12% of the colonists took sides against the British King in the Revolutionary War. 88% sat back and waited to see who would win, or took sides with the King and against the freedoms then given to free Englishmen by God and now given by God to free Americans. You have the chance to be one of the 12% or one of the 88%. Which will you be?
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Disingenuous denials aside, there is a lot of vote fraud going on this election cycle. If you are interested in stopping vote fraud instead of promoting it or pretending it doesn't exist, read through this article by an attorney formerly with the US DOJ voting rights section.
There’s been lots of talk about voter fraud this election season. Already machines have purportedly preselected candidates and in other places, documents demonstrate non-citizens are registered to vote. Anyone who says voter fraud doesn’t exist has no credibility. I’ve covered elections for over 10 years. I’ve seen it over and over again with my own eyes. I’ve proved it in federal court. It is significantly more common than Sasquatch.
But what does voter fraud look like? What can citizens be on the lookout for when they participate in their election? Let me share some examples:Read more at pajamasmedia.com
Hillbuzz is all over it. This is a good section, but really the whole article is worth reading.
If you have not seen it already, Rush, you need to watch Gigi Gaston’s documentary “We Will Not Be Silenced 2008″. I’m featured in a segment on the voter fraud that was committed in the Iowa Caucus back in January of 2008. While I was always aware Democrats use unions and other means to cheat in elections, I never knew the Democrat Party was capable of the large-scale, aggressive, unapologetic fraud it committed on Obama’s behalf all through 2008. In Iowa, I watched Obama’s ACORN and SEIU goons push and shove old people, bully them, and intimidate them when they wanted to vote for Hillary Clinton. I saw scores of Illinois license plates fill the parking lots outside caucus locations, with Chicagoland Obama supporters illegally entering the Caucus sites to vote for Obama and game Iowa for him. Having planned ahead, Obama supporters actually RAN those caucus sites, and held the doors open for all these fraudulent voters to walk right in, without being asked for IDs, where they then took control of the caucuses and bullied the Iowa residents into supporting Obama — lest they be called RAAACISTS! out in the open in front of their friends and neighbors in those open-air caucuses.
The media has never talked about this. I don’t remember ever hearing you talk about it. But one of the biggest reasons the Democrats are in the trouble they’re in right now is because of how frequently the Left and the media (one and the same, really) called anyone who opposed Obama a RAAACIST. If you supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries instead of Obama, you were called a RAAACIST. If you were someone like me who fundraised for Hillary, who hosted events for her, who put yourself out there and wrote columns advocating her or did media spots talking up her candidacy, you were aggressively targeted by the Obama campaign and his supporters…relentlessly attacked as a RAAACIST! and assaulted with the Alinksy Rules for Radicals in hopes of breaking your spirit, terrorizing you, and making you abandon Clinton for fear of having these people destroy your life, ruin your business, and make you an absolute pariah in your community.
This is what the Obama campaign, the media, and the DNC did to DEMOCRATS.Read more at hillbuzz.org
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Let's keep hammering nails in the coffin of the Big Lie that nobody has ever actually cheated on a vote, especially not a Democrat cheating on a vote.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
A remarkable analysis of the facts of the case, including some that were covered up and obscured by the Senate committee, and incorporating back story about the movies students typically watched and talked about in law school in the 1970s. Summary, Anita Hill was provoked by promises of anonymity into testifying against Clarence Thomas, then faced with a choice between repudiating her testimony and destroying her own reputation or doubling down and dragging Clarence Thomas's name through the mud. We know what she chose.
And we also know that in the end, her career after that testimony has not been exemplary while Thomas's has.
Read the whole thing. My summary cannot do it justice.
Monday, October 25, 2010
The Democratic Party of JFK is no more. Now you have the Democratic Party of Saul Alinsky, Herbert Marcuse and Antonio Gramsci. This is why NPR would fire its best reporter for the thoughtcrime of appearing on FNC.
Scientists estimate that more than 99% of the species that have ever existed on this planet are now extinct. Some species simply adapted into others. Some were obliterated in mass die-offs. Others could not adapt to changing environments. And more recently, others were hunted to death.
Within the jungle of American politics, one animal has been in steady decline for the past thirty years: the liberal. After the shot fired last week at Juan Williams by his former employer NPR, this trend should be even more apparent.
Williams is not a leftist. He’s a liberal in the tradition of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. (Just take a look at the books he’s written on the Civil Rights Movement.) He’s not an Obama leftist who drank from the cup of Saul Alinsky, Billy Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright.
A “liberal” properly defined is someone in the middle of the political spectrum — an individual open-minded to different ideas and willing to consider all manner of solutions. That’s what Williams is. That’s why he’s willing to appear on Fox News regularly. And that’s why genuine leftists from Glenn Greenwald to Media Matters are throwing him under the bus. (Leftists hate genuine liberals even more than they hate conservatives.
I say an ideological battle because my comments on “The O’Reilly Factor” are being distorted by the self-righteous ideological, left-wing leadership at NPR. They are taking bits and pieces of what I said to go after me for daring to have a conversation with leading conservative thinkers. They loathe the fact that I appear on Fox News. They don’t notice that I am challenging Bill O’Reilly and trading ideas with Sean Hannity. In their hubris they think by talking with O’Reilly or Hannity I am lending them legitimacy. Believe me, Bill O’Reilly (and Sean, too) is a major force in American culture and politics whether or not I appear on his show.
Years ago NPR tried to stop me from going on “The Factor.” When I refused they insisted that I not identify myself as an NPR journalist. I asked them if they thought people did not know where I appeared on the air as a daily talk show host, national correspondent and news analyst. They refused to budge.Read more at www.newsrealblog.com
Friday, October 22, 2010
Somehow I don't think the future ex-Senator will like it.
Just do the pelvic thrust. It really drives you insane. Let's do the Time Warp again.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Liberal intolerance bites Juan Williams in the pocketbook. Why is it that liberals complain, harass, and boycott whenever they hear opinions that aren't identical to theirs? The answer is partisan tolerance, by which theory tolerance of liberals is good but tolerance of conservatives is evil, as proposed by Herbert Marcuse in the 60s and used by liberals ever since as the reason why they speak and act hatefully towards conservatives while claiming to be fighting hate speech (as seen in every campus visit by Ann Coulter). This is also why they can act with the vilest types of misogyny toward conservative women while claiming to be feminists (see Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Christine O'Donnell, Michele Malkin, Michelle Bachman, Maggie Thatcher, even Ginni Thomas).
Of course what this really boils down to is dehumanization. While hiding behind the fancy political theories from the socialist Marcuse Liberals simply demonize and dehumanize their political rivals. In this way they don't have to play fair. They just assume their opponents are demonic and inhumane and claim conservatives are guilty of all sorts of evil practices. That gives them the excuse to do whatever they want, which is generally exactly what they claim their rivals are doing, and is the moral justification for their ends justify the means thinking.
In this situation, Juan Williams was fired by a government funded news organization for political speech that didn't agree with the official government position. Seems kind of like a violation of the first amendment to me, but what do I know? I'm no Elliot "Client No. 9" Spitzer, or Barack Obama, after all. I just happen to have read the plain language of the amendment today and it sure seems applicable.
NPR has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior news analysts, after he made comments about Muslims on the Fox News Channel.
The move came after Mr. Williams, who is also a Fox News political analyst, appeared on the “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday. On the show, the host, Bill O’Reilly, asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a “Muslim dilemma.” Mr. O’Reilly said, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”
Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr. O’Reilly.
Read more at www.nytimes.com
He continued: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
If T-Pain can be said to sing then Christine O'Donnell can too.
The Gregory Brothers, those musical autotune wizards who produced the awesome songified version of Double Rainbow, have changed Christine O'Donnell's first ad into a song and released it to the net.
p.s. Double Rainbow song is here
And I'm not talking about the porta-potties in your backyard or composting toilets they want to install under your bathroom. Green jobs are poorly defined, cost more money to consumers, give poverty level employment to employees, and are in general a giant step backwards to the bad old days before antibiotics, electricity, telephones, and the internal combustion engine.
Myth 1: Everyone understands what a “green job: is.
Fact 1: No standard definition of a “green job” is set.
Myth 3: Green jobs forecasts are reliable.
Fact 3: The green jobs studies estimates using poor economic models based on uncertain assumptions.
Read more at www.redcounty.com
Myth 5: The world economy can be remade by reducing trade and relying on local production and reduced consumption without dramatically decreasing out standard of living.
Fact 5: Learning from the past; history shoes that individual nations cannot product everything their people want or need. Every country possesses different talents that allow specialization in products and services which in turn lowers costs for producers and makes them more efficient.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Whether or not you used to enjoy listening to the repetitive droning of the US's most overrated reader of teleprompters ever, this game may make his speeches entertaining, if not specifically for their content. I have to admit. I liked his "not red states and blue states, united states" speech back in 2004.
Friday, October 15, 2010
The ingenuity of individuals is boundless.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
If George W. Bush's wife, Laura, had deliberately broken the law and photos existed of the lawbreaking, would the media be silent about it? Would she have gotten away with it? Or would she have gone to jail?
Why? Oh, just curious. No reason.
Today, when Michelle Obama voted early in Chicago, she reportedly told a voter that he needed to vote to keep her husband’s legislative agenda alive. This took place in an area where such electioneering is prohibited by Illinois law. The law has criminal consequences.
People like Pete Rose and Richard Nixon learned that America has little tolerance for those who think they are above the law.Read more at pajamasmedia.com
Remember back in 2008 when the Obama campaign received all sorts of donations from unsavory, imaginary characters like "Doodad"? Add in the donations from the Gaza strip, and the donations from pre-paid credit cards, and the fraudulent charges to unsuspecting credit card holders. The media wouldn't even cover the story.
Daniel Henninger lists several of the innovative technologies that saved the lives of the Chilean miners and brought every single one of them to the surface alive. Every single one of these innovative technologies was produced by capitalist companies operating in a free market. None of them came from governments.And yet we have government leaders and an entire political party devoted to demonizing capitalism and promoting more government red-tape as the answer to every government-caused problem.
Unlike the Obama false charge this one is provably true. Just follow the dots.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Now everyone who is paying attention knows the wages of lying instead of telling the truth when you are a news magazine. ABC, CBS, NBC, look at this and see the future of your news organizations.
Republicans have the chance this election cycle to elect more qualified and effective black Republican representatives and senators than have been elected in one year since the Reconstruction period.
If the progressive media adds 10-15% to Democrat numbers by way of all the free advertising in the guise of "news", then voter fraud typically adds 3-5% to Democrat numbers on voting day. This article is a comprehensive look at how voting fraud works in the US.
If you care about whether every legitimate vote counts, read the entire article.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Shorter Al Sharpton: Democratic Party nothing more than a valley of old, dry bones hoping for a miracle
Byron York writes about why the OneNation socialist union march on October 2 fell flat.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Americans all across the country in right-to-work states don't have to join unions if they don't want to. In non-right-to-work states if the union takes control of their workplace they can be fired for not paying union dues. Democrats are planning to make all 50 states non-right-to-work states. If this happens, then workers will not have the opportunity to stay out of a union. The union will organize, and those who don't want to join the union or whom the union dislikes will not be able to keep their jobs.
Democrats and Unions HATE Right-To-Work States, because in those states workers are free to join the union OR NOT. And that choice is one that Democrats and Unions do not believe American Workers should be allowed to make. Anti-Choice: Who would have expected that?!
Currently, there are 22 states in the U.S. that have laws where workers who are employed at companies that are unionized have a choice whether or not to join or pay the union. These states are known as Right-to-Work states.
On the other hand, in the 28 Non-Right-to-Work states (also called forced-dues states), it is legal for a union to negotiate a “union (income) security clause” that requires all workers covered by the union to pay the union dues or ‘agency fees’ as a condition of employment. If the workers refuse to pay the union, under a “union (income) security clause,” the union can have them fired from their jobs.
As background, in 1947, Congress amended the National Labor Relations Act with the Taft-Hartley Amendments which, among other things, gave states the right to establish “Right-to-Work” laws. Until the Taft-Hartley Amendments, from 1935 to 1947, private-sector workers in all 50 could be required to pay dues to a union or, if not, be fired from their jobs. The ability of states to have Right-to-Work laws is contained in a single paragraph within the National Labor Relations Act (Section 14 [b]), which states:
(b) [Agreements requiring union membership in violation of State law] Nothing in this Act [subchapter] shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.
As a result of this one section being inserted into the 1947 amendments, states (through their legislatures) could determine whether or not to be a Right-to-Work state, or a forced-dues state. Therefore, the removal of this one section would make all 50 states forced-dues states, giving unions the ability to have workers fired for not paying union dues or fees.Read more at www.redstate.com
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Very nice video from Joe Dan Media by way of viralfootage.com
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Whoever it was, they were out in the open.
As Terrence Moore points out in this essay, the Republican Pledge to America is more of a temporary than a permanent document. It describes those things that Republicans can attempt to do right now, before the newly elected Congressmen and Senators are seated in Jan 2011. But what Conservatives need to do, as they take over control of the Republican Party from the big government Republicans who are dominant in the legislature now, is institute a long-term party platform and plan that is based on the same first principles as animated the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and, in fact, the American Revolution of 1776. To these ends, Moore starts with these paragraphs.
Read the whole thing.
Human beings are individuals. They are born not into a class or a race or a special interest but into the human community. The American ideal has always been to treat individuals not as belonging to preferred classes or groups but as individuals. Attempts to categorize and hyphenate individuals, particularly for political purposes, are far from being American.
Human beings are endowed with considerable capacities. They have the capacity to think, to work, to provide for themselves, and to pursue their own happiness. Therefore, they have the ability and the responsibility to govern themselves, both in the individual and the collective sense. Policies that treat human beings as wards of the state rather than as human beings capable of taking care of and governing themselves are not American.
Human beings are endowed with inalienable rights. These rights include life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the protection of private property. These rights come from God, not from government.
The chief end of government is to protect individual, inalienable rights. Rights are not to be confused with entitlements. A person’s rights are derived from being human, from the individual’s effort and talents, and from the self-evident principle that a person might use or save or give away his property as he sees fit. Entitlements are alleged benefits that government transfers from one class of people to another under the guise of “welfare” or “care” or “security” but usually for political gain. Government possesses neither life nor liberty nor happiness nor health and therefore cannot grant rights, only protect them. For the first century and a half of the American experiment, the government mostly protected citizens’ rights. For almost the last century, there has been a deliberate conflation of and confusion between rights and entitlements. The restoration of sound government in our time means a return of government to protecting rights rather than providing entitlements.
The protection of private property is particularly important in America. The American Revolution resulted in large part from a distant government’s cavalier attitude to property rights. James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, described the purpose of the government in protecting property as follows:
The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to an uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties, is the first object of government.
In light of Madison’s ideas of constitutional government, contemporary attacks upon “the rich” used to pass progressive (i.e. unequal and often confiscatory) tax and fiscal policies are particularly insidious. The “diversity in the faculties of men” will unavoidably result in some amassing considerable wealth. The laws of political economy tell us that a rising tide, however, lifts all boats. The more opportunity “the rich” have in investing capital in productive enterprise, the higher those boats will rise.Read more at biggovernment.com
Friday, October 1, 2010
Have fun at your march, all you bought and paid for lackeys of the government monopoly unions and the other organizations bent on reversing the Revolution of 1776 and putting America under an aristocracy once again.