What's ACORN Up To?

A recent FOX Opinion piece puts the blame on felons for the election of Al Franken to the Senate. Part of the problem is that Minnesota refuses to purge the voter roles of the felons. The FOX piece implies that since felons vote Democrat, the Democrats in power are loathe to take them off the list. True or not, the facts seem incontrovertible that had they not voted, Norm Coleman would be in the Senate instead. I will also leave aside, for the moment, what the association of Democrat politicians with felons says about Democrat politicians.

Now, having dead people show up at the polls, or felons, or any number of other dirty tricks is old time stuff. The Democrats have been at it for years, but to be fair, some Republicans have engaged in such shenanigans as well. The Republic has survived. What ACORN was up to, however, enrolling vast numbers of people who couldn't otherwise be bothered to become registered to vote, and who wouldn't have a clue who or what to vote for had not ACORN told them, seems a magnitude greater form of electioneering. And while ACORN disbanded, I don't for a minute believe that they have gone away, or changed their tactics. They have just buried themselves deeper, in some other false flag operation, and are setting up shop to do it all again.

Who is watching ACORN, or whatever name it goes by today?

Because here's the thing: the moment that the average American voter thinks that his vote doesn't count; that, like the Minnesota voters, someone has come in illegitimately and cancelled out his or her vote, the likelihood of civil war goes way up. Some people already believe that elections are rigged and refuse to participate. What do you think happens when the Tea Parties become convinced of the same thing? In rigged Iranian elections, the people rioted. It was unfocused, and so eventually put down. After all, the government had guns and the rioters only had rocks. Here, I think it may be a different story.

So, who is watching ACORN?

Update: Also check Western Rifle Shooters Association for a look at this topic of just how much we can expect to do with electoral politics.

The Thought Police

This has not received nearly enough press coverage. Not that anyone is reading my post either, but I needed to get some additional thoughts down.

First of all, the Secret Service was wrong to question her on her thoughts about Sen. Obama. Perhaps the Secret Service (why does America have a police force called the Secret Service?) was probably being hyper vigilant. Sadly, I think threats have probably been made. More about that in a minute. But their line of questioning seems to me to be entirely out of line, and their actions were unprofessional, at best. As civil servants, they should have had to show their badges, give their badge number and their names. When someone comes from your government to talk to you, they should be prepared to stand by what they say to you. You may lie, and that of course is a crime. But they should maintain a higher standard. The woman agent's refusal to give even a card raises the suspicion that they may well be partisans impersonating Federal officials. That, of course, is a crime too.

The recent arrest of two young men in a plot to kill a number of black people before assassinating Sen. Obama was very disturbing to me. Vote, yes. Read all you can, and tell everyone you know. Stand with signs on street corners. March, and demonstrate. Write your Congressmen. But don't make a martyr of this guy. If someone does, we will never hear the end of it. The press will memorialize him, making of him the messiah he is clearly not. A President Biden will announce a package of New Great Society legislation, which will be passed by 434-1 in the House, 99-1 in the Senate, in honor of the One. A generation will grow up thinking that the One was the greatest President in history. But liberty will inevitably suffer, and our children and grand children will grow up under a government that has its jackboot firmly across their throats. Don't let that happen.

Is This Election the Last?

What are the consequences, this time, of a sweep of the elections? In other words, if the American public delivers a substantial House majority, a filibuster proof Senate, and the President, all of one party, what can we expect? More to the point, can it be good?

First up is a piece by Peter Robinson over at at Forbes.com. Go read the whole thing, but the reader's digest version follows:

"Then there is Thomas Sowell, the economist and political philosopher. He prefers an older way of looking at American politics--a much older way. In his classic 1987 work, A Conflict of Visions, Sowell identifies two competing worldviews, or visions, that have underlain the Western political tradition for centuries. Sowell calls one worldview the "constrained vision." It sees human nature as flawed or fallen, seeking to make the best of the possibilities that exist
within that constraint. The competing worldview, which Sowell terms the
"unconstrained vision," instead sees human nature as capable of continual
improvement."

After explaining the effect these two visions of mankind had in terms of the American Revolution, and the French Revolution, he goes on...

What role have the two visions played in the campaign? Sen. John McCain, who is trailing, has by and large embraced the constrained vision; Sen. Barack Obama, who is leading, the unconstrained vision. Asked if Obama represents the purest expression of the unconstrained vision since Franklin Roosevelt, Sowell, himself an African-American, replies: "No. Since the beginning of American politics. This man [Obama] has been a left ideologue for 20 years."

He goes on then to outline, in frightening detail, one might expect from such a scenario for the Supreme Court, the War on Terror, and the economy. And the money quote:

Take it all together, Sowell believes, and this election will prove decisive. "There is such a thing as a point of no return," he says. If Obama wins the White House and Democrats expand their majorities in the House and Senate, they will intervene in the economy and redistribute wealth. Yet their economic policies "will pale by comparison to what they will do in permitting countries to acquire nuclear weapons and turn them over to terrorists. Once that happens, we're at the point of no return. The next generation will live under that threat as far out as the eye can see."

The unconstrained vision is really an elitist vision," Sowell explains. "This man [Obama] really does believe that he can change the world. And people like that are infinitely more dangerous than mere crooked politicians

.

Next up, is a piece by Laura Hollis entitled "Don't Be a Media Dupe-Vote to WIN" over at Townhall.com. The quote here is:

"Further, you’re assuming that you’ll get another chance at an election. But what if you don’t? Last week, I said to a family
member that what really worried me about an Obama presidency is the risk that we’d get hit again by terrorists, or face some other catastrophe. “And on the heels of that,” I said, “what’s to stop Obama from ‘suspending’ elections? I can hear his sonorous voice now, proclaiming in the most presidential tones, that ‘we cannot afford the divisiveness and partisan bickering of national elections, when the current crisis demands that we be unified as a nation!’ And to those who’d challenge (legitimately) the constitutionality of such a move, our President Obama would simply quote the Great Liberator, Abraham Lincoln, who asked what would be gained if he ‘los[t] the nation, and yet preserve[d] the Constitution?’” And then what would you do?"

Go read the whole thing. Then ask yourself, would an Obama administration do such a thing? The truth is that I do not know. But millions of people are prepared to take that risk, if the polls are to be believed. Personally, I weep for my country.

The Obamamessiah Will Set Us Free

Jonah Goldberg has a piece titled "Racy Content" out today over at Townhall.com. Read the whole thing here

Just a teaser though:

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.

I went down to vote early yesterday. Interestingly, of the 12 people working the polling station, 7 were black. So how can the Democrats, and ACRORN logically keep harping about how blacks are likely to be disenfranchised? Wouldn't it have been anybody who wasn't black? But, I have to say that the poll workers at my polling station were very professional. I do feel that my vote will be counted. Now we wait for the results.