There’s a video going around about some interviews that were done by a guy making a documentary about the information voters had on which to base their voting decision. Shocking.
For more information see howobamagotelected.com
Domestic Policy
Ignorant Teacher Confronts McCain Kids
This is the quality of teacher they allow in Cumberland, North Carolina. She can’t even put two intelligent words together and yet she beats up a 5th grader.
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Cumberland Schools Superintendent William C. Harrison:
910-678-2300
This genius, Diantha (tehehe) Harris, teaches 5th Grade at:
Mary McArthur A+ Elementary School, 3809 Village Drive, Fayetteville, NC, 28304
http://www.mmes.ccs.k12.nc.us/email/diathaharris.htm
301 E. Russell Street, Fayetteville, NC 28301
Phone: 910-678-7733 · Fax: 910-678-7738
Director: Terri Robertson
Board of Election Supervisors:
lll@nc.rr.com
KimberlyPFisher@aol.com
GregWest@nc.rr.com
MacWilliams@nc.rr.com
hfarrior@nc.rr.com
DLaHuffman@nc.rr.com
fkbarragan@nc.rr.com
Royalme@nc.rr.com
MackyH@nc.rr.com
Obama Abortion Extremist: Audio on Born Alive
NO ID NEEDED! I Just Voted and Found Inconsistencies
I wish I had video of this, but I only have the audio. I’ll do the best I can to describe the missing visuals…
I watched several people walk to the table and point out their name, sign and go into the booth to vote. Not a single person was showing ID, no was asked.
My wife went before me and simply pointed to the paper worksheet with all of the name on them and said “That’s me”. The poll workers both pointed her to the booth and away she went to vote. She could have been anyone Obama bused in from out of state, like he’s known to do.
| Me | Poll Monitor 1 | Poll Monitor 2 |
| “Last name, sir?” | ||
| “[My Last Name]” | ||
| (flipping through pages to find my name, finds the right page) | ||
| “That’s it right there. [First and middle initial].” | ||
| (pushes page to me and gives me a pen, pointing to the signature line) | ||
| “Do I need to show ID?” | ||
| (stands up) “Yes, sir! We have to see ID.” | ||
| “No, no, not the ID.” | ||
| “Let…” | ||
| “Here…” | ||
| “Can I see the ID, sir?” | ||
| “Are you asking for ID for everyone?” | ||
| “No, we don’t need ID” | ||
| “No one does?” | ||
| “No” | ||
| “Sir.” | ||
| “So I could be anybody?” | ||
| “Sir, can I see the ID, I just said it.” | ||
| “So you want it.” | ||
| “Yes.” | ||
| “After I asked?” | ||
| “I’m gonna ask anyway.” | ||
| “Were you?” | ||
| “Yes, sir.” | ||
| “No.” (laughs awkwardly) | ||
| “That’s interesting, cause she didn’t want it.” (I pointed to poll monitor 2) | ||
| “Sir, I am the chairperson here because … waiting out there so I have to ask.” | ||
| “Ah” | ||
| “Ok?” | ||
| “But my wife just went without showing ID.” | ||
| “Who, who, who is the person that just came? Maybe when I went down to the dock.” | ||
| “No. You were standing right here. Right in front of me. This woman.” (pointing to the space my wife had just vacated on the floor in front of me) “Who’s in the poll right now.” (pointing to the booth) “Did not show ID.” | ||
| “Maybe, I didn’t take notice.” | ||
| “She didn’t show ID!” | ||
| “I said I did not. I said ‘I’, my mistake.” | ||
| “Yes, but shouldn’t you notice?” | ||
| “Yeah. Really that’s my mistake. People have to show ID, especially right here…” (points to another persons name on the list) “and then right there” (points to another name on the list) | ||
| “But I just watched her not show ID, so how many people have not showed?” | ||
| “Yes, but you see, for you…” | ||
| “She, she will not show ID here. For you, you have to show ID. Because it is recommended that…” | ||
| “For you they’re asking for ID.” | ||
| “They ask us. You have to.” | ||
| “Uh, that’s not me.” (pointing to the name they are looking at, a few people below mine) | ||
| “Ok. We are just saying people like that. People like this…” (pointing back at my name) “we don’t have to ask them.” | ||
| “Why is that?” | ||
| “Because maybe they a, they, they, they ah, submit your papers they was in… uhhhh” | ||
| “I don’t know.” | ||
| “The same. (pause) That was why they asked, and they made a special ballot for those people anyway. Another booklet.” | ||
| “So for you they didn’t need it, you see?” | ||
| “You see, we don’t need it! Anyway…” | ||
| “OK” |
What else can you say to that? I considered lecturing them about how to run a fair and accurate polling place, but it was clear they were completely in the dark and I’d only be wasting my time on them.
Audio to be included as soon as I can verify that is was legal in my state.
Old Worthy Footage on Obama-Wright
Tickler on Spreading The Wealth
The Socialist believes in ‘spreading the wealth around’. His methods require an overlord, with naive good intentions, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but based on tried and failed principles of socialism. The Capitalist, by tried and proven principles of capitalism, knows that the result of staying clear of the machinery of business, and instead stimulating it, will allow business to spread wealth automatically without the overlord, the theft, and without the resentment.
-Tickler
Once Again, the Press Leaves Obama’s Tax Numbers Unchallenged
Another great op-ed from the WSJ on the random tax numbers quoted by the Obama campaign and the loving press’ unwillingness to put up a question mark. Some highlights:
In the last debate, Sen. Obama said, “We both want to cut taxes, the difference is who we want to cut taxes for. . . . The centerpiece of [McCain’s] economic proposal is to provide $200 billion in additional tax breaks to some of the wealthiest corporations in America. Exxon Mobil, and other oil companies, for example, would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks.”
That $200 billion figure is false. Yet FactCheck.org and most reporters never bothered to ask Mr. Obama where he came up with it. FactCheck.org did discover that Mr. Obama’s claim about “$4 billion in tax breaks for energy companies” came from a two-page memo from the Center for American Progress Action Fund — a political lobby headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff to Bill Clinton, with tax issues handled by two lawyers, Robert Gordon and James Kvaal, former policy directors for the John Kerry and John Edwards campaigns. Those lawyers confused average tax rates (after credits and deductions) with the 35% statutory rate on the next dollar of earnings, so that cutting the latter rate from 35% to 25% would supposedly cut big oil’s $13.4 billion tax bill by 28.5%, or $3.8 billion. That is not economics; it is not even competent bookkeeping.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, by contrast, correctly notes that, “Senator McCain has called for the repeal and reform of a number of tax preferences for oil companies,” which would raise the oil companies’ taxes by $5 billion in 2013.
Read the full article here.
Shift from Capitalism to Socialism, European Style
From the WSJ…
The most basic explanation for why Barack Obama may win next Tuesday is that voters want economic deliverance. The standard fix for this in politics everywhere is to crowbar the old party out and patch in the other one. It is true as well that the historic nature of the nation’s first African-American candidacy would play a big role.
Push past the historic candidacy, however, and one sees something even larger at stake in this vote… The real “change” being put to a vote for the American people in 2008 is not simply a break from the economic policies of “the past eight years” but with the American economic philosophy of the past 200 years. This election is about a long-term change in America’s idea of itself.
I don’t agree with the argument that an Obama-Pelosi-Reid government is a one-off, that good old nonideological American pragmatism will temper their ambitions. Not true. With this election, the U.S. is at a philosophical tipping point.
The goal of Sen. Obama and the modern, “progressive” Democratic Party is to move the U.S. in the direction of Western Europe, the so-called German model and its “social market economy.” Under this notion, business is highly regulated, as it would be in the next Congress under Democratic House committee chairmen Markey, Frank and Waxman. Business is allowed to create “wealth” so long as its utility is not primarily to create new jobs or economic growth but to support a deep welfare system.
…
This would be a historic shift, one post-Vietnam Democrats have been trying to achieve since their failed fight with Ronald Reagan’s “Cowboy Capitalism.”
Of course Cowboy Capitalism built the country. More than any previous nation in history, the United States made its way forward on a 200-year wave of upwardly mobile, profit-seeking merchants, tradesmen, craftsmen and workers. They blew out of New England and New York, rolled across the wildernesses of the Central States, pushed across a tough Western frontier and banged into San Francisco and Los Angeles, leaving in their path city after city of vast wealth.
The U.S. emerged a superpower, and the tool of that ascent was simple — the pursuit of economic growth. Now China, India and Brazil, embracing high-growth Cowboy Capitalism, are doing what we did, only their cities are bigger.
Now comes Barack Obama, standing at the head of a progressive Democratic Party, his right hand rising to say, “Mothers, don’t let your babies grow up to be for-profit cowboys. It’s time to spread the wealth around.”
READ IT HERE, [an itemized list of European yoke-style government policies Obama-Reid-Pelosi will install.]
Quote: Obama on Abortion
“I’ve got two daughters, nine years old and six years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Johnstown, PA 4/1/08
Ramirez Cartoon: Obama’s Big Government
http://www.mmes.ccs.k12.nc.us
Principal Lola Williams:
LolaW@ccs.k12.nc.us
910-424-2206
Harris’ contact page: