The ACORN dosn't fall far from the tree.

We have more talk of voter fraud this election, and this time it is the dems who are involved. I am not saying that the dems don’t usually commit voter fraud, (after all, I need to give them their due) just that this one is definitely them. ACORN, which stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has been singled out for a fraud investigation in which several states, including my own, have been seeing enormous amounts of fake registrations. These states include Wisconsin, New Mexico, Indiana and Nevada. I have also heard of Ohio being yet another state in this laundry list of targeted fraud.

Targeted I say? Well I would say that when immense voter fraud ‘happens’ to be rampant in swing states, and this fraud can be traced to a single group, then we have sufficient evidence of a group of people trying to sway an election. I thought it was us republicans who tried to steal elections. Everyone still talks about the alleged voter fraud in Florida in 2000. You know, boxes falling off trucks and polling machines being tampered with in heavy democrat counties. (Of course since this all happened in Florida we could chock all that up to, well, Florida. No offense to Floridians of course. It isn’t your fault that your bureaucracy is filled with incompetence.)

In reality this isn’t a surprise to anyone. Even in 2000, the election had numerous attempts to steal the election including not counting the votes of absentee military votes, and this was perpetrated by the dems. In 2004, ACORN was suspected of voter fraud, again. (Source: http://www.epionline.org/news_detail.cfm?rid=171) And no in 2008 we have yet more ACORN buisness. (Vegas source: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/07/acorn-vegas-office-raided-voter-fraud-investigation/ CNN secondary source: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/10/cnn-acorn-fraud-and-ties-to-obama/)

As that last source indicates, Obama is tied with ACORN. It appears that he has donated $800,000 for voter drives. I find it interesting that he claims that he had nothing to do with this at all, yet the same voter drives he donated money for are the same ones committing fraud. Obama, however, claims that he had nothing to do with this. He isn’t even president yet and he already has Nixon beat for corrupting politics. Perhaps I am wrong though. Maybe dead people really are rising from the dead and voting for him; he is called the messiah after all.

Of course an ACORN lawyer had this to say. “We believe their purpose is to attack ACORN and suppress votes.” (also from the hotair.com source) No…. we don’t want to do that. We want to encourage as many people as possible to vote as many times as they like. We, after all, strive for the same kind of accuracy that internet polls give us. He continued “We think that by attacking ACORN that they are going to discourage people who have may have registered with ACORN from voting.” This seems like a laughable claim since half the votes turned in are from ACORN employees. The GOP scare tactics are dazzlingly effective it seems to me. My god, what will we think of next. “Vote McCain or else we will cover your with pet dander!” God help you if your allergic to cats.

Bertha Lewis of ACORN has stated “We immediately dismiss employees we suspect of submitting fraudulent registrations” (foxnews.com) I am not certain if she meant any fraudulent registrations or just very bad fraudulent registrations. After all, if I was paying a guy to steal an election and he registered the Dallas Cowboys starting lineup, I would probably fire him too. I live in Nevada, trust me, Terrell Owens doesn’t. Things like this almost make me wonder if they wanted to get caught.

But none of this matters. We all know democrats don’t steal elections, republicans do. At least that is what I am told. I seem to be out of touch with my branch of the right wing conspiracy. I have forgotten what horrible plans we have come up with.

No, this is just the normal strategy of the left wing. I wonder if one day they will make powdered instant voter. Obama will be pleased and trust me, if he wins, all will be forgiven for ACORN. It is, after all, what he wants.

Censorship gone wild!!!

I think Keith Olberman needs to stick to football. In another interview with Scott Mclellan, Keith Olberman came to this startling conclusion, “Fox News is biased”. I won't necessarily disagree here, it is hard for Fox News or any News channel to be unbiased but this seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black, only the pot is "blacker" than the kettle. Numerous liberal pundits are complaining that shows like The O'Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity are parroting the White house talking points. To be more specific the problem apparently is that these shows mention the White house talking points at all. Somehow by acknowledging the existence of these talking points and, God forbid, agreeing with some of them Fox News is guilty of being biased. The definition of biased here seems to be "agreeing or disagreeing with any point not previously 'agreed upon' by the liberal media." If this is the definition then yah, Fox is biased.

It got more interesting when another pundit began to explain that it was unconstitutional for Fox to parrot these talking points. Let me first ask that, if this is true, then do we get to ban MSNBC, CNN, New York Times and Air America if and when Obama wins? No? Then your problem isn't that Fox is repeating, or more accurately reporting, white house talking points but that those points are not your talking points. Hypocrisy like this is rampant throughout the media. To address the constitutionality of this we must consider the argument itself. I cannot find a link to this so I am going to have to do this from memory. (Let me ask my very small audience at this time to please send any sources you have. I would like any of them.)

From Bennett in the morning sometime at 4 AM (I know, quite an ungodly hour, so forgive me if I screw this up.) a female pundit stated that it is unconstitutional for Fox to, and I quote, "Be a mouthpiece for the government" Even ignoring the obvious problem involving their complacency toward being a mouth piece for the Clintons during their stay, this argument does not fly. The only thing in the constitution that could possibly be misconstrued as making it unconstitutional to "be the mouthpiece of the government" is the freedom of speech and press part of amendment I. This fails to address anything regarding this as the government is not directly or even indirectly prohibiting them from speaking. However, it would be unconstitutional for liberals to prohibit Fox from speaking by forbidding them to tell their side of the story.

If you are at all surprised by this then you are not aware of the Fairness Doctrine. It is an attempt to bring back rules and regulations that more or less shutdown talk radio which is completely dominated by conservatives. All this is done in the name of being equitable to both sides. Unfortunately not everyone wants to have another viewpoint shoved down their throats. Although I do think people should look at both sides, I do not believe in mandating it. If you want to see me switch sides on an issue, add the word mandate. Most everything could be accomplished without mandates.

If you still are not convinced that we shouldn't allow this then all you need to do is ask yourself what if when the republicans got back into office they decide to use these rules against you. Censorship is censorship, it doesn't matter who does the censoring.