Majority of Allegheny prostitutes Vote Democratic

From the Pittsburgh Tribune Times comes this story:

They're convicted streetwalkers, escorts and brothel babes collared in 2000 and from 2003-2006, uncovered by the Trib. Based on the prostitutes' voter registration cards, they're destined to become Obama girls in November. That's because 78 percent of them registered as Democrats. The Illinois senator also has the advantage with local "johns" -- 72 percent go Democratic. And convicted pimps: Four out of every five register Democratic.

I'm telling you- Obama is assembling a wide ranging coalition of voters, including terrorists, pimps, prostitutes, America-hating professors, and foreigners. That's a winning formula apparently in America!

Liberal Judge rules homeless voters may list air as addresses to get ballots

Okay, so I edited the title of the blog somewhat from the real event, but seriously, how can a judge determine that someone who is homeless in fact is a registered voter? The definition of homeless is someone who has no home, right? Or maybe I'm missing something- the definition of homelss may mean a Democrat who has no current address in that location, but should be given a ballot anyways. Here is the actual ruling, from this source:

A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren't buildings as their addresses.

The judge's name is U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus. A quick search of him revealed that he was a judge that allowed recounts to be conducted in the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio (even though recounts were not called for by law), made a ruling that forced NCAA basketball teams to let anyone play in their tournaments, required a Columbus-based company to reduce chemical emissions that he said caused acid rain, he also ruled against a utility company in a federal Clean Air Act case, and in the late 90's made a ruling that cities could prevent religious people from going door-to-door.

The Cost of Obama's Infomercial

Okay, so to be honest, I didn't watch the infomercial last night. But I read all about it and heard about it, and my post is actually going to not even be about what was said in it- I want to talk about how much it cost to put this thing together, and if any campaign finance laws were broken.

There are estimates that he spent somewhere around 4 million dollars for this infomercial... but how is that number arrived at? At NBC, he will pay $891,250 for the privilege, and at CBS he will spend $961,000. His program also aired on FOX, BET, Univision, MSNBC and TV One. I'm guessing he charged similar prices for those venues. That's the 4 million "cost."

But like any good liberal production, that's not the end of the story. First off, does it really only cost 4 million to get 30 minutes of prime-time coverage on TV? Consider this- NBC will charge advertisers $3 million per 30 seconds during the Super Bowl next year. Obama will only bring in 1/3 the audience of the Super Bowl, to be fair, so let's say it only costs him $1 million for 30 seconds of ad time. Feel free to double check my math, but that is about $60 million dollars (30 minutes X 60 second / 30 seconds). Let's say there is a discount for bulk ad buys like this- we'll give him 1/3 discount. That's $20 million dollars for NBC alone, not $900K. Huh. Must be something going on here.

Turns out there is. Under federal law, television networks charge political campaigns a different rate called "lowest unit cost"- which I'm honestly struggling to find information on. What I could come up with though is that I think there are two components to the "lowest unit cost" deal. The first is that they are not charging for 30 minutes as if it were 60 30 second commercials, but rather as if it were however many 30 second commercials normally are allotted for 30 minutes of prime time (16 per 30 minute show?) The second component is the commercial time which is being billed has to be at the lowest unit cost: what the highest volume year-round advertisers would be charged. Or, put a different way by this site "The lowest unit charge is the rate the station charges its most favored commercial advertiser for the same class and amount of time during the same time period or program."

Interestingly enough on this website is this blurb:

Political File.
Stations must keep a file containing records of all requests for broadcast time made by or for a candidate for public office. The file must identify how the station responded to such requests and (if the request was granted) the charges made, a schedule of the time purchased, the times the spots actually aired, the rates charged, and the classes of time purchased. The file must also reflect any free time provided to a candidate. The station must keep the political records for two years after the spot airs. You can find the political broadcasting rules elsewhere in this manual.

If you're a lawyer reading this blog right now, please email me on how we can do a freedom of information request on these ad buys, and find out the details on all of them, and then evaluate whether they complied with campaign finance laws.

Another important point to make- the "cost" of the ad is the cost of the spot buy on these networks, and does not include the cost to produce the film, which apparently was very slick. How much did that cost?

It apparently was filmed by Davis Guggenheim. As a renowned filmmaker, how much did he charge for his services? Or were they donated? Is that covered under campaign finance laws? Guggenheim has done a lot of work for Democrats over the years- His credits as a producer and director include Training Day, ER, Deadwood, and Party of Five. He directed and produced An Inconvenient Truth, which won an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature. He also directed Obama's biographical film, which aired during the Democratic Convention.

How much did the set cost? Apparently there was a copy of the Oval Office, and other fancy sets- what was the price tag for those?

I don't have a lot of these answers, but that "$4 million" price tag probably underestimates considerably the cost of this infomercial.

My Favorite Youtube Clips

In this one, listen to Obama apologize for being late to Senate hearings... over and over again as he is late over and over again... I guess it's better than voting present...

As I tell my students, pay attention to the last line in this clip- it's the full clip from the meeting of Obama and Joe the Plumber where Obama lets slip his guard and states his idea that spreading the wealth around is good for all....

In this one, Joe Biden tells a guy in wheelchair to stand up and be recognized... poor Joe, so unaware of what he is saying...

Don't know if you ever caught this, but according to Joe Biden, you can't go into a 7-11 without an Indian accent... some may find that offensive...

Here is a cute clip of our next Attorny General, the great John Edwards, man of the people, servent of the poor, representative of the common man, and endorsed by the labor unions and toughest of guys... combing his hair for several minutes to music....

Ahh, John Kerry, you could have been President if you'd just kept your foot from flying in your mouth- here is the flip-flop and here is him calling our troops in Iraq stupid.

And other good ones- the Howard Dean scream, Hillary Clinton adopting a southern accent when she talks to black voters in the south, Republican George Allen's macaca moment, John McCain singing bomb bomb Iran- all of these are good examples of what I call this youtube election.

Oh, last one- check out this funny one- it is a banned commercial in the US, but is Bill Clinton as a voodoo doll.

Parent protests assigned book

Today in the Detroit News there was an interesting article. Here is some of it:

(A Clawson mother) refuses to allow her 13-year-old daughter to read an assigned book she considers pornographic. She is even considering pulling the girl out of Clawson Middle School if she cannot reach an agreement with the district.

Her daughter was assigned to read "My Sister's Keeper" by New York Times bestselling author Jodi Picoult, in an eighth-grade girls literature class.

It is a novel, available in the adult fiction section of libraries, about a young girl who sues her parents for the right to make her own decisions about how her body is used when a kidney transplant is planned to potentially save her older sister. The book includes some descriptions of sexual activity.

Reading the Amazon.com reviews, I gathered several impressions. First, this book is about female empowerment, and many reviewers said that girls would particularly like it. Several times it was mentioned that this book would be great for a Lifetime movie- that's programming for women. This doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad book to read, just because it is targeted for girls and female empowerment- but it does mean that it should likely be balanced out with a male-targeted book about war or fishing or hunting or something, that teaches values about being a strong male. I highly doubt the district balances this book in its curriculum.

The other thing I gather about this book is that there are several graphic scenes depicting underage sex. The mother objects to having her child read these as part of a state-endorsed curriculum for 8th graders, and who could blame her. The question you have to ask yourself is do you really know what you son/daughter is reading in school right now? Do you know if there are sexual situations presented, and if so, how are they handled? Gone is the days of reading Shakespeare, Beowulf, or Greek playwrights- in today's educational environment, students read contemporary novels depicting underage sex, and that's education.

Lastly, after reading the reviews, I walk away unimpressed with this particular book. Most reviewers commented that out of all of this authors books, this one was one of the less good ones- that the characters weren't fully developed, the ending was bad, etc. It leads me to question why this particular book was chosen to be required reading in this district. If it was the author and her style, there are other better books by this author. If it was the topic, I would question why an English class is focused on this particular topic. If was just a general 'controversial' book, there are other, better, more famous examples out there. Why was this book chosen?

These are relevant questions to ask, because they deal with key issues in public education- who is choosing the curriculum and why are they choosing that curriculum to teach all students using public tax money? Now, as a teacher, I can tell you why- one of the teachers liked the book and liked the message in the book, and wants her students to read it so she can talk about it with them and have them learn the message of the book. In a world of self-constructed knowledge and collective ignorance, Clawson school district fits in by rejecting the notion that students should read the classics and become educated in the great works of our age- instead, Clawson has bought into the here and now notion of radical revolutionary change by smashing the past and rising up a new world, one in which children are liberated by having a lawyer at age 13 and sex at age 14.

To be fair, the district did make accommodations for the student that objected, putting her a a windowless room away from other students and having her read a 5th grade level book, or as Clawson Schools Superintendent Cheryl Rogers said:

this is the first time in the past two years that a book has been challenged. She said the student was given an alternative book and allowed to read in a quiet place where she would not hear discussions about "My Sister's Keeper."

Contact Clawson Public Schools at 248-655-4400 or email Clawson Superintendent Cheryl Rogers at crogers@clawson.k12.mi.us to let her know your thoughts about this issue.

UPDATE: Anyone who called or emailed- thank you. Your actions directly made the world a better place. In late December, Clawson pulled the book from the curriculum, agreeing that it was too racy to read. Victory!

McCain shouldn't be running from Bush

If McCain loses this election, it is his fault. I was watching another one of his recent campaign commercials (see my earlier blog on this here), and it pissed me off. In this commercial, McCain launches into an attack on Bush, claiming that under Bush our country has gotten worse, and he goes into detail on how he isn't Bush.

It's nice that McCain thinks that Bush is the root of all evil in this world- but isn't that the Democrat line? Why is McCain parroting ideas and policies that have led the Democrats in Congress to an approval rating of 16%, and running as far as possible from approval ratings of 26%? Now, I know 26% isn't great, but it is higher than 16, right? Check out the approval ratings yourself- wouldn't you follow the ideas of the more popular party out there?

Why is McCain fleeing as fast as possible from being associated from a two-term President? No offense to McCain, but Bush was able to defeat two opponents, both of who admittedly weren't top-level, but I consider them higher quality than Obama.

On the radio today, they were talking about messages that work and ideas that seem to be working for McCain. Everything that is working for him is Bush ideas, Bush policies, Bush thoughts. Being tough on defense, being solid on the War on Terror, cutting taxes for everyone, reforming education, expanding energy production, etc- those are the winning messages of this campaign. McCain's ideas- fighting earmarks, believing in global warming, tax breaks for poor people- these ideas gain no traction, and if you like them, there is a real communist out there promoting these anyways to vote for.

Joe the Plumber being Investigated by Ohio Authorities for Asking the Wrong Questions

Via Dirty Harry's Place comes this little note about the misuse of government power for the purposes of harming anyone who speaks a conservative voice- Joe the Plumber has been illegally investigated by Ohio authorities:

Ohio’s inspector general is investigating why a state agency director approved checking the state child-support computer system for information on “Joe the Plumber.” Helen Jones-Kelly, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, confirmed today that she OK’d the check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher following the Oct. 15 presidential debate.

She denies that there were political reasons for the check on the sudden presidential campaign fixture though the Support Enforcement Tracking System, and Democrat Gov. Ted Strickland is satisfied with that explanation.

The use of a state computer system to search for information on Wurzelbacher is the fourth uncovered by The Dispatch.

This is what happens when you ask the wrong questions in this country. And Helen Jones-Kelly? She is both appointed by a Democrat and a maxed out Obama donor. Interesting. I guess the ACLU and other civil liberties groups would have been outraged if Joe the Plumber were a foreign terrorist plotting to destroy America- then they would have called for an investigation into this abuse of power. But since he is just a regular American who recognizes that Obama's tax plan would hurt him, I guess he has no rights.

The Four Boxes Used to Defend Liberty- Soap, Ballot, Jury, and Ammo.

In spite of the depressing line of my latest posts, I don't want to convey the impression that now is the time to give up. In fact, now is the time to keep fighting harder- after all, there are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo.

I'm on my soap box right now, getting the good word out- you can too, especially if you link to my blog. Next week is your chance to use the ballot box, and hopefully you make the correct choice there. After that, you can always hope that a jury of your peers will defend you when they come for you in your home and try to take away your property and liberty. And if that doesn't work, gun sales are actually up 8 to 10% this year, and it doesn't take a genius to know why.

And even though a democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

The Good and Bad of Obama

The good news is that if we can trust Obama to keep his word, no one making under $250,000 will have their taxes raised, period. That is what Obama said today, re-iterating his speech from the convention. Anyone making under 250K will not get any tax increases, period, according to Obama- not in any way, shape, or form. That's a good thing.

Now, he is a lawyer by training, so maybe there is something in that statement I am not understanding- maybe the definition of the word "period" means to him "just kidding, you will get your taxes raised." Also, Obama is not really a man of his word- compare his campaign statements to his record, and look at his long history of going back on campaign promises, starting with his declaration to abide by public campaign finance laws. Also, Obama does have a history of association with some shady people- that kind of stuff does wear off on people, so Obama might go back on that promise. But if he keeps it, it is a good thing.

The bad thing is that he is openly preaching wealth redistribution and socialism. He is openly saying that anyone who makes over $250,000 will have their taxes raised. Why? Because they have money, and he wants it. Because he thinks they make too much money, and others not enough. Because he can. The ideas that he is preaching run counter to everything our country is founded on- a belief in hard work, private property, and limited government. Although anyone making under $250K are will be spared by Senator Government, he has decided in his infinite wisdom that anyone who is successful enough to make over the magic number of $250K deserves to have their earnings confiscated, and he makes no attempt to hide it.

All democracies fail once the poor decide they can vote away the money of the rich. America had a good run- I think it is nearing the end though.

Obama Victory or Not, Women Are Big Losers of this Election

Today in one of my classes a student came up to me and told me that he had seen "the coolest shirt" at the latest Obama rally that he went to. He wanted to know how he could go about getting the shirt, because he wanted to fit in with other people at this rally. What did the shirt say? My student said that the shirt that people were wearing at the Obama rally say "Sarah Palin is a Dumb MILF."

Now, before I explain why I get upset when I hear stuff like this, read this post from Right Wing Nation:

I cannot predict who will win the presidential campaign, but I already know who will lose big: all women. I realized this when I saw a 20-something male student who attends a class in the community college where I teach, wearing a T-shirt that read, “Sarah Palin is a C-.” He wore it in public, in broad daylight, and without shame or even consciousness of what he was doing.

This student of mine had an ugly laugh as he bragged about fitting in with other Obama supporters who view Sarah Palin as unintelligent and suggest improper and vulgar things about her (I'm not explaining what a MILF is here). But I got the distinct impression that he thought it was okay to put women in their 'place' and that at Obama rally's, it was good to disrespect someone like Palin in that manner. I got the impression that once Obama is elected President, there will be a decided lack of respect for mothers, wives, and intelligent or attractive women in this country. Women will suffer a real loss, and that's sad.

Obama's Judicial Philosophy

Via the Volokh Conspiracy, there is this note from Stephen Henderson, Deputy Editorial Page Editor of the Detroit Free Press, who wrote in to note that Barack Obama gave a fairly detailed answer a few weeks ago to the Free Press editorial team on the question of what kind of Supreme Court Justice he would want to appoint. Here is the passage I want to focus on:

...the roles of the courts is to protect people who don't have a voice. That's the special role of that institution. The vulnerable, the minority, the outcast, the person with the unpopular idea, the journalist who is shaking things up. That's inherently the role of the court...

So, in Barry's opinion, and mind you, this is the opinion of a trained constitutional scholar (in his words) and possible future President of the United States, the inherent role of the court in our political system is not to be above the law, not to be fair and honest, not to rule based on the Constitution and the law, and not to blindly protect the justice of the United States- no, Barry thinks the role of the court is to protect minorities, unpopular people (liberals), poor people, and journalists. I may lack a degree from an Ivy League school, but I disagree with that statement and feel he is wrong.

Constitution Again Disregarded with Utter Disdain

Via the Vox Popoli blog comes this story, from this source:

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.... Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."

First off, personally I find the statement "its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters" to be a little vague- couldn't the judge just outright state that it doesn't matter if Obama doesn't met the Constitutional qualifications to be President- he is a citizen of the world, and that's all that matters.

Second, why didn't the judge just say that Obama is qualified? How come he had to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that an American citizen who is registered to vote doesn't have standing to call a candidate's eligibility into question? That's an odd response. Makes me suspect that maybe there is some truth to that rumor that Obama can't produce a birth certificate proving he is natural born.

This is kind of pissing me off- I don't like to be all paranoid and believing in conspiracy theories, and have laughed off the 'no birth certificate' one in the past- but then you get a ruling like this? Wow. Make your own inferences on it.

Don't Tax Me for Working Hard

The Change was for the Worse for the Wolverines and Lions

Several months ago I wrote about how sometimes when people want change, it isn't for the better. Especially when the change that these people are preaching is the kind of change that we know is not solid and isn't based on time-tested ideals. Being a resident of the state of Michigan, I've seen many people come in and preach change at me, only to see the things in our state change to the worse. Well, in my post two months ago, I predicted that the change that several teams in our state were preaching would be bad, and I was wrong- it was worse than bad.

The University of Michigan football team has for years had solid teams, with a steady and solid philosophy of hard work and solid results. In many ways, it was like an economy that hummed along with low unemployment and steady growth. But people wanted more- they wanted change. So they took the biggest gamble in UofM history and hired Rich Rod. I thought it was a bad hire- I thought he'd turn a 9-3 team into a 7-5 team. I was wrong. Michigan will be lucky now to go 5-7. That's the change that a liberal university like UofM can believe in.

The Detroit Lions during the 90's had solid teams- not awful teams, but every other year they were in the playoffs. But, Ford Senior got tired of this, cleaned house, and hired a flashy new inexerienced GM who talked a great game and looked different than all other GM's. Every year, the Lions got worse, and every year, it was blamed on George Bush- opps, I mean it was blamed on the players. Every year Matt Millon preached change and hope and bipartisanship and higher taxes on the rich guy, and every year, the Lions got worse, until 8 years later, he was fired. At the start of the year, contrary to many people who picked them as a playoff team, running the team that Millon put together, I thought the Lions would be bad- I called 5-11 in my post here- but again I was wrong- it was worse. They'll be lucky to go 2-13 this year. That's the change that America can expect if it takes a flyer on an inexperienced fast talking change guy like Obama.

Every McCain Sign in My Neighborhood Was Stolen Last Night

The title of the post says it all- when we woke up this morning, every McCain sign in the neighborhood had been removed. Neither of my dogs had heard it, and it must have been done very late at night. Authorities were contacted, but have no suspects, although some of the signs were replaced by an Obama sign, so it was probably a giant right-wing conspiracy to frame the black man, and now anyone making over 250K needs to pay more in taxes. I'm just glad that my Ford truck was not also taken- but once the respect for property rights is totally eroded in this country, it probably will be someday.

Buying the American Presidency One Criminal Act at a Time

Barack Obama has created the biggest money-machine of any politician in American history- that's how he has been able to raise so much money. But it is becoming increasingly evident that Obama's money-machine is largely fraudulent and therefore criminal. His campaign has made conscious decisions to accept online contributions in a way that no business or legitimate enterprise would do so- the only group that I can imagine taking money from anyone without asking any questions at all about the money is the mob. What we have here is a concentrated effort to buy the American Presidency, by violating every law in American politics regarding campaign finance. Obama is accepting more than the limit for campaign finances, accepting money from criminals, accepting money from foreigners, and accepting money from fictional TV characters, all with a smile on his face. This should be news.

It is news here and here and here. Check it out.

Sarah Palin Supersizes Fries

Apparently there is some major situation going on about Sarah Palin saying that if McCain was elected than there would be a major crisis and he would handle it poorly- opps, scratch that, it wasn't that, that was Biden about Obama- for her, it was something about her buying clothes. The media is now all over this scandal- here is another story they found... the full story of this breaking news event can be found here.

Sarah Palin Supersizes Fries
...Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has come under fire in recent days after it was revealed that earlier this year, a drive-through meal purchased by the Alaskan Governor contained more than the usual number of french fries...

Next on SNL: Michelle Obama Mocked

My sources have told me that on the next Saturday Night Live (SNL), they will mock Michelle Obama. For the last couple months, every SNL show has had an enjoyable impersonation of Governor Sarah Palin by Tina Fey, where the joke is that Sarah Palin is dumb. Tiny Fey uses an exaggerated accent combined with her likeness of the candidate to imply that Palin isn't intelligent because of her time in beauty contests and living in Alaska. In the spirit of fairness and justice and equality, SNL has decided to now impersonate Michelle Obama.

SNL will make fun of Michelle Obama's past statements about how she thinks Americans are bitter and mean and about how she isn't proud of America by hiring a stereotypical militant black women, speaking in an exaggerated black accent, and then talking about gangs, drugs, and communism. This SNL parody will capture the essence of Michelle Obama by projecting stereotypes of militant inner city black women to the American public, and mocking her over and over for the next several weeks in this manner.

The liberals have been laughing with joy at the exaggerated stereotypical version of Palin being a dumb women from a hick state, so it is anticipated that they will also laugh with joy at the exaggerated stereotypical version of Obama being a militant black women engaged in crime and drugs.

Conservatives, having no sense of humor, are expected to protest and boycott this upcoming SNL sketch, claiming that it is racist and encourages hate and stereotypes. They'll still watch though, being the hypocrites that they are.

For more information, check out this website on upcoming show times, or click here to see the first time I heard about Michelle Obama being on SNL.

Operation Grand Slam

Here is an excellent post from Belmont Club, with some edits:

Intensity of commitment has long been a decisive component of historical military strategy. It is possible to defeat a superior enemy if you can ‘outcommit’ him: take things to a level where he is afraid to follow. Napoleon did not anticipate that the Russians would burn Moscow rather than let him have it. Napoleon was defeated. Late in the Second World War the Japanese adopted the method of suicide attack, which became famous as the kamikaze (the Japanese still lost, but only because the US was many times more powerful and had the Atomic Bomb to boot). If the match were nearly equal things would have been much harder. Clausewitz observed that war is an act of force to compel the enemy to do its opponent’s will. In that equation, it is not just the quality of the force, but the quality of the will that matters. In politics, to a lesser extent, things are much the same.

If conservatives now realize that their political enemies are not simply out to win an election cycle but to effectively destroy them, the only surprising thing is that they were surprised.

Civility in political life can only be sustained when everyone owes their basic allegiance to the larger nation and subordinates their partisan identity to it. Whether that cornerstone still stands or has been replaced by other and more fundamental loyalties — to ideology, race or class — is something to be discovered. While there may be some doubt about what Barack Obama’s intentions may be, should he win the Presidency, there’s little doubt that for people like Ayers, Dohrn, Wright and Farrakhan, a victory in 2008 won’t be seen as “their turn”, but as their Destiny.

PowerLine's Powerful Postings

Powerlineblog today had several outstanding posts that are worth checking out.

The first one that I want to point out is an update on Obama's associations with the New Party, which was a socialist third party popular in Chicago in the 90's. Apparently there is more evidence that Obama was indeed a card-carrying socialist (to be fair, I don't know if he carried his socialist party membership card around in his pocket). I wrote about this here.

The next post I want to point to is a report on the attitude of Obama's campaign towards illegal campaign contributions. Apparently, on Obama's website, it is very easy to submit information that is false and give money to Obama, in clear violation of campaign finance laws- as long as you give Obama money, he is willing to overlook that you are not who you say you are. For comparison, McCain's website does not accept campaign donations from false or fictional people. Now, I know that McCain's campaign probably has accepted illegal contributions- every campaign has, both Republicans and Democrats, throughout our history. What is shocking is the openness of Obama's campaign, and the extent of it. We're looking at an increasingly orchestrated effort to buy and steal an election. I posted my thoughts on this before here and here.

Next, here is information from a Pew Research study finds that of 2,412 stories on John McCain that appeared in newspapers and cable news channels between the Republican convention and the last Presidential debate, only 14 percent were positive, while 60 percent were negative. That was the worst ratio of any of the four national-ticket candidates. Wow. Good thing you are reading my blog- my ratio is much more fair and balanced!

Here is another good post. One area of the media that is not fair and balanced is the View. This popular show is increasingly hostile to most Americans, pushing liberal and left-wing viewpoints. I wonder how it is doing in ratings? Anyways, apparently yesterday Rush Limbaugh was described on the View as a "terrorist." A terrorist. A radio-show host, using his power of free speech to voice another viewpoint shared by a large number of people in our country. And he is called a terrorist. The good thing is that liberals believe terrorists should never been punished. And all Rush has to do is blow up a couple buildings and kill some people and he will be upgraded from 'terrorist' to 'education reformer.'

Lastly, one person who will not be intimidated is Governor Sarah Palin. This great patriot is filling in the blanks of Joe Biden's recent speech. If you haven't heard, on Sunday of this week Joe Biden issued warning to Democratic fundraisers- he said that within six months of his inauguration, new President Barack Obama will face an "international crisis" brought on by our enemies to "test [his] mettle." Biden said he could foresee "four or five scenarios" for such a crisis. Biden then went on to forecast that Obama's response to such a crisis will seem wrong to most Americans, so donors were encouraged to stay tough and see it through. That's right boys and girls, if you elect Obama President, you are inviting an international crisis that will be handled badly. Biden didn't specify what "four or five [crisis] scenarios" he had in mind and no reporter went any further into these statements, and mainstream coverage of this has been non-existent. But, the Governor of Alaska filled in the blanks. Watch it here.

Obama's Campaign Commercials Are Closer to Gore or Carter than Clinton or JFK

In my friends classes, they learn about the effect that the mass media has on elections. One major aspect of the media that relates to presidential campaigns in particular are campaign commercials. To explore campaign commercials they use a website called Living Room Candidate.

Living Room Candidate has compiled all of the campaign commercials from every election from 1952 to today. It organized them by type (children, fear, biography, backfire, etc), by issue, and by year- the year is the year of the Presidential election. Each commercial has a name, and you can see the name when you move your cursor over the particular commercials. Each one is about 30 seconds to a minute, and loads after 10-15 seconds of clicking on it. In my class, we go through some of the more famous commercials, and analyze what makes good ones, what makes them effective, and the role that they played in the election.

Why am I telling you this? Well, there has been a lot of talk on radio channels and in articles about how Barack Obama is like Clinton. Or JFK. I think there is a little revisionist history going on here. For a trip down memory lane, watch Clinton's 1992 commercials- it was in these commercials that he established what kind of a candidate he was. Watch "Leaders 2," "Second," and "We Can Do It." In these commercials, Clinton brags about cutting taxes, making government more efficient, cutting welfare, and being tough on crime. Now, he might not have done these things as President, but the image he projected was none-the-less one of being a tax cutting moderate Democrat.

Or watch JFK's commercials from 1960- in them, he talks about how America is great, but he can make it greater- how America is strong, but how he can make it stronger, and about how America is a productive country, but he can help it produce more.

Obama is not Clinton or JFK. Obama talks about raising taxes, expanding government, increasing welfare, and being nicer to terrorists. He talks about how America is worse than it used to be, is no longer great, and in general how it is a bad country. In these respects, he sounds more more Gore and Carter.

Watch Gore's 2000 commercials. He ran on a platform of helping various victims of our system- the environment ("Matters"), healthcare ("Ian"), or education ("Accountability"). Gore opposed tax cuts ("down"). Or watch Carter's 1976 commercials- in "South" he talks about how workers have been cheated by government, and in "Reality" he talks about how America in reality sucks. These messages are closer to Obama's message.

What does this ultimately mean? What it means is that we can reasonably expect that an Obama Presidency will look closer to a Carter Presidency than a Clinton Presidency. The question you have to ask yourself and your fellow citizens is why would they want to return to the years of Carter- years when we were tested overseas and found wanting (which Biden already says will happen), years when our economy crashed (as it is doing now on anticipation of an Obama Presidency), and years when there were horrible energy shortages (Obama opposes almost all real energy creation in favor of unproven dreams).

For a happy skip down memory lane, watch some of these ads- 2008 McCain ads "Service to America" and "Original Mavericks," 2004 Bush ad "Whatever it Takes," 2000 Bush ads "Successful Leader" and "Priorities," 1988 H.W. Bush ad "Family/Children," or 1984 Reagan ads "Prouder, Stronger, Better" or "Peace." These messages are the messages that echo in good Americans hearts, and it is my hope that McCain will echo them as well in the final days of this race and somehow pull out a victory.

Obama's Troubling Connection to Odinga

Over at the Corner at National Review Online, Andy McCarthy writes an interesting piece commenting on Obama's surprising connection with Kenyan strongman Raila Odinga. Mark Levin also wrote about this (link here), and McCarthy draws heavily on a post from Mark Hyman of the Washington Times (link here).

The connection is very troubling between these two people. Once again, Obama has a connection to an anti-American thug willing to do violence, much like Ayers. Obama again has questions raised about his views on religion, as he supported for President in Kenya a Muslim whose followers slaughtered many Christians. Again, Obama has questions raised about his 'citizen of the world status'- why would he support the enemy of a government friendly to the US? Again we see Obama willing to associate himself willingly with socialists. And again Obama connects himself to someone pushing policies of division.

Here is how Odinga is linked to Obama:

Odinga evidently has a very close relationship with Obama. He is native of Kenya's Luo tribe, the same one to which Obama's father belonged. In fact, in early 2008, Odinga told the BBC he is Obama's cousin (i.e., that Obama's father was Odinga's "maternal uncle").

Odinga sought the presidency in Kenya's December 2007 election. In 2006, Obama came to Kenya and campaigned for him, simultaneously voicing sharp criticism of the pro-American government. His comments will sound familiar to Americans. As Hyman writes, Obama declared, "The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials[.]... Kenyans are now yearning for change." Obama's visit, the culmination of consultations with Odinga that had gone on for years, vaulted Odinga's candidacy.(ACM — the outraged Kenyan government issued a rebuttal, greatly disturbed that Obama had represented that he was coming to Kenya to nurture Kenya/U.S. relations but, in fact, had used the trip as a platform to lecture to Kenya about social justice. Obama's interference in a foreign election, transparently designed to topple a government cooperative with the United States, comes close, to say the least, to violating the Logan Act, 18 U.S.C. 953.)

Linking Obama to Odinga is not 'racist' (in reality, I have no idea what race Odigna is), it is not trying to district people from the 'real issues,' and it isn't 'pushing McCain propaganda.' I'm mentioned Obama's troubling links to Odinga to point out that the man who wants to be our next President has a pattern of associating and supporting people who hate America. I'm point out the connection between a socialist strongman in Kenya and Obama because Obama wants to be a socialist strongman in the US. I'm posting about how Obama supports Odinga because Obama supports Odinga's policies of violence, division, socialism, and change.

Read for yourself this information- hopefully it isn't an indication of the scary stuff to come in the US once this guy gets in power.

Richard Epstein on Obama

Via the Volokh Conspiracy comes this good post by University of Chicago law Professor Richard Epstein, who knows Obama personally from long association. Here is what he wrote:

At this point, my fear is that the change in office will not lead to a change in his liberal voting record, as reinforced by a hyperactive Democratic platform. My great fear is that a landslide victory will give him solid majorities in both Houses of Congress, so that no stalling tactics by Republicans can slow down his legislative victory procession. At that point his innate pragmatism will line up with his strong left-of-center beliefs on issues that have thus far been muted during the campaign.

Put otherwise, Obama's vague calls for change that "you can believe in" are, to my thinking, wholly retrograde in their implications. At heart, he is an unreconstructed New Dealer who can see, and articulate, both sides on every question--but only as a prelude to championing the old corporatist agenda with a vengeance.

So, to sum up, an Obama Presidency, combined with liberal Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, would provide no check on his tendency for liberal beliefs, and he would champion a "corporatist agenda." Is "corporatist" anything like economic syndicalism or economic nationalism, as I talked about in my post here?

Colin Powell

I'm not going to get to far into his endorsement of Obama, but I did find this little interesting nugget over at Belmont Club- apparently Powell is very connected with environmental lobbying groups, and the same week he endorses Obama, Obama puts out a major environmental policy. Interesting. Read about the connection yourself here and tell me if you think it's credible.

Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics

For a good change of pace, take a look at this John Stossel 20/20 special called the Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics. Here is the link to part one, the other parts are also on there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phs6CwnutoY

If Only They Controlled Everything

Listening to the Ed Schultz show on 1310 AM, the message was very clear- liberals want to control every aspect of everything. Caller after caller chimed in, all with the same message- that their biggest hope was to win every single election race in the whole country. If you asked these callers, or the thug Ed who hosts the show, if they could eliminate all the conservatives in the United States, I wonder sometimes what their reply would be. The host and the callers talked over and over about how they wanted to win all the political power in the US.

Just for kicks, I tried two other radio stations- Micheal Medved on 1400 and Sean Hannity on 760. Medved was talking about moral charity, God, and how to be a better person. Hannity was talking about human rights in Africa.

One party desires power over your life. The other party wants to make the world a better place. I don't care what you are really- liberal, conservative, right, left, green, libertarian- if it is a choice between power for powers sake or to make the world a better place, make the right call.

Revolution? On a Monday?

For years I have been kidding around with my students, teasing that one of these days, there is going to be another revolution in our country. For years I have joked about it- before this election cycle, it was a half-hearted jest mostly. But this election cycle is different.

And it's not different just because a Democrat is going to win. It isn't different because Barack Obama is going to win. What makes this election cycle so different is the way that it is being won- by buying the election, by committing voter fraud, by personally attacking average citizens, by never assuming any positions on anything, by fostering sexism and racism in our society, by preaching spread the wealth policies, and by running down traditional American values.

What does this mean to our system of government? It might represent the break-down of several aspects of our political system. The financing of elections is obviously breaking down. The registration process for voters is breaking down. Foundational principles on which America is based are breaking down- federalism is ignored, limited government is forgotten, checks and balances are over-ridden, and majority rule/minority rights has been perverted into minority rule/majority no rights. America is breaking down.

Yeah, this sounds depressing, but I was reading Cold Fury, and a lot of people agree with statements like the one he made on his website- "this is us vs them, and it’s going to mean blood, American blood, before it’s over. It sucks, I hate it, I wish it wasn’t so, but it may very well be so."

Yeah, I know, a Monday post should be more cheerful than this.

America Has Strayed from Its Founding Children's Books Ideals

As the father of several little kids, I love to read them stories. Too frequently though, the books I pick up to read my kids are filled with liberal ideas. The hero is always the minority, or a government worker. The bad guys is always business, or unregulation. The messages is always fairness, equality of condition, and peace. These kinds of stories have a place- after all, sometimes the hero is a government worker, sometimes businesses are bad, and peace solves many conflicts. The problem is when children are read only the liberal messages, day after day, their entire lives, and they lose sight of the other more conservative messages that our country was built on.

For example, in Horton Hears a Who, Horton must protect the Who's because he is bigger and stronger than they are. Horton fights for what he believes in. And Horton believes. Messages about strength, fighting, and believing in something are absent from many other children's stories.

Or take for example the story of the Little Red Hen. Nolan Finley must have kids himself- his article today talked about how America has lost sight of our foundational principles as expressed in children's stories. He wrote:

From the feisty Little Red Hen we learned the rewards of hard work. We also learned to savor those rewards guilt-free and to understand that what we create belongs to us. The hen would have flailed the Rainbow Fish had he come sashaying around with his share-your-crayons silliness.

The Little Read Hen planted the wheat and ground the flour and baked the bread and felt no obligation to break off a piece for the shiftless sheep or do-nothing donkey -- unless she wanted to. She was my kind of chick.

But she doesn't fit into an America that increasingly questions the fairness of one person having more than another, without weighing sweat or skill. In the hen's world, if you produced, you ate; if you were able to and didn't, you went hungry. Why is that too sinister a concept to teach tykes today?

I agree- are concepts such as hard work and freedom now not PC enough for children to read about? Personally, I've always like the story of Mike Mulligan- but when I think about it, why should I feel bad for an outdated piece of machinery that does a poor job of things? He's not the hero. The Little Engine that Could is the hero- he thinks he can, and does. He thinks he can, and makes his dreams come true. I guess Mike Mulligan should be applauded for finding work for all those years, and trying- but in the end, he resorts to charity paid for by taxpayers. Compare that to the Little Engine that Could, as written about in Nolan's article:

The Little Engine is my favorite. He huffed and puffed up that hill on his own steam, and kept stubbornly going even when he wasn't sure he could make it to the top. He didn't pull off the tracks to wait for Dora the Explorer to give him a push.

The Engine's breed of self-reliance and determination to overcome obstacles would serve us well as we enter what promises to be the most challenging economic stretch in decades. Will we turn to the government to pull us up the hill, or will we get up a good head of steam and go for it ourselves?

Yes, laugh as you might, but I think that between Sesame Street and PBS and public schools, my children are getting enough liberal ideas. On my time, I'm going to read them the Bible, Rudyard Kipling, The Squire and the Scroll, Owen's Walk, America : A Patriotic Primer, The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey, or even Aesop's Fables: A Classic Illustrated Edition (Classic Illustrated). These are the stories that should fill children's heads and hearts- stories of doing the right thing, of working hard, of having pride in your work, of being wise and cautious, of accepting responsibility, of believing in the power of God, of freedom and liberty and choice, and of the power of the free market.

I agree with Nolan's conclusion:

In a couple of weeks, a large number of voters, likely even a majority, will go to the polls to choose a political Pied Piper to lead them to an America where everyone shares and hugs and plays patty cake in equal-size houses. I'd rather follow that cranky Red Hen.

Anyone Paying Attention to These Scandals?

Via GayPatriot, I realized that I hadn't even been following the latest corruption charges coming out of Washington. Turns out the Republicans didn't have a monopoly on corruption, ethics violations, and illegal activities- in fact, the Democrats apparently do more of these things than the GOP ever did!

Check out this article- it goes through and talks about taxpayer-paid extra-marital affairs by Democrat Tim Mahoney. Or Congressman Barney Frank, who was romantically involved for years with a high-ranking executive at Fannie Mae while serving on House Banking Committee, where he coddled and helped expand the lending practices that, in part, brought about the mortgage crisis. Or Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel, who didn't pay taxes on many of his houses and investments, and is accused of breaking laws related to his many rent-controlled apartment buildings.

Many people wonder at why these scandals are not receiving more attention in the news. After all, the number one reason why the Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 was not the War in Iraq, but the perception that they were corrupt. Probably it is because the media is run by leftists. But also, it's probably because everyone assumes the Republicans are a good and decent party, and are shocked when it turns out they are human and corrupted by power- whereas everyone knows the Democrats are slimy and shady, and are not at all surprised when they get caught.

Joe the Plumber Must Be Destroyed

As the narrative goes, Joe the Plumber is not an ordinary citizen who spotted an obvious flaw in the Anointed One's grand plan, and by pointing it out got the Anointed One to let slip that his communist leanings. No, the left wing hatchet men are already at work- apparently Joe the Plumper is a Republican spy, who once lived in Arizona and has relatives in Alaska, doesn't like to pay his taxes, isn't even a licensed plumber, and has mental health problems.

Isn't it impressive how quick the left goes to work on destroying people's lives? They don't want to talk about the merits of Joe the Plumbers argument- that taxing rich people destroys the incentive for anyone to be rich- ie, that taxing rich people also taxes all future people who want to be rich- ie, that taxing rich people makes people less productive and makes America less prosperous. No, the left goes after people personally. They know they can't win in the arena of ideas, so they need to destroy people's personal lives, one by one if they have to, until no one is left.

Put the power of a police state in these people's hands and you get the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and China. Put Obama in power and it won't be this bad, but it won't be good either.

The left's reaction to Joe the Plumber shouldn't surprise people. Look again at the left response to Governor Sarah Palin. When McCain picked her to be his running mate, there was a rush to examine her record by the right... and her by the left. The left came out swinging, but not on her ideological ideas or beliefs about government or actions as a public official- their first response was to personally destroy her.

They rushed to to define Sarah Palin as a drooling hick with a gun living in a double-wide trailer in some small town. There is a whole site out there now that documents the lefts attacks on Palin, and notice that none of them are about what she believes- they are all personal attacks on her. The left takes pictures up Palin's skirt, they call her racist, they call her stupid, they all her unqualified, incompetent, a bad joke, a cancer, or a bad mother. Given power, one wonders what the left would do to someone who they perceive of as a 'racist cancer' and a 'threat to our country.'

Given power, what does the right do to leftists? How did those evil conservatives punish Obama's friend Bill Ayers? After 8 years of that crazy neoconservative Bush, how worse off are liberals? Under Reagan and Bush, were the personal lives of liberals destroyed- was there any rise in the police state- did the 'right wing' usher in an era of personal attacks? Nope- the rise of the right in our country led to great discussions on ideas, on beliefs, on questions about the nature of government, about the rights of individuals, and made our country a better place to live.

Joe the Plumber, I feel bad for you. Look at your wikipedia entry (the link)- I spent an hour last night defending you on that page, but when I left, it still said you were an un-union Republican stooge because of the petty malice of the left's minions.

What is happening to you is characteristic of anyone who annoys the left. You made the big mistake of pissing off the left's new god- an especially bad offense, for which you apparently are now going to pay. I'm sorry my friend. Soon you too will be ripped endlessly on Saturday Night Live, and the left will laugh at you and make fun of you for being a good guy who asked a good question. Don't worry though- soon enough, someone else will join you on the left's hate list.

The Bradley Effect Story

... in the off chance that Obama does lose, there will be a massive outcry about racism. I'm sure this shocks no one. National publications have written about it, and Obama himself often brings up that he may lose votes because of his race, but I didn't buy that the idea that the man on the street might also think this, unl today, when a student came to talk to me about the Bradley Effect.

This student was writing an article for the school newspaper, and said that when he talked to the Democratic party about the coming election, one of their officials talked quite a bit about the Bradley Effect and the role it would play if Obama lost. Since this student couldn't get a hold of the Republican party- apparently no one in our school knows any Republicans to contact- he asked me, as the government teacher, to speculate what the Republican Party would say about the effect of the Bradley Effect on the coming election. I was at a loss to what this is, and was surprised that it featured so prominently in a conversation about the election, so I looked it up right then.

The Bradley effect is a proposed explanation for an alleged discrepancy between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in American political campaigns when a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other. It refers to an alleged tendency on the part of racist voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a black candidate, and yet, on election day vote for his/her white opponent. In other words, it is the intellectual excuse for black candidates to cry 'racism' when they lose an election to white candidates. Maybe 20 years ago it played a role (evidence is slim), but now days, it does not. So why would a Democratic Party official bring it up so quickly in a discussion about the coming election with a writer for the school newspaper?

At the very ground level, in schools throughout the country, Obama already is peddling the argument that the only way he loses is due to racism. He is going to use fear, guilt, and intimidation to win this election. There is no stopping him. Be prepared.

Quick Reactions on Third Debate

This debate was one of the best debates in terms of each candidate expressing their opinions on domestic issues clearly, without filter. Because of this, I call this debate, as I did the last ones, as a narrow victory for McCain- that gives McCain 3 narrow victories over Obama.

Somehow though, whether McCain ties or wins a narrow victory, it doesn't matter- Obama only needs to tie or slightly lose. What does that say about Obama, that the best he needs to do is be present to win? He is a master at this present stuff- he never needs to take a stand, win anything, or show any leadership at all- just be there, and he wins. Must be nice to be able to advance to the highest position in the world by just being present.

Obama's answers all were about enlarging the size of government, redistribution of wealth, and spending more money. He couched his responses in a lot of qualifiers and a lot of words, but that is the essence of them, and as proof I point to his voting record in the US Senate and Illinois Senate. Although I disagreed with most of his positions, the only one that truly caused me to yell at the TV was when Obama said the main job of a Supreme Court Judge was to provide fairness and justice to those who don't have it- I shouted at my TV at this point that the main job of a Supreme Court judge is to judge on the law, above all to judge on the US Constitution. Obama never mentioned the US Constitution in his discussion on judges.

I guess when I think about it I did yell at the TV at another point in the debate. When the two candidates were talking about free trade, Obama talked about how he nixed the Columbia free trade agreement because labor leaders were getting killed in Columbia, and showing international solidarity with the labor movement is more important to him than helping America with jobs, drugs, or fight terrorism. That pisses me off.

McCain missed a lot of openings this debate- on abortion, Ayers, spending, etc. McCain's problem is that he knows that the winning formula is conservative ideas- he knows that conservative arguments are the best, the most moral, the most logical, and resonate with Americans more. But McCain isn't a true conservative, so many times he says the argument, but doesn't hammer it home. That could be McCain is just too nice of a guy, or that he is underestimating Obama's skill, or overestimating Americans intelligence- regardless, he missed many chances to expose Obama for the liberal socialist fraud that he is.

One thing that I liked that McCain did, probably by accident, was call Obama "Senator Government." McCain corrected himself, but he shouldn't have- Obama is Senator Government- he believes in big government, and he wants to run it like an all power legislative branch, not as an executive. Obama is Senator Government.

More thoughts later.

The End of Conservatism?

That last post was meant to lighten up the tone a little- I'm battling not to get depressed when I read articles like this one by Mona Charen about how this election, if Obama wins and Democrats increase their majorities in the House and Senate, it could be the end for conservative policies in our nation.

Well, you may say, "Win some, lose some. McCain isn't all that great anyway... next time." Perhaps. But there are a few problems with this approach.

In the first place, the Democrats can, with a super-majority, change the rules of the game. They can make the District of Columbia the 51st state with two new senators (guaranteed to be Democrats in perpetuity). They can reinstitute the so-called Fairness Doctrine that required radio stations to provide equal time to all political viewpoints.

The article goes on to talk about how Obama will turn a recession into a depression by raising taxes and repealing NAFTA, possibly causing another Great Depression in our country- and the only way we emerged from the last one was by a brutal and destructive world war. Next, the article says

There is a one-way ratchet in public policy. Liberal reforms are never undone. How hard have conservatives tried to eliminate the Department of Education or subsidies to public television? Would they have more success uncreating a new nationalized health care system? An Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime -- if it were to get a filibuster-proof majority -- will certainly be able to shift the country's direction sharply to the left. The only question is -- would the shift be permanent?

Worth thinking about. Be very aware of how you vote this election, for all offices, because this is a historic election- it is a once in a lifetime opportunity for the left to dupe the American public into electing a communist who will permanently change our country for the worse.

Reasons Why I Could Vote Democrat

If I wanted to, I could vote Democrat because...

• ...English has no place being the official language in America.
• ...it's better to turn corn into fuel than it is to eat.
• ...I'd rather pay $4 for a gallon of gas than allow drilling for oil off the coasts of America.
• ..when we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, I know that the Islamic terrorists will stop trying to kill us because this will show that we are a good and decent country.
• ...I believe people who can't tell us accurately if it will rain in two or three days can now tell us with certainty that the polar ice caps will disappear in ten years if I don't start riding a bicycle, build a windmill, or inflate my tires to proper levels.
• ...I believe businesses in America should not be allowed to make profits. Businesses should just break even and give the rest to the government so politicians and bureaucrats can redistribute the money the way they think it should be redistributed.
• ...I believe guns, and not the people misusing them, are the cause of crimes and killings.
• ...when someone with a weapon threatens my family or me, I know the government can respond faster through a call to 911than I can with a gun in my hand.
• Lastly, I'm could vote Democrat, because I might think that the 5% profit that oil companies make on a gallon of gas is obscene, but government taxes of 18% (federal and state) on the same gallon of gas are not high enough.

(New followers to my blog- this is sarcasm and meant to be a funny joke. Pass it on, but please give credit to my blog if you do. Enjoy!)

ACORN Turns in 5,000 New Voter Registrations- and All of Them Are Fraudulent

Via Powerlineblog, from Instapundit, comes a news story so stunning that you can hardly believe it. In Lake County, Indiana, ACORN turned in 5,000 new registrations. The authorities there started reviewing them, and quit after they found that the first 2,100 were all fraudulent. Not a single one was legitimate.

Here is the video of the story from CNN.

Consider- nationally, ACORN has now turned in 1.3 million registrations over the last several months. If not a single one was real out of 5,000, how many of these new registrations out of 1.3 million are legitimate? 100? 1,000? And how many are fraudulent, to be filled out by representatives of ACORN? 1 million? 800,000? How might the election in a swing state be swung by this openly fraudulent organization?

And even more shocking is that Obama was a lawyer for ACORN for many years, and currently is giving ACORN money, and ACORN is giving Obama money. This is an obvious attempt to win the election by fraudulent means. People are going to have some serious buyers remorse with this fraud.

The End of the World? Probably not, but worth reading

Over at American Spectator, there is a good article on why we should not be looking forward to the collapse of America and the chaos that will ensue. I know some of my friends think the revolution will be good for our country- but everyone knows that most revolutions end up poorly, so I'd still rather work my tail off to save this country then let it go down in flames by personally doing nothing or voting third-party.

At Belmont Club, speculation into the future collapse of America stems from discussions on the financial crisis. It's a good entry in this good blog, because it makes the case that our current system is not designed to hold up to a systematic collapse due to the interconnectedness of our society today. I agree- although, I think the one connecting feature of the world is America, so other countries better realize this and step up to save us from ourselves, because if we go down, we're taking the world with us.

Over at Commentary, another angle is explored- that of Russia. This is a good analysis of what Russia is up to- the basic point of it is that we should not analyze Russia using our models of world superpowers, but rather look at how Russia has been increasing its ties to nations that oppose our policies at a regional or local level. This is the real threat to us- not that we'll engage in a Cold War Part 2, but that states like Venezuela, Iran, and Syria will foster terrorism and conflict with Russia's support.

Dirty Harry, in this post, points to another sign that the end may be coming- apparently, using money raised by terrorist Bill Ayers through his organization Annenberg Challenge (which Barack Obama headed up from 1995 to 1999 and helped raise over a $100 million for), the city of Chicago has decided that gays and lesbians should be segregated into their own special school, where they will learn a different version of history and be taught differently than others. I predict that this will only lead to falling grades and opportunities for these students, but after all, that's really what socialists want- a ruling class and rulers.

Before anyone reading this gets too upset though, please look at this site, and it'll calm all your fears.

Wikipedia Description of Fascist Sounds Like Someone I Know

Okay, so over at Hot Air they posted a link to an article that disputs the idea that Obama is a Marxist. I'm willing to agree with that- he isn't a commited socialist, in spite of his membership in the New Party. But, there are other similar ideologies out there, and I think that one that best describes Obama is fascist.

I read the description of fascism on wikipedia. You can quibble with wikipedia, but the overall description of fascism is curiously close to Obama policies. I loosely quote "Fascism is primarily concerned with perceived problems associated with cultural, economic, political, and social decline or decadence, and seeks to solve such problems by achieving a historic national rebirth, many times by promoting cultish ideas of unity and purity."

Huh. Is there anyone out there talking about how America has fallen? How after 8 years of decadence and decline, America needs change? Historic change? A rebirth in many ways? And the best way to do it is through unity, togetherness, bipartisanship- in fact, the way to do it is through the election of one who is above politics, above race, above us. Sound like Obama to you?

Still quoting from wikipedia- Other elements of fascism include national socialism, national syndicalism, or economic nationalism (check), class collaboration, economic planning, mixed economy, and third position (check), dictatorship, holism, major social interventionism, and statism (check again), and militarism (Obama is awfully warlike towards everything but Iraq).

Wow. Apparently fascism also promotes political violence against opponents (check), welfare (check), is fiercly anti-religion (check), and promotes cults of personality (check). This started as just a crackpot theory of mine, but even I am surprised at how closely it fits. Now, I'd start getting scared if Obama was pushing a policy of having our government rise up a psudo-military arm of community organizers loyal to him- wait, he is pushing that? At least he is pro-gun ownership- wait, that's wrong too? Well, at least he doesn't have resentment due to a mixed parentage- he's 100% black, right, just like Hitler was 100% non-Jew- opps, wrong again... darn, are we in for some trouble or what?

UPDATE: I'm not that far off base with this line of thought- others agree with me. Read this story about how a Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

Calling a Fascist a Fascist

Some people have emailed me, accusing me of being too hard on Obama. They think I'm seeing stuff that isn't there- that I am being paranoid, that I am making stuff up, or that I am just being silly. I'm not- if the media doesn't have the balls for it, I do- I'll call a fascist a fascist.

Today's Detroit News has two stories that bear out my argument. In the first, Nolan Finley writes about how back in the old days, class warfare wouldn't play well in our country, but today, Obama thrives on talking about class warfare and wealth redistribution. He doesn't say it, but the message is clear- Obama is a socialist.

The other article is about how Obama's thugs have been shutting down free speech in our country- that they have been suing those who don't agree with them, getting in the faces and yelling at those who disagree with them, and attempting to shut down media outlets that publish a viewpoint they don't like. The article doesn't say it outright, but the message is clear- Obama wants to control even what you say and think.

Combine the two, and you get a dictator who wants to control what you say and think, who sets up a cult of personality, and who promotes wealth redistribution and socialism- that's a fair description of a fascist in my book. Hey- if Obama started talking about free markets, or capitalism, or gun ownership as a right, or life, liberty, and property- if Obama started quoting our founding fathers more often than Stalin or Marx- then maybe I would be hesitant about saying this stuff. But a spade is a spade folks, and America is about to dig its own grave with one.

An Obama Win Means No Opposition to Socialism

Over at Commentary, there is a post about the fact that if Obama wins, the Democrats will control the House, Senate, and Presidency- and not only that, far left Democrats like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi will control our government. A vote for Republicans is a vote for some opposition, for some other view, for some other segment of our society to be represented in government.

I noticed this myself back in July- I wrote a letter to the editor where I talked about the dangers of one party rule- China, Russia, Detroit all come to mind- and how important it is for our nation to have divided government. At that time I was hoping people would vote for McCain, but since he is now more about defending Obama, I'm going to mention it now to convince you to make sure that you vote for Republicans on the rest of the ticket.

Obama is the Weatherman

This is a great post from the Commentary:

Like his fans say, Obama has the wind at his back. Yet McCain can’t even turn paradisaical weather to his advantage. On its own terms, the continued success of U.S. forces in Iraq is a near miracle. Yet the man who championed the winning way from the start can’t seem to get anyone to notice, let alone care. And Obama’s rogues’ gallery of intimates–the crooks, cranks, and bombers who have been critical in shaping his career–end up looking like exaggerated footnotes once the McCain camp works them over in the press. John McCain repeats and repeats his charges against Obama, most of them valid, but instead of swaying public opinion, it comes off as white noise. He’s recounted his own astounding achievements so many times that his heroism is now taken for granted rather than marveled at.

The danger is in mistaking Barack Obama’s hypnotic talents for vision. People say this is Obama’s time because Obama says this is his time. But when you’re the one setting the clock, it’s always your time. In terms of what’s actually happening in the world, this is decidedly not Obama’s time. We’re in an economic meltdown of unforeseeable length and enormity, and Obama wants to raise taxes on small businesses and pay for everyone’s health coverage. We’re facing nuclear weapons in the hands of America’s most fearsome antagonist of the past thirty years, and Obama wants to talk to them about it. We’re finally winning a hellish five-year war of untold strategic importance, and Obama can’t wait to stop it. We’re attempting to turn around our luck in another critical war, and Obama has been threatening our most important potential ally for a year. The global economy has advanced down the inexorable path of integration, and Obama is wary of free trade. Every one of America’s fair-weather friends is telling us that U.S. dominance is a thing of the past, and Obama embraces the doctrine of American declinism.

This may not be Obama’s time–but that won’t stop him from making November 4 his moment.

Four judges in Connecticut decree that citizens must recognize gay marriages

Even though Connecticut's elected officials debated the issue and decided not to have the government support gay marriages- instead granting them virtually the same thing but calling it civil unions- four judges on Connecticut's Supreme Court decided to reinterpret the Connecticut Constitution and find the right to gay marriage in there.

To me, this isn't about gay marriage- it is about the role of judges in our society. Our country is based on the idea that the people- through their elected officials- have the just and legitimate power to rule. This ruling, although possibly the correct moral one, is illegitimate and unjust, and will only cause a backlash against gay couples. In a free society, in a just society, issues are openly debated and decided on by democratically elected officials- because this is the best way to do things.

Soon our nation will be ruled by judges and a dictator, and it will be less free, less just, and less legitimate. God help us all.

Barack Obama was a member of the New Party

As explained by Thomas Lifson, the New Party was a radical left organization established in 1992 to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within the Democratic Party. Their ultimate goal was to get a communist mole into political power. And they are about to succeed.

According to New Party literature itself, Barack Obama was a member of this group when he ran for State Senate 12 years ago- and the only reason that he is not still a member of this group is that it is no longer around. At no point has he publicly stated that he regrets his membership in this group.

Now, you might think that I an just joking- after all, this is pretty explosive stuff. Well, I am not kidding. Quando.net is all over it- check it out.

I think it is becoming fairly obvious what is going on here- that America is going to have some serious buyers remorse once a fascist/communist/socialist Obama gets elected. It's not just his membership in a socialist party- it's not just his association with communist Bill Ayers- it is not just his membership in a church that preached black liberation theology- it is not his off-the-cuff statements disrespecting America's tradition and culture- and it is not just his policies of welfare and nationalized healthcare- it is not a little point here and a casual association there- it is the unmistakable fact that he is in fact a communist that makes me shudder in fear.

You have to vote McCain to stop him. You have to. Please America, don't put a communist in the White House!

Former Student Reports Professors Systematically Indoctrinating our Youth

One of my former students emailed me today, and she says that in their classes they are going to be reading The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age by Larry Bartels. She says that she is reading this book in her MC 111 Identity and Community: An Approach to Writing I course at MSU. I remember this course.

In this course, students learn about gender, race, class, and sexuality and how it impacts the community- in other words, students learn how to conform their thinking with leftist stereotypes and memes. This particular book teaches that increasing inequality is not simply the result of economic forces, but the product of broad-reaching policy choices, and that in order to get the communist vision of class equality passed as government policy, political reforms have to take place. It teaches that our political system is dominated by conservatives and the interests of the wealthy, and it shows that Republicans in particular have been bad for poor people. My former student tells me that she is reading this book because her professor wants to 'prepare her for the election.'

When my former students tell me that they read these books, it makes me sad, because I know their minds are being filled with mush and they are being shaped into tools of liberal professors. And how in the world does this book prepare her for the election? It doesn't, unless the teacher wants to push an agenda on the students that they need to vote for Obama, and a vote against Obama is racist or something.

I guess this book itself is not bad, and reading it isn't bad- if alternative positions are also shown and alternative views are also read. But they aren't. The next book that students will read in this class is Whitewashing Race: The Myth of a Color-Blind Society. This book blasts conservative ideas on racism, arguing that Republicans and conservatives are racists, and that race-specific policies, such as affirmative action, need to be expanded in our society. It also is being read by students to 'prepare them for the election.' Again, the only logical conclusion to reach here is that the professor at this public university supported by tax money is making students read books that support Obama and promote his ways of thinking, and that they are making students read book after book of this sort without any balance what-so-ever.

The fact that professors are liberal and purposefully indoctrinating our youth isn't really a surprise. I just wanted people to be aware of how pervasive it is, and not be surprised when Obama wins, because imagine this professor systematically doing this to every student that goes through every college in the country- it is a powerful force shaping students minds. I only hope that the education I give in free thought and critical thinking causes students to reject this stuff on some level. It's a feeble hope, I fear.

My Experience Meeting Bill Ayers

Yes, I have personally met Bill Ayers. At some point in my career, I was told that he would be coming in to speak to my class. As I am a little young, I looked him up, and immediately discovered his past connections with terrorism and the Weather Underground (memo to Obama- it's kind of easy to find out that information- you have to be an idiot not to know that Ayers was a terrorist).

So I went to my principal, and told him that I didn't want to have this guy come in to speak to my students. I am repelled by him- I don't want to be in the same room as this unrepentant terrorist. I wasn't even alive when he attempted to murder innocent and decent Americans, yet I don't want to be associated with him (unlike Obama, who wants to associate with terrorists).

My principal told me to just let him come in and talk. I guess the parent who was bringing in this terrorist was influential in the district, and had some pull with the administration. So I took my class in to hear him speak. He talked about the usual communist drivel.

Mr. Ayers gave me the impression that teachers should primarily be community organizers, dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. He said that teachers should be promoting radical, leftist, communist values. My brother forwarded me this link where he elaborated more on this stuff, and this other link too. This link talks about Obama's association with Bill Ayers.

Before my students met him and heard him speak, I wanted to talk to them about his ideas and discredit him; and after my students heard him speak, I wanted to talk to them about his ideas and discredit them. But I was told I was not allowed to do this. So I just pretended it had never happened and that that day was a snow day.

But it wasn't in reality. The students were given the impression that it was okay to be a terrorist, that it was okay to believe in communist ideas, and that Bill Ayers vision of the world was an accepted one. They were given the impression that being an Obama voter was okay. And personally, this day marked a turning point for me.

Months later, the administration let me go, and the union worked to make sure that I wasn't brought back. I was quickly grabbed by another district, where I have proven to be an exceptional teacher. One of the factors that led to my release was my disgust and verbal protests over having people like Bill Ayers come into the classroom. So that's my experience with this terrorist scumbag.

UPDATE: Several people have emailed me about this post, suggesting that if my new district ever finds out that I thought badly of Bill Ayers, I could be fired, and I would be wise to remove this post. But I refuse to be intimidated! They can not control my thoughts! Our nation may be turning towards fascism, but I am going to fight as long as there is fighting to be done. You can't stop the signal!