Conservatism Today

Phoenix Area Conservatives who Need a Ride to the Polls

I will be free until 5pm on Tuesday and am willing to drive any conservative who needs a ride from their home or place of work to the polls. If the round trip is an hour and a half or less in driving time for me, I can help you out. I live in North Phoenix, within easy access of the 101, 51 and 17, and I drive fast - so I can help anyone from Chandler to Mesa to most of the areas of East Los Angeles, Arizona, ie Litchfield, etc...

To take me up on my offer, send an email to the address located on my left sidebar by Sunday night and include your phone number. If you are of a mind that you would fake conservatism to get a free ride, just know you will be subjected to Rush Limbaugh throughout the ride. If I sense your discomfort, I will drop you off and leave you there while you are in line.

Barack Obama is a Socialist

There, I finally said it. After six straight posts not mentioning that fact. If only the mainstream media would do likewise with all the evidence they have.

Oh wait, sorry, I've mentioned that Barack Obama is a socialist in six consecutive posts. Does this fact matter to anyone? Are we ready to eschew the liberties our forefathers fought for, and our current armed forces are fighting for, so easily?

If so, why? Does a short term drop in your 401K really scare you that much? Do you refuse to recognize which party was most responsible for that? This election will be decided by middle class America. Why do you so fear the capitalist system that has made this country the greatest, most prosperous country in the history of the world?

I am not overstating my position or being extreme. I may certainly be wrong. But I have sufficient reason to believe everything I do. His mentor growing up, Uncle Frank, was a communist. His mentor at his church is an America-hating, racist, socialist. His mentor in his first major job was an anti-American terrorist and called himself a communist quite recently, and always has. He ran his first campaign as a member of the quasi-socialist New Party, an arm of the Democratic Socialists of America. His kids' babysitter worked for Yassar Arafat. I could be wrong, and hope to God I am, but to me this is sufficient reason to expect that Obama will drift much farther to the left once in office than he ever has while campaigning. Another of his influences, Saul Alinsky, discussed openly the idea of infiltraiting government with a normal sounding, charismatic, wolf in sheeps clothing. I think it may be happening. Are we willing to blindly accept that a man who has never actually accomplished anything legislatively somehow learned only the "finer points" of his mentors' and friends views, but ignored the radicalism? It's possible he did, but I can't accept that risk.

I know that even if Obama wins, I will be very successful. That's because my prosperity is not dependent on government, it is dependent on my hard work and the God I love. Why don't you? I'm trying to look out for the average person here. If you submit to this horribly misguided fool, you are saying that you can't make it without government help. Are you really ready to give up on your life's potential? Then vote for Obama. If so, you will get what you deserve: you will share in scarcity, in all areas of life. Because if you vote for Obama on those terms, I already know you don't have the personal wherewithal to take control of your own life.

And for making my life a little more difficult, I offer up a big fuck you.

Either way, I will end up happier than you. And most likely more prosperous. Because I don't rely on government to empower me or make me feel good. I can't imagine the desperation of those who do.

Former Clinton Operative Dick Morris on Barack Obama's Socialist Views

Yeah, it isn't just conservatives that see the ghost of Karl Marx in the Obamessiah:

Warn voters of impending socialism in America. The recent bailout legislation puts the United States government inside the ownership, management and direction of many of our major companies and financial institutions. The bureaucrats have entered as firefighters, trying to extinguish the blazes that threaten to consume these companies. But once the flames are put out, will the firefighters go home or will they set up shop and give the United States a socialist economy akin to that of Western European nations? Will the bureaucrats relinquish the power they are being given in a time of crisis?

McCain needs to point out that bureaucrats never let go of power unless they have to. He should say that with an Obama Administration and a highly Democratic Congress, we could face a long and perhaps permanent period during which entrepreneurial, private-sector capitalism disappears and loan applicants must win government approval for their financing...

Many people have become concerned with the growing power of foreign sovereign wealth funds in major American businesses. Will these funds use their influence and power to alter the financial policies and lending practices of America's leading banks and investment houses? But now the danger comes not just from abroad but from government intervention at home. The sovereign wealth fund that might be most influential in distorting our private capitalist system is the United States Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board.

Under conservative, pro-capitalist Republican management, we can, presumably, trust these institutions to exercise their power benignly and to turn control over to the private sector as soon as possible. We can count on their taking a hands-off policy toward the investment of the banks and financial firms in which they acquire an equity position. Except to control abuses like subprime mortgages and making marginal loans, we can expect that these federal institutions will act in our interest.

But if Obama's appointments take over the Treasury and the Fed, can we be as sure? McCain needs to point out that it was political meddling by liberals that led Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to encourage subprime mortgage loans in the first place. Were it not for the pressure in the Clinton Administration to expand home ownership to poor people and minorities, Freddie and Fannie would not have relaxed their down payment policies and would not have been willing to guarantee mortgages without proof that the borrowers had sufficient income to repay the debts.

McCain needs to point out that it is precisely this sort of liberal pressure which led to the disaster and to warn that the power the bailout legislation gives the next president is so potent that it could destroy our concept of a private economy.

And don't try to tell me Morris has flipped. He's a centrist - always has been. Like most Clinton voters. Hell, my first trip to the ballot box was a close call between Clinton and Perot. I didn't realize at the time that Rush Limbaugh had a better understanding of human nature than I did. I've learned from that. As for George Herbert Walker Bush, he lost me at "read my lips, no new taxes." You lie to me on that big of an issue, you are dead to me. So that is the extent of my youthful indiscretions. I seriously considered voting Clinton and voted for a nutcase with some pie charts. That was a quality election we had there. (Sarcasm) Solid choices.

Mark Levin on Obama's Socialist Views

I have a hard time calling anyone but Wayne Gretsky "The Great One," but Mark Levin shows why he deserves the title Sean Hannity has given him:

There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.

Even the media are drawn to the allure that is Obama. Yes, the media are liberal. Even so, it is obvious that this election is different. The media are open and brazen in their attempts to influence the outcome of this election. I've never seen anything like it. Virtually all evidence of Obama's past influences and radicalism — from Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers — have been raised by non-traditional news sources. The media's role has been to ignore it as long as possible, then mention it if they must, and finally dismiss it and those who raise it in the first place. It's as if the media use the Obama campaign's talking points — its preposterous assertions that Obama didn't hear Wright from the pulpit railing about black liberation, whites, Jews, etc., that Obama had no idea Ayers was a domestic terrorist despite their close political, social, and working relationship, etc. — to protect Obama from legitimate and routine scrutiny. And because journalists have also become commentators, it is hard to miss their almost uniform admiration for Obama and excitement about an Obama presidency. So in the tank are the media for Obama that for months we've read news stories and opinion pieces insisting that if Obama is not elected president it will be due to white racism. And, of course, while experience is crucial in assessing Sarah Palin's qualifications for vice president, no such standard is applied to Obama's qualifications for president. (No longer is it acceptable to minimize the work of a community organizer.) Charles Gibson and Katie Couric sought to humiliate Palin. They would never and have never tried such an approach with Obama.

But beyond the elites and the media, my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization. Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good. The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.

Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society. And if the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will get much of what he demands.

Sigh. I'm beginning to wonder if anyone cares. But he's right. Let me know. Tell me how Levin is wrong. Tell me if you've seen people that care, that aren't already on our side. If you have, send this to them.

Obama Supporter: You Can Call Him Socialist, but Don't Associate Him With Karl Marx, the Father of Socialism

Incredible. Sure, his policies may be socialist, but comparing his ideas to Marx's is beyond the pale. Michelle Malkin does the only proper thing, laughing out loud at him.

Dolphins Owner Wayne Huizenga to Sell Team Very Quickly if Obama Wins, because Obama is a Socialist

He doesn't want to pay Barack Obama's increased capital gains tax:

Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga said Sunday no date has been set for selling up to 45 percent more of the team to Stephen Ross, but the presidential election is among the issues weighing on his decision.

That's because a Barack Obama administration is expected to mean higher capital-gains taxes.

"He wants to double the capital gains tax, or almost double it," Huizenga said. "I'd rather give it to charity than to him..."

"If you do it this year or you do it next year, the difference is humongous because of the taxes," Huizenga said.

But the Obama campaign disputed Huizenga's figures on Monday, saying the candidate's plans are to raise the capital gains tax maximum from 15 percent to 20 percent -- a 33 percent increase, not double. And the top rate would be for families earning more than $250,000 or individuals earning more than $200,000.

Yeah, no biggie. It's only about $30 million if Huizenga gets the same price as he got for selling half the organization earlier this year. Who makes business decisions over a measly extra $30 million in taxes?

I like Huizenga's apparent blow to Raiders owner Al Davis at the end of the piece:

"It's been 19 years and after 19 years, it's kind of time," he said. "I don't want to be one of those owners who gets real old and hangs in there, we know some of those stories already, I don't want to be one of those guys."

At least he made it plural. That way we have absolutely no idea of whom he is speaking.

Obama on his Socialist Administration: Don't Worry, I won't have Enough Time to turn the United States into a Crazy, Leftist Paradise

Talk about a less than reassuring refutation of his desire to further invite ocialist redistribution and race-based reparations to the United States. H/T to Ben Smith:

Well, look, I think that my main concern right now is just making a case for why we need to change the economic policies that have gotten us into such a mess over the last eight years. I want to collaborate with Democrats and Republicans in getting that done. And you know, there are a lot of Democrats who may be elected who’ve made a commitment to their constituents to be centrist, I don’t think they’re gonna want to have sudden lurches to the left.

I think what we need to do is to create a responsive enough government that we’re dealing with our heath care crisis, dealing with energy in a serious way, pushing through a more balanced tax program so that middle class families are benefitting and responsibly ending the war in Iraq. Those things are going to take up a huge amount of time, you know when we’re also trying to stabilize the financial market.

I don’t think we’re going to have time to engage in a bunch of crazy things that people, the McCain campaign specifically, has suggested we might.

His first response is that his Democrat colleagues aren't nearly as prone to lurching suddenly to the left as he would be. That's reassuring.

His second response doesn't say a damn thing about him not having a bunch of crazy, moonbat ideas. No, it's just that he won't have the time to engage in his crazy, moonbat, socialist impulses. He will only have time to do the crazy, moonbat, socialist ideas that he's already succeeded in making America comfortable with.

He will only have time to bring about socialized healthcare, punish the people who bring us our much needed oil and subsidize automobiles that run on hope, steal from the successful to subsidize the unsuccessful, and flee our responsibility in Iraq.

With a Democrat-controlled congress, all of that should take about 25 minutes. What is he gonna be doing with the rest of his time?

Is he saying he's going to be voted out in four years, and that's why he won't have enough time? Or that he's a slow mover, not very good at getting things done, and couldn't accomplish major reform in eight years?

Obama's Socialist Views are the Winning Issue in this Election

We will win with Joe the Plumber, or we will face the consequences for the next 4-6 years. There is only one issue that can guarantee victory this election. If the country finds out that Barack Obama is a socialist in the clothing of hope and change, he will be defeated. And if Barack Obama's answer to Joe the Plumber about "spreading the wealth" didn't do it, this damn well will if enough people see it. Every undecided voter needs to watch this. You need to watch it and show it to every undecided voter you know.

It's less than five minutes. But note that Obama doesn't discuss whether or not we should redistribute wealth, just how to best get around the Constitution of the United States and achieve it. For added fun: do a shot of your favorite hard liquor every time Barry advocates socialism in America. That's it, there is no next step, because you will probably pass out within minutes. But if not, get in your car and drive to the nearest ACORN office. Please, drive safely.

From 2001, Barack Obama channeling Karl Marx:

I will spend the next week hammering on everything I can about Obama's socialist beliefs. If everyone else does the same, we can still avoid the consequences of Barack Obama and a Democrat Congress. Spread the word. If we are ready to trade a few months of a difficult economy for our freedom, we aren't the country I thought we were. Unlike Barack Obama, I will never throw the American people under the bus. But if the people of this great nation fail me now, I will kick them around for the next four years, maybe step on their toes a few times, and remind them constantly how wrong they were.

Don't make me be the bad guy.

U.S. Special Forces Launch Raid in Syria Aimed at Senior Al Qaeda Leader

I'm late to the party, but the U.S. luanched a raid in Syrian territory. Here's the story:

The US military incursion into Syria was aimed at the senior leader of al Qaeda's extensive network that funnels foreign fighters, weapons, and cash from Syria into Iraq, a senior intelligence official told The Long War Journal.

US special operations hunter-killer teams entered Syria in an attempt to capture Abu Ghadiya, a senior al Qaeda leader who has been in charge of the Syrian network since 2005. US intelligence analysts identified Ghadiya as the leader of the Syrian network, The Washington Post reported in July. Ghadiya was identified as a “major target” by the US military in February 2008.

The raid to capture Ghadiya occurred in the town of Sukkariya near Abu Kamal in eastern Syria, just five miles from the Iraqi border. Four US helicopters crossed the border and two of the helicopters landed to drop off special operations forces, who then proceeded to clear structures.

All I can say is that it's about time. Especially if Barack Obama is to take over as Commander in Chief, we need to give a major smackdown to Syria before President Bush leaves. It is widely reported that Al Qaeda in Iraq receives a majority of its money and future martyrs from Syria. Here's hoping this is only the beginning, and that we got our target, Ghadiya. UPDATE: Looks like we did:

A U.S. strike on a network of foreign fighters in Syria killed its main target — an Al Qaeda coordinator who was wanted for sending foreign fighters, weapons and cash into Iraq, a U.S. official told FOX News.

Killed in Sunday's attack by Special Operations Forces was Abu Ghadiyain, Al Qaeda's senior coordinator operating in Syria who was closely associated with the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Good to know someone is watching the store while the election is going on. And our prayers, as always, going to the brave American troops putting their lives on the line for other people's freedom.

UPDATED: Asking Joe Biden the Tough Questions

This interviewer asked everything I would have asked. It's classic. As is Biden's obvious confusion at being asked pointed questions that a real media would be asking:

Think I was kidding about Biden being shocked about receiving real, probing questions?

Jake Tapper of ABC News reports the Obama-Biden campaign cancelled a scheduled interview of Jill Biden by Orlando TV reporter Barbara West due to West’s “unprofessional interview” of Senator Joe Biden that would “make Rush Limbaugh proud.”

No, they would make a real journalist proud. Unfortunately, that species seems to be endangered right now.

Free Market Community Organizing

A guest post from my friend, Richard Ridgeway:

 

I'm going to talk directly to my conservative brethren and ask that you entertain a wild idea. First, we must answer a few internal questions-- conservative rhetorical mechanics-- if you will.

 

Do you real-life conservatives agree that the antiquated,corrupt,leftist media networks of ABC, CBS and NBC are all asslicking pukes "in the tank" for not just the junior senator from Illinois, but for the entire Democrat party?

 

Do you real-life conservatives know the extent of the incompetence, propagandizing, condescending dishonesty of the so-called news and business divisions of said cabal of networks?

 

Do you real-life conservatives hope one day that just one of those old 3 networks could actually be an honest news / business service that informs Americans in truthfulness rather than liberal ideological indoctrination?

 

Well-- why don't we do something about it? Let me 'splain.

 

In just a few short years-- look at what the blogosphere on the right has accomplished. The onslaught of constant lies from the left is no longer able to be shoveled down the entire population's throat without a fight. The standard-bearers like Charles Johnson, Michelle Malkin, Brent Bozell, Don Luskin and others successfully laid the foundation that inspired a landslide of outstanding conservative/libertarian writers, bloggers and information outlets that has evolved into a force for truthful news and analysis. We add conservative talk radio as a dominant force. Fox News Channel allows the largest outlet for conservative views on Cable TV. We have made a large dent in the old media monopoly.

 

However, we know that although the "Big Three" networks have been significantly knocked down from their high Stalinist perch, their influence is still massive. So massive in fact, we know they make a huge difference in wielding public opinion. If all the American people actually knew the true agenda and ideas of the Democrat party, a democrat would NEVER win an election! What if we (America) could actually have one of those Big Three Nets as an honest news outlet that would report the news and be an honest organization?? Wishful thinking? Perhaps not.

 

Because I feel like it, I'm going to pick on CBS.CBS is a publicly traded company. The outstanding stock consists of Class A (voting)  and Class B (non-voting).

 

With a concerted organized effort, a large group of like-minded people owning stock could theoretically have a major impact on content. This is not a new idea. In fact, there are mutual funds set up with advocacy as part of their agenda. Example: See The Free Enterprise Action Fund (Ticker: FEAOX). A mission statement excerpted from their website a shareholder activist mutual fund that aggressively challenges liberal CEOs who threaten conservative and libertarian values.

 

If you think the left isn't a bit concerned about this... And not to be outdone by a "free enterprise" mutual fund, the left countered with their own "progressive" ( read doomed to fail ) advocacy fund. It WAS called "The Blue Fund" and it only invested in companies that made at least 51 percent of their political donations to Democrats. Here's the Blue Fund's status now, and I quote the epitaph:" Please note:  The Blue Fund has liquidated and all shares have been redeemed."  Funny, I couldn't find any Wiki entry for The Dead Blue Fund. Another interesting dichotomy as noted in this NRO piece is that CBS was a target company of both funds.

 

With CBS stock now at multi-year lows; a great buying/advocacy opportunity presents itself. One can only imagine what pressure a CBS would be under, imposed by a large group of demanding shareholders who has the objectives of persuaying the company to produce a profitable, responsible, honest and ethical product and holding them accountable. Or, they face the consequences of those en masse active shareholders. We also have the capability to form Investment Clubs. These clubs could centrally target a company for those precise objectives. I know damn well with the talent and entrepreneurial spirit residing within our conservative world; we have the people that could actually lead and implement an easily producible plan of action. With our network of allies and watchdogs, an Ace Flaming Skull is just a click away.

 

Hey, I don't know how to do it. I'm not a trained economist. I'm just another dumbassed, hick community organizer that fights off rattlesnakes in remote desolate properties and hawks some used autos, that has another wild-assed idea. I hate the old leftist alphabet media. I want to do something about the vermin.

 

Now, admitidly I've had crazy and dead-wrong ideas in the past. At this point, I think the idea has merit. How about it folks?  Any interest in ownership of a major media outlet, Comrades?

 

Author's correction: A reference in my post to Wikipedia eroneously linking The Free Enterprise Action Fund (a mutual fund) as being in question has been removed. The Wikipedia link was to the Free Enterprise Fund (a political action group) . The two are entirely different.

 

Thanks to Don Luskin for the correction.

New Obama Song Courtesy of the Young Communist League

Yeah, I said the Young Communist League.

Download new music from members of the Philadelphia Club of the Young Communist League! This particular song, "Will of the People" is a tribute to the movement that has developed around Barack Obama.

No shock here, of course. You may recall that the Communist Party USA has already endorsed Barack Obama.

Redistribute Obama Supporters' Wealth

This is truly classic, and I promise you that should I ever encounter a similar situation, I will do likewise. From The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid:

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on an "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn, even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

I came across this post, not at Poor and Stupid (which is one of my favorite blogs), but at Prepare To Be Offended, a new blog run by a faithful reader and commenter, "Annoyed." It's pretty new, but check it out.

Bahney Fwank: The Minute Obama Is Inaugurated, We're Gonna Rape the Taxpayers

Next time someone tells you that 95% of Americans will get tax cuts under Barack Obama, consider it your civic duty to respond with a slap upside the head. That should snap them out of it. Or just quote Barney Frank:

Frank also said the post-election stimulus package will focus on spending for building projects, extending unemployment benefits, and further supporting states' healthcare costs. "We'll have to raise taxes ultimately," Frank said. "Not now, but eventually."

Surely by "eventually" Frank must mean sometime far off, when everyone has forgotten Obama's talk of cutting taxes, right? Not so much.

Frank told the Standard-Times that if Democrats cannot secure the votes they need in November, they will try again in January, when they will likely have stronger majorities in the House and Senate.

Note that they will try to raise taxes in November. Interesting that they wait until just after the election to try that one. But he knows that President Bush will veto any tax increase, so he expects it to fail. So instead he is willing to wait all the way until January, when President Obama would take office. Hmmm. Amazing how he seems so sure that Obama will not veto any tax increase.

You know that one party has complete ownership of the hearts and minds of the media when Bahney is so willing to openly flout Obama's campaign promises.

So in summary, Fwank, already being largely responsible for the current housing crisis, plans to fix the economy by raising taxes. And he knows that his fix is just fine with Obama and his fellow Dems.

Trying to Keep this Site Family Friendly

But you've just got to see this. I've never seen ones this big before. I'll just link to the Patriot Room for the picture, as I don't want to offend anyone here:

Woman with two really big boobs

Sorry, couldn't resist. 

Obama Campaign Caucus Fraud vs Hillary

Hillbuzz has a letter from Hillary Clinton's lawyer on the Obama campaign's fraud in the Nevada Caucus. Among the charges made:

þ Preference cards were premarked for Obama. 

þ Clinton supporters were denied preference cards on the basis that none were left, while Obama supporters at the same caucus sites were given preference cards. 

þ Caucus chairs obviously supporting Obama:
o Deliberately miscounted votes to favor Senator Obama.
o Deliberately counted unregistered persons as Obama votes.
o Deliberately counted young children as Obama votes. 
o Refused to accept preference cards from Clinton supporters who were at the caucus site by noon on the ground that the cards were not filled out fast enough.
o Told Clinton supporters to leave prior to electing delegates. 

þ Clinton supporters who arrived late were turned away from the caucus, while late Obama supporters were admitted to the caucus. 

Manipulation of the Voter Registration Process 
Numerous reports received by the Committee demonstrate a concerted effort on the part of the Obama campaign and its supporters to prevent eligible voters supporting a candidate other than Senator Obama from caucusing. The Obama supporters complained of were acting in positions of authority at the caucus sites. Some of these reports are as follows: 

þ Obama supporters wrongly informed Clinton supporters that they were not allowed to participate in the caucus if their names were not on the voter rolls. However, Obama supporters whose names did not appear on the voter rolls were permitted to register at the caucus site. 

þ Obama supporters falsely informed Clinton supporters that no registration forms were available for them to register to vote at the caucus site. 

þ Obama supporters wrongly told Clinton supporters who were attempting to caucus at the wrong precinct that they could not caucus at that site, while simultaneously permitting Obama supporters at the wrong precinct to participate. 

þ Obama supporters were allowed to move to the front of the registration and sign-in line. 

Voter Suppression and Intimidation 

The Committee received a substantial number of disturbing reports from voters that they had been subject to harassment, intimidation or efforts to prevent them from voting. Some of the most egregious of these complaints are described below: 

þ Voters at at-large caucus sites were informed that those sites were for Obama supporters only. 

þ Clinton supporters at at-large caucus sites were told that their managers would be watching them while they caucused. 

þ Workers were informed that their supervisors kept lists of Clinton and Obama supporters, and were told that they could not caucus unless their name was on the list of Obama supporters. 

þ Many Clinton supporters were threatened with employment termination or other discipline if they caucused for Senator Clinton. 

þ Workers were required to sign a pledge card to support Obama if they wanted time off to participate in the caucus.
þ Workers at one casino were offered a lavish lunch and permitted to attend and register to vote only if they agree to support Obama. 

Some of these only apply to caucuses, but which of these and other tactics do you expect to see repeated in less than two weeks?

Education, Ayers, Obama, and Changing American Values

Excellent post up at PC America about the education goals of William Ayres, and by extension, Barack Obama.

Take the American values that you hold dear. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Justice. Freedom to defend yourself, your family, your community, your country. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness... among other characteristics associated with American values such as family, a strong military, small government, and the free market.

Now switch those out with Barack Obama’s globalist ideology, an ideology of big government - even a dictatorship, that encompasses all the countries of the world. With all of the walls torn down between good and evil. Envision yourself in this world, where freedom of speech and freedom of the traditional Christian and Jewish religions have become demonized and disappeared behind the shadow of “tolerance” and “multiculturalism”. Envision yourself in a world where all perversions of any other form of religion are celebrated and encouraged, a typical day in urban America looks like the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco, private business outlawed under the guise of them taking advantage of citizens, and our second amendment rights repealed.

The author notes the efforts already underway to indoctrinate college students and change their learned values:  

“ One of the main components of many of these orientations is diversity, or sensitivity training. Attendance is usually mandatory and often tax-funded. Students will watch films and participate in exercises designed to shake the values they acquired from their culture and families. Two of the most popular diversity-training films are Blue Eyed and Skin Deep.

The 90-minute Blue Eyed documents an experiment conducted by Jane Elliott, a $6,000-a-day sensitivity trainer. In it, a group of 40 people are divided into blue-eyed and brown-eyed people. The former are psychologically brutalized; the latter are psychologically empowered as a lesson in white racism.

Hugh Vasquez's Skin Deep documents a workshop on race. One section of the accompanying study guide entitled “White Privilege” declares that white privilege controls all power in society and that whites must assume their guilt... ”

Much more at the link. I have recently noticed PC America, and it looks like it has pretty good potential. Check it out.

Must-Read Column On the Death of Journalism in America

A Democrat columnist is calling out the mainstream media for its handling of the bailout, who caused the problem, etc. All I can say is:

"Wow, I can't believe this guy had the balls to write this." And:

"Doesn't matter, the media today has no interest in being objective journalists."

I would post it myself and comment more thoroughly on it, but I read it via Ace of Spades and Ace has already assigned his readers to read and respond to it. I'm writing this in the early morning, and I venture a guess that by the time I wake up he will have a couple hundred comments from his readers. So go there instead. And feel free to tell me what you think afterwards.

If you didn’t catch it, it’s one of the most scathing indictments ever written regarding media bias and where the fault lies regarding the current financial troubles. It’s written by a self-described journalist AND Democrat.

Your assignment is to read and review the linked article, then analyze and respond in the provided comment area below. (meanwhile I’ll be passed out in a drunken stupor, as usual) You’ll wet yourself reading it, but please keep those details to yourself. This is a family-friendly blog.

Go there, please. This is seriously a must-read.

Work With Me - for Free!

Maybe that isn't the best pitch ever, but oh well. I am looking for one or two people to assist in the content of Conservatism Today.

If you are conservative, a blogger or someone who has considered blogging in the past but not yet done so, and have strong views that you would like to convey to an intelligent, decent-sized audience - this could be right for you.

Your benefits will include the ability to link regularly to your own blog if you have one, an audience for your views, experience and all the training and mentoring you are ready to take on from me. If you've been wanting to blog but have not been willing to make the decision to do so full-time, this could be a good opportunity to find out if it is for you. And it will be lots of fun. There is also the potential that as this site continues to grow, I will be able to add performance rewards in the form of money.

I helped build my own blog by cross-posting stuff at a higher-traffic site (The Patriot Room) and a lower-traffic site (The New Conservatives). Both were very beneficial to all involved.

I have no requirements, except that you be willing to stick to any agreement we may make as far as your posting goes. I appreciate someone with some snark, some wit and/or some sarcasm. I would also be open to someone with a totally different voice than I have - although a general agreement on the issues is a requirement. I could go with someone prone to write lots of short, snappy pieces or I could go with someone who wants to write a few essays per week.

I need to start spending more time on my paying job (online poker pro) than I have been lately so the ability to post mornings and/or weekends would be great. Oh, and I'll throw in free poker lessons to the candidate, if he/she so desires. That's probably not a big inducement to most people reading this, but if you are interested in that it could easily be one of the more profitable decisions you ever make in your life. 

If interested, email me at conservatismtoday followed by an @ followed by gmail.com. In the email, tell me why you would like to do this and what you have to offer me. You can also include what you would expect out of me. Thanks to all in advance.

Note to my readers: I will not be decreasing the amount of content I produce personally in any way - although I would welcome the opportunity to be able to spend a little more time creating higher quality, more original content.

The Most Frightening Thing About this Halloween

The ability of these rabid Obama supporters to reach new levels of creepiness with their hero worship knows no bounds, and takes no time off for holidays.

I Can't Wait til the New York Times goes Bankrupt

And it should be any day now, judging the latest from Jammie Wearing Fool:

The New York Times Co posted a quarterly loss from continuing operations on Thursday, hurt by charges for job cuts and said it is looking for ways to reduce debt.

The company, which reported a 16 percent drop in advertising revenue at its news media group, also said it may write down the value of its New England operations by up to $150 million, underscoring the dismal state of newspaper advertising.

Its shares fell more than 10 percent on Thursday afternoon, hitting its lowest level since 1991.

Separately, Moody's Investors Service said it might cut its ratings on the Times into junk territory, citing concerns about revenue declines and risks associated with financing its debt.

That's some extra special failure there. A newspaper failing during what should be its most heavily read quarter, a presidential election? The newspaper of record? That one?

Meanwhile, here in Arizona, our own Arizona Repugnant is failing at a time when one of its senators is running for president.

I am giggling at the mere thought of the death of the mainstream media. I may not be making a windfall blogging as yet, but unlike the Times, I'm not losing money.  When I finally get my journalism degree in the mail, I think I'll send it to the Times and thank them for ruining my reputation.

A Look at Polling Bias

Wizbang has a post up that may explain the difference we repeatedly see between polls and election results, and which definitely sheds some light on the bizarre big leads many polls are showing both nationally and state-by-state:

2006 was a bad year for republicans, a year when republicans stayed home and democrats used the opportunity to win a number of close races and take over control of the House and Senate. In a number of states, therefore, it's not surprising that democratic party supporters gained a few points (usually 1 to 3 points) relative to 2004 in voter participation. So I went back and looked at voters by party affiliation, and compared those balances to this year's weighting by Survey USA. In thirty-six states, the party affiliation weights for democrats used by SUSA was five points or more higher than in 2006, a high-water mark for democrats. In twenty states, the party afiiliation weights for democrats used by SUSA was ten points or more higher than in 2006, and in eight states, the party affiliation weights used for democrats by SUSA was thirteen points or more higher than in 2006. Significant battleground states affected by this bias are as follows:

Pennsylvania: D+5 in 2006, SUSA using D+19, 15 point variance
Indiana: R+14 in 2006, SUSA using R+1, 13 point variance
Nevada: R+7 in 2006, SUSA using D+6, 13 point variance
Colorado: R+3 in 2006, SUSA using D+9, 12 point variance
Iowa: R+2 in 2006, SUSA using D+10, 12 point variance
Virginia: R+3 in 2006, SUSA using D+9, 12 point variance
Ohio: D+3 in 2006, SUSA using D+13, 10 point variance
Missouri: R+1 in 2006, SUSA using D+7, 8 point variance
North Carolina: R+1 in 2006, SUSA using D+5, 6 point variance

So in nine battleground states we are seeing major variances between the actual voter turnout during an election with a very depressed Republican electorate and this election, in which the electorate seems rather charged up. Where is the logic in that?

If it has to do with increased voter registrations favoring Democrats, you have to ask at least two questions:

1. What is the likelihood of these new registrations actually voting? Historically it is quite low, but with the dynamics of this election it could be higher than usual.

2. They are completely ignoring the tens of thousands of people in many of these states who were employing "Operation Chaos" during the primaries and switching their registration to vote for Hillary Clinton in order to keep her alive in the race. Why is this? The news of the large amounts of these Rush Limbaugh voters was certainly widely reported.

Additionally, as has been pointed out before, national polls focus largely on urban areas, which tend to be much more liberal-oriented. Even if they get the party percentages close, they are much more likely to attract "strong democrats" and "weak republicans." 

I'm so sick of polls.  

Democrats Want to Take Away Your 401K

This isn't the fake, false, fearmongering claims offered up by the Obama campaign about how Republicans, and especially John McCain, want to take away Medicare. This actually is happening. From Sharon at Commonsense Political Thought. Actually - she's quoting Ed Morrissey's story at Hot Air.

A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal…

Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.

The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.

Sharon asks:

Why would Democrats want to gut the best retirement savings vehicle Americans have? Two reasons: (a) more government control for them and (b) more money for them to spend on things we don’t need.

Remember the “Social Security lockbox”? The one that doesn’t exist because we use the money to hide the size of the deficit? Now imagine that there are two lockboxes…both available for government pilfering and both without you being able to control your money. For 600 bucks.

Are we beginning to see what Democrat control of the presidency and congress would look like?

UPDATE: Lying, Attention Seeking Psycho Fakes Own Assault and Blames it on a Random Black Man

UPDATE: It appears as if my first instinct that this didn't seem real was the correct one.

Lying, Attention Seeking, Psycho Bitch Fakes Own Assault, Face Carving, and Blames it on a Random Black Man.

More proof that we should never have extended the franchise to the 18-20 year-old crowd. You aren't helping, Ashley Todd. I can only hope we later learn that this is an Obama staffer pretending to be a McCain supporter. There is plenty of real violence going on surrounding this election. What a tangled web we weave... 

Great analysis on this from Drew at Ace of Spades:

90% of all calamities occur when morons get it in their heads to be clever.

I gotta tell ya, I've never done a political hoax myself but I have to think I'd be a little bit smarter about it than this Krazy Kretinous Kow.

Like, for one thing? I think I'd've been smart enough to get the ATM to take my picture shortly before my "attack."

Check me out, master criminal, thinking of things like that.

It's not just that she's corrupt and crazy. I mean -- obviously.

It's also that she's not even minimally competent at it.

The Republican Party is supposed to be Evil. Not "incompetent."

I assure you, Ashley, there is a difference...

Now excuse me, I have to run. A pack of menacing black men just broke into my apartment and they're arson-ing all furniture and food whose names begin with "M" or "P."

And I say possible, because it sounds a little over-the-top to be true. But a Pittsburgh news channel is reporting it as if it is:

Richard said the robber took $60 from the woman, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim's car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter "B" into her face, Richard said.

Richard said the woman refused medical treatment after the assault, which happened outside the view of the bank's surveillance cameras.

The robber is described as a dark-skinned black man, 6 feet 4 inches tall, 200 pounds with a medium build, short black hair and brown eyes. The man was wearing dark colored jeans, a black undershirt and black shoes.

The "B" being scratched into her face, and the fact that the woman refused medical treatment, seems a little bit suspicious. So does the description of the almost typical black suspect. Any opinion on whether this is real or not?

If so, this is at least the second such case in the last week. This one has been confirmed, and is disturbing enough.

Democrat Strategerist Kirsten Powers on Media's "Blatant Bias"

I give Kirsten Powers a great deal of props for remaining fair in her coverage throughout this election, despite the fact that she is a Democrat strategist. First she points out Joe Biden's talk of an impending doom in the first six months of Obama's administration and the media's lack of coverage. From the NY Post:

But no one imagined even in a worse-case scenario such a spectacular bomb as telling donors Sunday to "gird your loins" because a young president Obama will be tested by an international crisis just like young President John Kennedy was.

Scary? You betcha! But somehow, not front-page news.

Again the media showed their incredible bias by giving scattered coverage of Biden's statements...

So what gives?

The stock answer is: "It's just Biden being Biden." We all know how smart he is about foreign policy, so it's not the same as when Sarah Palin says something that seems off.

Yet, when Biden asserted incorrectly in the vice-presidential debate that the United States "drove Hezbollah out of Lebanon," nobody in the US media shrieked. (It was, however, covered with derision in the Middle East.) Or when he confused his history by claiming FDR calmed the nation during the Depression by going on TV, the press didn't take it as evidence that he's clueless.

And Biden is the foreign-policy gravitas on the Democratic ticket, so his comments are actually even more disconcerting.

As Sarah Palin noted, the media would've killed her if she ever said anything so blatantly stupid as the drivel that regularly leaks from Biden's lips.

The outakes of his Sunday remarks don't begin to capture the magnitude of what he said. After warning the crowd that there would be some sort of international incident - Biden could think of four or five scenarios - he told the donors: "We're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

What does that mean? Obama's election would provoke an international incident because of his inexperience and even Obama's biggest supporters won't be reassured by his response?

Then there were Biden's predictions on the economy: "I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? . . . Why is this thing so tough? . . . I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point, because you're going to have to reinforce us.

"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision.' "

Biden is teling us that, at a time when Americans need to feel confidence in their government, they will be going "Oh my God." Not a great message.

Needless to say, if Sarah Palin said this about a McCain administration, the media world would be exploding.

Powers notes that the fact that everyone knows this last line to be true is hurting the media's tarnished brand. And that the real bias is that Republicans are dumb:

Part of the problem is their "Obama love," but we're also seeing the media elite's belief - prejudice - that anyone with an R behind their name is dumb. So, if they say something dumb, they must be dumb. A Democrat, like Biden, can make wildly inaccurate or outrageous comments and they are ignored because the TV and press insiders feel they "know who he really is."

On the stump recently, Sen. Biden declared he had "three words" for what the nation needs: "J-O-B-S."

Lucky for him, his name isn't Dan Quayle, or that would have followed him for the rest of his career.

These points are all clearly true. When lifelong democrats have to warn the media that it is in danger of going off the cliff, the truth is that it already has.