 PM
Oh and let's not forget that contributions to Catholic charities end up paying the legal bills for paedophile priests and hush money to their victims. (I don;t object to the victims being compensated I object to them being paid off to keep them from reporting their abusers to the police.)
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 7, 2008 11:41 PM
The current crazy about "Sharia finance" is because the Gulf states have fronted up tens of billions of dollars to the US Treasury to help finance the various bail-outs.
When they did so, they suggested that the US Treasury take a look at Islamic banking practices and Treasury agreed to set up a committee to see if there was anything they could learn from them.
From there, it's obviously just a hop, skip and jump to public stonings.
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 7, 2008 11:47 PM
Ian Gould: Not to mention the support which the religious right and libertarians gave to apartheid South Africa.
Posted by: Julian | November 8, 2008 12:14 AM
But, but, they were coming out against that arch-terrorist, Nelson Mandela. That terrible man blew up infrastructure, without causing ANY deaths or injuries, just like those evul Weathermen. I mean you can't have these TERRORISTS getting in the way of OUR illegal, immoral and hugely expensive futile wars and coups that kill and maim millions, it would un-American! -DJ
"Fighting for truth, justice, in addition to, the American way"
Posted by: DIngoJack | November 8, 2008 12:41 AM
As Jack says, the popular right-wing claims about Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela were pretty much on par with the current slanders against Obma.
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 8, 2008 12:56 AM
So is it officially not Islamofascism any more, but Islamomarxism?
Posted by: Pseudonym | November 8, 2008 1:46 AM
Wait, what? What power did Obama have to abuse thuggishly before he was elected? Guy was a junior senator whose party had moderate control over one branch of government. How exactly did he go power-crazy without the Bush administration doing something to stop him?
That's what really confuses me. Most of these people were perfectly comfortable with Bush torching the Constitution and becoming Emperor of Earth, because only he could save them from the Marxist Islamist Atheist Satanist Terrorist Hordes. Now, apparently, the leader of said hordes has managed to get himself elected presidency, using all manner of villainy and dirty tricks, and will shortly transform America into Sodom. Isn't this the sort of thing that George W. Bush was supposed to prevent?
Shouldn't they be mad at him?
Posted by: Anton Mates | November 8, 2008 2:10 AM
Apparently Obama plans to re-introduce slavery!
http://sweetness-light.com/
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 8, 2008 4:37 AM
Do any of these right wing nut balls realise that the Soviet Union fought a long, bloody and ultimately fruitless war in Afghanistan _against_ Islamists?
Posted by: ChrisC | November 8, 2008 6:57 AM
There was a Rambo movie set in Afghanistan, was this covered there?
If not, I'd say probably not.
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 8, 2008 8:56 AM
So Obama wants
and
Ah. I always thought those didn't mix, with Marx being an atheist and calling religion "opium of the people". Silly me.
These people can't even keep there scare scenarios clean.
Posted by: ospalh | November 8, 2008 12:15 PM
"The United States government now falls into the hands of the enemies of this country and civilization for a time or forever. And that is part of what the war is about. The country has been in the hands of people we disagreed with, but never in the hands of people whose views are as diametrically opposed to ours as "
"They see only the boogeyman and Obama represents that on so many levels (black man/"muslim"/"foreign"/socialist/lawyer/liberal)"
I am only one of the millions of people from outside The US who watched in hope and anticipation of sanity returning to the White House, but even I know that Barack Obama is a church going Christian - or am I to believe this is part of the deceit by which he one the election? perhaps he has a tin of shoe polish that he applies every night to deceive black voters as well?
Posted by: lively lizzie | November 8, 2008 6:52 PM
Oh - and for those of you who notice these things, my apologies for the misspelling in the antepenultimate line "one" instead of "Won". Grovel, grovel!
Posted by: lively lizzie | November 8, 2008 6:54 PM
On his Facebook page, my bro-in-law changed his status to "Obama=Hitler" the day after election day. One of daughters has joined a FB group called, "America: 1776-2009." Both are in a Pentecostal church in southern Indiana.
I considered challenging them, but figured it was no use. I can bug them about in a year, when it will be clear that Obama is not an evil unAmerican Muslim fanatic and that they were full of shit.
Revenge is so sweet.
Posted by: wheatdogg | November 9, 2008 1:39 AM
... "Obama=Hitler" ...
Let's see, supposing that could even vaguely be true, what does that make Cheney? Satan, I'd guess. And Bush? Still a nothing.
Posted by: blf | November 10, 2008 8:52 AM
Wait, what? What power did Obama have to abuse thuggishly before he was elected? Guy was a junior senator whose party had moderate control over one branch of government.
These are the same people who tried to blame Obama for high oil prices before he even got nominated, let alone elected. They're completely ignoring all of the evil and incompetence of their own party, and are getting set to blame EVERYTHING that's still wrong with America on Obama, no matter what anyone actually does.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 10, 2008 9:33 AM
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! I'm done. I'm soooooo done trying to talk every crazy out of the right wing radical tree. Let them crawl up there for 4 years gnawing on Newt nuggests, hanging waaaaaaay out on Limbaugh limbs, and with any luck they'll fall out, land on their heads and either be eliminated from the gene pool or have some sense knocked into them.
These two diatribes are some of the craziest, stupidest, most radical steaming piles I've had the pleasure of reading. I do mean 'pleasure' by the way because they're so out of left field (or should I say, 'right'?) that there's nothing you can do but laugh. On the one hand, it's a little scary to think that there are people out there who really believe this and they're comingling with good, sane folk and you can't tell them apart just by looking at them. On the other hand, if all the radicals are this stupid, there's not a whole lot to worry about either. I'd be surprised if they could find their ass with both hands let alone ever accomplish anything to affect change.
Oh man. Thanks for the gut laughs.
Posted by: water_bearer | November 10, 2008 2:19 PM
The 5 stages of grief are...
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
Sounds to me like a lot of people are stuck at stage 1 ;)
Posted by: catastrophe | November 15, 2008 10:16 PM
Posted by: llewelly | November 15, 2008 11:22 PM