John Yoo dissects a very disturbing reality hiding in the closet in the Democrat party, the mysterious Super Delegates.

This election has, if nothing else, exposed the Democrat party’s structure which is potentially very undemocratic.

The Democrats’ Super Disaster

Until recent weeks, one of the least understood aspects of the Democrats’ primary contest was the role of superdelegates. These are Democratic Party insiders, members of Congress, and other officials who can cast ballots at the party’s national convention this summer.

But now these unelected delegates are coming in for a close inspection, because neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama can win their party’s nomination without superdelegate support. The big Pennsylvania primary on April 22, for example, has only 158 delegates at stake (each of them will be pledged to support one of the candidates). By comparison, there are a total of 795 superdelegates, none of whom are required to honor the will of the voters of their state at the party’s convention.

Sound undemocratic? It is. That the 2008 Democratic nominee for president will be chosen by individuals no one voted for in the primaries flew for too long under the commentariat’s radar. This from the party that litigated to “make every vote count” in the 2000 Florida recount, reviled the institution of the Electoral College for letting the loser of the national popular election win the presidency, and has called the Bush administration illegitimate ever since.

Democratic Party reforms in 1982 gave super-delegates about 20% of convention votes — so that party greybeards can stop a popular, but politically extreme, candidate from seizing the nomination. The Democrats deliberately rejiggered their party’s rules to head off insurgent candidates, like a George McGovern or a Jimmy Carter, who might be crushed in the general election. Unelected delegates thus have more than twice the votes of the richest state prize, California.

So much for unfiltered democracy. In truth, the Democratic Party runs by rules that are the epitome of the smoke-filled room and ensure, in essence, that congressional incumbents exercise a veto power over the nomination.

Photos: The counterinsurgency in Berkeley

Catherine Moy and Melanie Morgan continue to keep vigil at the Berkeley Marine recruitment center. They sent me these pictures taken earlier today of the pro-troops counterprotesters who showed up in force to fight the city’s anti-military bigotry. Members of Eagles Up, Patriot Guard riders, and Move America Forward attended.

Drop by Michelle Malkin’s site above for more encouraging pictures, and go to Move America Forward for even more ongoing information.

It is encouraging to see that the liberal siege of the Berkeley Marine Recruiting Station is not going unanswered.

 Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, A Blog For All, The Beauty Stop, 123beta, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Big Dog’s Weblog, Phastidio.net, The Amboy Times, InvestorBlogger, Cao’s Blog, Conservative Cat, ARISTO_GATTA, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, Faultline USA, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Miss Beth’s Victory Dance, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, , The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Wolf Pangloss, , Stageleft, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

More Global Warming truth that the media finds inconvenient:

Earth a little more resilient than computer models

The Australian reports a few inconvenient truths regarding global climate change that have yet to receive much attention from a media sold on global warming. Not only has the Earth cooled since its peak year in 1998, not only are oceans cooler than predicted, but new NASA data shows that the computer models that predicted runaway global warming were based on a fundamental error. Rather than having clouds and water vapor amplifying the warming effect of carbon in the atmosphere, it turns out that they compensate for it (via Memeorandum):

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: “Is the Earth stillwarming?”

She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you’d expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.”

Duffy: “Is this a matter of any controversy?”

Marohasy: “Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued … This is not what you’d expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you’d expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up … So (it’s) very unexpected, not something that’s being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it’s very significant.” …

Once again, I have computer issues making blogging a bit problematic.  I should have it resolved in a day or so.

Till then, Happy Easter and a blessed Resurrection Day.

LSU