I visited every ward in Fitchburg to check on the turnout on Election day

My voting place Ward 6

As always the ladies were delightful

Checking the names

In every ward except ward 1 the turnout was reported as light, below avg. There were plenty of signs for Scott Bove who was my first choice for Sheriff (lost 52-48 in the dem primary to Tom foley) and people stood at ward 1 for him, but most of the turnout looked like this:

I think the contested race on the republican ballot hurt Bove, oddly enough there was a libertarian primary ballot with absolutely NOBODY on it.

The Ballots

My last stop was Ward 2, I had actually planned on stopping there later with my camera but I had time to kill while waiting for my son to finish golf practice. The ladies there were pretty much democrats and we talked for a bit. I told them about the travels of my hat, they asked me what I thought would happen in the election. They were not fans of Martha Coakley, John Olver or Sarah Palin although I did defend Sarah and they seemed to moderate. One thing they were united about was her daughter Bristol.

I mentioned how people where going after Palin because of her daughter getting pregnant and mentioned how I saw high school students attacking her for it back in 2008. To a lady they defended Sarah at this point and VERY strongly.

The gist was that you raise your children the best you could and taught them the best you could but you can’t make them make the right decisions. They had only venom for people who hit her on that. Each of those ladies had children and knew that those kids didn’t always hold up the side.

The point being that a room that was maybe 30-70 against Palin in Mass was 100% defending her when you went after her kids. If Democrats have 24 months to get this through their head.

Update: As for myself, my first thought when I see a young girl like that is “Is this wife material for my sons?” Stacy is right, she is as he calls her fine but if my boys brought her home I’d hesitate. It would be a tough slog to be raising another man’s kid at this stage in life. One mistake, even a big one doesn’t disqualify a young lady, and I’d wager I’d like her if I met her, but I’d ask my boys to think hard and soberly if by some miracle they came home with her on their arm.

…then there is a real problem:

The idea of natural rights is only a philosophy. At its core is the idea that we are owners of our own person. The alternative is that we are owned by other individuals or owned by a collective (the State). If we are not “endowed by [our] Creator” with these rights, from whence do they come?

The upsetting question is not whether Obama believes in God, or whether he’s an Atheist—I don’t care about that at all. The upsetting question is this: If Obama doesn’t believe we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, then what is his explanation for the source of the endowment? I have an awful feeling in my gut that his answer is “the government.”

We go from Pellucidation to Gateway Pundit and Jim Hoff:

What a shock.
Barack Obama dropped “that are endowed by our Creator” from the Declaration of Independence in a speech he gave this past week.

Other than the fact both of these bloggers are part of DaTechGuy’s field guide to bloggers you don’t get much more different than a Transgendered atheist and a Devout Roman Catholic, when both are on the same page here you know there is trouble.

How much trouble? This much:

Byron York Tweet 9:18 a.m. 9/19/2010

How powerful is the wave that is heading toward capital hill? So powerful that it has actually driven Barack Obama to Church!

Adrienne links to this post at the national Catholic Register that explains it all

As it turns out, the Republicans wanted the base to get involved—just not so much. What they really wanted is for real conservatives to turn out to vote but certainly not run. Newly involved fiscal conservatives are finding out that the Republican party wants their votes, just not them.

Welcome to the club.

This is the position that culture-of-life conservatives, like me, have found ourselves in for a generation. I know that many culture-of-life conservatives feel that the Republican party has expected us to get out and vote for candidates of their choosing in return for the privilege of lip service to the life issues we care most about. But many of us COL conservatives have come to the conclusion that much of the Republican leadership does not really care about these issues, at least not enough to really do anything about it.

Now fiscal conservatives find themselves in the same situation.

I keep coming back to this post that Smitty put up a bit ago:

But something happened to DeMint in these leadership seminars that would change the course of his life. The gatherings were entirely focused on the means for concentrating and preserving political power: How to milk K Street lobbyists for political contributions; how to place earmarks into appropriations bills so they would be deemed essential to the folks back home.

One day, DeMint had had enough. He rose up in a seminar to question why representatives of the party of smaller government were so focused on earmarks and political fundraising. Why aren’t we talking about reforming the federal tax code or addressing the health care mess?

Midst laughter, someone shouted, “You’ll catch on to the system, DeMint.” But DeMint never did.

If your only belief is that you need to be elected so you can grease your friends and have power, we aren’t interested in you. To quote Adrienne:

All this talk about Christine O’Donnell not being electable is making me tired. The elitist snobs in the Republican party wanted the people of Delaware to nominate the RINO incumbent Mike Castle because they would have you believe Ms. O’Donnell doesn’t have a prayer of winning the election. Well, so be it!

It is something I talked about before:

Pubic office wasn’t meant to be a meal ticket, it is meant to give the best possible governance by advancing idea and policies for the public good. I’ve read the resolution and it looks good to me.

The party has to decide if principles are more important than the approval of the MSM.

And if principle won’t do it consider: Conservatives are a huge source of Republican funding and have been sending back fundraising solicitations with colorful comments. What is more important? A happy MSM or a happy voter base?

What’s the use of being elected or re-elected if you don’t stand for something?

Jacob Sutherland is a regular at the twin city tea party and attended Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally

This was split into 3 parts to accommodate YouTube

I had a feeling after this talk my Arch enemy good friend Chris’ head blew up

His comments concerning the Al Sharpton crowd “How can you be angry? You won.” was funny, he also credited Sharpton with about 10k. He calls the 3k number low and as he was there I believe him.

You will note I put this under Religion, you can not avoid putting the Beck Rally there.

Q: What was the first thought in my mind after coming home from a couple of hours of errands and seeing the following tweet from Michelle Malkin concerning James Jay Lee.

Not knowing who he is what would be your first thought?

Again that was before I knew anything about what was going on just seeing the tweet. I think that is the strongest critique of liberal academia today that I can think of.

Honestly if you knew nothing about that man other than the information from that tweet wouldn’t your first thought be NGO or Tenured Professor?

to make them accountable to the people?

Conservative activists are trying to oust three judges on the state Supreme Court whose unanimous ruling last year legalized same-sex unions. Their decision stunned opponents nationwide and delighted advocates who were eager for a victory in the heartland.

Why are supporters of Gay Marriage worried about this? It’s explained after the jump:

Gay rights groups have been less successful in the voting booth; in every state where the issue has been put on the ballot, voters have agreed to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. emphasis mine

One can legitimately disagree on having elected vs appointed judges, both systems have advantages and disadvantages, but to get all in a huff because an elected official is being held accountable for actions in an elected office is just nonsense and highlights the disrespect and disdain the elites have with the voters in general and apparently our republican system in particular

Memeorandum thread here

…concerning the White House making their own mess on the Ground Zero Mosque issue (that I really am sick of writing about). The inability to see that the White House turned this into a national story by the president’s statement and then his attempted retreat and the attempt to play the “demagogue” card on the issue.

More amazing is the continued attempts to push the White House to try to use the Bushes to bail them out here. Why either of the Bushes would be compelled to do so is totally beyond me.

It is interesting to note I don’t hear them calling on the silent Bill Clinton to speak up on the issue. Why? Because Bill Clinton is much too smart to do so, particularity if there is the slightest chance his wife will be running in a 2012 primary against this president.

The team did have Irshad Manji on in the first hour and her interesting WSJ piece:

Consider Bob, who feels so offended by antimosque activists in his state of Tennessee that these feelings alone drive him to support more mosques—without prior thought to what, exactly, he’s supporting. “I found local citizens to be intolerant and un-American,” Bob tells me over email. “So as a gesture of tolerance and Americanism, I donated to the mosque building fund.”

Before pledging a penny, Bob should have asked the imam: “Where will the men’s side of this mosque be?” It’s a discreet way of discerning whether the project will replicate segregation, and thus whether the mosque will wind up bolstering the intolerant behavior that Bob can’t abide.

She however sees possibility for the Mosque provided some questions are answered:

Namely, accountability. If Park51 gets built, thanks to its provocative location the nation will scrutinize what takes place inside. Americans have the opportunity right now to be clear about the civic values expected from any Islam practiced at the site.

That means setting aside bombast and asking the imam questions born of the highest American ideals: individual dignity and pluralism of ideas.

• Will the swimming pool at Park51 be segregated between men and women at any time of the day or night?

• May women lead congregational prayers any day of the week?

• Will Jews and Christians, fellow People of the Book, be able to use the prayer sanctuary for their services just as Muslims share prayer space with Christians and Jews in the Pentagon? (Spare me the technocratic argument that the Pentagon is a governmental, not private, building. Park51 may be private in the legal sense but is a public symbol par excellence.)

• What will be taught about homosexuals? About agnostics? About atheists? About apostasy?

• Where does one sign up for advance tickets to Salman Rushdie’s lecture at Park51?

These questions aren’t gratuitous. I, for one, remain haunted by the 300 Muslims chanting “Death to Rushdie” on Sept. 10, 2001.

Note the date. The fact is radical Islam didn’t first arrive in the US on Sept 11, 2001, it was just the first day Americans realized it.

Will the MSM ask such questions? Will they dare? Will any show other than Morning Joe in the 6 a.m hour dare bring it up?

Even when playing advocate they still do a better job than the rest of the MSM.

Jonah Goldberg writes a column in the LA times the once and for all proves that there are lies, damn lies and statistics:

According to the FBI, hate crimes against Muslims increased by a staggering 1,600% in 2001. That sounds serious! But wait, the increase is a math mirage. There were 28 anti-Islamic incidents in 2000. That number climbed to 481 the year a bunch of Muslim terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans in the name of Islam on Sept. 11.

Now, that was a hate crime.

Roll that number around your head. There are 300+ Million people in the US and 50 states in the country and in 2001 “hate crimes” a population out for revenge doesn’t even hit one a month per state?

Regardless, 2001 was the zenith or, looked at through the prism of our national shame, the nadir of the much-discussed anti-Muslim backlash in the United States. The following year, the number of anti-Islamic hate-crime incidents (overwhelmingly, nonviolent vandalism and nasty words) dropped to 155. In 2003, there were 149 such incidents. And the number has hovered around the mid-100s or lower ever since.

Sure, even one hate crime is too many. But does that sound like a anti-Muslim backlash to you?

So we are talking vandalism and nasty words? Lets look at the post 2002 numbers for a sec, The fabulously intolerant Americans that Andrea Mitchell is lecturing concerning sensitivity managed less than one “incident” per season per state since 9/11? And these “incidents” are apparently vandalism and nasty words? This again in a population of 300+ million?

Read the whole thing including that the number of anti Jewish incidents are 6 times higher and anti-islamic ones in the US over the same period.

Maybe if the MSM wants to find bigotry it should look in the mirror and ask themselves why they think the American people are a bunch of hate mongers. Then perhaps their ratings wouldn’t be in the toilet

And finally lets drop this whole “hate” crimes nonsense anyway. It criminalizes thought. Prosecute a rock through a window because it’s a rock through somebody’s window. Justice and law should be color blind.

memeorandum thread here

Update: I would have given a parody example of the MSM’s way of thinking but I couldn’t do better than Alex Pareene’s actual column for salon today. It is almost impossible to parody the left wing media.

Apparently the UK Guardian has been attacking Pam Geller and have been featuring a Bikini shot of her in the stories. Pam answers them in this post:

Knowledgeable conservative readers will get a charge out of the Guardian’s story, which is a mixture of pure fiction and dangerous lies, all devoted to the marginalization of those who dare to expose the liberal media propaganda machine.

The anti-Semitism was open: “Geller,” claimed Chris McGreal, the author of the piece, “writes for an Israeli media network based in the occupied territories that is the voice of the Jewish settler movement.”

I do? They just make stuff up. I don’t even know what they are talking about, but if Chris McGreal is in touch with this “Israeli media network,” he should let them know that I would love to write for them — please point the way!

Pam being Pam hits them head on answering them at her site and Big Journalism:

What’s the point of this stupid hit piece? And yes, it is worse than that. At the moment when I am identified more than anyone else with the fight against the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero, they’re trying to make me radioactive, so that no one will dare to stand with me.

Anyone who has met Pam would be proud to stand with her, she is a woman of ethics, courage who has acted when others have shown fear. Anyone who thinks she had a bigoted bone in her body is drinking and smoking something stronger then I do.

As for the constant use of Bikini photos, well other than trying to be included in Rule 5 Sunday their use of them at the Guardian confirms one thing.

While they strategic, historical and sociological visions are faulty, their basic eyesight is apparently excellent.