Blogs For Victory

As the campaign to restore marriage in California looks ever more like its headed for victory, it seems that those who think tolerant, diverse gay marriage a good thing are starting to act more and more like the little fascists they actually are:

This past Sunday, a parishioner at St. Stanislaus Catholic Church in Modesto, California was attacked while helping promote Proposition 8, which will define marriage as only between a man and a woman in California. According to promoters of the initiative, the assault is part of a “wave of violence” throughout the state.

Jose Nunez, 37, was waiting outside of St. Stanislaus for Mass to finish so he could distribute yard signs to Prop. 8 supporters when he was approached by an opponent of the initiative.

The unidentified man grabbed about 75 of the “Vote Yes on 8” signs and ran. Nunez then spotted the man trying to throw the signs over a wall and approached him.

When he got nearer, the man shouted, “What do you have against gays!” to which Nunez replied that he had nothing against gays.

When Nunez attempted to take the stolen signs from the assailant, the man punched him. The blow sent Nunez to the hospital, where he received 16 stitches for the wound below his left eye…

…In an interesting twist, Jose Nunez is originally from Mexico but just became a U.S. citizen two months ago. He will be voting for the first time in November. Nunez is also active in his parish as the Grand Knight of the St. Stanislaus Council Knights of Columbus, an organization that has contributed more than $1 million to the campaign for Prop. 8.

The attack has not lessened Nunez´s support for Proposition 8.

“The other side wants to intimidate us, but we can’t stop standing up for traditional marriage,” he said. “I may be bloody and bruised, but I’m not giving up. Protecting traditional marriage is just too important for our kids,” added Nunez, who is the father of three children, ages 9, 5, and 3.

Can’t help but make the side point – our immigrants from Mexico are almost all Catholic with a sprinkling of Evangelicals…hard working, law abiding and socially conservative. The are prime GOP targets for recruitment in the culture war, and we’re worse than fools when we go about the immigration debate in a heavy handed manner. Just remember as we justifiably insist that our borders be secure, our immigration laws enforced and illegals brought into the legal immigration system that most of the illegals are good people who want a better life and are willing to work very hard for it.

Anyways…

When the book Liberal Fascism came out, our liberal friends were outraged. Part of the liberal claim to fame is that they are invariably against fascism and fascist methods. But in this we see the essence of fascism – the determination that only one point of view be allowed in service of a supposedly vital social goal. I’ve also read a news story recently of massive hatred directed at a hotel for daring to put up a McCain sign, with the locals essentially saying that they shouldn’t have to deal with depictions of opposition viewpoints. For all too many modern liberals, the very concept of free flowing political debate is outrageous.

This is what we are actually arguing about in Campaign ’08 – what sort of America we wish to live in. Do we wish to live in an America where freedom is the order of the day, or an America where we are all to be proctected from the risk that we’ll hear non-liberal voices? Whatever Obama may think he wishes to do, what the practical effects of his victory will be is a definitive turn away from freedom and towards totalitarianism. We’ll have an America where porn is ok, but Rush Limbaugh is only allowed if he’s immediately countered with a liberal no one actually wants to hear.

Make your choice, fellow Americans – and choose wisely.

Could be the start of a national trend:

Joe the Plumber, of Knoxville, that is, says he’s less concerned about whether he gets a tax break if his customers still can’t afford to hire him.

Still, Joe Shanks, a licensed master plumber and owner of Joe’s Plumbing Service in the Cedar Bluff area, has followed the presidential campaigns the same as his much-quoted counterpart in Toledo, Ohio, who questioned Democratic Sen. Barack Obama over his proposed tax hike for those who make more than $250,000 a year.

Shanks said his business, which he jointly runs with his wife, Catherine, doesn’t earn the couple nearly that much income.

Especially lately, with business at about half what he usually handles, thanks to a flailing national economy that has left would-be customers skittish about hiring him.

“I can’t make money right now,” explained Shanks, who’s been in business for 25 years. “I’ve had to lower my prices just to get the job. I’m going for that cheap dollar – I have to.”

Shanks, an independent voter, said he’s supporting Republican Sen. John McCain, citing the official’s career experience in office as the deciding factor for him.

“I’d just feel more comfortable, confident and safe with McCain,” the plumber said. “McCain’s been there. Obama’s just not that experienced.”

Shanks likened the decision to a homeowner in need of a plumber – would you hire the guy who just got his trade license, he asked, or a seasoned professional?

I do wonder how many kitchen table conversations are going on around America – with Obama putting his socialist foot in his radical mouth and letting the Marxism out of the bag…and now people get to draw the stark contrast between McCain and Obama which the Obama-defending MSM have thus far prevented? I’m not of the opinion that Joe the Plumber is a game changer, but it certainly has got the conversation off of what Obama wanted it on – nebulous statements about “hope” and “change” coupled with a massive, negative ad campaign to slander McCain’s good name. We’re now actually talking about which person would be best – yesterday, in a “water cooler” debate with two friends who are Obama supporters we were actually talking up the contrasting health care plans as the Obamaniacs were finally forced to defend policy rather than just attack Bush and marvel over Obama’s rhetorical skills. Not saying they’ll change their votes, but if Obamaniacs are finally being forced to think about their guy, then there must be millions of undecided voters who are now making their final decision on the man.

I’ll have more written reaction to the debate this evening but, you can listen the podcast of my BlogTalkRadio appearance last night for nearly 2 hours of post-debate commentary.

I thought in the meantime I’d post a few links.

McCain Puts Obama On The Defensive

This time, John McCain kept Barack Obama on the defensive.

The feisty Republican tried hard to find a lifeline Wednesday night, challenging his Democratic rival at every turn over his truthfulness, associations and record.

By that measure, McCain won the last debate of the 2008 campaign.

McCain-Palin 2008 Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker issued the following statement on last night’s Presidential Debate:

“John McCain won tonight’s debate with strong, clear straight talk about setting a new direction for our country and fighting for working families. He outlined a specific, bold plan for creating jobs, helping those near retirement, keeping people in their homes, curbing spending, lowering health care costs and achieving energy independence. He vowed to fight for ‘Joe the Plumber’ every day he is President and he affirmed his belief that we shouldn’t raise taxes just to ‘spread the wealth.’ While Barack Obama is measuring the drapes and campaigning against a man not even on the ballot, John McCain demonstrated that he has the experience, judgment, independence and courage to fight for every American.”

Joe The Plumber: Obama’s tax plan infuriates me.

Karl Rove says Obama “hasn’t closed the sale.” I agree.

The Secret Service says the allegation that someone yelled “kill him” in reference to Obama at a McCain-Palin rally is unfounded.

WSJ: ‘Senator Government’

Ayers Is No Education ‘Reformer’

And this is, really, just the tip of the ACORN/Obama/Democrat voter fraud scandal:

CINCINNATI (AP) – Close to one in every three newly registered Ohio voters will end up on court-ordered lists being sent to county election boards because they have some discrepancy in their records, an elections spokesman said Wednesday.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner estimated that an initial review found that about 200,000 newly registered voters reported information that did not match motor-vehicle or Social Security records, Brunner spokesman Kevin Kidder said. Some discrepancies could be as simple as a misspelling, while others could be more significant.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati sided with the Ohio Republican Party on Tuesday and ordered Brunner to set up a system that provides those names to county elections boards. The GOP contends the information will help prevent fraud.

“Things already are in motion to comply,” Kidder said. “We’re working to establish these processes on how we can make this work. The computer work actually began last week.”

About 666,000 Ohioans have registered to vote since January.

Brunner previously cross-checked new-voter registrations with databases run by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicle and the Social Security Administration and made the results available online, but the 6th Circuit said the information was not accessible in a way that would help county election boards ferret out mismatches.

Brunner, a Democrat, told The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer on Wednesday that she is concerned the court decision is a veiled attempt at disenfranchising voters. Brunner said she’ll urge counties not to force these people to use provisional ballots.

The court gave Brunner until Friday to get election boards the information but it was unclear whether that deadline would be met. The court set no penalty for missing the deadline. (emphasis added)

Naturally the Democrat is going to do everything possible to keep fraudulent voters on the rolls – such is vital to Obama’s prospects on November 4th. What fools like Brunner don’t realize is that there is just so much of this we’ll take – if the ultimate leftwing goal is a complete break down of faith in our democratic process and eventual civil war, they’re going about it the right way. And the really astounding thing is that there always has been, in this year of 2008, a solid chance even someone as leftist as Obama would win fair and square. All they’ve done is pre-taint Obama should he win.

We do need to get to the bottom of this, and that is another reason for voting for McCain/Palin – only a McCain Administration would have the courage and the desire to go after all political corruption, most especially that being done by the left.

The pro-choicers (so-called) insist we are, and in a certain sense they might be correct, but how does this play out in the real world?

A U.S. nationwide poll shows that almost all Americans thing abortion should be restricted.

The poll was conducted for the Knights of Columbus by the Marist College Institute of Public Opinion between Sept. 24 and Oct. 3. It aimed to enable comparisons of the views of Catholic voters with those of the general electorate.

The poll asked respondents to state which of six statements came closest to describing their opinion on abortion.

Only 8% of U.S. residents chose the statement saying abortion should be available to a woman any time she wants during her entire pregnancy.

That same percentage said abortion should be allowed only during the first six months of pregnancy. Twenty-four percent moved the abortion limit to the first three months of pregnancy.

The largest percentage — 32% — chose the statement saying abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

Fifteen percent chose the fifth option: that abortion should be allowed only to save the life of the mother.

And 13% affirmed that abortion should never be permitted under any circumstance.

The poll also indicated that even among those who describe themselves as pro-choice, 71% favored restricting abortions. Of these, 43% would restrict abortion to the first trimester and 23% would restrict abortion only to cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

Supreme Knight Carl Anderson said the poll results are “indicative of the fact that the term ‘pro-choice’ — when applied broadly — needlessly polarizes the discussion of abortion and masks the fact that there is broad consensus among Americans that abortion should be significantly restricted.”

The reason I use “pro-abortion” to describe the people I oppose on the issue of abortion is because there is no other way to describe them – I wish to differentiate between fanatics and reasonable people. Reasonable people, as noted in the above article, want various restrictions on abortion from mild to strong – fanatics fight a desperate, rear-guard action to preserve a definition of legal abortion supported by only a tiny minority. There is, in the end, no real argument in favor of abortion being legal after the first trimester even if you want to take the so-called pro-choice movement’s word on what is at stake. Having no argument in favor of abortion on demand, what the pro-abortion people do is try to cast the debate in terms of “either/or” – either you back them, or you’re in favor of raped women dying in back alley abortions. The truth is a lot different.

And the people understand this – and thus we’ve seen in Campaign ’08 a strong implication that the election of McCain means a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe and thus ban abortion…even though there’s no indication that any particular judicial appointee – even of the most pro-life, conservative variety – will result in an overturning of Roe and, of course, the fact that overturning Roe wouldn’t affect the status of legal abortion in any State or local jurisdiction in the United States. The pro-abortion fanatics, meanwhile, are pinning their hopes on Obama who has pledged to sign the misbegotten “Freedom of Choice Act” which would usurp the power of the people to decide on any regulation of abortion whatsoever.

For the battle between the Culture of Life and the culture of death, the stakes are quite high this year – elect McCain, and Life will stride ahead; elect Obama and death will make the running.

Don’t go uncorking the champagne, yet, Obamaniacs:

Gov. Sarah Palin met with a group of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s former supporters Tuesday evening at a special fund-raising reception organized for them on behalf of the Republican ticket…

…Ms. Palin, along with her husband, Todd, mingled and posed for pictures with the group of about 20, before appearing at the larger finance event, which McCain campaign officials said was the last time Mr. McCain would personally appear at a fund-raiser before the election. It was also the first time the pair had appeared together for donors.

More than 1,000 people paid $1,000 each for tickets to the main fund-raiser. Nearly 250 people who contributed $25,000 got dinner beforehand with Mr. McCain.

The reception for former Clinton supporters, which also was attended by Rick Davis, the McCain campaign manager, was spearheaded by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a former telecommunications entrepreneur and “Hillraiser” who brought in more than $100,000 for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign; Calvin Fayard, also a former Hillraiser and longtime Democratic donor from Louisiana, and Miguel Lausell, a former senior political adviser to the Clinton campaign from Puerto Rico.

Other prominent former Clinton supporters in attendance included John Coale, a former Hillraiser, Washington lawyer and husband of Fox News television host Greta Van Susteren.

Everyone at the reception contributed $28,500 to McCain-Palin Victory 2008, a joint fund-raising committee for the Republican National Committee and several state Republican parties.

While Mrs. Clinton has implored her former supporters to back Senator Barack Obama, some still harbor ill will towards him, organizers said.

“These people want to give their vote of disapproval,” said Mr. Lausell. “This is a way they’re doing it.”

How many of these people are there? Are they actually reflected in the polling demographics? Time will tell.

First it was our glorious Marines, now it is the good people of western Pennsylvania:

Democratic Rep. John Murtha said Wednesday his home base of western Pennsylvania is racist and that could reduce Barack Obama’s victory margin in the state by 4 percentage points.

The 17-term Democratic congressman told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in a story posted Wednesday on its Web site: “There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area.”

Murtha said it has taken time for many Pennsylvania voters to come around to embracing a black presidential candidate, but that Obama should still win the state, though not in a runaway.

In a separate interview posted Wednesday on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review’s Web site, Murtha said Obama has a problem with voters’ racial attitudes in western Pennsylvania that could trim his winning margin on Nov. 4.

Did you catch all that, Pennsylvanians? Obama thinks you’re a bunch of bigots who cling to God and guns, and the one of the corrupt Democrats who represents you in Congress thinks you’re a bunch of racists.

Are you going to vote Democrat on November 4th?

Tonight, I’ll be live-blogging the Final Presidential Debate over at VoteBitter.com.

VoteBitter.com has a nifty shirt for sale from their website:

Click here to get your shirt!

Click here to check out the liveblogging of the presidential debate at 9 PM Eastern.

After the debate, I will joining Ali Akbar of VoteBitter and the Editor of Blogs4McCain.com for some post-debate analysis on BlogTalkRadio. Click here to listen in after the debate and for call in instructions.

Also, check out NeverFindOut.org…

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: McCain was at his best tonight while Obama hemmed and hawed and generally stuck to talking points, though Obama did let McCain rattle him a few times. Obama was clearly playing “prevent defense” – figuring he’s ahead in the polls and all he has to do is not blow it for the next 20 days. I’m not so sure about that. McCain, on the other hand, had to put Obama on the defensive, and he did so – more importantly, however, McCain had to lay out both his concern for Joe Average and his concrete plans for making life better, and he did that very well (we’ll have to send a six pack to “Joe the plumber” when McCain wins this election…never has a Joe Average, I think, ever become so important to an election narrative).

UPDATE, again, by Mark Noonan: Almost forgot to mention – McCain on Obama’s endless Bush mentions (“you should have run 4 years ago), on Obama’s atrocious stance on the Columbia free trade agreement, on accidentally (?) calling Obama “Senator Government” and on Obama’s fumbling around on the abortion issue; perfect stuff. Had Obama for lunch. How will it play out? Beats all heck out of me.

Last night I gave some commentary to a local talk radio station in Buffalo, NY regarding the debate tonight between Senator John McCain, and former community organizer Barack Obama. There are certainly a lot questions I’d like to see asked of Barack Obama, but the one I gave on the air is posted here.

In anticipation of the final debate, I’d like to pose question for everyone to answer, “What would you ask Barack Obama at the debate tonight?”