On top of the usual cast of democrat voters (blacks, union members, trial lawyers, etc), the dems have instituted a massive get-out-the-vote which is targeting young people, the poor and homeless, as well as a secret untapped source of votes.

The young will vote for Obama since he is more “hip” than the old white-haired dude and his message is more inspirational; it’s much like a 60’s anti-establishment vote. Their votes will be based on feelings, since they have no experience and little knowledge upon which to base a reasoned vote. Get this; they really believe that Obama will do what he says he will do – poor ignorant saps. They’ll learn – but in the meantime, they’ll put the country and our way of life in jeopardy.

The homeless will vote for him because they get a brown paper bag containing a half-pint, and a Big Mac for their vote, thanks to those compassionate folks at ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now). ACORN has a scheduled pickup at various locations around the city where they pick up the homeless and return them after voting. There have been accusations that the same people are voting daily for their booze and burger. ACORN denies this – “our bus drivers are trained specialists and keep a written count of passengers.”

And the poor will vote for him because he’s going to give them free healthcare, education, jobs, subsidized housing and transportation. Remember what George Bernard Shaw said: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

And in addition to the aforementioned, there is Obama’s previously untapped secret source. The “FAD” voters.

Felons, Animals, and the Dead will vote for Obama because ACORN will help them with all of those pesky registration and voting requirements. After all, pets and the dead really do need assistance to vote. It really is hard to hold a pencil or pen without an opposable thumb or when one is a stiff.

ACORN has a long-standing record of participation in the voting process. The democrat party has rewarded their tireless efforts to find and register voters, regardless of species or brain functionality, with millions in grants. And by golly, they’ve earned it.

They have been instrumental in going from cell to cell and registering those forgotten citizens who have been denied representation just because they were incarcerated and couldn’t make it to a voting location. And, in a really compassionate move, they bring along cigarettes and K-Y Jelly to distribute to the voters.

Recently, ACORN announced a “Bring your dog to vote” campaign. While it was initially thought that the campaign was encouraging voters to bring along Fido or Spot when the human voted, it was later clarified that the dogs would actually be voting, with assistance from ACORN (Association of Canine Organizers for Reform Now). They have been trained as “dog whisperers” to ascertain the dog’s preference for a candidate and to aid them in voting (dog tags are an acceptable form of identification).

And as a democracy (for the time being at least), we hold dear the concepts of “one felon, one vote,” “one animal, one vote,” and “one stiff, one vote.”

Of course, an exception to the “one vote” concept prevails when an individual forgets whether they’ve voted already or not. In that case, the only fair thing to do is to let them vote again – else risk being disenfranchised. This rule-of-thumb also applies when a voter has forgotten the location of their residence. It’s only fair to let them vote again in another precinct, just to be sure.

ACORN officials tell us that it is possible that some of the voters that they’ve assisted will vote for Obama but their nonpartisan approach precludes them from keeping track of a voter’s preference. In fact, most ACORN personnel were not even familiar with the name “John McCain.”

Some interesting “Pesky Truths” about how we voters feel about Congress:

A Rasmussen survey recently found that just 11% of voters say Congress is doing a good or an excellent job (some other polls have that figure in single digits). Congress’ approval rating has been below 17% for months, so that’s not exactly “above the fold” news.

But that’s not all, another Rasmussen report indicates the depth of disgust many of us have for our current members of Congress.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that if they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 59% of voters would like to throw the current legislators out and start all over again.   59%!

Just 17% would vote to keep them in office.

When the Constitution was written, the nation’s founders expected that there would be a 50% turnover in the House of Representatives every election cycle. That was the experience they witnessed in state legislatures at the time (and most of the state legislatures offered just one-year terms).

For well over 100 years after the Constitution was adopted, the turnover averaged in the 50% range as expected. In the twentieth century, turnover began to decline. As power and prestige flowed to Washington during the New Deal era, fewer and fewer Members of Congress wanted to leave. In 1968, Congressional turnover fell to single digits for the first time ever and it has remained very low ever since.

And the parties operate like a street gang – if, as a rookie Congressperson, you want their help, cover, or protection, you’ll do as the leadership directs – or else. The “gang” mentality sees their strength in solidarity of purpose. Pretty soon the strength in numbers concept overwhelms any other altruistic motive and you fall in line with Nancy or Harry

There are some good members of Congress (a few), but speaking for myself, I’d be willing to dump my good ones: John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Rep. Sam Johnson, if it meant that all current members would go and the entire country would elect new (different) members.

There has been great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the misdeeds of two of our most infamous congresspersons, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Two of our favorite outspoken Reid and Pelosi critics were so eager to see these two so-called representatives of the people go, they would resort to VOODOO on behalf of the American people.

So, in honor of Mama Sue and Mama A. Sweetheart, I’ve enlisted the aid of Mama Cili D’Jambo, a genuine Haitian Priestess of the Zaca Bagay sect. She has given us a spell that will remove the two ne’er-do-well bumblers from office (I don’t know where they go).

Thanks to Mama Cili D’Jambo (a special spell for Nancy and Harry)

You heat the needles over the hair fire and plunge them into the dolls while chanting the spell. And POOF, they’re gone. Here is the spell:

Chapter Fourteen – Two debates with astonishing results

Chapter Fifteen – Obama and Britney consult with one another

Chapter Sixteen – The other shoe drops, the election, and the moose returns

In the absence of a built-in polling mechanism, I’ve tried to create a pseudo-poll. Using a list of reasons that I think people would choose as their reason to vote for Obama, please choose the reason(s) that YOU think are most prevalent among Obama voters.

Please comment with your letter choices (A, B, C, etc.) not the individual detail reasons. Also, I’d interested in any other major reasons that I’ve left out. I’ll tally the responses and post them daily (if there are any).

Again, these are NOT reasons for YOU to be voting for Obama, but reasons that you think are used by others who will vote for him.

• Because he will enhance our stature in the eyes of the world
• Because he’ll negotiate with our enemies – and bring direct, smart, aggressive diplomacy to our relations with other nations
• Because he’ll strengthen our ties to the United Nations
• Because he’ll revise U.S. policy to conform to a more “global” view.

B. Energy & Environment

• Because he’ll save the planet (a green President, not just a black one)
• Because he’ll reduce our dependence on foreign oil
• Because he’ll force us to move to non-petroleum-based energy

C. Economics

• Because he’ll roll back Bush’s tax cuts
• Because he’ll tax big business (but not trial lawyers or unions)
• Because he’ll tax the “rich” (“rich” not definitely defined yet)
• Because he’ll reduce taxes for poor and middle-income families
• Because he’ll jump start the economy, his policies will create a robust economy

D. Homeland & National Security

• Because he’ll capture Bin Laden and stop any terror attacks
• Because he will return the freedoms taken away by the Bush administration
• Because he will get us out of Iraq quickly (16 mos.)
• Because he will reduce military spending on useless systems
• Because he will be reluctant to deploy our troops again
• Because he will take the lead in disarmament of all nations

E. Race Relations

• Because he’s black (or at least half-black)
• Because he will bring racial unity
• Because he will bring true equality to African-Americans

F General:

• Because he's not George Bush
• Because he’s the smartest nominee since Al Gore and John Kerry
• Because he is not John McCain (NO Republicans, ever)
• Because most “intelligent” celebrities are for Obama
• Because he is articulate, handsome, and clean

G. Political Philosophy:

• Because he will accelerate the growth of socialistic programs in the U.S. – including redistribution of wealth

This piece is directed at House and Senate democrats. While there are some Republicans who are just as bad, let someone else write about them. Right now, I’m ticked off at the democrats.

The usual suspects in Congress have one overriding goal in everything they do – the acquisition of power. Power means control, and control means reelection. There needs to be a way to retire the artifacts that have been in Congress far too long.

Think about it. Once elected, a congressperson has a cushy job, an important, highly visible position with little individual responsibility. They get ample base pay ($169,300 for most, $188,100 for the minority and majority leaders, and $217,400 for the speaker) with lots of perks, excellent healthcare and retirement, an office with expenses paid, a staff (of from 18 to 60), travel expenses (both domestic and foreign), all for basically talking and negotiating for a living. They don’t even get their hands dirty.

Here’s a link to The Capitol.net if you want to learn more details about how much our public “servants” get for their “work.”

http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm

And then there are the “indirect” benefits. Especially the insider deals (like FOA (Friends of Angelo) home loans from Countrywide, real estate that benefits from a bridge to nowhere, or land that just happens to be adjacent to new highway routing. Family members that reside on boards or become lobbyists help to make ends meet. And there is lots of other inside information that leads to investment profits.

Larry, Moe, and Curley could be millionaires after a few years in Congress. Not surprisingly, most congresspersons are millionaires by the time their buttocks are pried loose from their congressional seat.

And what do they do to deserve the pay and perks? They do everything they can to get re-elected – that’s their job – to get re-elected. Everything they do is to that end. They may say that they’re “working for us,” but that’s BS and they know it, and we know it.

You know who the usual suspects are: the democrat “leadership,” namely: Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank, Schumer, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. and none of them are answerable to me and most of you.

I’m convinced that we need a new voting option. I’m not going to spend the time to research what would be required to implement my proposal, maybe at a later date, for now, I’m just interested in reaction to the concept.

The way things are structured now, Representatives and Senators are elected by voters in their state. Voters in other states have no input on the performance of those members from states other than their own, yet those representatives and senators do have a great deal of impact on all states. They are elected to national office, but only a single state elects them.

This is a problem. Take Nancy Pelosi, for example. How many of us (given an opportunity) would vote to remove her from office? Or Harry Reid, or John Murfa, or Chris Dodd, or Barney Frank, just to name a few.

It seems to me that all citizens of the U.S. qualified to vote should have some say in removing a Representative or Senator. I believe that the home state should be given the most weight, but if a majority of votes from the general voting population wants someone gone – they should go. The following mentions Senators primarily, strictly for simplicity. I would propose the same type of “non-performance-based” voting for U.S. Representatives, except that we could vote to relieve four at once.

I’m willing to take a chance with my two Texas senators: John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison. Cornyn is a good one and Kay Bailey has been good although lately she seems to leaning more centrist. But I doubt that anyone would have reason to eject them. On the other hand, look at Ted Kennedy, how would he fare if voters outside of Massachusetts had an opportunity to dump him?

Obviously, if it could be set up under the Constitution, the mechanism would have to be worked out – something like a minimum percentage of registered voters in the “non home” states would have to vote in order for an outcome to be valid and the results implemented. I’d even be happy if national voting were limited to two Senators at a time and four Representatives at a time.

Right now, I’d vote to fire Senators Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. My four Representatives would be Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, John Murtha, and Henry Waxman.

I would hope that two improvements would result from this new voting strategy: 1) since all Senators (and Representatives) could be fired by a number of votes from the general U.S. population, they would be somewhat more concerned about considering the welfare of the country as a whole, and 2) if Senators or Representatives performed at a substandard level, they could be voted out – regardless of their home state’s votes.

The link at the bottom is to a video of Obama promising what he will do as President relative to our military capabilities. In part, this is what he said:

“As President,

I will end misguided defense policies

I will stop spending 9 billion dollars a month in Iraq

I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending

I will cut investment in unproven missile defense systems

I will not weaponize space

I will slow our development of future combat systems

I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons

I will not develop new nuclear weapons

I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile materials

I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off of hair trigger alerts and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”

What kind of “leader” would unilaterally slow development in our future combat systems? This is supposed to make the U.S. safer?

He will “cut investment in ‘unproven’ missile defense systems” Which ones are these, Senator? The ones intended to intercept ICBMs targeting U.S. cities?

And he will “cut billions of dollars in wasteful spending.” Show me a politician who hasn’t promised to cut “wasteful” spending – yet somehow, the promise reoccurs every election campaign – why, because they never do it, that’s why.

Senator Sincere continued: “You know where I stand. I’ve fought for open, ethical, and accountable government my entire public life. I don’t switch positions or make promises that can’t be kept.”

That statement consists of twenty-eight words that aren’t worth the value of the ink required to print them on paper. It is a bald-faced lie.

“My sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people.”

Apparently, the Senator doesn’t think that there is much danger out there – we shouldn’t be concerned. We don’t really need any new weapons systems. He’ll take all of that “saved” money and redirect it to social programs for the disadvantaged. Soon it could become profitable to be poor.

And yet, some believe that this community organizer is qualified to become Commander-in-Chief of America’s military – being wrong about that could be catastrophic.

Thanks to my friend, Marvin for sending me this link to the video – it only runs 1:35 minutes.

 http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/06/08/obama-wants-to-protect-america/

Now I’m serious, if I’m wrong on this issue let me know, ‘cause I think I’m right. I present a few facts to support my case.

My car wouldn’t start two weeks ago, I called the dealership. The battery was at fault – it was replaced - problem solved. I turned the problem to someone qualified. I didn’t call a beauty shop for help.

My asian jasmine ground cover needed trimming, I called my yard guy. His crew trimmed the jasmine – problem solved. My yard guy was the right solution to the problem. Hint: I didn’t call a TV repair shop.

My son is moving his business from New Orleans to Dallas. He called a trucking company to move his warehouse inventory to Dallas – problem solved. He was right to call a professional trucking company. He is too smart to ask an out-of-work actor to move his valuable inventory.

I’m remodeling my house. I painted a couple of rooms myself. Fair results, but a lot of work. I switched to a professional painter for the next set of rooms. Much better results, no work, reasonable price, problem solved – I finally called someone better qualified to do the job and got better results in all areas. Clue: I didn’t call an roofer.

My kitchen needed new appliances. What to do, what to do. Should I call a chimney sweep? No dummy, I called an electrician and a plumber and they did everything right. They were the right “tools” for the job. No chimney sweep here.

So, the point is: the United States needs a new leader. The President is empowered to make treaties and appoint federal officers, ambassadors, and federal judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court.

Various executive and judicial branch appointments are made by presidents, including presidents-elect. Up to 6,000 appointments may be made by an incoming president before he takes office, and 8,000 more may be made while in office.

The president can influence the legislative branch through the annual constitutionally-mandated report to Congress. If Congress passes a bill that the president disapproves of, he may veto it; the veto can be overridden only by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, making it substantially more difficult to enact the law.

He/She is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the country.

Pretty important job, right?

Easily the most challenging job on the planet, right?

So who ya gonna call? 

??????????????????????????

A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER?

I just created a new blog called the “Pesky Truth Outlet Store.” Those of you who have visited here before know how much I like writing satirical pieces. I’ve realized that I tend to get verbose when I get wound up with a story. Several posts here have fallen into that category and based on the number of comments they’ve received, they weren’t read much. So, the new blog will be used for ‘long” stories so I won’t clog up Pesky Truth with posts that get into more than 3 or 4 Word pages in length.

In other words, the “Outlet Store” will typically have stories, rather than normal posts. I’ll post here when a new story is published there and provide a link if you want to read it. If not, you can just ignore the “announcement” post.

Thanks, Garnet92