Saturday, October 25, 2008

Iran Captures suspected U.S. Spies

The Iranians have captured two U.S. Spies in the city of Natnaz near the countries nuclear facility. The spies were captured with metal rings and invisable string attached to them. The suspected spies are describe as black with a stout-body, short necks, short slender bills with a fleshy cere. An Iranian source declined to say what happened to them now that they've been captured, but I'm betting they had them for dinner. Picture below.

Yes they are saying we were using trained spy pigeons to spy on their nuclear activity.

Wealth Redistribution in Action

Another great read from Scott Martin's Blog.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think we should all spend the rest of our time showing people what Obama's policies our instead of trying to tell them. For instance next time you go out to eat instead of tipping your serving tell them you giving their tip to charity in their name. You could also just give the tip to someone else in the resturant you saw working hard like the bus boy, the dishwasher, or even another server. Just make sure they understand they your just redistributing the wealth like Obama would.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Iran Endorses Obama

Hat Tip: Powerline

The speaker of the Iranian Parliment has come out in favor of Obama. "We are leaning more in favor of Barack Obama because he is more flexible and rational, even though we know American policy will not change that much," Larijani said at a press conference during a visit to Bahrain.

Well I have to agree that Obama is flexible. From promising to take Public financing for his campaign then renegging. To saying he'd sit down without preconditions then denying he said it. Obama is the king of flexing himself to be able to say whatever it is that benefits him at the time. I could come up with many other examples, but I don't have that kind of time these days.

Here's an idea why don't you post all of Obama's flexible stances in my comments area. I'll copy and paste them to and post them here. I'll be sure to put the name of the person who posted it beside the comment. Let's make it a top ten list everyone post your favorite Obama flex now.

Looks like someone did the research to back up my article about polls.

I wrote an article yesterday saying we should stop looking at the polls. I said they were biased, but didn't have any research to back it up. I thank Wizbang and Scott Martin for doing the work for me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm so sick of polls.

see more from Scott Martin here:

The October Surprise?

This is an interview done by a french reporter just after McCain was released for Hanoi. It's powerful stuff.

Quit looking at the polls

At this point the polls don't matter anymore. They are all over the map and I'm not sure they trustworthy anyway. Actually I know their not. These polls are all over the map. Two coming out today have it a 1 or 2 point race. While others have a 10 or 14 point spread for Obama.

The polls are all over the map. I have a feeling it's alot closer to one or two point spread myself. These polls are in many cases slanted by having more Democrats than Republicans involved. They are also conducted by people with an agenda. I think the polls that have Obama up double digits are very biased, and also way off. At this point the only thing left to do is sprint to the finish and go vote. Really outside of that nothing else matters, not the polls, or the pundits. Whatever you do don't get discouraged by poll numbers because the only number that matters is getting John McCain 270 electorial votes on Election Day. We can do it if we all do our part and keep working hard.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Those Who Don't Learn the Lessons of History, Doom, Repetition and the Like

This Post comes from Conservatism Today

Those Who Don't Learn the Lessons of History, Doom, Repetition and the Like
I've often expressed this opinion, but never took the time to find the cold, hard facts to back it up. But about ten minutes ago I came across a wonderful new conservative blog that laid it out. The failing cities in America are failing because they have been run by Democrats forever. From PC America:

What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
Democrat Leadership!

Cities with the highest poverty rates:

1. Detroit, MI (Hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961)
2. Buffalo, NY (Hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1954)
3. Cincinnati, OH (Hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1984)
4. Cleveland, OH (Hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989)
5. Miami, FL (Has never had a Republican Mayor)
6. St. Louis, MO (Hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1949)
7. El Paso, TX (Has never had a Republican Mayor)
8. Milwaukee, WI (Hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908)
9. Philadelphia, PA (Hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1952)
10. Newark, NJ (Hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1907)

Einstein once said : 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

Note that none of them have had a Republican mayor since Reagan left office. Hmmmm. And most of them failed to benefit like the rest of the world under Ronald Reagan. I wonder why.

Click that link and check out Ashley's site. Good stuff there, especially for a relative newcomer. If you look at that list, you will see that New Orleans is not even on it. Why is that? Because the Democrat nanny-state so sheltered the people of New Orleans that the poor couldn't even manage to get their asses out of town to avoid Hurricane Katrina. They are now mostly living in other cities, and hopefully have learned an important lesson. Too bad Detroit hasn't learned it. Or Milwaukee, where I have many quite well-off conservative-minded family members who continue to buck the trend.

Now it's time for my take. I've also always thought the same thing. You can go back to Hurricane Katrina and learn that the state that handled the storm worse was Louisiana, and the town that handled it worse was New Orleans. Louisana was the only state involved with a Democratic Governor. The mayor of New Orleans is also a Democrat. They actually re-elected the guy. That's something I will never understand. On the upside they ended up with Bobby Jindal, a possible future President, as their Governor.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Very, Very, Busy

How are all my loyal readers doing? I hope your doing well. I know I haven't been keeping up with the site like I should. Especially with the election so close. The reason is I work on a campaign and am very busy and will continue to be busy until Election Day. Therefore I will be doing alot of cross posting and will be posting videos alot. I will post some of my own stuff too but it will probably be few and far between. It's not the writing it's the research that kills you. Of course if I just get a rant in my head, which sometimes happens, you'll be the first to read it.

You know I wouldn't have to work so hard if I could just win that Million dollars at McDonald's. (I'm begining to think it's just a ploy to keep me fat.) Of course I'd settle for one of my readers giving me a hundred thousand bucks. Why be greedy fifty thousand will get me out of debt. I also accept small donations. Just click that yellow button at the top.

Obama leaves trial to visit sick grandmother

Barack Obama will be off the campaign trial for two days to visit his ailing grandmother in Hawaii. "Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he said her health had deteriorated "to the point where her situation is very serious." "It seemed likely that she was close to death, as Gibbs said that "everyone understands the decision that Sen. Obama is making." We can talk about how this effects the campaign another time for now let's all wish Obama's Grandmother a full recovery.

P.S. I've seen this on several conservative sites and so far I only saw one person make a stupid comment about Obama's Grandmother. However if you feel inclined to make said stupid remark please go elsewhere to make it.

McCain supporters run off racist idiots.

I think we may have lost these two people's votes, but I feel sure we gained alot more. I think the best quote was the kid who ask, "Are you trying to Deliberately lose us this election?"

Greg Gutfeld and Fox News takes it to Obama

So Obama thinks that FOX News has hurt him in the polls, saying that even if he watched us, he wouldn't vote for himself either.

Now, I don't think he's wrong. I actually think FOX News does go after him. But hell, someone has to.

For my whole life, every network has been uniformly, heart-bleedingly liberal. Nearly every damn magazine, newspaper and after-school special spits out the same lefty assumptions — rich people greedy, Republicans bad, America evil — as though they are suffering from a Marxist version of Tourette.

And Obama is their guy.

That's why today, every anchor has a woodie for him, and every star-struck pop singer offers the Messiah their services for free. And there's the late night comics, who hammer Republicans seven times more often than Dems. It's just too easy to be funny.

But despite all this, you still have twerps soiling their diapers over FOX News just because it won't comply with an overarching liberal theocracy. You've got celebrity cretins like Tim Robbins, watchdog weenies like Media Matters and crybaby cranks like Keith Olbermann suffering seizures because FOX won't roll over.
I say, stop being a bunch of pussies, you pretty much own the airwaves.

And as for you Obama, stop acting like a kid who complains because you got a 98 instead of a perfect grade. Seriously, you don't need mindless obedience from everyone to win.

So Obama, if you're expecting people here to kiss your ass, you'll need to go elsewhere. I hear there's a guy at MSNBC with a thrill up his leg dying to give you a sponge bath.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

For the record Greg Gutfeld ends all his monologues with the saying And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than hitler. So no he is not calling everyone who disagrees with him Hitler.

Obama wins Jews 2-1. This is good news people.

Obama Hemorrhaging Jews
From My Aisling:

So I scan some headlines, and find this: NYU poll: US Jews favor Obama 2:1.

Oh, no! I collapse to the floor and curl into a fetal position. The tears streaming down my face puddle through my hair. Being practical, I mop the floor in a two-foot square area. Pleased with my effort, I gather myself to face the news.

The Jews, to whom I am blindly devoted as a Conservative Christian (yeah, one of those), have abandoned me! Et tu, Jew-tay? Oy vey! Can it get any worse? My colon goes spasmodic and my sphincter tightens in response. Last thing I need at a moment like this is an “accident.” I’ve been saving Depends coupons (the ones without an expiration date) since I was 45, but I haven’t actually needed any yet.

So I stare at the headline. Something catches my eye. “2:1.” Two to one. That’s 67% to 33%. That’s only 17 points over split. Is that good? It feels good. Let’s see.

This part is my pal Scott Martin at Conservatism Today take on the numbers

"Et-te, Jew-tay?" Too funny. Anyways, Aisling has the hostorical numbers for past presidential elections at the link. Suffice it to say, it seems as if Jews are not as into Louis Farrakhan's pal Barack as they usually are for other democratic socialists. This still begs the question: Are the majority of Jews simply not paying attention to Obama's history? His statements on the Middle East?