E!!

After making a rather sarcastic remark, a reader suggests that I pull down that last post in light of the fact that Obama’s grandmother’s death has now hit the newswires (see his lovely comment for yourself).

I thought about it but don’t think I will.

The nature of a weblog is such that you operate in real time:  you write what you write when you write it…and so it becomes a historical account of news/facts as well as your thoughts and opinions about them at a given time.  

I had no idea Obama’s grandmother had passed away when I wrote that post.  And now that I know, it doesn’t change the facts of the Cali GOP’s complaint.  If Obama used campaign funds for personal use, he violated campaign law and ought to return the money.

My condolences to Obama and his family, though.

Just received a press release from the California Republican Party (CRP) that they have filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission against Barack Obama, Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund, and others citing a pattern of misconduct. 

Specific complaints include the fact that the Obama campaign provided Project Vote a copy of its donor list while hiding the fact that they did so, that Obama flew to Hawaii to visit his grandmother on $100,000 worth of campaign funds (instead of paying for it personally), and that Obama has been promised (and has accepted) “pro bono” legal representation by a law firm that has told its attorneys it will compensate and reward them for helping Obama.  All of these things are either in violation of federal election law or formal FEC opinion.

We’ll see what the FEC does, if anything.

If you think fraudulent voter registration cards can’t turn into votes and that all the “vote fraud” stories are just Hype, you should read this excellent new piece by WSJ columnist John Fund writing for Politico.  As usual, John’s fact checking and research is stellar. Here are some excerpts from his article:

ACORN’s second line of defense has been that fraudulent registrations can’t turn into fraudulent votes, as if the felony of polluting voter lists was somehow not all that serious. But that defense goes only a short distance. “How would you know if people using fake names had cast votes in states without strict ID laws?” says GOP Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, who this year won a major Supreme Court case upholding his state’s photo identification law. “It’s almost impossible to detect and once the fraudulent voter leaves the precinct or casts an absentee ballot, that vote is thrown in with other secret ballots there’s no way to trace it.”

AND

Anita MonCrief, an ACORN whistle-blower who worked for both it and its Project Vote registration affiliate from 2005 until early this year, agrees. “It’s ludicrous to say that fake registrations can’t become fraudulent votes,” she told me. “I assure you that if you can get them on the rolls you can get them to vote, especially using absentee ballots.”

AND

There are already documented examples of fraudulent registrations being converted into fraudulent votes in Ohio, where ACORN and other groups were active. Darrell Nash, an ACORN registration worker, submitted an illegal form for himself and then cast a paper ballot during the state’s “early voting” period.

Franklin County prosecutor Ron O’Brien also cracked down in the case of 13 out-of-state registrants who came to Ohio to register voters in Columbus for the group Vote From Home. The group all lived out of the same rented 1,175-square-foot house in Ohio, registered to vote and then most of them either cast early voting ballots or submitted applications for absentee ballots before leaving the state. They have agreed to have all of their ballots canceled in exchange for the prosecutor’s decision not to file charges.

AND

Perhaps the clearest look at how fraudulent registrations can be converted into votes comes from Wisconsin. Earlier this year, the Milwaukee Police Department’s Special Investigation Unit released a stunning 67-page report detailing an “illegal organized attempt to influence the outcome” of the 2004 presidential election. 

It noted many documented cases of staffers for a presidential campaign and an allied 527 group who illegally voted. Those involved in the scheme “represent multiple levels of both the organizations, from upper management to the street level canvassers.” The task force report found many ineligible voters had cast ballots, ineligible felons not only had voted but also worked at the polls, transient college students had cast illegal votes along with day-trippers from nearby Chicago, and homeless voters may well have voted more than once.

Read the whole thing!

A Vegas voter posted this on Bob Beers’ blog yesterday:

Disgusted with Dems Says:
October 31st, 2008 at 3:01 pm

I went to one of the early voting locations today and when I refused the Copening propaganda her supporters thrust at me in the parking lot, I was called a “b*tch” as I walked away. How dare they treat voters with such disrespect.

In this next case, emailed in by my one of my readers, a partisan person was sanctioned:

I voted this morning at the Lake Meade/Tenaya location.   Probably the most excitement was a guy from the Obama campaign that had on a yellow T-shirt that said “voting questions – ask me” or something like that.  He was sitting along the line of people waiting to vote. 

I didn’t think anything of it, until I noticed that all the poll workers had on blue/white/red shirts.  About that time, the guy was escorted out of the area.  He took off the shirt and then was milling around with the ‘poll observers’.   I was ready to grab my cell phone for a picture if anything exciting happened, but nothing did. 

I waited about an hour to vote.  My hubby was on Channel 3 – they were interviewing people about the early voting process – was it easy, what did we think, etc.

There is not supposed to be any partisan canvassing at the polls.  Also, in re: to situation 1 above, here is what item 3 of the Nevada Voters’ Bill of Rights, as outlined in NRS 293.2546, says about voting:

3. Each voter has the right to vote without being intimidated, threatened or coerced.

That first voter should have complained to the poll workers so they could have asked those Copening people to take their handouts and nasty remarks elsewhere.

Incumbent Nevada state Senator Bob Beers has filed a libel lawsuit against Allison Copening and the Nevada Democratic Party.  The complaint was filed due to political advertising that contains libelous statements claiming Beers was under “Ethics Commission review.” 

I checked it out and Beers has never been under investigation by the Nevada Ethics Commission, so if the advertising did state this, it is indeed false.  And if the Dems and Copening knew this, they did libel Beers and should be held accountable.

You can read the complaint here.

The Nevada Democrats have certainly been peddling a lot of lies and sleaze this campaign season.  Their billboard smears against Beers were called “misleading and blatantly false”  by CityLife editor and Democrat Geoff Schumacher, who is no fan of Beers.  You can read more about it here.

And if you care to learn the differences between the candidates’ policies, you can go here.

During the course of his campaign, Obama has often said that differing judicial philosophies among Supreme Court justices don’t matter in “ninety-nine percent of cases” because the “the Constitution…a statute…or congressional intent is…clear.”  Conversely, he says it is only in about 1% of cases that differences in judicial bent really count.

What a giant crock of intergalactic BS.

As Obama very well knows – Harvard educated constitutional attorney that he is – and as Ed Whelan points out here (and I quote below), the ratio of unanimous decisions on the Supreme Court is nowhere near 95%:

According to the Harvard Law Review’s statistics for the past three terms, cases with dissents accounted for 64.4% (2006 term), 45.7% (2005 term), and 62.0% (2004 term) of all cases.  Indeed, last term, cases dividing 5-4 accounted for over a third of all cases, and the three justices that Obama cited as justices he likes—Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter—agreed in the disposition of non-unanimous cases only 61%, 60%, and 63% of the time, respectively.

Yes, fellow citizens of the Republic:  Obama-Wan Kinobi knows his claims are false.  He knows the appointment of Supreme Court justices is crucial; he knows the fundamental changes he wishes to see in the Constitution and the court; and he knows that if elected he will probably have the opportunity to appoint at least two justices to the federal bench.

So, he passes his hand before our eyes and utters his lie with a smile.  

Will his attempt at a Jedi mind trick lull Americans into thinking the appointment of Supreme Court justices is not really important, and they can therefore let him pass, unquestioned and unhindered?

We will know in four days’ time.

May the Force be with US.

From William Katz:

Here’s Obama in his own words to the Chicago Sun-Times on November 4, 2004: “I was elected yesterday. . . . I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I’ve never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I’m immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn’t make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I’m the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois. . . . I am not running for president in 2008.”

Four years later, we may be on the verge of electing this man POTUS.  Unbelieveable.

I just love Mark Steyn.  Here he is on a reference to Charlie Gibson’s query re: Obama’s questionable online donations:

Re: Charlie Gibson Hits Obama On His Donors   [Mark Steyn]

Oh, please, Greg. That’s not a “hit”, that’s a Swedish massage by Princess Fluffy Bunny. That’s Charlie Gibson appearing to cover himself while letting Obama get away with mush. A (Palin-style?) hit would have taken the conversation on a quite different tack:

OBAMA: What I would simply point to is that the way we have raised this money has been by expanding the pool of small donors in this country in an unprecedented way.

INFORMED GIBSON QUESTION: What’s unprecedented is that, unlike John McCain, your website disabled the standard credit-card security system used by almost all reputable online retailers. Why did you do that? And, given that of the record $150 million you raised in September two-thirds was raised under this systemically corrupted Internet operation, isn’t it likely that a significant proportion of your half-hour infomercial was paid for by fraudulent donors? And, as to “expanding the pool of small donors in this country”, what about the way you’ve expanded the pool of donors in other countries who’ve been able to make illegal contributions to your campaign because you switched off the AVS security checks?

OBAMA: I mean, you’re looking the people who are giving $5, 10, 25. Ordinary folks who have gotten impassioned about this campaign in a way that is unprecedented. And that, really, is…

INFORMED GIBSON QUESTION: Also a lot of extraordinary folks have gotten impassioned about your campaign. You’ve received contributions from, among others, a Mr Saddam Hussein, Mr A Hitler and Mr K Marx? How do you propose to return those contributions given that all three “donors” are deceased?

OBAMA: Look, you know, 3.1 million donors would be a pretty hard thing for us to be able to process…

INFORMED GIBSON QUESTION:  Why? I mean, you’ve had no problem “processing” the money, have you? And, if you hadn’t monkeyed with the standard online retail data system, all you have to do is press a button and 3.1 million names and addresses pop right up. Ask Amazon. So why did you switch it off? And, if you yourself did not make that decision, who did?

The Senator terminates the interview to instruct an aide to have state and local officials look into this guy Gibson’s child-support payments, tax liens, etc. Later, it emerges that Charlie the Anchor is not even a state-licensed interviewer.

This morning I heard someone - I think it may be have been Megyn Kelly on Fox News – talking about people buying prepaid credit or debit cards (which have no name or address associated with them) and using those to donate as much as they wish, since Obama’s campaign turned off the credit card security measures on their website.

Who knows how many millions have been collected illegally and/or improperly?  The whole thing stinks, and even though Obama will not agree to release a list of his donors, or turn the online security stop gaps back on, not one mainstream/network media outlet (other than Fox) seems to give a damn. 

Don’t miss this story by John Fund in the WSJ. 

Former ACORN employee Anita MonCrief says ACORN has long been aware of the issues with bogus registration cards.  This morning on Lauara Ingraham she said ACORN considers a 40% validity rate acceptable.  So much for the claims that ACORN’s upper management team was/is either unaware of the quality control problems or that problems occur only rarely and locally.

“There’s no quality control on purpose, no checks and balances,” says Nate Toler, who worked until 2006 as the head organizer of an Acorn campaign against Wal-Mart in California. And Ms. MonCrief says it is longstanding practice to blame bogus registrations on lower-level employees who then often face criminal charges, a practice she says Acorn internally calls “throwing folks under the bus.”

This post from John Hood is a winner:

A Joke And What It Reveals   [John Hood]

Speaking in front of a huge audience at downtown Raleigh rally yesterday, Barack Obama threw off a humorous line about John McCain’s accusation that the Obama tax plan is redistributionist:

McCain has “called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class,” Obama said. “I don’t know what’s next. By the end of the week he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.”

Ha ha.

Only, in this passage Obama revealed precisely why he is vulnerable to such charges: he can’t seem to tell the difference between a gift and a theft. There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither.

Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner. It won’t even be someone you could ever know, in most cases. That’s what makes the political philosophy unjust (by stripping you of control over yourself and the fruits of your labor) as well as counterproductive (by failing to give the recipient sufficient incentive to learn and work hard so he can earn his own toys in the future).

Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn’t understand this, or doesn’t want voters to understand it.

Nevada state senator Bob Beer’s campaign office has been located at 6822 W. Cheyenne Ave., Las Vegas, NV for the last six months or so.  He says that a couple of weeks ago, two doors down, an Obama campaign office opened.  Beers’ staffers thought maybe Obama had adopted a new slogan, but it turns out the previous tenant prepared tax returns and the Obama people neglected to take down the old sign:

IowaHawk brings the funny yet again.  Read the whole thing.  (Parental Guidance suggested.)

UPDATE:  My stomach still hurts from laughing at this other IowaHawk post.  Sheer genius.

I’d like to say a few things about the 2001 Obama interview controversy.  First, here’s a key portion of the transcript, followed by a caller question and Obama’s answer:

One of the…tragedies of the civil rights movement was …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 and in some ways we still suffer from that.

Later in the show, a caller asked, “is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?”  Obama answered, “You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.”

So those who are saying that Obama endorsed redistribution of wealth through the courts are wrong.  Clearly, Obama thought the means to his desired Ends were social and/or political, not judicial.

And this bears out in his life.  He turned down a job as a constitutional attorney and professor in order to become a politician.  He is running on a platform of social and economic change, one that is – why are we so Surprised? – completely consistent with political progressive/liberal ideology:  the government-mandated needs of the many outweigh an individual’s right to spend and distribute the money he earns as he personally sees fit.  Especially if he earns more than $250,000 annually. 

In progressive ideology, a person’s needs and rights extend beyond mere liberty and security and into quality of life issues.  For Progressives, it is no longer just “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that are your rights as an American.  You and your children are also entitled to other so-called essentials:  a certain level of income, a certain type of home, a certain type of health care, a certain type of education.

What is so amazing is that many people who say they object to “socialism” or “redistribution of wealth” – and become defensive and angry if you dare suggest otherwise - simultaenously say they believe in every American’s “right to health care,” “right to higher education,” and “right to work.”  The cognitive disconnect is disturbing.  Mandating minimum incomes, health insurance and college educations for all Americans at government (read:  taxpayer) expense IS advocating the redistribution of wealth. 

You cannot say you support taxpayer funding for a brand new set of benefits for the general good of the population and then say you do not believe in ”socialism.”  They are one and the same. 

In closing, let us agree that most people are political socialists to some degree.  We long ago left behind the idea that the government should provide for the common defense and otherwise leave people alone, to succeed or fail, live or die, as they may.

We believe there is good to be done.  We believe we should do more for the very poorest of our neighbors, and we have, and we do:  less and less through local, voluntary charitable giving, and more and more through a centralized government that acts as our designated conscience, collection agent, and community organizer.

The question is, where does it end, and what will America look like when all the social engineering is done?  If Obama and a Democrat majority in Congress are elected next Tuesday, I suspect we will be on the fast track to finding out.

 If you are a District 6 voter, or just interested in looking in on one of Nevada’s hotly contested state senate races, be sure to see this E!! exclusive “mock debate” featuring a Q & A with incumbent Senator Bob Beers and Democrat candidate Allison Copening.

Copening has been widely criticized for refusing to debate Senator Beers after an initial appearance on Face to Face early in the political season.  Producer Dana Gentry made no bones about her views on the matter, snarking about ”political candidates who are woefully unprepared for the office to which they aspire” and “even worse…who put their name on the ballot and then disappear, refusing to address the very citizens they hope to represent. 

E!! is therefore delighted to be able to present a “mock debate” in which Senator Beers and Ms. Copening will be answering a series of questions pertaining to public policy in Nevada.  Both candidates were given identical sets of questions, and both returned their answers to me without seeing their opponent’s responses.

Enjoy ~ and please feel free to contact me with questions or leave your comments below.

With just 8 days left until the polls close for the 2008 presidential election, the Las Vegas Review Journal is reporting that nearly 190,000 voters had turned out through Saturday in early voting in Nevada’s largest county (Clark).  Of the 186,849 voters to show up at the polls, 103,719 were Democrats and 52,850 were Republicans.  Of mail ballots received so far, there have been about 14,000 Republicans ballots vs. 12,500 Democrat ballots.  Combining both mail ballots and early voting, Dems represented 54 percent of all Clark County voters while Republicans represented 31 percent.

What remains to be seen is how the rest of Nevada’s counties - many of which lean Republican – turn out.  Washoe County, which contains Reno-Sparks, is particularly of interest.  According to the Washoe County website, 51,209 voters have turned out to the polls as of yesterday.  26,214 of those were Democrats, compared to 16,838 Republicans.  The final count will likely be a lot closer, though.  A late September Reno Gazette Journal piece said that total Washoe County registration stood at 87,971 registered Republicans and 84,705 registered Democrats, with a backlog of about 5,000 registration applications still awaiting processing at that point.  If we assume that most of that backlog were Democrats, Washoe may be ”a wash” because the numbers will be nearly even.

For the break down of voter rolls of Nevada’s 15 remaining counties, see the Sec. of State’s website.  The sum up is this:  when the numbers from Clark and Washoe counties are set aside, the rest of Nevada leans Republican.  September stats showed Republican registrations at 75,402 vs. Democrat registrations at 49,687 in these counties.  The GOP to Dem ratio used to be a lot bigger in northern Nevada, but the large influx of liberal leaning California residents has chipped away at it over the last decade.

According to this RJ piece last week, Nevada Democrats increased their total voter registration edge over Republicans to 111,559 this year – huge in comparison to the edge of about 4,100 voters a year ago.  The RJ says the total of all registered voters in Nevada stands at nearly 1.5 million, including 625,333 Democrats and 513,774 Republicans.  For Democrats, that’s 43 percent of the voters; and for Republicans it’s about 36 percent.

Note:  The numbers of active voters on the Sec. of State’s webpage are a lot lower than the RJ is reporting so I called Matt Griffin, our state Elections Deputy, to verify.  I’m waiting on a call back and will report.*  The SOS website says that as of September 2008 there are 498,143 registered Democrats; 417,477 registered Republicans; 168,606 Non-partisans; 44,481 Independents; 6,388 Libertarians; 3,699 Others; 3,282 Greens; and 200 Natural Laws (what the heck is a “Natural Law” voter?)

Assuming these numbers are correct, those identifying with parties other than the Big Two total 226,656 with the Independent/Non-partisan voters totaling 213,087.  That being the case, it looks like it’s the Independent/Non-partisan votes that will make the difference in Nevada.

I know a lot of in-state folks have called Nevada for Obama already.  This little blogger ain’t so sure.  Nevada’s independent voters tend to lean conservative and residents of all political stripes favor low taxes, small government and generally being left alone. 

The more Obama talks about government programs, the less likely he is to please the Silver State’s electorate.  Las Vegas also has hundreds of small businesses whose owners (and nervous employees) may well have been swayed by McCain’s Joe-the-Plumber-esque pitch this past week.  And let’s not forget:  we are very much a war-hawk/pro-military state, with Nellis AFB just a few miles east of Vegas.

Election Fact:  Since 1912, Nevada has voted for the winner of every presidential election, except 1976, when the state chose Republican Gerald Ford rather than Democrat Jimmy Carter. 

*Elections Deputy Matt Griffin called me back re: the discrepancy on voter registration rolls.  He said the RJ is likely basing their numbers on registered but-not-yet-validated voters, whereas the Sec. of State’s website is citing verified, eligible voters.

Charles Krauthammer explains why he’s voting for McCain.

My favorite parts:

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.

And:

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.

And

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.

And

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.?

I’ve got two new posts up @ Vote Fraud Squad:

Judges to rule on Georgia citizenship case

and

GOP hired hand arrested in Cali on suspicion of voter registration fraud

E!! is a Proud Supporter of the VIP

Note:  Look closely at ALL the faces.  LOL

Source:  This photo was forwarded to me via email.  I have no idea who originally photoshopped and sent it.  If that person wanders by E!!, drop me a note and I’ll be glad to give you credit.

Election Journal has a vote fraud map tracker thingie up on their site.

From last week’s Derb Radio on NRO:

Association of Committed Obama Radical Nuisances

Anarchists for Corrupting and Overthrowing Republican Nationhood

Alliance of Community Organizers for Registering the Non-Existent

Don’t miss this Steyn piece on Joe the Plumber.  LOL

I am really busy with a few projects – researching voter registration fraud here in Nevada, researching a corruption story, writing a business plan - so I’m lifting good blogostuff for your enjoyment:

I Thought That Made Him Rich?    Jonah Goldberg [The Corner]

Ryan Lizza has a profile of Joe Biden in the New Yorker. Frankly, I barely  finished it. Normally, I think Lizza’s worth reading, but everything Biden tells Lizza in the one-on-one interview seemed like things I’d heard him say on C-Span a million times. I did, however find this bit amusing:

Biden happens to be one of the least wealthy members of the Senate, although his family’s joint income was more than three hundred thousand dollars last year. (His wife, Jill, has a Ph.D. in education and teaches at Delaware Technical & Community College.) His relatively straightforward tax returns and uncomplicated financial situation made the process easier. “All these years and you still have no money,” Obama said to Biden, teasingly.

I thought Barack Obama considers people who make more than $250,000 to be rich? I guess that only applies to normal people like plumbers and the like. Senators who only make a third of a million a year have “no money.”

posted on the Corner:  10/20 08:32 AM

From Ken Timmerman at Newsmax:

As Barack Obama reaped a stunning $150 million in campaign donations in September, bringing his total to more than $600 million, new questions have arisen about the source of his amazing funding.

By Obama’s own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain’s campaign, Obama won’t release the names of these donors.

A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws. For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit. Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.

And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.

According to a Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more….

Hat Tip:  Andy McCarthy @ The Corner

As reported by the Reno Gazette-Journal. 

Here’s the Sun editorial.  And here’s the RJ piece.

When you have a little time to spare, treat yourself to the video from the Al Smith Dinner, a Catholic charitable event at which Sen.s McCain and Obama spoke.  (Link goes to a Kuo & Joe blog post at Culture11 which contains 4 clips from the dinner.) 

I agree with David Kuo:

“Watch these videos. They are extraordinary, truly extraordinary. We are ridiculously blessed to live in a country where two men who are fiercely opposed to one another are nevertheless able to set it aside for a night and laugh. It isn’t quite a miracle, but it is certainly a marvel. And if you have had to see countless political ads and three presidential debates, you owe it to yourself to watch these videos.”

McCain’s cracks about the Clintons are priceless (and hilarious), and Obama’s speech was funny from begining to end.  Bravo to the very gifted writers who put both presentations together.

.

From Americans for Tax Reform

Five Things You Might Not Know About Obama’s Small Business Tax Hikes

WASHINGTON, DC— Americans for Tax Reform today released the following “top five” facts related to the Obama tax hike on small businesses:

1.        Two-thirds of small business profits are earned in households making more than $250,000 per year—the very households Obama is shouting from the rooftops that he will raise taxes on (Source: IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin*).  Small business profits are used to create jobs and invest in America .  This is the answer to the Obama campaign’s irrelevant claim that the number of small businesses affected will be small—the fact is that the bulk of profits will face a tax hike. 

2.      Small businesses pay income taxes at the household level.  This means that the Obama plan to raise tax rates is a direct tax hike on small businesses—sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-corporations, and family farms.

3.       The tax rate on the lion’s share of small business income could reach 54.9 percent under a President Obama (the individual top rate will climb from 35 percent to 39.6 percent and the Social Security/Medicare tax rate could climb from 2.9 percent to 15.3 percent.  Put those together, and you get 54.9 percent) (Source: www.barackobama.com)

4.      This 54.9 percent tax rate would be the highest since the Carter Administration, when America suffered through double-digit inflation and unemployment (Source: Congressional Budget Office)

5.       America’s 26 million small businesses employers give a paycheck to 116 million employees (Source: Census Bureau).  When small business taxes go up, millions of these employees will be at risk of being laid off.

“Obama’s tax increases will only affect you if you have a 401(k), have any savings, buy things from small businesses or are looking for a job,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.  “If you fall into one of these categories, his policies will screw you.  Otherwise, you’re fine.”

* “Small business profits” is equal to the net profits less net losses of sole proprietors, S-corporation shareholders, and partners.  According to the IRS, two-thirds of these small business profits are earned in households with adjusted gross income (AGI) equal to or greater than $200,000.  In 2006, $473 billion of the $706 billion (two-thirds) of small business profits was earned in households Obama has said he would raise tax rates on.

This morning, Culture11′s James Poulous called Yuval Levin “one of the sharpest tools in the conservative shed” and provided a link to this piece on why John McCain is a better choice than Obama.

I cheerfully admit to being biased toward all things Levin - you can see what I mean over at The New Atlantis - but the piece is well worth reading even for non-admirers.

I am pleased to have been invited to join the Voter Integrity Project and the publishers of Ballotpedia in a non-partisan effort to help the American voter report and expose incidences of vote fraud and vote suppression, in order to ensure a more fair, open, and democratic election process.

We are now recruiting citizen journalists and bloggers in Nevada and elsewhere.  If you are interested in helping report, document, and deter voter fraud, please contact me ASAP (see my Contact page). 

Your level of involvement could range from calling or emailing me with Tips between now and election day, to joining our Twitter feed #voterfraud, to texting alerts, to taking photos and video to be uploaded on Flika, to blogging on our VoterFraudSquad site.

Here is a graphical depiction of the connection(s) – and dollar amounts that passed – between: 

George Soros, MoveOn.org, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) project, the Woods Fund, Bill Ayers, ACORN (its housing division as well as voter registration group), Project Vote, Barack Obama, Fannie and Freddie, Johnson, Raines, and various senators and congressmen including Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, and others.

All of this information is on record and verifiable. 

Even if you look at each connection in the most positive light possible, the thing as a whole is an eye opener.  If you’ve never understood or believed in the the possibility of a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy – or, if you prefer a nicer couching of things:  the possibility that activists on the Left have tremendous Power and wield it in ways that are often overlooked – now may be the time to reconsider.

If you want to Do Something, pass this on!