"I Always Feel Like..."

"Somebody's watching me..." I think that MUST be Joe the Plumber's new theme song. This did not get anywhere NEAR the attention it should have gotten, but what you may not realize is just how much Joe has been investigated since having the gall to be asked a question by The One in his OWN driveway that sparked some controversy. Joe was just minding his own damn business when Obama sauntered up, and told him he wanted to "spread the wealth around" in response to Joe's question on possible tax structures for small businesses (major H/T to Truthteller and NQ at No Quarter for the major article and video).

Yes, you, too, should you dare breathe a word that you might be thinking of buying a business can have ALL of your records researched - by someone in the state government. No, I am NOT making this up - it happened. Oh, coincidentally (cough, choke), the person, Helen Jones-Kelley, from whose office a good bit of this all happened, made the maximum allowed donation to - yes, of course, Obama. But she SWEARS that is not what motivated her looking into all of Joe's records. Get this - her "reasoning" is that when someone mentions they want to buy a business, of course it is the responsibility of the state to investigate if that person is actually CAPABLE of buying that business, or if they have back taxes, or liens, or are on welfare, or...Sounds to me like maybe they were not checking out his business but GIVING him the business because he - GASP - does not support Obama. That alone seems to be reason enough to investigate this private citizen by THE STATE. For Ms. Jones-Kelley, that is. Not for the Ohio Senate president, Bill M. Harris:

Harris called the multiple records checks "questionable" and said he awaits more answers. "It's kind of like Big Brother is looking in your pocket," he said.

If state employees run checks on every person listed in newspaper stories as buying a business, "it must take a lot of people a lot of time to run these checks," he said. "Where do you draw the line?"

Where indeed??

Are you getting this?? The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services INVESTIGATED A PRIVATE CITIZEN BECAUSE HE MENTIONED HE MIGHT WANT TO BUY A BUSINESS in framing a question to a presidential candidate, the answer to which exposed more of the candidate than he wanted. That is their BS explanation for why they have delved into this man's life. What a crock. We know damn well why they are delving into his background, because I can GUARANTEE you that not every person who mentions they would like to own their own business has a State office go into their economic and personal records, whether that information is released or not (and Ms. Jones-Kelley claims the confidential information was not. Uh huh.) No way in hell.

Oh, and you are going to love this additional reason into why she investigated Joe the Plumber. Because she was getting so many media requests about information that, she claims, was in Public Records, and some that was, um, confidential. Well, I may not have gone to Journalism school, but I do have a ton of education, including 5 years of graduate work. I don't recall anyone EVER doing my research for me. If it is in PUBLIC RECORDS, that means you can look it up your own damn self!! And if it is CONFIDENTIAL, why are you LOOKING at it?? So, not only did Ms. Jones-Kelley do their jobs FOR them, but she did it on STATE TIME and on a STATE COMPUTER. She claims there was no ill intent to these checks, some into confidential records. Funny - because I'm sure illin' that anyone in state government would stoop to these levels simply because a resident of the state ASKED A QUESTION!! I mean, really - it wasn't even an inappropriate question, for pete's sake!

I should add that a clerk who used the LEADS (Law Enforcement Automated Data System) to determine if Joe's address was the correct one for - naturally - the media, actually got in a little bit of hot water, though the "punishment" for using a state computer to access a private citizen's information which then - miraculously - made its way to the media is unclear. Yeah, okey dokie.

Here's the bottom line: if this sort of activity is occurring NOW, when Obama is just the (illegitimate) Democratic nominee, what in the sam hill will he do if he is PRESIDENT? We all thought - okay, almost all of us (shoot, someone supported the guy) - that President Bush was the most vindictive, petty, thin-skinned politician to come down the pike. But Obama and his minions, with their attacks, from verbal, physical, destructive, and dangerous - even to the point of trying to run the McCain campaign bus OFF THE ROAD, has taken this to a whole other level, and it is disturbing on a massive scale.

Let's recap, just in case anyone is missing the point: a private citizen, just an ordinary American citizen, had his life investigated by his STATE government, and turned upside down BECAUSE HE ASKED A QUESTION. If that doesn't scare the hell out of you, well, I just don't know what will.

Good Bumper Stickers

I have NO idea as to the origin of these bumper stickers, but they are good!


Well, I can certainly agree with that - that's the only reason I am willing to consider McCain: Obama.



I could get rich selling this one. Aw, hell - any one of them...


Seems people are paying attention to Obama's BFF, Jeremiah Wright, after all!! And to McCain's character - I mean, that he has a demonstrable one, and it is GOOD!


PRECISELY!! It defies logic to even make the claim that to question the resume of someone, especially a candidate for the most powerful job in the world is racist!!


Oh, please - do NOT get me started on the Fourth Estate and the depths to which they have sunk this election. Show of hands who thought they sucked in 2000? And how much more do they suck now? Uh, yeah - total. They have failed miserably in their obligation to REPORT and not editorialize, or promote, or belittle, or act as if their sole responsibility is to tell us their OPINION, and not do their level best to report NEWS impartially, not rumors or lies or innuendo, but the actual facts of the story that they spent time RESEARCHING. You know, actually working on stories as opposed to regurgitating press packet info. Oh, damn - I got started after all...


It is our Constitutional Duty to not have leaders who defraud us, as the Democrats did this year. As they have for several years now as they work to deconstruct the Constitution and its protections. And you better believe, with what Obama has already shown us, should he "win" his way into the White House, you ain't seen nothing yet. If state offices are already investigating private citizens without cause, what do you think will happen if Obama ends up as president with a Democratic House and Senate? We saw how they acted this year, especially with the caucuses and the RBC/DNC. We have seen how Obama's "supporters" have acted. Obama hasn't called them off as a candidate, no way will he call them off as president. It will be a new day - and not a bright one.


Amen to that. Love of country, love of the Constitution, love for the Bill of Rights, and love for true democracy - and if that means a revolution is needed, count me in.

"Friends In High Places"

Ah, democracy. How wonderful that we have a system of checks and balances, ways to insure a fair election. A whole, entire Department of Justice to oversee and protect our electoral process. Hip, hip hooray for the DOJ! Except, not so much...Check out this video:



And this one:



So - just to be clear - the very people who are supposed to be on the look out for organizations like ACORN, which is now under investigation in at least FIFTEEN states, is backing off. The DOJ plans to send out people from their Civil Rights Division to insure there is no "voter suppression or intimidation," but will NOT send out lawyers from their CRIMINAL division to insure there is no voter FRAUD. According to Senator Danforth in a conference call on 10/29, the DOJ claims if they did send out attorneys from the Criminal Division, THAT might result in voter suppression. They seem to be a bit short on logic there - how would anyone KNOW? It is a poor excuse for not doing what they are supposed to be doing - insuring that everyone has the right to vote fairly, without fear of intimidation, or that their vote will be meaningless as the result of fraudulent votes. THAT is their job, and for what your taxpaying dollars are going. Sure would be nice if they bothered to do the job they swore to do - uphold the Constitution. Just a thought.

And one last video on voting. This one deals with our military and their ability to vote while serving oversees:



This is, quite simply, unacceptable.

So much for that whole "one person, one vote" democracy thing, at least as far as the DOJ is concerned.

Democratic Speechwriter

My fellow No Quarter writer, Ani, has an OUTSTANDING piece at No Quarter today. Here is the beginning of it:

Democratic Speechwriter Rejects Party and Votes McCain/Palin

About: See Authors Posts (84) on October 29, 2008 at 10:00 PM in 1st Amendment, Backtrack Obama, Barack Obama, DNC, Democratic National Convention, Democratic Nomination, Democratic party, Democrats Against Obama, Dems4McCain, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, John McCain

Washington D.C. speechwriter Wendy Button aptly says "So Long, Democrats," in her piece appearing in The Daily Beast. Ms. Button has written for Senators John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama, as well as other national and international leaders. She really tells the ‘new’ Democratic Party where to go. Her words are worth your time:

Since I started writing speeches more than ten years ago, I have always believed in the Democratic Party. Not anymore. Not after the election of 2008. This transformation has been swift and complete and since I’m a woman writing in the election of 2008, “very emotional.”

Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates.

I HIGHLY recommend you read the rest of this excellent piece by clicking HERE. Thanks!

"Contrarian That I Am..."

Can I ever relate to that! Yes, contrary to the constant badgering of my family, there is no way in freakin' HELL I will ever vote for Obama. Not ever gonna happen,I keep telling them, and for the HOST of reasons about which I have written ad nauseum, at this point. If you need a recap, suffice it to say I will not vote for the most arrogant, condescending, homophobic, lying, bullying, cheating (with help from the DNC), unqualified, inexperienced, race baiting, Authoritarian Socialistic misogynist ever. I mean, NEVER. Apparently, neither will Charles Krauthammer, a commentator who is growing on me (H/T to SusanUnPC at No Quarter for this article).

Recently, in this article, McCain for President, Dr.Krauthammer
endorsed McCain. Dr. Krauthammer laid it all out there, saying what a lot of us out here think, too:

Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

Well, good for him. Scott McClellan apparently couldn't sign up fast enough, the man who served as Bush's mouthpiece for the war is now an Obama supporter. Funny, I haven't heard any disdain coming out from the Obamabots about him. Or "If We Don't Invade Iraq We Will Be Awash In White Powder" Powell. I guess it's okay that the man who SOLD the war so many of us oppose, and one of the MAIN reasons Obamabots claim they support Obama, now endorses an Obama presidency is somehow a great achievement to these people. Logic is not their strong suit, apparently.

Krauthammer continues:

First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

Here is what is so, so, so sad about this whole election campaign. An amazingly qualified candidate had her decades' worth of experience minimized and belittled by her opponent, her party, members of her party, and the media, largely because she is a woman. Had anyone else had that breadth and depth of experience, they would be glorified. And now they have started on McCain, but taking a different tact. Now it is that McCain is so old his experience doesn't matter - it's old school, and we're the new kids on the block. Get out the way, Gramps - the cool kids are coming through now, and they're gonna show you how it's REALLY done. Never mind that these wet-behind-the-ears pups haven't the FOGGIEST into what they are getting themselves. They have proclaimed The One to be the cat's meow, and he can do no wrong. Especially since they haven't bothered to listen to what he actually SAYS he is going to do or how he is going to do it. I reckon they think they'll just be getting a check from him if he's elected, and that's all they need. Either way, experience is BAD - inexperience is GOOD!!! Sheesh.

Krauthammer won't put up with all of the Obama Camp nonsense, though, thank heavens:

Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Halle-damn-lujah - Someone is saying what we have been saying. How is it that Obama has continued this relationship with this man, this "educator" trying to radicalize the youth of Chicago, who bombed the Pentagon and our Capitol Building? How can that possibly be? I think we all know the answer to that question, and the recently revealed video tapes in which Obama expresses his true ideology are confirmed. Though Barbara West, she of the interview with Biden that actually tried to get answers, said that Obama said himself, in his book, that he was intrigued by Marxism, and sought out friends with a Marxist bent. I'll provide that video for you at the end of this post. The point is that we should ALL have been offended by Obama's relationship to Ayers, not excusing it.

The good doctor continues his explanation for his choice, including the race-baiting of the Obama camp:

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

Is this a trick question? Well, I agree with Krauthammer when he writes:

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb. letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Do the Obama people just want to pretend all of McCain's qualifications don't exist because of his age, or because he is Republican, or because if they do acknowledge it, they will negate their own campain? In any event, so far, they have been allowed to get away with it, courtesy of the Fourth Estate. Most of the MSM never acknowledge McCain's stand on the economy, all the way back to 2005, and Obama's bounty from the very people who got us into this economic mess. No, rather they lump McCain into the pool of people they claim are responsible for the misfortune facing so many, TOO may, people in this country now. Apparently, creating news has become more important than reporting news, at least when it comes to Obama and McCain. And while I was opposed to the surge, thinking it was a bad idea, I have to admit that it does seem to be working now. Rather than give McCain the credit he deserves for knowing that from the beginning, media prefers to rationalize away Obama's stand, or they seem to steer away from any discussion of what is happening in Iraq at all these days. That seems to be how they deal with everything - ignore, obfuscate, justify, manipulate, lie.

Yep, that Dr. Krauthammer is one smart man, I have to say. While I do not agree with him on everything in general, I agree with him on this: McCain is far more qualified, both in terms of experience and in terms of character, to lead this country.

As promised, here is the Barbara West piece in which she explains where she got her questions to ask Joe Biden about Obama's socialistic tendencies. Obama himself, of course:

"Brother, Can You Spare A Dime" or More Like...

"Give me all your money - I'm the government! I know how best to spend your hard earned wages - I'll SHARE them with whomever I choose worthy! And while I'm at it, maybe I'll take over your 401(k)s too, and give you a WHOPPING 3% interest on your 'investment!' Aren't I BENEVOLENT???" Woohoo!!! Where do I sign up? Well, I suppose I could vote for the Authoritarian Socialist in the election and have these dreams (cough, choke) come true! Yes, you, too could have your hard earned dollars go to spread the wealth around, apparently something the Civil Rights Activists didn't work hard enough to do, according to Obama. Oh, yeah - surely by now you have seen the video of Obama from 2001. A whole bunch of intrepid writers at No Quarter have dealt with this video and story in a most awesome fashion(Uppity Woman, LisaB, Matthew Weaver, Ani, to name a few), but someone else has weighed in, too. And I don't mean me.

Well, except to bring you this, someone of whom you have surely heard - Johnny Mac. Yep, there's a brand new Mac Attack on Obama's long-held ideology of "spreading the wealth." I might add, Obama can just feel FREE to share his millions of dollars any ol' time he wants, though judging from the donations on his released tax returns, like so many other issues, he is ALL TALK and NO ACTION. What the hell else is new?

Anywho, Senator McCain was speaking in Ohio, land of the fraudulent votes by Obama staff (oh, McCain wasn't talking about the fraudulent votes and ACORN, though I reckon he could have thrown that in there - maybe another day), and focused on the whole "lemme have your money and I'll dole it out the way I see fit" mindset of Obama:

It's been a long campaign and we've heard a lot of words, and great campaign trail eloquence. The amazing thing is that we've learned more about Senator Obama's real goals for our country over the last two weeks than we learned over the past two years. It is amazing that even at this late hour, we are still learning more about Senator Obama and his agenda. He told Joe the plumber right here in Ohio he wants to quote "spread the wealth around." It's always more interesting to hear what people have to say in these unscripted moments, and today we heard another moment like this from Senator Obama.

In a radio interview revealed today, he said that one of the quote -- "tragedies" of the civil rights movement is that it didn't bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society. He said, and I quote, "One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

Good googly moogly. Did Obama REALLY say that? OUT LOUD?? Whew - "coalitions of power" has GOTTA mean ACORN, right? I mean, really, who else could it mean but the organization for whom he worked, to whom he has given almost a cool million from his own funds, and tons more from all of us. The one working overtime to amass so many voter registrations, legit and not, that they overwhelm election boards so they can't POSSIBLY find all of the fraudulent ones...Just a guess on my part, though, since he didn't SAY, "ACORN, the political and community organizers on the ground who can put together actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change." Ahem. Nothing like that. Right.

But since Obama has been a bit unclear on what he actually MEANT by his whole Hope/Change thing, McCain can clear that up for you:

That is what change means for Barack the Redistributor: It means taking your money and giving it to someone else. He believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs. He is more interested in controlling wealth than in creating it, in redistributing money instead of spreading opportunity. I am going to create wealth for all Americans, by creating opportunity for all Americans.

Pretty much! Hey! Guess who else holds these kinds of beliefs? Are you thinking who I'm thinking? Yes! Bill Ayers!!! The Marxist/Anarchist!

McCain then raises the Obama tax plan:

We've all heard his campaign trail promise: he says he only wants to tax the rich. But these unscripted moments and his record tell a different story. He supported the Democratic budget plan passed just this year that called for raising taxes on people making just 42,000 dollars per year. And Senator Obama has voted 94 times for tax increases or against tax cuts.

Senator Obama may say he's trying to soak the rich, but it's the middle class who are going to get put through the wringer, because even the tax increase he admits to misses the target. To pay for nearly a trillion dollars in new government spending, his tax increase would impact 50 percent of small business income in this country, and the jobs of 16 million middle class Americans who work for those small businesses.

Whether it's Joe the Plumber here in Ohio or the working men and women across this country, we shouldn't be taxing our small businesses more as Senator Obama wants to do, we need to be helping them expand their businesses and create jobs. America didn't become the greatest nation on earth by giving our money to the government to "redistribute." In this country, we believe in spreading opportunity, for those who need jobs and those who create them. And that is exactly what I intend to do as President of the United States.

According to the Wall Street Journal, when Obama says $250,000, he REALLY means more like $164,500, since that is when the tax hikes will kick in. There's more:

Mr. Obama's most dramatic departure from current tax policy is his promise to lift the cap on income on which the Social Security payroll tax is applied. Currently, the employer and employee each pay 6.2% up to $102,000, a level that is raised for inflation each year. The Obama campaign says he'd raise the payroll tax rate on incomes above $250,000 by as much as two to four percentage points -- though it's unclear if that higher rate would apply to the employee, the employer, or both.

In any case, lifting the cap would change the nature of Social Security from an insurance program -- which pays out based on how much you paid in -- into a wealth-transfer program that is far more progressive.

Huh - that seems to be a theme with Obama. Sharing the wealth. Oh, no, wait - sharing YOUR wealth however he sees fit. There is much more about his tax policy in the WSJ article (h/t to a No Quarter reader - sorry - can't find your name now!). McCain adds:

My opponent's massive new tax increase is exactly the wrong approach in an economic slowdown. The answer to a slowing economy is not higher taxes, but that is exactly what is going to happen when the Democrats have total control of Washington. We can't let that happen. We need pro-growth and pro-jobs economic policies, not pro-government spending programs paid for with higher taxes...

I'm not going to spend $750 billion dollars of your money just bailing out the Wall Street bankers and brokers who got us into this mess. I'm going to make sure we take care of the working people who were devastated by the excesses of Wall Street and Washington.

I have a plan to hold the line on taxes and cut them to make America more competitive and create jobs here at home. We're going to double the child deduction for working families. We will cut the capital gains tax. And we will cut business taxes to help create jobs, and keep American businesses in America. Raising taxes makes a bad economy much worse. Keeping taxes low creates jobs, keeps money in your hands and strengthens our economy.

Exactly. There is more in Senator McCain's address to Ohio today, including more on the economy:

If I'm elected President, I won't spend nearly a trillion dollars more of your money. Senator Obama will. And he can't do that without raising your taxes or digging us further into debt. I'm going to make government live on a budget just like you do.

I will freeze government spending on all but the most important programs like defense, veterans care, Social Security and health care until we scrub every single government program and get rid of the ones that aren't working for the American people. And I will veto every single pork barrel bill Congresses passes.

I'm all for keeping an eye on the $700 BILLION bailout, especially with reports coming out today that bankers are planning billions - yes, I said BILLIONS - in bonuses to the very people who helped to get us into this position, as well as raises to employees, and maybe buying some more banks - with YOUR MONEY!!!! Maybe that whole oversight wasn't such a bad idea after all...

McCain continued, saying:

Let me give you the state of the race today. There's eight days to go. We're a few points down. The pundits have written us off, just like they've done before. My opponent is working out the details with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid of their plans to raise your taxes, increase spending, and concede defeat in Iraq. He's measuring the drapes, and he's planned his first address to the nation for before the election. I guess I'm old fashioned about these things I prefer to let the voters weigh in before presuming the outcome.

What America needs now is someone who will finish the race before the starting the victory lap ... someone who will fight to the end, and not for himself but for his country.

Obama has been claiming victory almost from the day he got into this race, if you ask me. For some reason, he refused to be held to the same standard as any other potential nominee EVER, refusing even to be properly vetted (see Larry Johnson's excellent presentation by a former FBI agent on this very issue). What was more amazing was that he was allowed to get away with it, so we are just now - a WEEK before the election - getting some information that has been available for SEVEN YEARS. Wow.

We do know John McCain, though, and we know he is telling the truth when he says:

I have fought for you most of my life, and in places where defeat meant more than returning to the Senate. There are other ways to love this country, but I've never been the kind to back down when the stakes are high.

As a lifelong yellow dog Democrat until 5/31/08 (when the RBC/DNC took votes cast, and certified, from Clinton and GAVE them to Obama making it clear the fix was in, and the DNC was no longer democratic), I knew all about Senator McCain. One may disagree with his policies, but one cannot, with any credibility, challenge his patriotism or his dedication to the country he serves. He concludes:

I know you're worried. America is a great country, but we are at a moment of national crisis that will determine our future.

Will we continue to lead the world's economies or will we be overtaken? Will the world become safer or more dangerous? Will our military remain the strongest in the world? Will our children and grandchildren's future be brighter than ours?

My answer to you is yes. Yes, we will lead. Yes, we will prosper. Yes, we will be safer. Yes, we will pass on to our children a stronger, better country. But we must be prepared to act swiftly, boldly, with courage and wisdom.

I'm an American. And I choose to fight. Don't give up hope. Be strong. Have courage. And fight.

Fight for a new direction for our country. Fight for what's right for America.

Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington.

Fight to get our economy out of the ditch and back in the lead.

Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children's future.

Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for. Nothing is inevitable here. We never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.

Now, let's go win this election and get this country moving again.

Could you please add, "Fight for free speech" while you are at it, Senator? That seems to be something the Obama camp would like to curtail. I, for one, think it's mighty important. Just sayin'. Ahem.

Don't you feel like McCain is channeling Hillary Clinton? Seems that way to me, anyway. I don't agree with all of his policies, but I do think he is a man of honor, of integrity, a public servant burning with a passion for this country and her well-being, thus OUR well-being. Obama? Not so much. Obama seems in it for him and him alone, with an eye to imposing his true ideology and beliefs on this country once he has bamboozled and hoodwinked enough people to get him in (one way or the other - see comment regarding ACORN above) for HIM, not us, HIM. McCain seems to see Obama for who he is, and is fighting for this country to not fall into the hands of one who wishes to "redistribute the wealth" of the citizens any more than it already is (think Social Security), or to put our economy at greater risk.

Like I said, Obama - redistribute your OWN wealth, if you want (hey, maybe your buddy Warren Buffet will let you spread HIS around), but leave mine the hell alone.

(This post was written for No Quarter, with great thanks to SusanUnPC for the McCain speech!)

Just So You Know...UPDATED

In case any of you have been trying to access No Quarter over the weekend, please know it has been switching servers, and should be up and running by Monday night. This has been a big undertaking, but ultimately, will serve everyone better. So, don't worry - it's a good thing - and come back tonight!!

UPDATE: No Quarter is now up an running. Yay!

"Racy Content"

I don't know about you, but I am pretty darn tired of being called a racist for not wanting Obama anywhere near the White House. As I have said about a gazillion times, it is just as racist to vote for someone BECAUSE of their skin color as it is to vote against them because of their skin color. In Obama's case, it has nothing to do with the color of his skin at all. It is because I think he is horribly inexperienced, a liar, a fraud, pals around with dangerous associates, has an ideology with which I completely disagree (you know, Paternalistic Socialism with a heavy dose of Nation of Islam-like attitude - just ask Rev. Wright), and is a major freakin' misogynistic homophobe. That pretty much rules him out in my book. But that's just me.

And apparently, Jonah Goldberg, who also doesn't appreciate the frequent, no, RAMPANT use of the race card by the Obama Campaign and the DNC, as evidenced by this article, Racy Content
This? Racist! That? Racist!. Goldberg makes some mighty good points in this article, beginning here:

Transcend means “to move beyond, to surpass.” At least that’s what I always thought. But I’m beginning to wonder whether it means instead: “Much, much more of the same, only this time really stupid.”

Exhibit A: the incessant, relentless, click-your-ruby-red-slippers-and-say-it-until-it-comes-true mantra that Barack Obama will magically cause America to “transcend race.” One hears and reads this everywhere, but less as an argument than as a prayer, an expression of faith, a “from my lips to The One’s ear” sort of thing.

It is, of course, total and complete nonsense. According to L.B.O. (Logic Before Obama), transcending race would involve making race less of an issue. Passengers on Spaceship Obama would see race shrink and then vanish in the rearview mirror.

Instead, Obama has set off a case of full-blown race dementia among precisely the crowd that swears Obama is leading us out of the racial wilderness. Rather than shrink, the tumor of racial paranoia is metastasizing, pressing down on the medulla oblongata or whatever part of the brain that, when poked, causes one to hallucinate, conjure false memories and write astoundingly insipid things. For instance, a writer for Slate sees racism when anyone notes that Barack Obama is — wait for it — skinny. What this portends for Fat Albert is above my pay grade.

OHMYGOSH - how much do you love, "LBO"?? It is SO true, though, isn't it? Our whole vocabulary has been redifined as a result of Obama:

We need to rewrite those old Schoolhouse Rock cartoons, because now virtually any adjective, noun, verb, or adverb aimed at Barack Obama that is not obsequiously sycophantic or wantonly worshipful runs the risk of being decried as racist. Community organizer? Racist! Mentioning his middle name? Racist! Arrogant? Racist! Palling around with a (white) terrorist? Racist! Celebrity? Racist! Cosmopolitan? Racist! This? Racist! That? Racist! The other thing? Oh man, that’s really racist.

The new Schoolhouse Rock cartoon: “Conjunction: a word that connects a racist attack and Barack Obama.”

Oh, perfect - I can just see that new "Conjunction Junction" piece right now. Anyone who disagrees will be yelled at, threatened, and called a racist over and over and over until they acquiesce. Perfect! Or, maybe it will go something more like this:

This week, an editorial writer for the Kansas City Star denounced John McCain and Sarah Palin for suggesting that Obama is a socialist because he wants to “spread the wealth around.” Don’t they understand that “socialist” has always been a racist codeword used by bigots like J. Edgar Hoover to demonize black activists like W.E.B. Du Bois?

A couple problems: First, as best I can remember, Marx, Engels, Lenin, George Bernard Shaw, Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas, and Michael Harrington do not usually get a lot of attention during Black History Month. Second, as writer Michael Moynihan recently noted, Du Bois wasn’t merely a socialist, he was a Stalinist! (Du Bois was not entirely unsympathetic to the Nazis, either.) Besides, when did “socialist” stop being an anti-Semitic codeword for Jew? Maybe when the left started going batty over “neocons.” But that’s a story for another day.

Now, just hold the damn phone. How in the HELL can anyone claim that correctly acknowledging one's political ideology, in this case, socialism, is RACIST??? Well, holy crap - all those times my buddies at Union and I joked about how we just CANNOT play Monopoly (we kept giving each other houses, money, whatever was needed) because we were socialists we were being RACIST!! Wowie zowie. Ahem. Really, this kind of BS has just gone way, way, WAY too far.

As is the idea that Obama will "transcend" anything, except morals, ethics, and common sense, but especially race:

The idea that Obama was ever really about transcending race flies completely in the face of his own writings. The overarching theme of his book Dreams From My Father is the story of (a) man who found it impossible to transcend race and instead explicitly chose to have a racial identity when he didn’t have to (he describes fellow multiracial students he met in college as sellouts). He then joined a black church whose theology is shot-through with black nationalism and whose longtime pastor believes that black brains are different from white brains.

But, yes, I know: The above paragraph reads: “Blah, blah, blah ... racist, racism, racey-race-racism.”

Now, let us actually transcend race for a moment. Apparently for Obama, “transcend” isn’t a racial term so much as a euphemism for declaring victory. He says he wants to “turn the page” on the arguments of the ’80s and ’90s, by which he means conservatives should stop clinging to their guns and antiquated Sky God and join his cause.

Well, yes, because who could not be moved by such Rainbow-y, hope-y, change-y, pretty little unicorn-y type of rhetoric like,

"they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Oh, WHERE do I sign up?!?! Obama surely does have his own lexicon:

He told Planned Parenthood he wants to stop “arguing about the same ole stuff,” by which he means he wants people who disagree with his absolute support for government-funded abortion on demand to shut up already.

He doesn’t want to argue about his pals from the Weather Underground who murdered or celebrated the murder of policemen and other Americans, he just wants everyone to agree no one should care.

In short, Obama and his disciples only demand one kind of transcendence from all Americans. We must, as Obama likes to say, unite as one people, one nation, one American family and transcend all of our misgivings about Barack Obama. Then, and only then, will The One fulfill his wife’s pledge and fix our broken souls.

Only a racist could possibly disagree.

— Jonah Goldberg is the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

Apparently. You know, as a Southerner who grew up with African American classmates and friends, serving African American men in my grandmother's little country store, doing a BUNCH of anti-racism work as an adult, to then be called a "racist" because I don't support an unacceptable candidate is just a tad harsh. What I find to be racist are all of the people who support this unqualified candidate ONLY because of his skin-color, who refuse to hold him to the same standards as anyone else, and belittle those who try. THAT, folks, is racism, in my humble opinion, of course. But hey - it's a whole new dictionary now, right??

Happy Birthday, Senator Clinton

Should have been you...

"What Sarah Palin Taught Us" and Hillary in 2012

Many of us seem to be on a roll these days - the roll being calling out the degrading treatment of women by the Democratic Party. Yet, those loyal female Democrats are all too willing to accept this treatment, and vote for The One who stole this nomination from Hillary Clinton, aided and abetted by the DNC. I urge you to read Uppity Woman's OUTSTANDING piece, "Sisters! Remember Then And Do Not Forget Now. Or Pay The Price," at both her site and No Quarter. Uppity Woman tells it like it is, and in this post, beseeches women to open our eyes. I could not agree more.

It seems that others are noticing the rampant sexism/misogyny, and the hypocrisy of the "liberal elite" when it comes to who can be a feminist or not. Victor David Hanson would be one such person in his article,
An Instructive Candidacy: What Sarah Palin taught us about ourselves. In his excellent piece, parts of which are excerpted here, Mr. Hanson takes on not just the Feminist Police, but the journalists who have been "reporting" during this campaign season:

Soon this depressing campaign will be over, and we can reflect on what we learned from our two-month introduction to Sarah Palin.

Clearly, it is more than we would have ever wished to know about ourselves.

First, there turns out to be no standard of objectivity in contemporary journalism. Palin’s career as a city councilwoman, mayor, and governor of Alaska was never seen as comparable to, or — indeed, in terms of executive experience — more extensive than, Barack Obama’s own legislative background in Illinois and Washington. Somehow we forgot that a mother of five taking on the Alaskan oil industry and the entrenched male hierarchy was somewhat more challenging than Barack Obama navigating the sympathetic left-wing identity politics of Chicago.

Well, true that. Everyone seems to have convenient amnesia when it comes to the accomplishments of the Governor of Alaska. Far too often, I have seen letters to the editor or comments at blogs claiming she is "just a mother of five." No, she is that, which is no small thing, by the way, to which my mother can attest, but she is One of FIFTY governors in the entire United States, with the highest approval rating of any governor, as well as one who has taken on her own party, and WON, thank you so much.

But I digress:

So we seem to have forgotten that the standards of censure of her vice-presidential candidacy were not applied equally to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. The media at times seems unaware of this embarrassment, namely that their condemnation of Sarah Palin as inexperienced equally might apply to Barack Obama — and to such a degree that by default we were offered the lame apology (reiterated by Colin Powell himself) that Obama’s current impressive campaigning, not his meager political accomplishments, was already an indication of a successful tenure as president. The result is that we now know more about the Palin pregnancies — both of mother and daughter — that we do the relationships of Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, and Father Pfleger with our possible next president.

No FREAKIN' KIDDING! Obama hasn't had a tenth of the vetting in eighteen months that Palin has had in two months - nice that some people are keeping score here. Hanson continues:

Indeed, the media itself — in private, I think — would admit that while (we? they?) have learned almost everything about Tasergate and the Bridge to Nowhere, we assume that at some future date a publicity-starved, megalomaniac Rev. Wright will soon offer his post-election memoirs, detailing just how close he and a President Obama were. Or we will learn Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, as long-time friends, in fact, did communicate via phone and e-mail well after Ayers had told the world, about the time of 9/11, that he, like our present-terrorist enemies, likewise wished he had engaged in more bombing attacks against the United States government. And the media never wondered whether a Palin’s falling out with those who ran Alaska might have been more of a touchstone to character than Obama’s own falling in with those who ran Chicago.

Uh, yeah. For some reason, while still in the Primary season, the MSM were all too happy to do their level best to ignore anything to do with Wright. They downplayed the videos, believed Obama when he claimed he certainly didn't hold the same beliefs that Wright does even though his butt was in the pew in that church for over twenty years, and even though he called Wright his "uncle." Oh, no - we must take him at his word that he would NEVER believe in that hate mongering theology. Just like we are supposed to take him at his word about Bill Ayers, Domestic Terrorist-Who-Wishes-He-Had-Been-More-Successful! Never you mind that they have been hanging around with each other for the past 13 years, working together, living near each other, and handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote Ayers' "unique" ideology to the youth of Chicago, through Wright, of course. Obama is such a straight shooter, naturally we must believe every word that escapes his lips, right?? Evidently.

And now is when we get to the issue of feminism:

Second, there does not seem to be much left of feminism any more. Of course, feminists once gave liberal pro-choice Bill Clinton a pass for his serial womanizing of vulnerable subordinates, and Oval Office antics with a young female intern. But they gave the game away entirely when they went after Gov. Palin for her looks, accent, pregnancies, and religion, culminating in assessments of her from being no real woman at all to an ingrate — piggy-backing on the pioneer work of self-acclaimed mavericks like themselves.

Feminism, it turns out, is no longer about equal opportunity and equal compensation, but, in fact, little more than a strain of contemporary elitist identity politics, and support for unquestioned abortion. Had Gov. Sarah Palin just been a mother of a single child at Vassar rather than of five in Alaska, married to a novelist rather than a snow-machiner, an advocate of pro-choice, who shot pictures of Alaskan ferns rather than shot moose — feminists would have hailed her as a principled kindred soul, and trumpeted her struggles against Alaskan male grandees.

So there was something creepy about droves of irate women, in lock-step blasting Sarah Palin from the corridors of New York and Washington, when most of them were the recipients of the traditional spoils of either family connections, inherited money, or the advantages that accrue from insider power marriages. Indeed, very few of Palin’s critics on their own could have emerged from a small-town in Alaska, with an intact marriage and five children, to run the state of Alaska.

We have come to understand that — for a TV anchorwoman, op-ed columnist, or professor — it would be a nightmare to birth a Down Syndrome child in her mid-forties, or to have had her pregnant unwed teen actually deliver her baby. In the world outside Sarah Palin’s Wasilla, these are career-ending blunders that abort the next job promotion or book tour— or the future career of a prepped young daughter on her way to the Ivy League.

Right? I've known people who couldn't endure the stress of their partner getting a PhD., for cryin' out loud, much less the stress of moving from one level of government to another with five kids, one of whom is a Special Needs child. Add to that the lack of support from her own party in doing these things, and you got yourself some stress. Which Sarah Palin has handled with seeming ease, a feat that should have been CELEBRATED by feminists, not ridiculed.

Hanson then takes on the whole Biden v. Palin contest:

Third, from the match-up of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, we discovered that our media does not know anything about the nature of wisdom — how it is found or how it is to be adjudicated. For the last eight weeks, Palin has been demonized as a dunce because she did not, in the fashion of the class toady with his hand constantly up in the first row, impress in flash-card recall, the glasses-on-his-nose Charlie Gibson, or clinched-toothed Katie Couric.

Meanwhile Joe Biden has just been Ol’ Joe Biden — which means not that he can get away with the occasional gaffe, but that can say things so outrageous, so silly, and so empty that, had they come out of the mouth of Sarah Palin, she would have long ago been forced to have stepped aside from the ticket.

Factual knowledge? Biden, in the midst of a financial meltdown on Wall Street, apparently thinks that the last time it happened in 1929, we heard FDR rally us on television. And such made-up nonsense came in the form, as many of Biden’s gaffes do, of a rebuke to the supposedly obtuse George W. Bush...

Amazingly, very, very little is made of either Biden's OR Obama's gaffes, though BOTH of them have PLENTY. Had Clinton, or McCain, or Palin, or anyone else made the factual inaccuracies or flat out lies that either of these men have made, they would be running across the bottom of your screen for days on end. But Biden and Obama? Hahaha, they made a mistake, move along, nothing to see here. Sheesh. Here are just a few for you:

Silliness? Imagine the following outbursts, mutatis mutandis, from the mouth of a Sarah Palin — “John McAmerica,” “a Palin-McCain administration,” “Senator George Obama,” “Congressman Joe Biden,” who is both “good looking,” and “drop-dead gorgeous.” Or “I guarantee you, John McCain ain’t taking my shotguns. . . . If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem. I like that little over and under, you know? I’m not bad with it. So give me a break.”

Or “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Or “Mitt Romney is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly he might have been a better pick than me.”

Holy toledo. Reversing the positions helps to highlight just how absurd all of this has been...I agree with the following assessment:

The list could go on ad nauseam. But we got the picture. Biden has devolved from the ridiculous to the unhinged, confident that in-house journalism would understand that the law graduate with 36 years in the Senate was simply being Joe, while a Sarah Palin, who flinched when asked to parse the Bush Doctrine, was a Neanderthal creationist. I thought by now the You-tubed exchange of a Congressional Finance Committee hearing between the pompous Harvard Law School graduate Barney Frank and the conniving Harvard Law School graduate Franklin Raines — at the proverbial moment of conception of the financial meltdown — would have put to rest the notion that graduation from law school was any proof of either wisdom or morality.

I don’t know whether Sarah Palin would make a great vice president. But I did learn that by the standard of John Kerry’s pick of John Edwards, and now Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden, as running mates, she is wise and ethical beyond their measure.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

He's got a point, don't you think?

And in conclusion, while looking for videos for something else, I stumbled upon the following video. From this person's lips to the powers-that-be in the universe:

Women and Fraud

Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild has been joining Gov. Palin on the campaign trail of late. Gov. Palin has been discussing the issues facing women, as Lady Rothschild discusss in this clip:



All I can say is if I EVER need a spokesperson, it will be HER!! Lady Lynn makes clear that Obama is a total fraud when it comes to walking the walk of the talking the talk he does regarding women and our rights. She is amazing...And Palin's speech on this topic was pretty awesome, too, as Ani demonstrated in her excellent post at No Quarter, "Palin's Message to Women Bears Repeating."

And in Breaking News regarding fraud of a different kind in Ohio, we have this:



How sad is it that prosecutors did not pursue this case further because the defendants have deep pockets? How in the WORLD could the prosecutor say it was an "innocent mistake"?? We are talking about Rhodes and Marshall scholars here, for crying out loud! Check out one of them here:



Wow. This is the youth of today - evidently, "intelligence" is no substitution for ethics, that's obvious. And, money trumps justice, apparently. I guess we should be thankful that this case won't necessarily affect other cases that might arise (meaning, if you don't have deep pockets, you might actually get prosecuted). What a great system, right?? Ahem. I don't think even Lady Lynn could make this sound good. Let's hope that other cases of fraud, both involving voters (you know, Obama and people trying to cheat him in), are dealt with in a more forceful manner on November 4th.

Obama Is Worried About Texas???

Alert Reader, Texas Buckeye, sent me the following email from the Obama Camp. Wow. Talk about your hubris! This goes right along with Peniel Cronin's results of the Primary v. Caucus piece, "The Numbers Don't Lie (But The DNC Does)." I should amend that to say, "The DNC and OBAMA!!" Take a look:

Dear R:

Spread the truth to neighboring statesDirty tricks designed to mislead Texas voters have been spreading across the state, and many Obama supporters are getting incorrect information about the voting process.

Bogus claims about voting machines are spreading via email chains -- and in one reported case, even broadcast on a Houston radio station -- that could have a huge impact on voter turn out on Election Day.

Here is the truth that every Texan should know: If you vote a straight Democratic Ticket you will cast your ballot for Barack.

But Texans are not alone -- voters in key neighboring battleground states like New Mexico, Colorado, and Missouri are receiving deceitful automated phone messages and mailers from the McCain campaign spreading vile lies about Barack Obama.

We can't let dirty tricks and bad information sway this election. We need Texans to step up and spread the truth to other voters -- not just here at home, but also in our neighboring states.

Will you stand up for the truth and make a short weekend trip to a key battleground state?

No one is certain who's behind this latest attempt to influence the election and scare Obama supporters away from the polls on November 4th. But the intent is clear: to steal votes away from Barack and other great Democratic candidates up and down the ticket.

We can be sure that shameless tactics like these will intensify over the next 16 days.

That's why your help is crucial to making sure that every voter knows the truth about Barack Obama and the change we need in this country.

Forward this email to your friends and family in Texas, then sign up to spread the truth to other voters:

http://tx.barackobama.com/DriveForChange

There is so much at stake in this election. Together, we can make sure that everyone casts their vote for change on November 4th.

Thanks,

Juan

Juan Sepulveda
Texas State Director
Obama for America

P.S. -- If you've received an email with misinformation about the voting process, report it so that we can make sure that voters across America get the truth about Barack: www.fightthesmears.com/report

Um, Juan? People aren't so worried they won't be ABLE to vote. They are worried that too MANY people will vote. Like all those folks the ACORN people registered, often more than once. Often, more than 10 times. Or that people who don't live there will be able to vote there. And they are worried that the results will actually matter. You know, like how the caucus results did not match after your thugs commandeered the caucus packets early, and signed people up throughout the day. How they changed the numbers they called in. How they stole the caucus from Hillary Clinton, and the voters of Texas. So, yeah, Juan, folks aren't worried that they won't be able to vote, they are worried about things like the following happening again:



Or like this, and not just in Texas, but Indiana, too:



More on the caucus fraud in Texas. And a Civil Rights Activist talks about what she saw in Indiana of voter suppression:



Frankly, listening to the Civil Rights Activist detail how an elderly woman was intimidated from voting stunned me. Someone who wants Obama to win must tell me WHY this kind of fraud, intimidation, and coercion is acceptable to you. Please. Make me understand why voter fraud is alright with you, because it sure as hell isn't okay with me. To hear about the rampant, insidious fraud of the caucus system is shocking. But the image of a Civil Rights activist seeing an elderly woman get turned away by someone in her community from exercising her right to vote for whomever she chose is infuriating, and makes me sad beyond words.

But wait - there is one more part to this documentary. In this one, you'll get a tast of how incredibly vindictive the Obama camp is toward anyone who does not toe the line they have established for them. It is very telling of the Obama camp mindset:



How? How did the Democratic Party get here? How, HOW, do Obama supporters justify this fraud, this theft of the nomination, as we are on the verge of the election? Make me understand, because I sure don't get how any of this makes Obama an acceptable choice, I surely don't.

Breaking - The Numbers Don't Lie (But the DNC Does!)

Hot off the presses is this final report from Peniel Cronin, the author of an incredible study, "2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Election: Primary versus Caucus: How millions of voters were systematically disenfranchised and election results were skewed," available at Dr. Lynette Long's site, which contains a great deal of information on issues of caucus fraud. Ms. Cronin's final study, "2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Election: The People's Vote: Delegate Allocation Per Original Votes Cast" is an eye-opener (and is available at the bottom of this post). No Quarter was the first to be able to share this data, and I thank Ms. Cronin for that. The bottom line is this - had the RBC not interfered, the difference between the PLEDGED delegates would have been - wait for it - 4 (FOUR). Yes, I said 4. And, while caucuses accounted for only 2.9% of voters, they accounted for over 14% of pledged delegates. Never even mind all of the massive caucus irregularities that benefited one person - Obama. Still, the bottom line difference: 4 delegates, AND Clinton won the popular vote. Holy smokes.

Before I go further, allow me to introduce Ms. Cronin to you, and present her credentials:

Peniel Cronin has been President & CEO of Global Basics since 1993. Cronin holds a B.S. in Accounting from Arizona State University and has over 16 years experience as an accountant and Director of Marketing for several SMEs.

Cronin directs product development and market research and developed the algorithms that power the eNameWiz multilingual domain creation and advanced Name Analytics technology.

Enterprise clients through Global Basics have included the Arizona Office of Tourism, the Nevada Commission on Tourism, the Arizona Shopping Consortium, Shop America Alliance, America West Airlines, Southwest Airlines, AeroMexico and numerous other travel and domain industry organizations. Cronin holds three US & German Patents, several trademarks and numerous copyrights.

Cronin has had a disability for 43 years since a car accident in 1965. She was the Director of Marketing for one of the largest Independent Living Centers in the US for over 5 years and is a disability rights activist, speaker, trainer, and peer mentor to both people with disabilities and minority/women business owners.

What an amazing woman she is!

And now to the results Ms. Cronin has compiled. It will knock your socks off to see the actual numbers, the graphs, and machinations involved to get Obama the nomination. Many of us are aware of the level of caucus fraud that occurred over the Democratic Primaries, but the Numbers Don't Lie, and here they are, including a spreadsheet of the votes state-by-state (click on the page to enlarge it):









Wow, right? There is more in this excellent report, but I thought this was of particular interest regarding the whole caucus returns:

Perhaps most troubling of all the elements that impacted the final delegate count was the lack of reliable election results –i.e., the undisclosed voter attendance data and non-certified caucus vote counts from 4 of the 6 largest caucus states in terms of votes cast. Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine did not even report total voter turnout and votes.

Together, these states cast an estimated 558,000 of the 1,057,136 million total caucus votes for Obama and Clinton. Thus, 53% of the total votes reported from the 13 caucus states were a guesstimate based on state Democratic Party estimates of voter turnout or based on projections by various researchers and news organizations.

Notably, the reported vote totals varied depending on the projection made by different news organizations and election researchers. There was no certification of results (and probably no solid audit trail) that would provide an exact vote count
as required to be reported through a primary voting system.

In addition to these 4 states, there were no solid vote-count numbers presented for the Texas caucus. In fact, the election vote tally there stopped after approximately 41% of the precincts had reported results.

From a delegate standpoint, these 4 caucus states plus the Texas caucus accounted for 239 pledged delegates – 48% of the total 498 pledged allocated to all caucuses.

Holy moly. Who knew that these were "ESTIMATES" and not actual counts for these caucuses? So let me understand this - not only did Obama have these caucuses gamed, but in most of them, they didn't even bother to COUNT them all?? Um, counting isn't rocket science, after all - addition is something you learn early on in grammar school. But it didn't happen in this election. That seems to be a theme for the Democratic Primaries - "let's not bother to count all of the votes this year, okey dokie?" Uh, yeah.

There is more, and I highly recommend you read the rest of it (it is short, but powerful). In conclusion, Ms. Cronin offers these thoughts (with slight corrections to web addresses):

With the overall election results being so starkly different between the two voting systems used – primary versus caucus,and given all the reports (and actual signed affidavits) of irregularities and fraud, why didn't the DNC call for an investigation into the caucus results?

With so many complaints of irregularities, why didn't superdelegates stop and question the legitimacy of the delegate count reported? As representatives of the people, why didn't they look back to the pledged delegate count as determined
by the People’s Vote – the original votes cast and take note of Clinton’s 175,000 vote-victory margin over Obama and consider the flawed nature of the caucus system along with the small number of total votes the caucus-goers represented – before casting their votes which in the end selected Obama as the presumptive Democratic nominee? *

Think about it: 239 delegates, nearly half of all caucus pledged delegates, were impacted! That is more than enough to skew or sway any competitive election. And with what justification: under-funded, Party-financed elections, inadequate
volunteers to staff and monitor the caucuses, sloppy audit and paper trail systems? The State Democratic parties that run and finance caucus elections should not follow a separate, less-compliant set of rules. The DNC should act quickly to reform caucus voting systems and State Parties must be mandated to comply or get out of the electioneering business.

How is Democracy or the American voter served by the flawed caucus voting system or the Party's blindness to it? Caucuses, while exemplary as a forum of debate and discussion, must be reformed or abandoned as a voting system before the next election cycle. Never again should the will of the majority of voters be thwarted by the will of the minority.

To read my original research entitled “2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Election: Primary versus Caucus: How millions of voters were systemically disenfranchised and election results were skewed” and to investigate caucus fraud issues further, go to: http://www.lynettelong.com/caucusfraud/statistics/ and http://www.wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/. I also recommend “Has America Outgrown the Caucus?” by Tova Wang a Democracy Fellow at The Century Foundation.

Another point to be made in terms of why the superdelegates did (or did not) do as they did was money, hence the *. I recommend this video by HRCinO8 to you - it is one you may have seen before, but it emphasizes how much money Obama shelled out to superdelegates.

These are excellent questions, Ms. Cronin. Another question raised in our email exchanges prior to this article was: Did ACORN have any involvement in the rampant caucus fraud that occurred this year? As of yet, I have no proof one way or the other, and would certainly be interested in any certifiable, authentic connections. It does seem plausible to me, though, given the extent of their voter registration fraud. Why would they do one and not the other?

And given the extent of that voter registration fraud, Ms. Cronin also questioned voting Third Party this year since the potential fraud is so pervasive that every vote against corruption is critical. While we know Gore actually won FL, the votes siphoned off to Nader made it easier to ignore the actual recount tally (post-Supreme Court decision). I think Ms. Cronin makes a good point regarding third party voting and the query about any connection to ACORN. I would like to thank her for making sense of all of the caucus irregularities and for showing, clearly, what we all suspected and knew in our hearts - that the DNC appointed Obama its nominee, not the votes or will of the people. For that, they have some 'splaining to do...

FULL REPORT:
To read the full report, click on each page image to enlarge it:

I made slight changes from the original published at No Quarter, but nothing that changes the substance of the post.

Look Who Else Is In Bed With ACORN...

Yep, none other than John Edwards. Ahem. Oh, he didn't just speak at one of their conventions, like some other Democrats did. No, it wasn't that casual or innocent. He actually traveled with their president around the country. It gets really interesting around the 6 1/2 minute mark. Oh yeah, check it out:



Uh, yeah, so Edwards apparently spends a lot of time with ACORN. But wait - it gets better (and by better, of course, I mean on the issue of voter fraud):



I see (and as you can see, this is part 6 of 6 - the other 4 parts were the conclusion of his speech, and then more questions). It isn't that ACORN is fraudulently registering people that's the problem, because - hey - they've "registered" over 1 million people! - but it is the INVESTIGATION into those "voter registrations" that is the problem because they may suppress "voting." I gotcha.

Now, look - as the politicians ALL like to say (Joe Biden and Barack Obama especially) - I am ALL for lawfully registering people to vote, and I am adamantly opposed to any real attempts at voter suppression in any communities by anyone. To attempt to thwart anyone's right to vote is just flat out wrong.

That being said, when ACORN registers 666,000 (okay - am I the only one who finds the "666" part to be a bit telling?!?!) in a state that has been steadily declining in population, and when it is already acknowledged by the "powers-that-be" that approximately 200,000 are fraudulent, it makes the argument that this is all about voter suppression, just a bit weak (here's a LINK for more information on that, and actual voter fraud in OH)...Just a little tiny bit...I wonder why the applause wasn't QUITE so loud about Edwards' suggestion of paper balloting? Hmmm - I could be reading into that, but then again, maybe not...

Anywho - I thought this was all pretty interesting, the connections Edwards has with ACORN, too. Maybe not quite as many connections as Obama, but hey, if he did, maybe he'd be the nominee right now! Hahaha - just kidding. We all know the fix was in for Obama. Still - sure seems like ACORN has a mighty wide net for prominent Democrats, especially for a "nonpartisan" organization! Ahem. I reckon that's how they ended up with $31 million of our money. I'm sure they do some good with it, but they sure do some major shenanigans with it, too. I reckon it's the latter that's exactly why they DO get so much money, especially in election years, don't you? Yeah. That's what I thought.

As it turns out, an attorney for ACORN also thinks there are some issues with charitable funds and ACORN. Oh, yes - it was in the NY Times yesterday. Yes, the attorney, Elizabeth Kingsley, lays out all of her concerns regarding ACORN and charitable giving, as well as THIS little gem:

It also offers a different account of the embezzlement of almost $1 million by the brother of Acorn’s founder, Wade Rathke, than the one the organization gave in July, when word of the theft became public.

“A full analysis of potential liability will require consultation with a knowledgeable white-collar criminal attorney,” Ms. Kingsley wrote of the embezzlement, which occurred in 2000 but was not disclosed until this summer.

Here's one of the best parts, though. Guess which voter registration group is affiliated with ACORN? Project Vote. So what, you ask? Well, alert citizens know that to be the group for which OBAMA worked in IL. Turns out that the only people on its Board of Directors are from ACORN. Wanna tell us again, Barack, about your relationship with ACORN, of the rampant voter registration fraud?? *Crickets* Yeah, that's what I thought.

If only the NY Times had acted like a real newspaper and not pooh-poohed this whole idea that ACORN was acting in a fraudulent manner. One can only imagine what could have happened had they acted to INFORM rather than CAMPAIGN for their chosen candidate. Sadly, that's all we can do - imagine. Hopefully, though, this is not TOO little too late, and the people of the US might get the clue that there are organizations working HARD to undermine our right as citizens to cast a vote that matters. Let's not just hope, though - let's spread the word. Our votes must matter!

The Blame Game

That's pretty much what Joe Biden did on The Ellen Show recently. Essentially, he AND Ellen laid the blame for all of the negative campaigning squarely on John McCain, as if Obama was running the most positive, loving campaign ever. Hell, Obama ran a very negative campaign against HILLARY (remember those "Harry and Louise" ads? NAFTA ads?). The issue seems to be "robo-calls" connecting Obama to - wait for it - AYERS!!! How DARE the McCain campaign say something that is TRUE about Obama's history?? Yet, both Biden and Degeneres act as if JOHN MCCAIN, and McCain alone, has changed his entire character. Mr. Hope-y Change-y Unicorn is spreading sweetness and light wherever he goes, apparently, and John McCain has completely morphed into Darth Vader or something. Take a look:



Yeah, okay. I guess he didn't hear Obama claim that supporters at a Palin rally yelled, "Kill him!", a claim debunked by none other than the Secret Service. I don't know about you, but with Obama's problems with "truthiness," I'll take the Secret Service's word over Obama. I guess Biden hasn't watched any of Obama's ads. Or seen the tee shirts worn by the Obama supporters, beginning with the "Bros Before Hos" and escalating to the vulgar Sarah Palin tee shirts. Or his supporters who call a 12 year old girl a racist for wearing a Palin tee shirt. Or the man who had his 2006 Lexus LS 430 scratched with "KKK" on it, and American flag burned on it, and some other damage done to it (just so you know, this model, new, cost close to $70,000. That's a mighty expensive piece of property to "vandalize."). Oh, what prompted this attack? The man had the audacity to have a McCain/Palin sticker on it. How DARE he?!? Apparently, that is what the thugs who trashed his car seemed to think, anyway.

Oh wait - here is one that is McCain specific! Yes - one of McCain's offices, right here in South Cackalacki, was defaced in York County with the claim that "Republican means Slavery." Well, hell, Biden himself has engaged in race baiting as a manipulative ploy.

But McCain has changed? Are we to infer, then, that Obama has always been an arrogant misogynist and liar whose supporters can act anyway they see fit without fear of repercussion? So it would seem, anyway.

Oh, but it gets better. Here is the second part of the interview:



Did you notice the glaring omission here by Biden when Degeneres asked about Proposition 8? When he said he would vote against it and all of that? Well, here's a little reminder:



Despite appearances to the contrary, OBAMA DOES NOT SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGE! It was disingenuous at best to frame it the way BOTH of them did. Degeneres asked about an initiative on which Biden would NOT be voting, so he could say whatever he damn well PLEASED, but did NOT ask him where the Obama Camp stands on same sex marriage. I expected better from Degeneres, at least, because she certainly DID ask John McCain about it.

Anyway - this whole thing of painting McCain as being incredibly negative for looking into Obama's history, and denying the 18 months worth of negative campaigning from the Obama camp, is absurd. I know some of it is just plain politics, but some - a LOT - is how it is reported (or not) in the MSM. Even when reports come out proving Obama is more negative in his campaigning, the MSM turn it around on McCain, and talk CONSTANTLY about his "anger" problem. Wow. So this is the new spin, just to keep you updated - McCain has totally changed his entire character, and Obama is merely trying to do what is best for the country. Got it? You must ignore all facts and evidence to the contrary, and simply accept that Obama will bring a kinder, gentler Administration to the White House. Yeah, right. A little "truthiness" wouldn't hurt right about now from the Obama camp - oh, wait - that's right. Joe Biden DID actually speak a little 'truthiness," much to The One's dismay - claiming that Obama will be tested, and tested early by international factions. Oh, goody - that's JUST what the country needs in the midst of economic hardship - "testing." Well, thanks, Joe, for finally telling the truth about SOMETHING in this campaign. I reckon there's a first time for everything! I take that back - you also acknowledged that Hillary Clinton would be a better VP than you, and was definitely qualified to be President, unlike your running mate, so there was that - have to give credit where credit is due! Ahem. Now, if you will only start telling the truth about your race-baiting, and character assassination of John McCain, we'll be in business...