Confederate
Yankee

October 22, 2008

Nationwide, Police Begin Bracing For Obama's Defeat

The Hill notes that police departments across the country are preparing for post-election violence:

Police departments in cities across the country are beefing up their ranks for Election Day, preparing for possible civil unrest and riots after the historic presidential contest.

Public safety officials said in interviews with The Hill that the election, which will end with either the nation’s first black president or its first female vice president, demanded a stronger police presence.

Some worry that if Barack Obama loses and there is suspicion of foul play in the election, violence could ensue in cities with large black populations. Others based the need for enhanced patrols on past riots in urban areas (following professional sports events) and also on Internet rumors.

The reference to Palin as the first female vice president is repeated later in the article, but as an obvious sop; does anyone really expect women or Republicans to riot if McCain and Palin aren't elected?

No, the concern is that urban Democrats may riot in the event that Barack Obama falls short in his bid for the White House, or that they may riot to a lesser extent if Obama wins and victory celebrations get out of hand.

A source of mine involved in homeland security, however, says that the government isn't terribly concerned with fears of overzealous celebrations, but with potential rioting linked to expectations being built of a "stolen election."

He intoned—but did not state directly—that internal polling from both the McCain and Obama campaigns see a much Presidential tighter race that is shown in most of the public polls (noted here, here, and here as well). This inaccurate and perhaps purposefully biased polling has created expectations in some quarters of an easy win for Barack Obama that the internal polling data in both campaigns does not support.

I suspect that the media-manipulated polls could lead to violence if Obama is not elected, including injuries to innocent citizens, rioters, and law enforcement officials.

I've made it clear in recent days that I suspect that John McCain and Sarah Palin will win this election, and that the outcome will shock many. If that shock leads to violence, however, I hope that the blame for those injured is properly placed at the feet of the mainstream media organizations that have abandoned objectivity in order to campaign and even cheat in favor of the Democratic candidate they so clearly prefer.


Show Comments »

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:21 AM | Comments (50)

Ayers in 2002 While Working With Obama: "I'm as Much An Anarchist As I Am A Marxist"

Bill Ayers has never made his Marxism a secret, as can be attested in this radio interview that was taped in 2002, as Ayers and his protégé Barack Obama were working together on the board of directors at the ultra-liberal Woods Fund.

"I considered myself partially an anarchist then and consider myself partially an anarchist now. I mean, I'm as much an anarchist as I am a Marxist, which is to say that I find a lot of the ideas of anarchism appealing..."

And it's not that Barack Obama wants to punish our success. He just wants to spread our wealth around.

Hope. Change. Marxism. Anarachism.

Isn't that what we all want for America?


Show Comments »

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:54 AM | Comments (4)

Summing Up The Race For The Presidency in Two Headlines

McCain: 'I've Been Tested'

Obama to Ellen: I'm a Better Dancer Than McCain


Show Comments »

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:56 AM | Comments (2)

I'm Joe

That's the theme of this new McCain ad.

Hot Air has the transcript and Ed dubs this the "I am Spartacus" ad, for good reason:

The Spartacus theme resonates on a couple of different levels. First, we have everyone identifying with a beleaguered hero as a way of supporting him, but let’s also recall the circumstances of Spartacus. Spartacus led a rebellion of slaves against the government that oppressed them. Joe the Plumber has led a rebellion against an oppressive governing philosophy that erodes the notion of private property and would make taxpayers into serfs to the lords of Washington DC.

That kind of message resonates. People may want services from the federal government, but they don’t want outright redistributionism, where the government transfers cash from those who pay taxes to those who don’t. Barack Obama’s tax plan does just that.

Why should I work hard just so that Barack Obama can tax me more and "spread the wealth around?"


Show Comments »

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 06:49 AM | Comments (9)

October 21, 2008

The Comprehensive Argument Against Barack Obama

A very well-done bit of research, pointing out the facts about Barack Obama, and supporting those facts with video of Obama in his own words.


Show Comments »

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 07:39 PM | Comments (1)

Kossacks Target Mormons for Harassment, "Opposition Research"

Kinda like what they pulled on Joe the Plumber, but with a more specific policy goal in mind, crushing a proposition against gay marriage by targeting those who have contributed to the campaign.

So what am I asking you to do?

Some distributed research.

There is a list of a bunch of Mormon donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign (in case that one goes down, here's a mirror with slightly worse formatting.

Here's what I'm asking for:

This list contains information about those who are big donors to the Yes on 8 campaign--donors to the tune of at least $1,000 dollars. And, as you can see, there are a lot of them. It also indicates if they're Mormon or not.

If you're interested in defeating the religious right and preserving marriage equality, here's how you can help:

Find us some ammo.

Use any LEGAL tool at your disposal. Use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to...shall we say...less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious. If so, we have a legitimate case to make the Yes on 8 campaign return their contributions, or face a bunch of negative publicity.

There are a crapload of donors on this list--so please focus on the larger ones first. $5,000 or more is a good threshold to start with.

Feel free to use Lexis-Nexis searches as well for anything useful, especially given that these people are using "morality" as their primary motivation to support Prop 8...if you find anything that belies that in any way...well, you know what to do.

If you find anything good, please email it to:

equalityresearch at gmail dot com.

Here's the bottom line for me: if someone is willing to contribute thousands of dollars to a campaign to take away legal rights from some very dear friends of mine, they had damn well make sure their lives are beyond scrutiny--because I, for one, won't take it lying down.

You of course understand the basic message being touted by this thug. He's all for the freedom of speech, just not for those who hold different beliefs. He firmly believes his opinion is more valid than that of others, and he wants ammunition to blackmail those with dissenting opinions into silence.

I think Jonah Goldberg had a word for folks like this, didn't he?



Show Comments »

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:04 PM | Comments (11)

Are You Going To Vote With Him?

Via Five Feet of Fury, and inspired by this post.


Show Comments »

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:41 AM | Comments (5)

October 20, 2008

Orson Scott Card Rips the MSM

Orson Scott Card eviscerates those Democratic Party flacks that call themselves journalists.

A taste of The Last Honest Reporter:

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

There's much more at the link.

Card, by the way, is a Democrat.


Show Comments »

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:35 PM | Comments (33)

Good News! Biden Promises an International Incident to Test Obama if He's Elected, and Also Promises Obama Will Screw It Up

Joe Biden's greatest gift/curse is an apparent inability to censor himself, and he admitted yesterday that Obama's utter inexperience and lack of leadership will cause anti-American regimes to target us as a result:

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

How will Obama respond to this crisis? Biden is convinced that Obama is going to screw it up, and he's asking supporters to bear with him anyway before getting immediate buyer's remorse.

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Good grief.

Has any Vice President in U.S. electoral history ever made it more clear that his running mate is completely unfit for the office that he seeks?

And if Biden dosn't have faith in Obama, why should the rest of us?

Update: Perfunction has partial audio.


Show Comments »

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:39 AM | Comments (34)

More Totalitarian Than You

For the longest time, "Politics" and "Media" were two distinct categories that I had to organize posts on this blog. I can't precisely recall when it occurred, but at some point during this Presidential campaign the dividing line that existed between the two categories became so blurred as to become meaningless, as media bias has become overtly political in nature.

Nowhere has this been more apparent than in the political hatchet job being carried out against Joe Wurzelbacher in the past week. Wurzelbacher was playing football with his son in his front yard when Barack Obama made an unscheduled stop in Toledo, Ohio to stump door-to-door for votes. Obama came up to Joe, and Joe told Obama that his tax plan was going to charge him more.

Obama infamously answered, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

His classic socialist answer revealed that Obama's vision of America's future is directly at odds with the capitalism that has made the United States the superpower that it is today. How did the media respond to this too-real revelation?

They couldn't justify Obama's answer, and realizing the damage that could result from this admission, they decided to instead attack Joe Wurzelbacher. They published his voter registration, divorce record, tax records, and other information in an attempt to discredit him and direct attention away from Obama's answer.

Americans, generally being good people, are disgusted with how the Obama-supporting media, bloggers, and the Obama campaign have sought to attack Joe the Plumber instead of justify Obama's socialist answer.

As if the attacks on Joe weren't bad enough, Obama surrogate Jodi Kantor at the New York Times sunk so low as to contact the teen-aged friends of 16-year-old Bridget McCain in hopes of digging up dirt for a hit piece on Cindy McCain, John McCain's wife.

Fro some, the line of what they can tolerate without retribution has been crossed. Several of my friends in the blogosphere have had enough, and have decided to try to destroy the biased media, one reporter at a time, by organizing and then deeply investigating the lives of those reporters who go beyond the pale in their biased support of Barack Obama.

I'm all for exposing the biases of reporters as this post about James V. Grimaldi of the Washington Post and his dishonest hit piece will attest, but where do you draw the line?

Is it sufficient to expose their biased work and lack of professional ethics so that it shows up prominently in a blog search, or do you engage in destroying the entire person? Do you go after their failed marriages and tax records? Do you research and then publish their sexual perversions and closely-held racial prejudices? What about their kids, their spouses, and their friends?

And if we're willing to stoop to that level to attack their personalities, are we too distantly removed from escalating to attacks their persons? We saw an Obama supporter attack and beat up a middle-aged woman holding a McCain sign in Manhattan last week.

Do we want physical intimidation and violence to be the new political discourse?

I cannot speak for others, but I'm not willing to stoop to the level of the totalitarian left. I'm not going to destroy the private lives of private citizensmdash;even those bent on perverting public discourse—because they've lost all professional integrity.

Let's focus instead on exposing their lack of professional ethics instead of destroying them for personal imperfections.

If we can't, then we're no better than they are.


Show Comments »

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:51 AM | Comments (30)

ACORN, Ayers, and Obama

The revealing video Barack Obama doesn't want you to see.

Update: Trying to hide the evidence of the Obama-Ayers connection.


Show Comments »

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:47 AM | Comments (0)

Neither Relaxed Nor Worried

In the last few days we've seen the polls, heard Pelosi's promise, and Powell's endorsement.

We've watched the American media drop the illusion of impartiality to nakedly campaign for Barack Obama, and we've seen them attempt to destroy a blue collar guy for merely asking a question.

We've watched Hollywood's pop culture erupt in fevered celebration of Obama's radical far Left orthodoxy (though most aren't bright enough to understand it), even as they lash out with unbridled anger against Sarah Palin's congenial conservatism. We've watched the creepy enthusiasm of indoctrinated youth surround and uplift him with near religious support.

And yet—somehow—we're not worried.

America is a wonderful country and a tolerant country, but their are certain minimum standards that even in the worst of times that we aren't willing to accept.

We will never elect a candidate who was friends with a racist like David Duke, or who belonged to a White Power cult. Likewise, we aren't going to elect President a man who spent more than 20 years in a racist cult that believes God must either be "black" or killed as Barack Obama has attended under the twisted tutelage of Jeremiah "Goddamn America!" Wright.

We will never elect a candidate who was friends with a Timothy McVeigh, a Mohamed Atta, or Ted Kaczynski. Likewise, we will never elect a candidate who started his political life campaigning in the home of two known terrorists (Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers) made infamous by their murderous war against our nation. Nor will we accept that he did indeed "pal around" with these terrorists and other communist/socialist radicals for at least 21 years, funneling them grant money and sharing office space with them, and having them babysit his children as they seek to undermine our way of life and indoctrinate our kids.

Barack Obama is the perfect Left Wing radical candidate, and they are certainly enthusiastic about ushering in his brand of socialism. I rather doubt, however, that the rest of our country is willing to give up on America just yet.

John McCain will not be a great President, but he will be our next President.


We're tolerant of a lot of things, but terrorist-befriending, cult-attending racism, and naked socialism isn't on the list.


Show Comments »

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:41 AM | Comments (20)

October 18, 2008

Obama's Stolen Tax Cuts

Barack Obama keeps telling us that he's going to cut taxes for 95-percent of Americans... but did you ever notice he never says where that cut is going to come from, and the media never asks?

There's a reason for that:

One thing: the 95% number is fundamentally dishonest because I'm pretty sure it measures against the CBO baseline – which assumes all of the '01 and '03 tax cuts expire in 2010. Politically, that's nonsense. But it allows Obama to count extending the politically popular Bush tax laws as an "Obama tax cut." Compared to what people actually pay (what Republicans at the House Ways and Means Committee call the "reality baseline"), there isn't actually a tax cut. Put it this way: currently families get a $1,000 per child tax credit. Now, the CBO baseline assumes that credit drops to $500 per child in 2011. So if the Obama Administration keeps the credit at $1,000 – which means the family pays the same as they always have – it counts as a "tax cut." I know you understand all this, but it drives me batty how intellectually dishonest the mainstream media has been in covering the tax issue in this election.

Did you get all that?

Senator Government is trying to steal credit for the Bush tax cuts that he voted against in the Senate.

It turn out we do have a candidate running his campaign based on George W. Bush's legacy.

Barack Obama just doesn't have the integrity to admit it.


Show Comments »

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:21 AM | Comments (8)

October 17, 2008

The Racism They Teach

She's only 12 years old but Ashleigh Jones is feeling the heat of this election year.

That’s because the seventh grader at New Smyrna Beach Middle School was called a racist by classmates for wearing a pro-Sarah Palin t-shirt.

All dissent is racist, kids.

The thought of it getting continually worse for the next 4-8 years ought to motivate everyone who still believes in free speech to get to the polls and make sure Senator Government and his Truth Squads are relegated to being an Illinois Nazi problem, and not a national one.

The polls are tightening, and Barack Obama has still never won a contested election. Let's keep it that way, shall we?


Show Comments »

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:22 AM | Comments (14)

Typhoid Barry

Hide your children, shutter your windows, and lock your doors, America.

Hope and change could be coming to a bitter and clingy neighborhood near you.

At any moment, Barack Obama could suddenly show up in your yard and put you on the spot where you feel compelled to ask him a question. If—God forbid—he offers up an answer that reveals a disturbing aspect of his political agenda, your life is over.

We've now seen this take place in the life of Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, known to the world as "Joe the Plumber." Joe has become a cautionary tale of what happens when you allow Barack Obama to reveal himself.

Joe was playing football at home with his son when Barack Obama suddenly appeared, and then ruined Joe's life by answering a simple question about taxes with an answer about how those who chase the American Dream should be required to "spread the wealth around."

Oh no, Joe!

Now obsessed leftwing bloggers and designated media hitmen have combed through Joe's public records and private details, and have done their best to air his dirty laundry and smear his name, and all because he asked an honest question that they didn't like the answer to.

Let the story of Joe the Plumber be a warning to the rest of you, America.

Don't cross Typhoid Barry.


Show Comments »

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:07 AM | Comments (52)

October 16, 2008

WaPo's James V. Grimaldi's Dishonest "Hit" On Cindy McCain

I'm going to start doing something I should have done long ago. When I catch a journalist committing fraud or nakedly partisan political journalism, I'm join to make sure that I name them, and not just the organization they work for.

Today's poster child for journalistic corruption is James V. Grimaldi of the Washington Post.

What kind of dishonest, biased journalism is the Washington Post reporter James V. Grimaldi guilty of?

In Exclusive: Verizon and AT&T; Provided Cell Towers for McCain Ranch, corrupt reporter James V. Grimaldi tries to insinuate that Cindy McCain is guilty of some sort of ethical violation because Verizon Wireless and AT&T installed portable cell phone towers to provide coverage at McCain's home in Hidden Valley near Sedona, Arizona.

Unethical reporter James V. Grimaldi writes:

Ethics lawyers said Cindy McCain's dealings with the wireless companies stand out because her husband is a senior member of the Senate commerce committee, which oversees the Federal Communications Commission and the telecommunications industry. He has been a leading advocate for industry-backed legislation, fighting regulations and taxes on telecommunication services.

I have a few simple questions for morally bankrupt Washington Post reporter James V. Grimaldi:

  • Other than Stanley Brand, a former House counsel for Democrats, what are the names of the ethics lawyers you spoke with, and what positions have they held within the Democrat Party?
  • Are any of the ethics lawyers you spoke with currently active as paid consultants or volunteers for Barack Obama's presidential campaign?
  • Did Democratic operative(s) in Obama campaign suggested this story to you?
  • Did you ever had any intention of directly informing your readers that the Secret Service requested these cell towers as a security issue?

Yes, you heard that right. Ethics-challenged Washington Post reporter James V. Grimaldi did his level best to obscure the fact that it was the Secret Service that requested these portable cell towers, as stable communications are a vital part of protecting the lives of Presidential candidates.

This isn't journalism. This is partisan politics.

It's nice to know what kind of corrupt reporters the Washington Post is willing to hire in men such as James V. Grimaldi, and the kind of political hit pieces they're willing to run as legitimate news stories.

Update: Jonathan Martin at The Politico confirms the Secret Service request:

A representative for the Secret Service confirms Verizon's statement earlier tonight that the company only put in a temporary cell service facility near the McCain ranch in Arizona at the request of the agency.

"We made a request of Verizon in I believe May that was covered under our contract and they did address our immediate needs," said Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren.


Show Comments »

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 09:28 AM | Comments (11)

The Final Debate: The Morning After

So we had the final Presidential debate of 2008 last night, and folks on both sides are claiming victory... but what really "stuck" in people's minds?

It may be a bit early to see what is going to resonate up until the election (or even if anything does), but what stuck in my mind is just how revealing Barack Obama's answers on domestic and economic issues were. His answers made it all the more damning when John McCain labeled Obama as "Senator Government."

In a nutshell, Obama promises to cut taxes for 95% of taxpayers, while increasing various government programs. The freshman senator pitches an economic program that he claims will lower our taxes while increasing government spending.

Folks, you can't cut taxes, and raise spending during an economic downturn, without turning a recession into a depression and making the federal deficit even worse. It's common sense: you can't spend your way out of debt, but that is exactly what Barack Obama daftly suggests.

This begs the next question: If Barack Obama's cutting taxes for 95% of taxpayers, then where are we going to get federal tax dollars for the trillion dollars in spending increases he has proposed?

Obama's answer—as it has been for every liberal throughout history—is to raise taxes on the "rich."

Obama's populism plays well among those who don't earn much or know much, but the fact of the matter is that the people Obama wants to raise taxes on are the small businessmen that power our economy, and more importantly, provide so many of our jobs.

If you watched the debate last night, you can't have missed the roughly dozen references to "Joe the Plumber."

Here's the clip of Joe Wurzelbacher, who feels Barack Obama's economic policies are designed to punish him for chasing the American Dream.

Obama's answer—that he wants to spread Joe's wealth with those who haven't worked for it—may be the defining moment of the 2008 election.

Every small businessman, or person who dreams of owning a small business, has to be frightened at what Barack Obama is proposing to do to the American Dream. Obama's going to make it more difficult for workers like Joe the plumber to buy into small businesses. Obama's going to make small businessmen pay more taxes, meaning they will have less money to invest in their businesses. This means that small businessmen will not be able to hire as many workers under an Obama administration.

Worse, if Barack Obama is elected, small businessmen are going to have to lay people off. Fewer people will have jobs to pay taxes, and those that do have jobs will have to pay more. Barack Obama's "spread the wealth around" philosophy is the philosophy for a failed economy.

During last night's debate, Barack Obama rattled off all sorts of government programs he'd like to fund. He talked about how he would like government to play a bigger role in your lives. what he could not do is name a single government program he would cut. Not. One.

After last night's debate, they asked Joe the plumber—who almost overnight has become the Everyman of the 2008 election—what he thought of the candidate's proposals.

"Obama's proposal scares me because it's just one more step towards socialism."

That's the story of this debate, and perhaps, this election.


Show Comments »

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 08:06 AM | Comments (41)