Most conservatives are wondering, “What can I, personally, do to help stop Obama’s anti-America juggernaut?” Recall that grammatically incorrect statement — “All politics is local.” It’s true! Every marxist and conservative in Washington is there because of local politics.

Do this. All patriotic citizens who cherish the vision of our founding fathers for the United States should attend the local Precinct Convention for their political party. It is at these meetings that the process of composing the party platform begins. At the Convention you will be asked to vote for or against Resolutions that will be forwarded to the County Convention, and if passed there, on to the State Convention. This is how national party platforms and some state laws are formed.

You can affect both party platforms and state laws. Make up your own Resolutions. Make them plain and specific to one issue. Give concrete and detailed reasons why adopting the resolution is necessary. If your Resolution is against the actions of a group, give no quarter. Take 3 copies to be signed and forwarded to the County Convention. Take many more to pass out to attendees.

The primary elections in the race for Texas governor will be held this Tuesday, March 2 for both major parties. Following the primaries, precinct meetings will be held to compose the party platforms. Conservative Texans are urged to attend their Precinct’s Convention about 7:15 p.m. next Tuesday. When you vote, ask someone where it will be held. It will likely be in a school classroom, cafeteria, etc.

At other times and in a variety of formats, similar efforts will be taking place in all of the other states. All patriotic Americans should learn the particulars for their location and become involved. The ideological forces of Marxism and Islamic sharia have insinuated themselves into the fundamental levels of our democratic process, and have permeated our public education. An overwhelming participation by true patriots is needed to rout them.

Here’s a bit of background. In 1961 (or 1962, I forget), I attended a meeting of the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade in the Emerald Room of the (then) Shamrock Hotel, in Houston, Texas. One of the many guest speakers was Herb Philbrick — whose real life experience in infiltrating the Communist party was the basis for the TV series, “I Led Three Lives.”

Philbrick told how the communists had taken control of many civic organizations across America, including his home town’s civic association in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The communists had previously gone to classes to learn Robert’s Rules of Order — and they learned those rules perfectly. They then went to many civic organizations’ meetings and participated. At every opportunity, they raised simple “points of order.” They would then, helpfully, state how some motion, etc., should have been handled. Soon, they had the confidence of the usual hometown Americans — who frequently knew nothing about the use of parliamentary law in meetings. Soon, everyone agreed that the person who knew the rules should become the president of the local organization.

Once in the controlling positions of the organization, they used the organization (and the organization’s money) to promote the communist agenda. As a local civic association, they had the local stature to raise funds. As the controlling officers, they had the power to direct those funds to the use of the Communist Party’s causes. The local civic organizations became communist fronts.

The same thing is going on today, not only by proponents of socialism, but now in addition by muslims, who seek to institute Sharia Law in our communities. One of their prime targets is the Precinct Convention meeting — after the primary polls close.

Be Warned!

1. Buy a copy of and brush up on Robert’s Rules of Order.
2. Many towns have “Parliamentary Law Clubs,” where ladies (mostly) fellowship together in a civic club with a purpose. Frequently, the members of such clubs are officers in other community organizations. If your town has one, join it. Those ladies are great contacts for networking.
3. Get your friends and neighbors to attend your Precinct meetings. Yes. I know. “It’s a pain.” Just do it. Or let the Muslims have the power in your local community.
4. Carry multiple copies (many require three copies) of typed party planks, to be voted on and forwarded to the County and State conventions. Don’t try to prepare them on the spot.
5. Do not allow any muslim to intimidate you by saying that you are persecuting him because of his religion. Islam is both a religion and a political system. Sharia Law is a political issue.

But, first and foremost: Don’t let foreign subversives — whether Marxist or Islamic — get control of your local organizations, precinct chairmanships, county organizations, or state organizations.

I’m a Texan so, as an example, let me share the resolution that I will be offering this Tuesday evening. For background, read this article — Organizing Kids for Obama:

President Barack Obama’s budget has added more than $100 billion of federal taxpayers’ money to what is called “education,” so that means it will be spent by alumni of the Saul Alinsky school of radical community organizing and/or the Chicago Democratic machine…. Obama is using the public schools to recruit a private army of high-schoolers to “build on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda.” We now know that Obama’s “agenda” is to move the United States into European-style socialism….

Obama’s Internet outreach during his campaign, Obama for America, has been renamed Organizing for America (OFA) in order to recruit students to join a cult of Obama and become activists for his goals. …the teacher of an 11th-grade government class in Massillon, Ohio, passed out the sign-up sheet, headed with Obama’s “O” logo, asking students to become interns for Organizing for America….

This must never happen in my state. Here’s my Resolution:

Resolution Opposing Use of Texas Public Schools for Community Organizing

WHEREAS in his inauguration speech, President Obama promised to “transform this country;”

WHEREAS in his budget, the Obama administration added more than $100 billion in taxpayer’s money for what he listed as “Education;”

WHEREAS at American Taxpayer expense, his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, mailed instructions to every school on how to participate in the September 8 political speech that was broadcast to public school children, making it clear that he has no reservations about using taxpayer money to promote his agenda;

WHEREAS Mr. Obama’s campaign Internet outreach — Obama For America — has been renamed “Organizing for America” (OFA) with the purpose of recruiting students to become activists for his goals;

WHEREAS the application to join the OFA Internship program states its goal as, “empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda of change;”

WHEREAS the application further states, “credit must be approved by your school ahead of time;”

WHEREAS OFA’s “National Intern Organizer Curriculum” includes a reading list that includes Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals;”

WHEREAS OFA’s reading list also includes Zack Exley’s “The New Organizers” in which it brags about “an insurgent generation of organizers” inside the Obama campaign that has “almost without anyone noticing … built the Progressive movement a brand new and potentially durable people’s organization, in a dozen states, rooted at the neighborhood level;”

WHEREAS on OFA’s reading list is Rinku Sen’s “Stir It Up: Lessons from Community Organizing and Advocacy;”

WHEREAS on OFA’s reading list is Obama’s “Dreams of My Father,” who is well known as a radical Marxist-Leninist;

WHEREAS a federal government organization, the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), having a budget of $1.416 billion, oversees other taxpayer funded “service organizations;”

WHEREAS CNCS oversees Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America, which regularly dole out millions of Dollars to radical liberal organizations; and

WHEREAS the U.S. Senate has recently confirmed CNCS’s new chief executive, Patrick Corvington, who was a senior official of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which has given over a million and one-half dollars to the Acorn network of organizations;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we urge the Texas Legislature to enact legislation requiring that neither Texas public schools nor their students be used as instruments for political agendas, such as community organization, but, rather focus on history, reading, writing, mathematics, and science.

Adopted this 2nd day of March, 2010, at the Precinct Convention of Precinct # ____ of the Republican Party of Texas.

__________________________________________
Precinct Convention Secretary

UPDATE: The Right Sided American Kafir created the following references to go with this article:

Robert’s Rules of Order

Parliamentary Motions Guide (chart)

The returns are in from yesterday’s primary elections in the state of Illinois. The US Senate seat formerly held by Barack Obama will be in play this fall. It is currently being kept warm by Roland Burris, who was appointed to fill the remainder of Obama’s term by disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich under dubious circumstances.

In the five-person Republican primary, current US Congressman Mark Kirk (IL-10th) won in a landslide:

U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk — 56%
Developer Patrick Hughes — 19%
Retired circuit judge Donald Lowery — 9%
Illinois Historic Preservation Agency researcher Kathleen Thomas — 7%
Former city alderman John Arrington — 3%

The three-way Democratic primary was closer:

Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias — 39%
Chicago City Hall inspector general David Hoffman — 34%
Former Chicago Urban League Chief Cheryle Jackson — 19%

Those are the facts and figures. But what is especially interesting is the way that the Democratic primary in-fighting has given the Republicans an advantage. Although he emerged the winner, Giannoulias was left covered with the stink of corruption by primary opponent Hoffman, who ran ads tying the Giannoulias banking family to the now-imprisoned Obama confederate Tony Rezko.

So going into the general election this fall, Illinois voters are confronted with a US Senate seat

• currently filled by the now disgraced and ousted former Democratic governor Rod Blagojevich,
• held by an Democrat who has already been admonished by the Senate Ethics Panel for “buying” the appointment, and
• sought by Democrat Giannoulias, who was Vice President and senior loan officer at the family’s now troubled Broadway Bank tied to the Rezko scandal.

On the other hand, the Republican candidate is

• currently a US Congressman and
• a Naval Reserve intelligence officer who has been in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq as our nation confronts the terror threat.

What was unthinkable a couple of months ago is now a hot topic — that Republicans might capture the US Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama in this fall’s general election.

The Washington Times — Senate race set

Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias won the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat Mr. Obama once held. He will face Republican Mark Kirk, a moderate five-term congressman who is likely to question the 33-year-old Mr. Giannoulias’ experience and judgment.

Losing the Senate seat in the increasingly Democratic-leaning state would be a bigger personal embarrassment for Mr. Obama than Republican Scott Brown’s upset victory last month in Massachusetts for the Senate seat held for decades by the late Edward M. Kennedy….

Republicans hope to win the Senate seat … in November by exploiting Democratic turmoil and scandal, including former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s ouster over corruption charges that include the allegation he tried to sell Mr. Obama’s seat.

Politics Daily — Is Obama’s State up for Grabs?

Never ending ethics scandals and the near insolvency of the state government burst the bubble of any post Obama euphoria months ago. On Saturday, Chicagoans awoke to these stories: a suburban mayor sentenced for bribery; a Chicago alderman taking a bribery plea deal, and a former alderman learning he may face prison time for a real estate kickback scheme.

Illinois Democrats are splintered and frazzled in the wake of the impeachment of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who will be tried this summer on federal public corruption charges for, among other items, trying to auction off Obama’s seat….

…Republican governor victories last year in Virginia and New Jersey, and the stunning loss earlier this month in Massachusetts of the Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy to Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown have moved Illinois to the top of the GOP priority list.

Massachusetts furthered emboldened the Republicans; they knew they had an Illinois senate game months ago….

FOXNews — Ill. Primary Sets Up Showdown for Obama’s Seat

Kirk is the first serious GOP Senate nominee Illinois has seen in years. Seven of the last nine U.S. Senators elected from this state have been democrats. Democrats hold every major state office. But, while the president is personally popular here, his policies are not.

Unemployment is over 10%, corruption runs rampant, and like the federal budget, the state budget has massive deficits. Taxes are sky high and voters are furious….

OK, dear readers, just look at the pictures of the two candidates. If you didn’t know anything else about them, but just had this one glance, which one would you vote for?

The Democratic candidate is the one on the left. ‘Nuff said.

According to the steady drumbeat from the in-the-tank-for-Obama mainstream media, Barack Obama is way ahead of John McCain in all the polls — state polls, national “eligible to vote” electorate, surveys of those “most likely to vote,” etc. So what do polls really mean, in general, and what do they mean given the particular dynamics of this election, with a black man and a woman in the running?

1. Hang-ups, refusals — When a poll is based on a telephone survey, 80% of the annoyed recipients of these calls, having been interrupted from their dinner starving and tired after a hard day’s work, hang up. (I am one of those who always slam the telephone down.)

If you look at a Gaussian distribution of human personalities, from liberal to conservative in behavior — and I’m talking personality, not political affiliation — the 80% starting from the conservative end of the spectrum are the ones who hang up on surveys. The 20% most liberal are the ones who talk to strangers (including pollsters) over the phone, who discuss their sex life with friends, who wear revealing clothes, who talk about personal finances and how much their possessions cost, who tell everyone how they feel about things, etc. As folk get more conservative, or we might say circumspect, they “hold their cards closer to the chest.” For iconic examples of tell-all personalities, consider the avowedly liberal Hollywood “celebrities.”

There is a political correlation, not one to one, but significant. Those who have conservative mind-their-own-business personalities are much more likely to be conservative politically. So the 80% of voters who do not participate in telephone polls are much more likely to be political conservatives or Republicans, causing the polls to be skewed in favor of liberal candidates.

This same reluctance of more private people extends to in-person exit polls, and was responsible for the now-famous inaccuracies of the Bush-Kerry exit polling:

Interviewing for the 2004 exit polls was the most inaccurate of any in the past five presidential elections as procedural problems compounded by the refusal of large numbers of Republican voters to be surveyed led to inflated estimates of support for John F. Kerry….

[Conservatives are passionate, and will respond to website-based polls, if their personal information is not required to have their vote counted, so those unrestricted counts will show better for conservative candidates than most poll formats. Require name, address, and phone number and you are back to the liberal slant. Conservatives are just more private folk!]

2. Bradley effect — The Bradley effect is well-defined by Wikipedia:

The Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder effect, is a proposed explanation for observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some US government elections where a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other. The effect refers to a supposed tendency on the part of some voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a black candidate, and yet, on election day, vote for his or her white opponent. It was named for Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor’s race despite being ahead in voter polls going into the elections.

The Bradley effect theorizes that the inaccurate polls were skewed by the phenomenon of social desirability bias. Specifically, some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism of racial motivation. The reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well….

No point in calling it the Wilder effect. Douglas Wilder never played the race card. He ran on his distinguished record, was supported by many Republicans while running as a Democrat, won his election, and became a well-liked governor of Virgina, whom many hoped would be the first black man to become US president. He should have run for president, he would have won the US presidency, and race would never have been an issue. Most people would have thought of him as yet one more Virginia governor, like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, and Wilson, and not as a black man.

By contrast, Barack Obama has played the race card obnoxiously, with contradictory logic — insisting whites should vote for him despite the fact that he is black, while counting on most blacks to vote for him because he is black. Worse, his campaign has made a strategy of calling those who oppose him “racists.” So, yes, if there really is a “Bradley effect,” we can expect it to be a factor in 2008 presidential race polls.

3. Special interest groups — There are several principle-driven voting blocs in play that the media is absolutely stone-walling.

• Democrats who love democracy — Unique to this election are the PUMAs, horrified by the way the legal election process was thwarted in the Democratic primaries by outright intimidation and cheating. Many former Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama. Large numbers will vote the McCain/Palin ticket and many more will vote for Nader or just not vote. Their feelings count, and the mainstream media (MSM) is absolutely and shamefully ignoring them.
• Right-to-life voters — Not just right-to-life voters, but most voters who have human compassion, are horrified by Obama’s tacit support of the Illinois practice of infanticide — leaving live birth babies who were intended to be aborted in the hospital soiled laundry room to die. Even those who support a woman’s freedom to choose whether to continue a pregnancy think this goes too far.
• Gun rights advocates — Barack Obama is the most anti-gun-rights candidate ever to run for the presidency. Most politically aware gun-owners are aware of the danger he poses to their Second Amendment rights, and will weigh that against their other issue concerns. For the large segment of that population who believe that the right to keep-and-bear-arms is what secures all the other rights, it will be a black and white decision — Nobama.
• Special needs families — Advocates for the disabled estimate that 11% of our children, or 4 million, have special needs. That’s 8 million parents. And Sarah Palin speaks directly to that population, and from the heart. It’s not just another campaign issue with her — it’s her life. That issue has never been in play before in a presidential election, but it is now, and in favor of the McCain/Palin ticket. But, again, it is one of those things that the MSM just doesn’t take into account.
• Native Americans — All Native Americans born in the United States are eligible to vote. And that population is expected to vote overwhelmingly for John McCain, just on the issues. Add to that the fact that Sarah Palin’s husband is one of their own… Again, no MSM coverage of this voting bloc.

The MSM talking heads believed their own propaganda during the last presidential campaign, right up to the end. We can all remember Dan Rather’s face twisted with surprise, disbelief and agony as he reported the results. He looked like he was about to cry. No reason to get cocky here, but no reason to get discouraged either!

Back in the spring of 1996, when Barack Obama won the Democratic primary in Chicago to run for the Illinois State Senate, the New Party News proudly proclaimed:

….New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County judiciary)….

“These victories prove that democracy with a small ‘d’ can work,” said Obama….

Today, WorldNetDaily is reporting:

Newspaper shows Obama belonged to socialist party
Democrat’s campaign denied allegations, but new evidence indicates membership

Evidence has emerged that Sen. Barack Obama belonged to a socialist political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda….

The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party’s aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.

Among New Party members was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky.

Obama’s campaign has responded to the allegations, denying the presidential candidate was ever a member of the New Party….

The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member….

But take a look at this old copy of the New Party’s official newspaper.

Tail wag: New Zeal blog

As reported in MSNBC’s First Read, Congressman Chris Cannon (R-UT) lost a primary battle to challenger Jason Chaffetz.

After surviving tough primary challenges in recent elections, Republican Congressman Chris Cannon finally met his match in Jason Chaffetz, a former chief of staff to Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. Chaffetz won the primary with 60% of the vote….

Chaffetz is a shoo-in for Congress, notes CQ Politics:

The victory virtually assures Chaffetz of a seat in the upcoming 111th Congress, as the central Utah district is one of the nation’s premier Republican strongholds. President Bush was favored for re-election by 77 percent of 3rd District voters in 2004.

The only notable difference in their platforms — their stance on illegal immigration. Roy Beck of NumbersUSA sent us the following email:

One of Pres. Bush’s most stalwart allies for illegal-alien amnesties was punished by voters yesterday, losing his Republican primary in a landslide.

First-time candidate Jason Chaffetz, 41, a former chief of staff for Utah’s governor, crushed Cannon by 60% to 40%.

Cannon’s immigration stance was virtually the only real policy difference in the race, and Chaffetz hammered him repeatedly on it….

For a decade, Rep. Cannon’s open-borders friends at the Wall Street Journal, the White House and Grover Norquist’s conservative circles provided last-minute endorsements, visits, money and questionable advertising that enabled him to keep his congressional seat in the face of spirited but underfunded opposition from anti-amnesty Republican opponents.

His passionate embrace of illegal aliens won him honors from the National Council of La Raza and love notes from open-borders newspaper editorial writers across the nation.

But Cannon’s pro-amnesty crown finally became an albatross. No amount of advertising claiming that blue is red and that amnesties are not amnesties apparently could fool the voters this time.

Soon after Pres. Bush declared that passing an amnesty for illegal aliens was one of his top priorities, Cannon bragged to the press that he was the White House’s amnesty point man in the U.S. House.

He repeatedly sponsored and co-sponsored amnesties.

Whenever any of us on the Sensible Immigration side testified before the House Judiciary Committee, Cannon assumed the role of prosecutor and did his best Joseph McCarthy imitation demanding to know if we were now or had ever been friends with a list of people that he and the SPLC deemed unfit company. In his “cross-examinations” of me, he always avoided the policy issues of immigration and engaged in attempts at character assassination and innuendo.

Campaign help from Pres. Bush in the past helped save him when forced into Primary run-offs. But not this time….

As a bellwether for immigration enforcement, the Chaffetz victory is even more significant when you consider the campaign funding profiles. Gayle Kesselman, co-chair of the New Jersey Citizens for Immigration Control tells us via email:

Good news on the illegal immigration electoral front. An unknown, underfunded political newcomer named Jason Chaffetz challenged 6 term incumbent Utah Rep. Chris Cannon to be the Republican candidate for Congress. Cannon was proud of his pro-immigration record whereas Chaffetz made anti-illegal immigration the centerpiece of his campaign. Cannon outspent Chaffetz 7 to 1 and had the support of the entire Republican establishment from the White House down.

We don’t have any pro-sovereignty candidate running in the presidential horse race, but we can limit the next president’s ability to give away our country, piece by piece, by chipping away at Congress, one district at a time. This is a good start.

Related:

Michelle Malkin — Shamnesty Republican Chris Cannon defeated in Utah primary