Right Wing News

The fact that I can't answer the question clearly after being told by everyone that the world was imploding is irksome. Either this financial crisis bad but we'll make it, or it's bad and it's going to suck the economy down the hole. And why is consumer confidence up? I have an answer: gas prices are declining. Yes, it's that simple.

So the Senate will vote tomorrow and McCain and Obama urge the bill's passage. Hold on professor. Why? From The Hill:

Usually, constitutional issues prevent the Senate from acting on legislation that involves tax issues -- any such bill must originate in the House. However, the Senate can circumvent the the rules by taking up a pending House bill, stripping it and putting in place substitute language. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) had cast doubt on that scenario after Monday's failed House vote, saying it would only "compound" the situation, but others, such as senior Banking Committee member Robert Bennett (R-Utah), confirmed it was a leading idea.

"Anything that's within the realm of the rules is within the realm of possibility," Bennett said.

Some observers said a successful Senate vote could be an important tool in persuading wavering House members who may be considering changing their vote.

So Senators think there's a problem and it's bad enough to skirt the constitution to address it. Will someone please explain it to me? I would like something to happen so average schmucks don't end up homeless--but that isn't the Paulson plan.

Michelle Malkin is in the other camp and says,"Today's stock market drop is a record point drop, but does not even crack the top 10 single-day percentage drops in American history.
Let's stop pounding the panic buttons."

Time Magazine explains some of the subtleties, but after reading the article, I get the impression that banks are being more sober about their lending. That, to me, is a good thing.

Some personal anecdotes:
When we started our business, no one, not one bank, would give us money. So, we had to use credit cards and roll our build out into our lease agreement. We bartered the painting and we did some of the interior work ourselves. We didn't qualify for credit and we were a good risk (at least to us). About a year after we had signed our lease, the building owner had worked with our agent and had never met us. We looked so young, she was shocked. She would not have leased us space had she seen us. Good thing she didn't see us!

When we bought our home, our agent found the most generous loan officer he could find. There is no question that he finagled a deal for us. Frankly, I was shocked we were loaned any money at all--we had copious student debt and no assets besides a diploma. It was an FHA loan. Everything worked out.

When we bought a bigger home, the bank approved us for more than we could afford. I was dismayed. And, after asking a million questions, we settled on an old-fashioned loan and bought a home within our means. But the process was confusing and there were many choices. An acquaintance of mine actually was lied to by the bank officer and signed a loan that increased in payments by $200/month within a year. The loan was changed and refinanced, but this was a person who understood finances and could pay. Predatory lending is not a myth.

Still, Americans are too used to living beyond their means. Needs are confused with wants. People believe that they must have cable and iPhones and dinners out and whatever is their personal passion. And now, people can't make their payments? What happens then? Well, unfortunately, banks gave many bad loans to people who can't pay.

Some people just need time. A reader of mine, 81 years old, lived through the Great Depression, and remembered that his family was given a year of interest only payments so they could keep their home while their father searched for a job. But joblessness was the problem then, it isn't now. Yet.

Some people are buried over their heads because they lived beyond their means. Some businesses are the same. They will fail. The pernicious thing is that lenders had the government tighten up requirements filing for bankruptcy while they want money loosened as they themselves fail. It is this atrocious behavior that sickens Americans.

And so, as another reader wrote, "then let's eat beans and rice" until it gets better. If Americans are willing to endure this, then why is the Senate voting to ostensibly stop it, if it can even be stopped? And should it be stopped, even if it can be stopped?

Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com

Someone yesterday on Twitter said that anyone who is undecided about who to vote for this late in the election cycle is stupid. They just did not understand how someone could still have not made a choice.

I didn't bother to reply to him, as he obviously thinks I'm stupid. But had I the inclination and the time to spell it out for him, I would have first started by saying, it's not really indecision. It's more along the lines of aggravation. I'm annoyed that I am in a position where I have to choose who I least want to be our president, rather than vote for someone I want in the White House. There are days I even think about not voting at all, though that's merely just my disdain coming through. Of course I will vote. I'm just not sure which lever I will pull as I simultaneously give the voting machine the finger, as if to say: Don't mistake my vote for you as meaning I like you.

Let's think about this metaphorically, as beating metaphors to death is what I do best.

The lease is up on my car. I hate this car. I liked it well enough when I first signed the lease, but it's since proved itself to be a lemon. I can't wait to get rid of it. So I go to the dealership and tell the salesman I'm ready for a new car. He smiles and takes me to the showroom, where he says "We have two different models to show you. Unfortunately, they are the only two models we have and you have to pick one of them." At that point, a person would just turn over the piece of crap car and go to another dealer. But that would ruin my metaphor, so we'll stay with this smiling salesman.

In the showroom are a 1978 AMC Pacer and a 1970 AMC Gremlin (sorry AMC, you made some ugly cars). I balk. I tell the salesman there's no way in hell I would want either of those cars. But this is some level of Hell Dante forgot to write about it, and I'm stuck in this showroom, having to choose between two of the ugliest cars ever made.

I kick the tires on each, pop the hood, examine the engine, ask some questions. I tell the salesman I'll think about it, and go home to do some research. I see a lot of articles telling me why I shouldn't buy either car, but very few giving me any compelling reasons to purchase either one. I'm now forced to choose; not so much between the lesser of two evils, but between the greater of two

What do I do? The clock is ticking, my lease is up at midnight and I have to have a car. I go back and forth, wondering which car I will hate the least, which car will least disappoint me, which piece of crap will be any different from the one I'm giving up.

I'm disheartened, to say the least. I had dreams of a shiny, new car. One that would make me beam with pride, one that would restore my joy of driving and make me feel safe, comfortable and secure behind the wheel. I know neither of these cars will do that and there's a four year lease on one of them looming ahead of me.

I think in their heart of hearts, every "undecided" voter at this point knows who they are going to vote for. It's ambivalence rather than indecision. It's disappointment about having to choose which candidate they are not going to vote for, rather than having the chance to be gung-ho about either one.

So come Election Day, I'll go into my polling place, as I would go into that metaphorical dealership, knowing that I'm choosing a clunker no matter what I do.

Well, at least neither of them are a '73 Pinto.

This is a really good video and very professionally done.

Since the bailout plan has failed and the market has pulled a yo-yo act, I thought it would be a good time to ask this poll question again to see if people's views have changed on remained the same.

For another blog, I've been asked to discuss the best conservative politicians. I've narrowed my list down to what I consider the top ten combined senators, congressmen and governors--but I'm interested in what the Right Wing News audience thinks about this list.

Please vote below--and if your favorite didn't make the list, post a comment below or email me at katie@[nospam]katiefavazza.com to make another suggestion. (Remove [nospam] when sending a message.)

Update: Someone emailed me saying Newt Gingrich should have made my list. I kept my list to those currently serving in office, however, or else I would have included Gingrich and--of course--Reagan, among others.

I didn't see the whole Couric interview. Evidently, Sarah Palin didn't perform well and even conservatives are cringing. I buy it. The part I saw, made me wonder if she was sitting on a bed of nails, she was so nervous. Coached and careful, defensive and self-doubting, she clearly just wanted to get through it and get it over. Understandable. Katie Couric is a dull-witted, pugnacious twit who hates conservatives.

Here's my two cents: Sarah Palin is already over-handled. If there is one thing needed during this economic crisis, it's someone who is in touch with average Americans and speaks the language. Sarah Palin is not stupid, she's unaccustomed to the blood-sport that is DC politics. It is almost impossible to convey the depths the press and the opposition, and even "friends" will go to destroy a person for having "imperfect" ideology (any ideas that clash with ones own.)

And how do you integrate an ability to talk with awareness without sounding defensive? How do you not sound defensive when the person sitting across from you wants you destroyed? Sarah Palin is still a real person. DC is an unreal realm. I want her to stay real.

Staying real means that people can teach her the history and the geography and the policy, but don't do it at the expense of her true self. I feel that George W. Bush has been overhandled. When allowed to speak freely, he speaks the best. He reaches the people. I love his Q&A sessions with the press where he instinctively answers questions. He speaks the people's language.

For Sarah Palin, more polish will come. Or not. Hells bells, Joe Biden isn't polished and no one gives him a hard time. He's an outright liar and that seems charming when coming from his mouth, evidently. Sarah Palin has integrity, at least. And don't give me garbage about her time in Alaska. A politician doesn't get an 85% approval rating state-wide by being dirty and stupid.

So, I'm not worried about Sarah Palin. I'm worried about a country where a politician like her can't make it. If all we get are bland, handled, "intelligent", worldly, cut-throat elites like Obama, I don't want any part of it. When average people desiring to influence politics for the better have no place in America, we're in trouble. Sarah Palin gives a lot of people hope--not because she's the smartest, most polished, most worldly, but because she seem really concerned about how policy affects average Americans and puts their needs first.

Sarah Palin threatens all DC holds dear and that's why they want to destroy her. Those who ostensibly support her can destroy her too: by making her something she's not. Let Sarah Palin be. She's good enough for America. I'm not sure DC is good enough for her.

Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com

As many regular readers of RWN already know, in 2006 I organized a group of conservative bloggers to raise money for the GOP. Well, this year we've got another group of bloggers together.

Ace of Spades HQ, Atlas Shrugs, Conservatives With Attitude, Gateway Pundit, Moonbattery, PoliPundit, Power Line, Redstate, Right Wing News, & Wizbang! have all joined up to help raise money for worthy candidates in the last month of the campaign.

Now, let me tell you a little bit about the slate of candidates we picked.

They're all non-incumbents in competitive races who were unanimously approved by every blogger endorsing the list. All of our candidates are in the House because the amount of money we're going to raise can make a bigger difference in those races. I would also add that you'll find this batch of candidates to be very fiscally conservative, pro-life, and tough on illegal immigration. In other words, these are exactly the sort of candidates we're going to desperately need in Congress next year.

Now, I don't want to scare you, but I do need to be honest with you: whether McCain wins or not, on the Congressional level, it's entirely possible that the GOP is going to have a year that is just as bad as 2006 was for us. In other words, even if McCain pulls it out, it's going to be an ugly year.

That's why it's so important to do what you can, right here and right now, for candidates who can make a difference. As you look at the candidates we chose, I think you will see that they are worthy of your support.

Dean Andal (CA-11): Andal is a rock-ribbed fiscal conservative who's endorsed by the Club for Growth. He's trying to unseat Jerry McNerney, an ultra-liberal who's a poor fit with his moderately Republican district.

Lou Barletta (PA-11): Barletta is a rising star in Pennsylvania politics. He made a name for himself by passing one of the "toughest illegal immigration ordinances" in the country and was voted "Mayor of the Year by his peers in the Pennsylvania State Mayors Association." Now, he's running against liberal congressman Paul Kanjorski in a moderately Democratic district -- and he's winning. This is a guy we really need in Congress.

John Gard (WI-08): Gard, who has pledged to never take an earmark, is taking on one of the most liberal members of Congress, Steve Kagen, who is far to the left of his moderately Republican district.

Rick Goddard (GA-08): Goddard is a retired US Air Force Major General who's going up against Democrat Jim Marshall in a strongly Republican district that John McCain could conceivably win 60-40 over Barack Obama. This is a great opportunity to put this seat back in the Republican column for a long, long time.

Chris Hackett PA-10: Hackett is a staunch fiscal conservative who has been endorsed by the Club for Growth and has promised to "oppose every attempt to grant amnesty and a preferential path to citizenship for those who are here illegally." Hackett is going up against Chris Carney, a liberal who may not be capable of holding off Hackett in a strongly Republican district.

Melissa Hart (PA-04) Hart is in a rematch against Democrat Jason Altmire in this moderately Republican district. Hart, who had a lifetime ACU rating of 92% during her three terms in Congress, is someone we desperately need back in action.

Andy Harris (MD-01) Harris is a conservative Navy vet who defeated RINO Wayne Gilchrist in a primary. Because Gilchrist is supporting Harris' Democratic opponent, this strongly pro-Republican district is much more in play than it would be under normal circumstances.

Tom McClintock (CA-04): McClintock is a rising star in the GOP and is the only candidate who is endorsed both by Tom Tancredo's Team America PAC and the Club for Growth. Normally, McClintock would need little help in this strong GOP district, but he's facing a tough opponent and the sitting Republican Congressman, John Doolittle, became enmeshed in the Jack Abramoff scandal and is retiring from politics. Replacing Doolittle with a man like McClintock would be a huge improvement for conservatives.

Pete Olson (TX-22): Olson, who served in the Navy and describes himself as an anti-amnesty "budget hawk" is going toe-to-toe with Nick Lampson in Tom DeLay's old district. This is probably the GOP's best chance of a pick-up in the 2008 elections.

Tom Rooney (FL-16): Rooney is an Army veteran who taught criminal and constitutional law at West Point. He's matching up with Tim Mahoney in Mark Foley's old district. The district is only marginally Republican, but McCain looks like he will do well there and Mahoney isn't particularly popular.

William Russell (PA-12): Russell is a 28 year Army veteran who was at the Pentagon on 9/11 and served in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He's going up against one of the most corrupt, liberal, loud mouths in the entire House -- John Murtha. It's a moderately Democratic district and Murtha will be loaded down with special interest money, but with Murtha being dogged by a slander suit filed by one of the Haditha Marines he smeared, he may be vulnerable enough to be brought down.

David Schweikert (AZ-05): Schweikert, who has been endorsed by the Club for Growth, is trying to take back JD Hayworth's old seat. His opponent is Harry Mitchell, who ran as a moderate and voted like Ted Kennedy. In a moderately Republican district, Schweikert is definitely capable of knocking Mitchell out, especially if Arizonans turn out in droves to vote for favorite son John McCain.

Steve Stivers (OH-15): Stivers is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Ohio Army National Guard who received a bronze star and has campaigned on balancing the budget. He's trying to retain a Republican seat held by Deborah Pryce, who's retiring.

Folks, it's now or never. This is your last chance to make a difference for the next two years. Make the most of it!

20) Cracked: The 5 most baffling spin-offs in television history

19) Michael Goodwin: Barack Obama's big blunder

18) Karl Rove: Obama can't win against Palin

17) Cracked: 6 baffling mistakes every movie criminal makes

16) Ann Coulter: They gave your mortgage to a less qualified minority (Excellent)

15) Ben Stein: Everything you wanted to know about the credit crisis but were afraid to ask

14) The New York Post: Obama's former spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright, is at the center of a sex scandal

13) WorldNetDaily: Jessica Alba's seduce-the-vote campaign. Actress makes raunchy, topless, bondage ad to get young people to polls

12) Moxie: The city of LA: No McCain banners allowed on private property!

11) Spengler: How Obama lost the election

10) Wolf Howling: Palin vs. Obama in pictures.

9) Mother, May I Sleep With Treacher?: Here's why Sarah Palin will get killed in the debate, pt. 1

8) Jalopnik: The best South Park license plate ever

7) Cracked: 8 classic movies that got away with gaping plot holes

6) David Kahane: I hate you Sarah Palin

5) Five Feet of Fury: This is the worst anti-Sarah Palin t-shirt yet. (Link corrected)

4) Patterico's Pontifications: "If Big Media doesn't pick up on this story, it will confirm every suspicion we have ever had about their bias."

3) Libertarian Republican: One graphic that shows you what Sarah Palin does to the Obama campaign.

2) Hotline on Call: Check out this pic of the wall at Sarah Palin's parents house. Wow.

1) Unknown: An awesome Sarah Palin button.

Full disclosure: John Hawkins insisted I post this story to share with you all after I'd told him via instant message.

Picture this: I'm working at a coffee shop near my house, but I don't exactly fit the mold. Don't get me wrong: I love the place and I work there a couple days a week now. There's a great atmosphere. But, I don't look the part today. I'm wearing a t-shirt that says, "The time is now. Reagan & Bush 1980." (Available for purchase here.)

In an email detailing this scenario early this morning, my boyfriend laughed and suspected that before noon today, a coffee-shop hipster might strike up a conversation with me about indie music or my favorite book, thinking that I was wearing this shirt as, in his words, "a way to mock the excesses of the 1980s" or in protest of being born a child of the Reagan years.

Well, he was right. But the hipster who hit on me was a woman.

She struck up a conversation with me about how she thought my shirt was hilarious and, without much prompting, went on to explain that she spent much of last night watching old political skits from Saturday Night Live. I tried to end the conversation and go about getting my coffee refill, but she kept going, urging me to "rush to a computer" to watch a couple specific skits of Bush 41 and Clinton. The content of the conversation was innocent enough, but the look in her eye and her tone of voice indicated that she was definitely hitting on me.

...And so concludes the story of the time I was hit on by a woman while wearing my "Reagan & Bush 1980" shirt.

(John--of course--asked, "Was she cute?" To which I replied, "Nominally, but she's not my type." You know, because she's a she.)

Update: I should have clarified. When I say I am "working at a coffee shop," I mean I'm working for my clients I consult, sitting with my laptop, just to get out of the house for a bit because I now work from home. I'm not employed by the coffee shop.

If you need yet another reason to support term limits, I would refer you to the bailout crisis that we're having and would say that provides as good a justification as you're ever going to find.

Now let me explain why I say that.

First of all, the root of the bailout crisis is in Congress. By forcing banks to make loans to shaky people who were at a high risk of defaulting, they built a time bomb into the system. When Republicans like George Bush and John McCain pointed out that there was a problem, many of these same people said there was nothing to worry about. Now, we have a crisis and the very people who are responsible for creating and maintaining it are in charge of fixing the problem and are blaming everybody but themselves for creating it.

Guys like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd? They deserve to be publicly horsewhipped for their role in this scandal, but instead, they're the darlings of the media, the go-to-guys who are supposed to get us out of this whole mess.

Therein lies the problem: Congress is filled not with decent, honest, public servants who are trying to be their best for the country, but with flim-flam men who love their cushy jobs and whose primary talent is slipperiness.

Look at Barney Frank; he had a bisexual prostitution ring running out of his apartment. Chris Dodd got a crooked sweetheart deal from Countrywide and is loaded down with contributions from Fannie Mae -- and they're lightweights. Joe Biden is a blithering, gaffe prone idiot and he's the Dem's VP choice. Alcee Hastings was impeached for corruption as a judge and William Jefferson got caught with bribe money in his freezer -- yet they're still in Congress. It's not that unusual anymore for the worst sort of scoundrels and incompetents to be representing the country in Congress.

When you have a Congress that is primarily made up of men like this, men with no character, who are little more than con men operating on an epic scale, how do you trust your government?

Yes, having term limits would mean that good, decent servants of the country like Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint would only get to stay in Congress for a limited time, but if the system guarantees that men like that will always be a tiny minority on the Hill, then don't we need to change it?

With this bailout crisis, how much better off would we be if the majority of our representatives in office weren't worried about getting reelected, didn't feel compelled to cover up for past mistakes made by Congress, and were immune to the pressure from business groups because they wouldn't need their contributions? How much more faith would you have in the wisdom of their decisions under those circumstances?

Now, I will admit it wouldn't be easy to push term limits through because it would take a constitutional amendment -- but, if we were to make term limits non-retroactive, I think it would be possible to get it through Congress if the American people really wanted it. With the trust in Congress and the institution's popularity hovering near an all-time low in popularity, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea for conservatives to start talking about term limits again.

At this point the liberal media can dispense with any pretense of objectivity when it comes to moderating the debates — so it has:

Questions are being raised about PBS anchor Gwen Ifill's objectivity after news surfaced that she is releasing a new book promoting Barack Obama and other black politicians who have benefited from the civil rights struggle.

Ifill is moderating Thursday night's vice-presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. Her book, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," is due to be released about the same time the next president takes the oath of office.

As if being a PBS propagandist and published Obamophile isn't enough, Ifill has a clear financial motive to do her insidious best to get the Left's messiah elected. As the hardly conservative Juan Williams observes:

Clearly her books aren't going to do as well unless Obama wins, so it looks like she has some investment, literally, in one candidate or the other. And she's supposed to be sitting there as a neutral arbiter during the debate. I think the world of Gwen Ifill but I know there's a perception problem.

Kind of like the perception problem you might have if Hitler was in a debate, and the moderator was Joseph Goebbels.

On a tip from the MaryHunter. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:

Jim DeMint: A conservative plan for fixing the crisis

Kathy Shaidle: The best conservative talk radio hosts

IMAO: "Nancy Pelosi really should be living alone in a broken down house with twelve cats."

Popoholic: Gemma Atkinson bikini shots

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!

PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.

At 4:07 PM EST, I'm going to be on the Jaz McKay show.

Click on Stickam in the left corner to listen to the show.

Last week, Kathleen Parker -- who is an excellent conservative columnist -- wrote one of the most controversial columns of the year. The column, which was rather cutting in places, suggested that Sarah Palin should quit as McCain's VP,

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Palin were a man, we'd all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she's a woman -- and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket -- we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

What to do?

McCain can't repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP's unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

Only Palin can save McCain, her party and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.

Although I believe that neither Sarah Palin nor Barack Obama has enough experience to be in the White House, I don't agree with Parker. In fact, I think the idea of asking Palin to step down is perfectly ridiculous.

That being said, this post isn't about Parker's first column. That's just the back story, so that you can understand what's going on when you read the excerpts from Parker's column that came out today,

Allow me to introduce myself. I am a traitor and an idiot. Also, my mother should have aborted me and left me in a dumpster, but since she didn't, I should "off" myself.

Those are a few nuggets randomly selected from thousands of e-mails written in response to my column suggesting that Sarah Palin is out of her league and should step down.

Who says public discourse hasn't deteriorated?

The fierce reaction to my column has been both bracing and enlightening. After 20 years of column writing, I'm familiar with angry mail. But the past few days have produced responses of a different order. Not just angry, but vicious and threatening.

Some of my usual readers feel betrayed because I previously have written favorably of Palin. By changing my mind and saying so, I am viewed as a traitor to the Republican Party -- not a "true" conservative.

...In the meantime, though, I would note that this assault and my decision to write about it aren't really about me -- or even Sarah Palin. The mailbag is about us, our country, and what we really believe.

...The picture is this: Anyone who dares express an opinion that runs counter to the party line will be silenced. That doesn't sound American to me, but Stalin would approve.

Readers have every right to reject my opinion. But when we decide that a person is a traitor and should die for having an opinion different from one's own, we cross into territory that puts all freedoms at risk. (I hear you, Dixie Chicks.)

I'm sure it is coincidence that, upon the Palin column's publication, a conservative organization canceled a speech I was scheduled to deliver in a few days. If I were as paranoid as the conspiracy theorists are, I might wonder whether I was being punished for speaking incorrectly.

Unfortunately, that's the way one begins to think when party loyalty is given a higher value than loyalty to bedrock principles.

Wow, there is a lot in there to talk about. In fact, I could probably write a whole column based on Parker's column today. But, let me just limit this to a few thoughts.

#1) First off, the people calling Parker a "traitor," suggesting she should "off herself," etc., are reprehensible. I condemn those sort of emails whether they're going to or coming from people on the Left, the Right, or anybody else. Show some class, losers.

#2) That being said, I am a bit surprised that Parker seems surprised by the tenor of her email. She's a professional columnist, so doesn't she get this stuff all the time? I mean, I sort of expect a certain number of "you're a traitor" or "I hope you die" emails. It just goes with the territory.

Maybe Parker didn't expect to get them from conservatives? As a general rule, conservatives aren't as nasty and vicious as liberals, but that doesn't mean we're all polite and genteel. Unfortunately, we have our share of drooling morons as well although, happily, percentage wise they don't seem to be as high as on the Left. Perhaps that's because we tend to be more critical of people like that, while the Left just turns a blind eye to them.

#3) I don't think Parker is being paranoid when she suggests that her column is why her speech was cancelled. I'm sure that's exactly why her speech was cancelled -- and I hate to say it, but I don't see anything wrong with that. Free speech comes with consequences. If you want to write a nasty column a lot of conservatives think unfairly maligns and targets one of their own, when they're already cranky about relentless, out of bounds attacks on Palin from the Left, you can't expect everybody to respond with a big "Hooray for Kathleen Parker!" Free speech isn't free unless people are allowed to react negatively to what you say.

#4) While I would be the first to admit that the political environment is hyper-partisan, it is worth noting that Palin is viewed by most conservatives as a fellow conservative, not "just a Republican." Also, Parker wrote the column 5 weeks before an election -- after Sarah Palin and her family had been subjected to an unending stream of vulgar, sexist, and unjust attacks -- so, in this case, I think the whole "party loyalty" vs. "bedrock principles" argument doesn't fit particularly well. Parker wrote a column she must have known would be highly inflammatory if it got out there. It got out there. The reaction was just what you'd expect.

#5) Our political discourse has, without question, certainly coarsened. I think that has to do with the rise of the alternative media, the never ending campaign on the political side, and the fact that the Left has become so radicalized. If anything, mainstream conservatives are probably more moderate than we were in the sixties, while the Left has an agenda that's right out of the old Soviet Union playbook. In other words, there is very little middle ground anymore between the Left and the Right on anything.

#6) Kathleen Parker is a talented, conservative columnist and I'm glad to have her out there writing. I look forward to reading and linking her work many times in the future.

PS: You can read my interview with Kathleen Parker here.

Today, I had a conversation with an anonymous congressional aide. Part of this person's job at the moment is to help come up with ways to sell the bailout to conservatives. Here's a heavily edited snippet from our conversation that's published with permission...

John Hawkins: Heh. You have a brutal job. I feel for you =D.

Anonymous: Someone has to save the economy from meltdown :-).

John Hawkins: The problem these guys always have is...they are always going against the base and trying to figure out the best way to break the bad news. They shouldn't be taking positions that the base is going to hate like this in the first place.

Anonymous: I take the George Will/Edmund Burke view of representatives...

John Hawkins: So do most Republicans in Congress.

Anonymous: These guys should vote, use their judgment and vote what they think is best, then let the voters vote them out if they don't approve.

John Hawkins: That's why the Democrats are going to have like a 50 seat advantage in the House and at least a 10 seat lead in the Senate -- and probably the White House.

Anonymous: I'm not opposed to primary challenges with GOP incumbents. Wish Toomey had tossed Specter years ago.

John Hawkins: I am the same way, but it is so slanted in favor of the incumbent and it's extremely hard to beat them. Even those sacks of crap, Stevens and Young, made it through primary challenges.

Anonymous: That's why I'm not a political strategist; I'm an idealist trying to do my little part.

John Hawkins: Heh. You are in the wrong job for an idealist, my friend =D.

Anonymous: Everyone tells me that.

John Hawkins: Your job is to sell snow to Eskimos or more aptly, crap to guys who already have a sewage back-up.

In light of Democrats' incredibly audacious attempt to use the massive bailout bill to funnel a fortune into the pockets of ACORN, Mona Charen provides a little background on this hard-left activist group:

ACORN is where 1960s leftovers who couldn't get tenure at universities wound up. […] Because they are on the side of righteousness and justice, they aren't especially fastidious about their methods. In 2006, for example, ACORN registered 1,800 new voters in Washington state. The only trouble was, with the exception of six, all the names submitted were fake. The secretary of state called it the "worst case of election fraud in our state's history." As Fox News reported:

The ACORN workers told state investigators that they went to the Seattle public library, sat at a table and filled out the voter registration forms. They made up names, addresses and Social Security numbers and in some cases plucked names from the phone book. One worker said it was a lot of hard work making up all those names and another said he would sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out the forms.

ACORN explained this was an "isolated" incident, yet similar stories have been reported in Missouri, Michigan, Ohio and Colorado — all swing states by the way. ACORN members have been prosecuted for voter fraud in a number of states. (See www.rottenacorn.com)

But the outrage isn't just that Dems have tried to divert bailout money to an extremely pernicious, ultra-radical organization primarily devoted to pushing America to the Left through election fraud. ACORN helped cause the crisis in the first place:

ACORN recognized very early the opportunity presented by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977. As Stanley Kurtz has reported, ACORN proudly touted "affirmative action" lending, and pressured banks to make subprime loans. Madeline Talbott, a Chicago ACORN leader, boasted of "dragging banks kicking and screaming" into dubious loans. And, as Sol Stern reported in City Journal, ACORN also found a remunerative niche as an "adviser" to banks seeking regulatory approval.

Guess which famous "community organizer" worked for ACORN for years?

ACORN attracted Barack Obama in his youthful community-organizing days. Madeline Talbott hired him to train her staff — the very people who would later descend on Chicago's banks as CRA shakedown artists. The Democratic nominee later funneled money to the group through the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat, and through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, ditto. Mr. Obama was not just sympathetic — he was an ACORN fellow traveler.

He also represented ACORN as a public-interest lawyer while ACORN was exploiting the Clinton Administration's deranged revisions to the Community Reinvestment Act to force banks to make bad loans.

Now he's out there yelling that we need a massive bailout so as to keep mortgages affordable to those who can't afford them. Obviously, if a bailout occurs, another will follow, and another after that, until our economy collapses in accordance with the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

On a tip from Bergbikr. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Historian Paul Johnson takes a swing at the theory of AGW. He posits that AGW "science" is about as scientific as theories by Karl Marx:

The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels--the essence of the Greens' theory of global warming--has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.

Those who buy in to global warming wish to drastically curb human economic and industrial activities, regardless of the consequences for people, especially the poor. If the theory's conclusions are accepted and agreed upon, the destructive results will be felt most severely in those states that adhere to the rule of law and will observe restrictions most faithfully. The global warming activists' target is the U.S. If America is driven to accept crippling restraints on its economy it will rapidly become unable to shoulder its burdens as the world's sole superpower and ultimate defender of human freedoms. We shall all suffer, however, as progress falters and then ceases and living standards decline.

He also feels that for those who have accepted the AGW liturgy, they're simply members of the latest secular religion (and again prove that PT Barnam was right):

Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof--of which history offers so many examples--that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why don't they just turn to the genuine article?

In fact, it appears that some of the European governments who've bought into this are beginning to try to find ways to buy out:

Poland has joined Germany in calling for industry exemptions to EU climate rules as a recession in Europe's major economies is casting doubts on whether Brussels will be able to push through its ambitious CO2 reduction programme.

[...]

Member states are getting nervous about asking their industries to pay more for CO2 pollution, says Christian Egenhofer, a senior researcher at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) in Brussels. The "assumptions have gone", Egenhofer said in reference to likely declining investments and growing constraints on governments' abilities to use macro-economic instruments towards 'green' aims.

When it comes right down too it, and after countries have taken a good hard look at the consequences of doing what they've been asked to do in light of the "science" that supports it, few are finding it something to which they want to stay committed - especially with economic hard times looming. You see, we know how the laws of economics work. AGW? Not so much.

[Crossposted at QandO]

As part of Examiner.com's "Best of" series, I wanted to address the best conservative politicians and the facts you need to know about them. I started with a huge list and narrowed it down to 10 people, all currently in office: Rep. Eric Cantor, Sen. Tom Coburn, Sen. Jim DeMint, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. John McCain, Gov. Sarah Palin, Rep. Mike Pence, Rep. Paul Ryan, Gov. Mark Sanford and Sen. John Thune. In an effort to narrow down the list even further, I posted a poll today onRightWingNews.com to ask my readers there to vote for their favorite among those ten.

More than 400 people responded, and the results didn't surprise me: Jindal was the most popular selection and Palin was a close second. (McCain, for the record, came in dead last, receiving only 1 percent of the vote.)

What follows is the top five conservative politicians, as determined by the readers of RightWingNews.com, and what I think you need to know about them. I've cited the percentage of the vote these individuals received in my poll, as well.

5. Rep. Mike Pence: (9 percent)

Pence represents the 6th congressional district of Indiana and has been in office since 2001. He calls himself "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." He's a firm supporter of American troops in Iraq and an advocate for fiscal and social conservatives alike. He's made a name for himself by sticking to his principles. He lost a bid for House Minority Leader to John Boehner, but he's a contender for future leadership positions.

4. Sen. Tom Coburn: (11 percent)

Coburn is a two-time cancer survivor and, in his medical career as an obstetrician, Coburn has delivered over 4,000 babies. But his medical miracles are only the beginning of his good work. He has a terrific record for exposing government waste and reigning in on that unnecessary spending. (His official website is updated daily with new ways your tax dollars are being wasted.) Coburn is also a big proponent of term limits--yet another tool in his arsenal for fighting corruption--and retired from Congress in 2001 to keep his promise to enforce such limits on himself. He also pledged to serve no more than two terms in the Senate, where he currently serves as the junior senator.

3. Sen. Jim DeMint: (19 percent)

It's no surprise that a blog poll shows considerable support for DeMint, in part because he was among the first politicians toembrace the technology and make new media a critical part of his communications. Readers and writers of blogs alike recognize this and have long commended him for this. The junior senator from South Carolina was named the most conservative senator by National Journal in 2007 and again in 2008--and you'll notice he has that distinction in this poll, as well. DeMint has been praised for his anti-earmark work; he even sponsored a bill earlier this year to place a one-year ban on all earmarks in the Senate.

2. Gov. Sarah Palin: (24 percent)

Palin has captivated Americans in a short amount of time and demonstrated herself to be a true conservative reformer. Women love that she's a tough hockey mom who got involved in her kids' school and never looked back. Men and women alike are drawn to her gumption and respect how she reduced spending in her home state of Alaska. Besides being a fiscal hawk, she is perhaps the best social conservative example for America in her decision to give birth to her fifth child, who was diagnosed with Down syndrome before birth. What's not to like?

1. Gov. Bobby Jindal: (25 percent)

Despite having served in Congress for a few years, Jindal was relatively unknown until he became the governor of Louisiana this year. He is the youngest current governor in office and the first Indian American governor ever. An immigrant to the United States, Jindal took the name Bobby from "The Brady Bunch" television show at age 4 and converted from Hinduism to Catholicism in high school. In his one year as governor, he's made more headlines than many politicians ever will. He was widely speculated to be a vice-presidential option for McCain earlier this year, but many conservatives came out saying that they wanted him to continue the good work he'd begun in the Bayou State and that his time to lead conservatives on a larger scale will come. 

Cross-posted at Examiner.com.

What if Ronald Reagan was wrong? He championed supply-side economics and through his policies created deficit spending. (And yes, I acknowledge the trade-off of bringing down the Soviet Empire was worth it in the near term, but what did that action create in the long-term?)

It seems self-evident that tax and spend is wrong. The Democrats simply want to redistribute wealth, from those who work to those who don't.

It seem equally evident, now, that tax and borrow is wrong. Which came first? An American culture where people lived beyond their means or a government whose policies encouraged and enabled living beyond one's means? It doesn't matter now, because way too many Americans, possibly even a majority, are too used to being a recipient of government largesse. And many expect more--the Baby Boomers face retirement and drawing Social Security, after all.

Perhaps this greedy impulse and irresponsibility indicates a moral shift where people seek to avoid paying their own way. This is profoundly un-American where self-reliance was a founding principle.

Perhaps people raised with a sense of entitlement cannot fathom going back to living with restraint--no one likes being told "no". The reality is that many things Americans expect as a need, is a want. The "working poor" we hear so much about have their X-Boxes and iPhones and video games and digital cable. These ARE NOT NEEDS. They are wants. Food is a need. Indoor plumbing is a need. Water is a need. A roof over the head is a need. Clothing is a need.

And another thing: Democrats make no secret that they believe big government is the solution. Barack Obama wants more early childhood education. He wants less military spending and more health care spending. He wants the government to regulate and control nearly everything. He believes that government is good. He wants taxes by "the rich" (aka you) to pay for his pie-in-the-sky programs. He dreams big and believes that redistributing money is "fair".

Republicans, in contrast, say that small government and a strong private sector is the solution while they increase all sorts of gluttonous spending. It is hypocritical and it is what outrages fiscal conservatives. It is what many conservatives consider Democrat-lite.

And this current bill, the one the Senate just passed, feels like enabling this greedy behavior. People who have lived within their means won't be bailed out. People who bought homes conservatively, who didn't jump at teaser rates, don't want their taxes to go to people who felt entitled to live large.

This is harsh, but average Americans who have played by the rules, want some pain. People who have been stupid--those who took more loans than they could afford and the banks who gave it to them and the government who facilitated this nonsense--should pay a price. It's usually called bankruptcy.

A consequence of this mess is that people who have played by the rules, who do deserve a line of credit can't get one. Businesses that rotate through a line of credit to maintain stock, for example, can't get money and can't do business. Other people can't get loans now. So a car dealership isn't selling as many cars because many borderline people can't get loans. This is going to cause the economy pain.

Pain all around. But should the pain be avoided? If we avoid it now, does it just prolong this indulgent, selfish American behavior? Some people, in fact many people commenting and writing and talking to me, think so. Many believe it's a time for pain.

And right now, the Democrats are looking more honest. People know what to expect of them--no matter if it's tax and spend. Republicans preach small government, low taxes but that's not what they've been practicing.

If the House Republicans ignore this swell among the populace, they will pay. Americans, especially fiscal conservatives, are outraged. I have never heard such vitriol and frustration. It seems to be conventional wisdom that businesses start, grow and survive living on credit. Ditto individuals. But is that right?

America has morphed into a debtor nation while still making people pay egregious taxes. It's the worst of all worlds. Everyone, starting with the government, needs to live within their means.

Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com

The Senate's version of water-boarding: Gloat to the press about their own wonderfulness and drown the American public in their sanctimony. Ugh, I'm still coughing up sputum. (I'm referring to the Bailout they all seem so proud of right now.)

So a poll. What's worse? Watching The View women blab about Barack Obama's sexiness or watching pompous Senators delight in mutual congratulation:

Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com

Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said the $700 billion bank-rescue proposal under negotiation in Washington is "crazy," with potentially "awful" consequences for the world's largest economy.

"Doesn't this seem like lunacy to you?" said O'Neill, who was President George W. Bush's first Treasury chief, from 2001 to 2002, in a telephone interview today. "The consequences of it are unbelievably bad in terms of public intrusion into the private sector."

..."We have no capacity in the federal government and it's not possible to create a capacity to manage a $700 billion property portfolio," said O'Neill, who was chairman of Alcoa Inc., the largest U.S. aluminum producer, from 1987 to 2000. "It's crazy. It's like we've lost our moorings." -- Bloomberg

When this bailout is slammed through and "everyone" is agreeing that it was a terrible idea, but there was no alternative and they "had" to do it, please remind them that there were lots of people saying "Slow down," "This is a bad idea," and "Don't pass the bill!"

I was talking to my buddy Skye from Midnight Blue and she was in a terrible mood because of the bailout and the way the GOP seems to be tanking prior to the election.

As I tried to make her feel better, tongue planted firmly in cheek, I said "Hey, want me to put up a post on RWN asking people to help cheer you up?" She promptly jumped on the idea like my dog Patton would jump on a squirrel stuffed with Alpo.

So, here we are -- and if you're so inclined, Skye could use some cheering up in the comments section.

It's painfully obvious that someone who's writing a book called, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," especially one that is supposed to come out on inauguration day, has no business moderating a Vice-Presidential debate.

Moreover, the fact that she didn't "tell the Commission on Presidential Debates about the book," tells you everything you need to know about Gwen Ifill's ethics or more aptly, her lack of ethics.

Again, it should be painfully obvious that if you're writing a book called, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," that's something you might want to reveal to the people who are deciding whether you're the right person to moderate a debate featuring Obama's Vice-President.

Topping all of this off was Ifill's sleazy attempt to play the race card,

Ifill questions why people assume that her book will be favorable toward Obama.

"Do you think they made the same assumptions about Lou Cannon (who is white) when he wrote his book about Reagan?" said Ifill, who is black. Asked if there were racial motives at play, she said, "I don't know what it is. I find it curious."

Know what I find curious? That Ifill is still being allowed to moderate the debate -- and for that matter, that she still has a job at PBS after this. Quite frankly, she deserves to be fired for this kind of ethical breach.

PS: The only bright side to this is that the McCain campaign can now use Ifill's obvious bias as a talking point after the debate. If Palin does well, it's even more impressive since the moderator was obviously favoring Biden. If she doesn't do well, what can you expect with Gwenn Ifill trying to help Biden?

One of my favorite candidates that we're supporting through Rightblogs is Tom McLintock. Watch this ad about Charlie Brown and I think you may be inspired to chip in a few bucks.

Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:

Ann Coulter: Biden's Secret Service code name: 'Assassination insurance'

Cracked: 5 innovative ways Hollywood is screwing you over

Oddee: 10 funniest law-firm names

Egotastic!: Audrina Patridge bikini pictures

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!

PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.

The first poll I did on the bailout was put out prior to the bill failing in the House and the stock market doing its best trampoline impression as a result. So, I decided to do another poll to see if anybody's mind had changed as a result.

The initial poll results had 85% of RWN's readers opposing the bailout and 15% supporting it.

Yesterday's poll results had...drumroll please...91% of RWN's readers opposing the bailout and 9% supporting it.

Just a piece of advice for the Republicans, including John McCain, who are supporting this bill: Welcome to political hell. Your lack of political courage put you here. Good luck getting out before the elections. You'll need it.

PS: I don't like seeing the GOP get itself into this position, but they're doing it to themselves. At some point, they've just got to realize that if they keep feeding the people who put them in Washington crap sandwiches, they're not going to keep getting invited to picnics.

I like Fox News and think they do a much better job than their competitors, but Republicans in D.C. should realize by now that the views of analysts on Fox News are much more representative of Beltway Republicans than they are of the views of conservatives across the country. Put another way, if you're hoping to get a feel for what conservatives think, pay attention to talk radio and the blogosphere, not Fox News.

Former Democratic Congresswoman and Green Party presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney, is in the news again because she claimed that the government murdered 5000 people during Katrina, dumped their bodies in a swamp, and then covered it up.

""In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, I had a woman, I've never really said this in public, out loud, in front of a lot of cameras, and there's a lot of cameras in this room now. I had a mother to call me because her son had a very gruesome task. Her son's charge by the Department of Defense was to process 5000 bodies that had received a single bullet wound to the head -- and these were mostly males. And her son was afraid to talk because he signed a silence agreement. So, he only complained to his mother. But, the date about these individuals was entered into a Pentagon computer and then reportedly, the bodies were dumped in a swamp in Louisiana. This is as a result of the tragedy of hurricane Katrina.

Now I have no...no...I have verification from insiders who wish to remain anonymous, at the Red Cross, that this is true. I suspect that these were prisoners. And so, you know, this investigation of the whole prison industrial complex is extremely important. And it should not end with just a question of the nature of prisons in our country, but these five thousand souls also need some justice too." -- Cynthia McKinney

Here's the video if you can't believe that even Cynthia McKinney could say something this dumb,

So 5000 people were killed by the government during Katrina. Well, rather than shooting holes in this myself, let me just quote Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air,

Wouldn't the families of these 5,000 prisoners wonder what happened to them? And which prisoners, specifically, have not been accounted for? At least a few names of people who were in Louisiana state custody before Katrina and then not in custody afterwards would provide a starting point for any investigation. And it's possible to lose a few bodies in the Louisiana swamps, but not even that legendary territory could hide 5,000 of them at once without a few of the locals taking notice.

The really disturbing thing about this sort of conspiracy mongering is that it has become so commonplace that few people seem immune to it anymore. For God's sake, this is a person who's supposed to be one of our best and brightest -- she's a former Democratic Congresswoman and yet she's a drooling loon.

Want to know what's really sad? There are probably at least a dozen other people in Congress who are just as mentally challenged as Cynthia McKinney and guess what? As long as they're in office, they'll be ferociously supported by the Democrats, protected by the mainstream media, and voted back in by their constituents. In fact, the only reason Cynthia McKinney isn't in Congress today is because bizarrely, Republicans could vote in the primary in her district and they took an "anybody but McKinney" stance.

That's the nature of the beast these days. If you're crazy enough, you just might end up helping to run the country.

I'm not sure whether it will be Melissa Clouthier, Katie Favazza, me, or some combination thereof liveblogging the debate, but somebody will be livebloging it tonight. So, when you turn on Sarah and Joe, head on over to RWN and join us while we follow the debate.

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything." -- G.K. Chesterton

"Liberals hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for liberals and they can't stand the competition." -- Ann Coulter

Conservatives have mocked the cult like atmosphere around the Obama Messiah, but how do you even parody something like this column from Maggie Mertens called -- and I kid you not -- "I Will Follow Him": Obama As My Personal Jesus."

Obama is my homeboy. And I'm not saying that because he's black - I'm saying that in reference to those Urban Outfitters t-shirts from a couple years ago that said, "Jesus is my homeboy." Yes, I just said it. Obama is my Jesus.

While you may be overtly religious and find this to be idol-worshipping, or may be overtly politically correct and just know that everything in that sentence could be found offensive, I'm afraid it's true anyway.

...Then I began to realize I wasn't the only one trying to buy a WWOD bracelet and spending my weekends scouring CNN.com. The rock star-type love for Obama wasn't just because he was pretty and in the media. Others too, had seen him as a shining light, heard that mythical voice boom out over the mountaintops; people were wearing the t-shirt because they would rather wear something representing a politician than a pop star. People everywhere, young and old, were caring again. So what's the problem here?

I've officially been saved, and soon, whether they like it or not, the rest of the country will be too. I will follow him, all the way to the White House, and I'll be standing there in our nation's capital in January 2009, when Barack Obama is inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States of America. In the name of Obama, Amen.

Hey Maggie, let me give you and the other followers of the ObamaMessiah the best piece of advice you're ever going to get besides, "Don't drink the Kool-Aid."

Barack is not Jesus, nor is he a particularly principled, competent, or decent man. He's a politician to the core and one who seems much more concerned with his own self-aggrandizement than public service. If he gets into office, it's highly likely that you will end up being as deeply disappointed in him as Republicans are with George Bush right now -- and in our defense, we always thought Bush was just another man in a profession that has ethical standards akin to those of a prostitute, not the Son of God.

If you get what you want, regrettably for the country, I suspect the next four years are going to be very dark and disillusioning for you.

Hat tip to Doubleplusundead for the story.

Dan Friedman sent that to me and it landed in my inbox along with the best article that R.S. McCain has written (yet). It's about the immorality of the American taxation system. You'll want to read the whole thing:

Whereas transactions in a market economy are voluntary and peaceful, the actions of government are essentially coercive, backed with the threat of violence to those who disobey. What government does, it does "at the point of the bayonet," so to speak. Therefore, the fearsome power of government ought to be constrained to limited and specific purposes -- defending the life, liberty and property of citizens.

When government begins to meddle in the economy, picking winners and losers, using appropriations and fiscal policy to transfer money from one group of citizens to another, it divides society into two classes, taxpayers and tax consumers, punishing the former in order to reward the latter.

Such a policy is not merely misguided, it is immoral -- indeed, it is sinful, as I told the Christian homeschoolers -- and by displaying the spectacle of government engaging daily in legalized theft, the welfare state tends to corrupt the morals of its citizens.

Many people viscerally dislike the bailout because it seems obviously wrong. It offends anyone who has a sense of fairness. For those who want a new car or a new house or a business line of credit and don't qualify, they are not so happy. But should they be getting this money to begin with.

I wonder if the House Republicans will have the strength of character to withstand the pressure coming to bear upon them now. Michelle Malkin quotes Margaret Thatcher: "This is no time to go wobbly." Michelle has a list of Congressmen and their phone numbers. I just got off the phone with my Congressman's staffer and hope to do an interview with him, because he alone, in Houston, voted for the bill the first time around. Is he seeing something other conservatives are not?

And to those of you who might lose a significant chunk of your 401K should the whole banking system go South: Are you willing to lose it in the greater principle of free markets, eliminating unfair taxes and keeping this sort of financial power out of the hands of the government?

Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com

All eyes are on my hometown, St. Louis, Mo., today because of the vice-presidential debate tonight. 

(For those of you in St. Louis for the event, head to Favazza's restaurant if you're looking for a great place to eat. Ask for Mark Favazza, my brother, and tell him you read about the place in a blog post by his sister.)

St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Adam Jadhav took to the streets to find out what people would ask Gov. Palin and Sen. Biden tonight if they had the chance--and made a video blog of the responses. It's a nice little exercise in citizen-style journalism, but it can't be taken as a good measure of everyday American attitudes. Jadhav didn't go to any street, he went to Delmar, the main thoroughfare through a section of St. Louis that's home to all things liberal. If you want a tattoo, the latest hemp product or the most under-rated indie album, you head to Delmar.

To be fair, Delmar is also home to Fitz's delicious rootbeer and is the destination for anyone seeking the soul-healing powers of Chuck Berry. I've headed to the area for those very reasons myself. The point is that it's not a logical hotspot to get a balanced read of opinions. Let's hope the folks who have the privilege of attending the debate are more philosophically diverse than the people in the neighborhood surrounding Washington University.

Perhaps "takin' it to the streets" should be left to Michael McDonald and the Doobie Brothers:

Cross-posted at Examiner.com and KatieFavazza.com.

Since the inspiring Village of the Obamatrons video has been removed from YouTube, those who are curious to see President and Chief Executive Officer of NBC Universal Jeff Zucker's personal project can either see it here, or check out the alternate Pyongyang version:

Via reason.tv, on a tip from V the K. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

As I write, the DJIA is down about 300 points. This is being spun as based on uncertainty that the House will pass the Senate bill. Yesterday, stocks rose, spun as being based on the likelihood that Congress would indeed pass a bailout bill. Which is it, guys?

Meanwhile, over in Europe, the European Central Bank has injected $150 billion into banks to try to increase liquidity. It hasn't worked." -- Iain Murray At The Corner

Only a vast brainwashing apparatus explains how the Left has come this close to installing an extremely dangerous radical in the White House. The most obvious component is the brazenly partisan mainstream media, but in the long view, the education establishment has been doing just as much damage to the national consciousness. An example of how teachers unions have been helping usher in the bleak Age of the Obamessiah:

An e-mail distributed by a Virginia teachers union encouraged members to bring politics into the classroom by wearing blue in support of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama and simultaneously suggested that the union's voter registration efforts include those "you teach."

The Virginia Education Association (VEA) e-mail drew strong criticism Wednesday from elected Republican officials and some residents after the state Republican Party obtained a copy.

VEA President Kitty Boitnott arrogantly shrugged off the ensuing outrage, dismissing complaints about political brainwashing as "ridiculous."

Kitty has her own blog, where you can read all about her nonpartisan devotion to enlightening the children. It features this shot of herself with the America-bashing Michelle Obama, whom the Obama campaign has wisely kept locked in the cellar lately:

Gushes Ms. Boitnut:

Since becoming president of the Virginia Education Association, I have already experienced numerous high points. On September 17, I got to attend a special event hosting Michelle Obama. Not only did I get to hear her speak, but I got a chance to meet her in person!

Hold on, it gets still more exciting. BOO even introduced Kitty to the crowd!

I think that the fact that I was one of the three people she chose to acknowledge in that forum speaks to the value that the Obama campaign places on our association and their need for our support. As I told the reps at the Fairfax Education Association later in the day, I believe that everyone recognizes the power that we have as an organization — except perhaps we ourselves.

Wrong. If normal people had a clue what kind of power these kooks have and what they want to use it for, they would pull their kids out of public schools.

On tips from Cluebat from Exodar. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

There have been some complaints that the McCain campaign has been hiding Sarah Palin away and over prepping her, when they should be just turning her loose. Hence the debate over whether they need to "Free Sarah."

The McCain campaign's rollout could have been better. They should have sent her out to do a lot more interviews with friendly, conservative outlets right off the bat, but here's the thing a lot of people are missing: there is a very steep learning curve when you get into a national campaign.

You are expected to master a truly enormous amount of information and the honest truth is that none of them have it all down when they start, even the guys like McCain and Biden who have been in the Senate for 4,000 years. It takes them about a month to get to the point where they know the answers to most all of the questions that they get asked -- but, and this is a big "but," the other 3 candidates in the race got to start out back at the beginning of the primary season with much less media attention on them than Palin has had.

Palin is having the same big problem Fred Thompson had: they both burst right onto the main stage and had a spotlight shined on them while they were still getting caught up to speed. After a certain point, Fred caught up and was putting on great performances, but by then, the moment had passed him by (Also, regrettably, I just don't think Fred wanted to be President badly enough).

In Sarah's case, I think tonight is a make-or-break moment for her. She has surely been prepping for this debate in one form or another since the day McCain chose her and how's she judged will largely hinge on it.

If she knocks it out of the park, everyone will be back to talking about what a genius pick she was for McCain. If she bombs, people will say she's in over her head. If it's somewhere in between -- well, we'll see.

Personally, I think she's going to do just fine. We'll find out if my confidence in her is misplaced tonight.

PS: Make sure to head over to RWN tonight where Melissa Clouthier will be liveblogging the debate.

Why is this VP debate so important? Most years no one cares. Everyone seems to care tonight.

8:00 CST

Why is this VP debate so important? Most years no one cares. Everyone seems to care tonight.

Sarah Palin asks Biden if she can call him Joe. He says sure. She's dressed in black and reached out to Joe first. Interesting. That's a statement of power. (Side note: He who touches first is most powerful. She touched him first. Initiated contact.) He looks like he always looks.

Biden says that they'll focus on the middle class. The rest melted away. Sarah is talking from her heart. Talks about people's fears. She looks nervous but if she keeps going, she makes Biden sound bland. He seems to be trying to sound bland.

8:05 Who's to blame?

Palin: Predatory lenders and people living beyond their means? John Hawkins asks about Congress.

Biden: Deregulation is the problem. I hope Palin knocks this back.

Palin is going after "Barack" for raising taxes 94 times. Government is going to have to be more efficient and learn to live with less. Biden is going after the problem with lack of regulation. Why isn't Palin explaining why regulation is wrong? Have they focus-grouped this?

8:10 CST About tax increases:

Biden is talking about Barack Obama's tax cuts for middle class.

Palin talks about "redistribution of wealth". She's going after Biden because the small businesses will suffer. She also goes after what it means to be middle class. Says that too often government is part of the problem. She's also talking about the government taking over health care. Affordability and accessibility, she says.

Biden doesn't call it "redistribution" he calls it "fairness". OF COURSE! That's what all socialists say. Now Joe is talking money. He just lost me. He ends on "the ultimate bridge to nowhere". Chuckles from the "neutral" audience.

8:15 What are you going to get rid of given the current crisis?

Biden isn't answering the question. He's just saying what he won't do. He calls off-shore accounts as "unpatriotic".

Now Palin isn't answering the question. She's talking energy and pointing out that Barack Obama gave tax breaks to oil companies.

8:20 Would you have supported the law change about declaring bankruptcy?

Palin: Yes...I would have. She doesn't sound like she believes that, though.

Biden: Biden and Obama voted differently. I actually agree with Obama here. You can send that line to Mama, 'cuz you might not hear it again. Biden is talking numbers again.

Now Palin is off on energy again. I wish she would answer the question.

8:25 Climate change.

Palin is talking about the arctic circle. "All of the above approach" to energy.

Biden thinks climate change is manmade. HE KNOWS. Puhleeze. So he knows that the sun's energy is changing the earth's climate? No, he doesn't know this. Good grief, I hate conventional wisdom.

Tally: Right now, people talking to me is saying Biden is winning.

8:30 CST Same-sex benefits?

Biden: YES! There will be no difference between same-sex couples and married couples. Guaranteed same constitutional rights.

Palin: Marriage is between a man and woman. Oooh! And Biden and Obama are against gay marriage, too.

8:35 CST Iraq and Surge

Palin goes after Obama for not funding troops and uses Biden's own words against Obama.

Biden says that Obama is the only one with a plan. He wants a time line. Saying that for "John McCain says there is no end to this war."

Palin looks at Biden and says "Your plan is for putting up a white flag of surrender." She's going after him. Woot! Biden smiles--he knows he's been hit.

Every time Biden talks I zone out. The man blabs. Just like Obama. Blab. Blab. Blab.

Palin sounds strong talking the dictatorial nitwits--"the Castro brothers". We're all laughing here.

Camera on FOX pans to Biden who is looking disgruntled, exhales, and rolls his eyes.

On Israel: But the question was on what Bush Administration done right.

Everyone loves Israel. Blah.

Palin scores another body blow: Palin said that for a ticket that talks about the future they sure point fingers back a lot. Joe looks stunned. He comes back swinging. Toooooo late.

8:50 CST What if nuclear weapons were used?

Palin goes back to Afghanistan. And defines a difference between McCain and Bush.

Biden goes after Afghanistan because there is so much more spending in Iraq than Afghanistan. Palin rebuts and says that "surge" strategy would work in Afghanistan.

8:55 CST What about interventionist policies?

Bosnia "worked", quoth Joe. We're still there, Mr. Biden. When did the war get won? Is he claiming victory? And we should have "no fly zones" over Sudan. He "doesn't have the stomach for genocide."

Palin talks about Darfur and divestment.

Gwen redirects: What is the line that should be drawn about intervention?

Biden says genocide is the line. Wow! That's a huge interventionist attitude. So we'll be everywhere? He's making Bush look protectionist.

Palin is going after Biden for changing and lying about when he votes. Now, she's talking about John McCain knowing how to "win the war".

9:00 CST If the President dies, how would your administration be different?

Biden would be a clone of Obama.

Me, I would call bullshit on the question. It's freaking crazy.

Palin says we're a team of mavericks and so of course we disagree. She said she's be for the people.

Joe Biden spends a lot of time in Home Depot. Snort. We're laughing here.

"There you go, Joe, looking to the past." She's enjoying bothering him. And I'm enjoying it too.

9:05 CST What is the Vice Presidential role?

Palin says that she'll be involved with special education and help with energy.

Biden says that "every decision that Obama makes, I'll be in the room....because I won't be afraid to tell him even if we disagree."

Palin believes that the constitution is flexible.

Biden says that Vice President Cheney is the "most dangerous V.P. in the history of the United States." Joe says that the only authority is to vote when there is a tie.

9:10 Critique against Palin is inexperience, against Biden is lack of discipline--what is actually the weakness:

Palin says that she does have experience and goes down the list, but doesn't list the problems with herself.

Bidens problem is his "excessive passion". Yep, and mine is perfectionism. Interview question 101, never give a negative about yourself that can't be a positive. Biden chokes up about being a single parent.

Palin talks about Maverick John McCain and he gathers people together.

Biden goes after that and runs down the numbers.

9:17 CST Did you have to change a long-standing view?

He went from being reasonable to picking judges to choosing based on ideology. Is that a good thing?

She passed legislation that she didn't agree with to work with people. But she hasn't had to compromise her beliefs?

9:20 CST How will you change the tone?

You are respectful, says Biden.

Palin says that you pick the best people for jobs.

Did Palin just ask for another debate? She likes talking to the American people. Great conclusion--quotes Reagan.

Biden sounds sad, quiet, and has a weird energy. We measure progress about whether someone can pay their mortgage, education, health care, ....big government. It's time for "America to get up!"

Who won?

She initiates contact with Biden again. Here comes the families. And there's Piper that little Toot! Biden and Palin talk and they are peers. She's formidable and he knows it.

She won and Biden knows it.

Fox's Luntz Focus Group: Overwhelming majority feels that she won it.

Did you notice that they didn't turn off the mics right away? My mom thinks it was purposeful. That's how distrustful people are of the media. Is my mom right to be suspicious?

First off, I can't complain too much about the fairness of Gwenn Ifill's questions, but it is worth noting that she asked a couple of really wacky questions. Ifill asked a really foggy question about what would happen if someone got nuked. That one went to Palin first. She also asked another weird question about what differences the VPs would have if their President died. What are they supposed to say to that?

The debate started off with economics and both of them did OK, but Biden edged her out. He gave clearer, crisper answers and had stronger attacks on McCain. To be honest, I think the problem here has more to do with the McCain campaign's messaging than Palin because McCain has exactly the same problems that Palin did.

Palin underemphasized McCain's credentials on fiscal conservatism when they talked about things McCain would do and the tax cut for the middle class vs. the corporate tax cut helped Biden come out ahead.

Also, the fact that McCain has a long Senate record to pick apart while Obama doesn't was helpful to Biden.

So, in the first half of the debate, Biden had a slight edge.

But, once they got to foreign policy, Palin just started landing huge blows on Obama. She got off more damaging attacks, had a lot more good lines, and just demolished Biden in the 2nd half of the debate.

Wasn't. Even. Close.

Verdict: Palin wins, gets more great soundbites off, reassures Americans that she's up to the job, and helps the ticket about as much as she could have during the debate. All in all, I was very happy with her performance.

"The charge is often made against the intelligentsia and other members of the anointed that their theories and the policies based on them lack common sense. But the very commonness of common sense makes it unlikely to have any appeal to the anointed. How can they be wiser and nobler than everyone else while agreeing with everyone else?" -- Thomas Sowell

There are a number of great challenges that this country faces, but perhaps none is so large as the death of basic, common sense. By that, I mean that large portions of our country, including many of our representatives in Congress, have lost sight of conclusions so skull splittingly obvious that fifty years ago, Americans of both political parties would have agreed upon them almost unanimously.

Just to name a few examples, when you borrow money, it does eventually have to be paid back. You shouldn't buy a house you can't afford. Nobody owes you a living. It's not justice when the rulings of judges depend on ideology and personal preferences, not the Constitution. If we set up a tax system that puts all the taxes on the people at the top, they'll eventually, one way or the other, find a way to stop paying the check -- whether it be through loopholes, deliberately earning less money, or just leaving the country. Families are the building block of our society and the government should be extremely careful when it passes legislation that could negatively impact the family structure. People come before animals. You reap what you sow. It's good for America to have a patriotic populace. Many other countries aren't "nice" and don't "wish us well." There is no such thing as a "free" lunch. People who do a bad job shouldn't be rewarded for it. When you deliberately lie, your credibility should suffer for it. You don't have a "right" to other people's property. You are the person primarily responsible for taking care of yourself.

Truisms of this sort shouldn't have much to do with politics or ideological leanings. They're the sort of thing most people should learn from their parents, in church, or in elementary school. They're that basic, that simple. Yet, you can point to people at every level of American society, including most significantly, large portions of Congress, that act as if these rules don't apply.

We run a large deficit every year. Congress has knowingly pushed banks to give loans for homes to people who couldn't afford them. We have large numbers of people who expect the government to take care of them if they choose not to work. Liberals openly say they believe in a "living constitution," which is little better than believing in no Constitution at all. Large portions of the American public pay no income tax while politicians claim the people who are paying 86% of the income tax we collect aren't "paying their fair share." The left is pushing gay marriage and legalized polygamy won't be far behind. The interests of animals, from caribou to endangered species, are often given preference over those of human beings. People who make terrible decisions, like buying houses they can't afford, coming to this country illegally, or running banks into the ground, have countless defenders in government who don't believe they should suffer for their mistakes. The Democratic candidate for President made a big deal publicly of not wearing a flag pin anymore and only relented when there were cacophonous public complaints. There's a foolish belief many people have that any problem we have with another nation can be fixed simply by discussing it with them. Many Americans want rebate checks paid for by our government with loaned money, "free" health care, and "free" government services, all paid for by other people. Men like Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and William Jefferson have been reelected by their constituents despite committing offenses so egregious and widely known that I don't even have to mention them here. Politicians, including both of our presidential candidates regularly lie to the public. We have politicians and activists speaking of things like "housing" and "medical care" as rights, despite the fact that other people have to pay for those "rights." We regularly hear people bemoaning the fact that "the government doesn't care about them," blaming other people, blaming society, and blaming various "isms" for their state of their lives.

For a season, we have been able to get away with the sort of foolishness that only a prosperous people living off the national wealth delivered by the blood and sweat of others can be deluded enough to believe in. However, the lifestyle Americans are living today is absolutely unsustainable economically, culturally, and socially over the long-haul. That doesn't necessarily mean we're doomed, but what it does mean is that we can be sure that there is rather sharp correction coming to this country because history doesn't suffer fools gladly.

There's supposed to be another bailout vote today in the House. If it goes through, there are a few things I want you to remember....

#1) "Everybody" didn't agree that we needed to do a bailout at all.

#2) "Everybody" didn't say, "We have to do something," immediately.

#3) "Everybody" didn't agree that the plan would work.

#4) There were better alternatives that weren't considered.

#5) There were plenty of people saying, "Slow down, craft a better bill that protects the taxpayers."

Here's what I'd recommend to Republicans: represent your constituents, not a President trying to protect his legacy or Wall Streeters looking for a handout.

This is not a good bill and you know it.

If this bill goes through, it's going to inspire lots more people to ask for handouts and you know it.

Conservatives oppose this bill and you know it.

Do the right thing; vote it down.

I've been telling people McCain probably has a 20% chance of winning these days and that if he's going to pull it off, he's going to have to shake things up.

Why do I say that?

First off, the bailout bill seems to have sucked most of the life out of conservatives that Sarah Palin brought into the campaign. The Party is right back to "deenergized" again.

Next, the whole core issue of McCain's campaign is that he is a leader that would be ready on Day One while Obama is a wet-behind-the-ears celebrity who wouldn't be able to handle a crisis. Well, guess what? We had a crisis a month before the election and John McCain and Barack Obama handled it in almost exactly the same way -- by supporting a wildly unpopular bailout plan. That strongly undercuts the central theme of McCain's campaign.

Last but not least, the race is shaping up to be a repeat of 2000 and 2004. In other words, it's very close and the map is very similar. Now, I want you to take a look at these states from Real Clear Politics; the election will be decided in these states.

What you'll notice is that Obama is winning 7 of the 9 toss-up states and that all of them, with the exception of New Hampshire, went to Bush in both 2000 and 2004.

It's also worth noting that New Mexico (5) and Iowa (7) both went Bush in 2004 and are likely to go Obama in 2008.

Incidentally, here's what the national polls look like,

Notice how Obama is consistently up in the high forties while McCain is consistently in the low forties? Obama is closing the deal. It means that as people are making up their minds as we get closer to the end, they're breaking Obama.

I'm not saying it's over, because it's not, but if the election were today, John McCain would lose. Unless something changes to get these numbers going back in the right direction -- and that can still happen -- Obama is going to win.

Here are the results of the poll I ran last night on RWN,

Who won the debate?

Joe Biden: 18% (173)
Sarah Palin: 76% (754)
I didn't watch the debate, but I am voting anyway like a dork.: 6% (61)

Harry Reid did his best to cause us to fail in Iraq by proclaiming that the war had already been lost, even as the Surge turned the tide in our favor. Now he's applying similar tactics to the economy, in hopes of whipping up enough financial chaos to sweep Obama into the White House. His disgraceful efforts appear to be meeting with success.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is getting credit for sparking a blistering sell-off in insurance stocks.

MetLife Inc., Hartford Financial Services Group and Prudential Financial Inc. all fell by double-digit percentage amounts [yesterday] after Reid on Wednesday said the financial-system bailout plan was crucial because a large insurer was at risk of failing.

Reid specifically cited "a major insurance company — one with a name that everyone knows — that's on the verge of going bankrupt," according to Dow Jones Newswires.

But apparently Dingy Harry was just kidding — i.e., talking trash for political purposes.

A statement from his office said that Reid was "not personally aware of any particular company being on the verge of bankruptcy" and that "he has no special knowledge about nor has he talked to any insurance company officials," Dow Jones reported.

However, the damage has been done.

But with investors already on high alert after the Federal Reserve's rescue of insurance titan American International Group Inc. on Sept. 16, and with the credit crunch still making funding difficult for even the largest U.S. financial companies, Reid's comments were the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a grease fire.

MetLife plunged $7.19, or 14.9%, to $40.96; Hartford dived $12.20, or 32%, to $25.91; and Prudential slid $7.15, or 11%, to $57.65.

Reid is following in the proud tradition of fellow Democrat Senator Charles "Chuckie Schmuckie" Schumer.

In late June, Democrat Schumer made public a letter he had sent to federal bank regulators, expressing concern that Pasadena-based IndyMac Bancorp was on the brink of failure.

When regulators seized IndyMac in mid-July, they accused Schumer of fomenting a panic run on deposits that made the bank's collapse inevitable.

Due to liberal domination of the media, lefty politicians stand only to benefit from the economic ruin they inflict, as they can be assured that few people will know enough to hold them responsible.

On a tip from Matt L. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

If you didn't catch the debate last night, at least take a look at the highlight reel in this video. It doesn't really give you the full flavor of the debate, but it does help you get an idea of why so many people are praising Sarah's performance this morning.

Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:

Popular Mechanics: 100 skills every man should know:

Ace of Spades: Biden's 14 Lies

Cracked: 6 famous unsolved mysteries (with really obvious solutions)

Egotastic!: Lindsay Lohan's bikini love fest continues

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!

PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.

I've been beating the drum about examining one the root causes of this financial mess and laying it at the proper doorstep. Russell Roberts does a very good job of that in today's WSJ. First he lays out the conventional wisdom:

Many believe that wild greed and market failure led us into this sorry mess. According to that narrative, investors in search of higher yields bought novel securities that bundled loans made to high-risk borrowers. Banks issued these loans because they could sell them to hungry investors. It was a giant Ponzi scheme that only worked as long as housing prices were on the rise. But housing prices were the result of a speculative mania. Once the bubble burst, too many borrowers had negative equity, and the system collapsed.

He then notes that while in many cases this is what is being sold as the whole truth, it is, in fact, only part of the story. If this sort of a mess is to be avoided, it is critical the rest of the story be told as well:

The fall in housing prices did lead to a sudden increase in defaults that reduced the value of mortgage-backed securities. What's missing is the role politicians and policy makers played in creating artificially high housing prices, and artificially reducing the danger of extremely risky assets.

Beginning in 1992, Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of mortgages going to low and moderate income borrowers. For 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target -- 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area. The target increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.

For 1996, HUD required that 12% of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be "special affordable" loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area's median income. That number was increased to 20% in 2000 and 22% in 2005. The 2008 goal was to be 28%. Between 2000 and 2005, Fannie and Freddie met those goals every year, funding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans, many of them subprime and adjustable-rate loans, and made to borrowers who bought houses with less than 10% down.

Fannie and Freddie also purchased hundreds of billions of subprime securities for their own portfolios to make money and to help satisfy HUD affordable housing goals. Fannie and Freddie were important contributors to the demand for subprime securities.

So there you have hard numbers driven by government policy and a promise to back the loans they pushed on the industry - by percentage of total loans - with the full faith and credit of the US government. It was financial failure by the numbers, for heaven sake.

The root of it all?

Congress designed Fannie and Freddie to serve both their investors and the political class. Demanding that Fannie and Freddie do more to increase home ownership among poor people allowed Congress and the White House to subsidize low-income housing outside of the budget, at least in the short run. It was a political free lunch.

But it wasn't so free was it?

And on the banking side, another political culprit is found:

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) did the same thing with traditional banks. It encouraged banks to serve two masters -- their bottom line and the so-called common good. First passed in 1977, the CRA was "strengthened" in 1995, causing an increase of 80% in the number of bank loans going to low- and moderate-income families.

Fannie and Freddie were part of the CRA story, too. In 1997, Bear Stearns did the first securitization of CRA loans, a $384 million offering guaranteed by Freddie Mac. Over the next 10 months, Bear Stearns issued $1.9 billion of CRA mortgages backed by Fannie or Freddie. Between 2000 and 2002 Fannie Mae securitized $394 billion in CRA loans with $20 billion going to securitized mortgages.

By pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country, politicians could push for increases in home ownership and urban development without having to commit budgetary dollars. Another political free lunch.

And the final piece of the meltdown can be found at the Fed:

The Fed did its part, too. In 2003, the federal-funds rate hit 40-year lows of 1.25%. That pushed the rates on adjustable loans to historic lows as well, helping to fuel the housing boom.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and low interest rates -- along with the regulatory push for more low-income homeowners -- dramatically increased the demand for housing. Between 1997 and 2005, the average price of a house in the U.S. more than doubled. It wasn't simply a speculative bubble. Much of the rise in housing prices was the result of public policies that increased the demand for housing. Without the surge in housing prices, the subprime market would have never taken off.

Roberts pinpoints the locus of the problem:

Fannie and Freddie played a significant role in the explosion of subprime mortgages and subprime mortgage-backed securities. Without Fannie and Freddie's implicit guarantee of government support (which turned out to be all too real), would the mortgage-backed securities market and the subprime part of it have expanded the way they did?

Roberts says "perhaps". I say probably not, or at least not to the extent we see it today. Banks and financial institutions that would give subprime loans wouldn't have been as prevalent and would have known full well the risk those sorts of instruments carried since there would have been no backing from the government in case a housing bubble burst. But you can also argue it was these subprime instruments which helped fuel the housing bubble and speculation. Without the government quota loans out there it is quite possible that there would have been no housing bubble and housing prices would have grown at a much slower and more stable rate.

Key line in the article:

But before we conclude that markets failed, we need a careful analysis of public policy's role in creating this mess.

Very careful - and that's the one thing I am not seeing happen in this fiasco. Right now the politicians are like cats covering you know what and essentially ignoring the role government played in this. The spin is all about the myth of "deregulation" and the exclusive fault of "Wall Street greed".

Well it isn't just about those things. Deregulation isn't the problem, poor government policy is. And while there were certainly many on Wall Street who took advantage of the situation, it was a situation created by government policy and government demands within the industry. Until and unless those policies are exposed, investigated and changed, there is nothing at all to say that we won't be in a similar situation somewhere down the road - assuming we survive this one.

As Roberts concludes:

Beware of trying to do good with other people's money. Unfortunately, that strategy remains at the heart of the political process, and of proposed solutions to this crisis.

And beware of expecting any meaningful change when the same institution that got you into this mess is charged with getting you out of it.

[Crossposted at QandO]

Michelle Obama promises that if the media is able to install its Obamessiah in the White House, BHO will "never allow you to go back to your lives as usual." Everything will be different, after the Change. The Dish Network is offering a preview of what television may be like. Its channel 73 has been playing a two-minute Obama ad over and over in an endless loop.

Those of us who don't use Dish can get similar programming on MSNBC.

On a tip from Cheetah. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

At 4:07 PM EST, I'm going to be on the Jaz McKay show.

Click on Stickam in the left corner to listen to the show.

The latest tribute to Sarah Palin from an adoring fan:

There is more truthiness here. Oh, wait, it's a spoof, but it MUST be real, because "puckering elitist IQ pimp(s)" say so.

And even more truth. This time, some helpful advice to Obama:

Ah can't help it. I luv Sarih Palin!

Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com

Why aren't they happy?

I mentioned it before, but I'm going to clarify: It is obscene that Congressmen and Senators preen for the cameras over this legislation. If the legislation was even necessary, it was a necessary evil. It was dirty business signifying a dismaying trend in American culture and American voters were not happy about it even if they thought it was the right thing to do. To see Chris Dodd, CHRIS DODD! of all people, and now Nancy Pelosi gloat is sickening.

These pompous windbags wonder why they are loathed. This is why. All Americans are paying now for the people and businesses who live beyond their means. See, the little guy is screwed. He might declare bankruptcy but no one is bailing him out. But big business and the sticky-fingered government that helped create this problem are getting bailed out.

And they brag. Do they realize that every self-congratulatory word they spout will be replayed if this money gamble doesn't work? Oh right, I forgot. The press will cover their butts and blame Bush for signing it into law.

Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com

The consensus is in from the right side of the blogosphere that Sarah Palin won hands down in the VP debate. Several on the left have even conceded. She regained the momentum and one part of the debate that sticks out are all of the lies Joe Biden said that are easy to expose.

Rove only summarized a portion of the long list of lies from Biden. Lies are politics as usual, not the change promised from the ticket he rides on.

Is she really the new Reagan?

It is with satisfaction that I note the news that O.J. Simpson has been found guilty on all counts in the gunpoint robbery of two sports memorabilia dealers in Las Vegas.

The 61-year-old former football faces up to life in prison.

A somber Simpson released a heavy sigh as the charges were read Friday in Clark County District Court. He was immediately taken into custody.

The verdict comes 13 years to the day after Simpson was acquitted of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, in Los Angeles.

Co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart also was found guilty on all charges and taken into custody.

The men were tried on 12 criminal charges.

The Butcher of Brentwood will finally serve prison time for something.

I could post the convicted criminal's picture, but I won't.  I'd rather post these:

Of course, there are other victims too, including the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. 

Nicole Brown Simpson's children Sydney and Justin have lived under impossibly sad circumstances, being raised by the very man whom a civil jury, at least, found had killed their mother.  Maybe their father's imprisonment will give them a belated chance to break free from his poisonous, criminal orbit.

Cross-posted at GINA COBB, where we're blogging up a storm. Drop by and leave a comment!

Another day, another Oscar-bait flick about a funny, brave gay martyr.

And an uptight, white male gun-owning "Christian" villain.

(Trailer etc posted at my blog.)

How is it "progressive" exactly that liberal Hollywood always kills off the gay character at the end of the movie?

(Or, for that matter, that black characters always get off'd first [this writer says second] in slasher pix? You've heard of the "final girl"? Well, that trope's, like, the "initial brother"...)

But remember: we conservatives are the "twisted, intolerant" ones...

(Kathy Shaidle blogs at FiveFeetOfFury.com. In his introduction to her new book The Tyranny of Nice, Mark Steyn calls her "one of the virtuoso polemicists of our age.")

Here's the Right Wing News guest blogger line-up this week-end.

Saturday
--------
Bookworm from Bookworm Room
Cassy Fiano
Kathy Shaidle Five Feet Of Fury
Morgan from House of Eratosthenes
Gina Cobb
John Stephenson from Stop The ACLU
Little Miss Attila

Sunday
-------
Ron Coleman from Likelihood of Success
Sister Toldjah
William Teach from Pirate's Cove
Michael Illions from Polipundit
MCQ from QandO

Make sure to give all of them a warm welcome and check out their blogs!

This will be a quick post because, this weekend, soccer is my life. Fortunately, I only want to make a quick point, and it's one that I think needs to be made over and over and over again.

As you may recall from Thursday's debate, Biden kept saying that our current financial woes arose because of deregulation and that even John McCain now wants more regulation. In other words, bad Republicans let Wall Street go wild, and now they're cowed and are following the Democratic line.

Palin, who generally did fantastically well, failed a bit when dealing with Biden's direct and indirect accusations, because didn't correct the terminology. Let me state, therefore, what should be obvious, and what should be an embarrassment for the Democrats and a source of pride for the Republicans. That the opposite is true is only because the Democrats are controlling the message and the Republicans are hiding:

The problem did not start because of deregulation. It started because of hyper-regulation: Because Democrats did not think it was "fair" that only people who have saved a lot of money and have reliable income sources should get loans, the Democrats forced through policies mandating that banks must give loans to those who normally would be poor risks (those famous subprime loans). What kept banks from squawking about being forced by the government to engage in practices that no sound business would ever engage in was the fact that Fannie and Freddie (staffed at the upper level by Democrats) promised to buy those loans, insure them, and sell them. Well, with an offer like that, the Banks couldn't refuse, and they went hog wild. It was a no loss for them, and a huge incentive (because of these government regulations, not deregulations) to give out as many bad loans as possible.

What Bush and McCain and other Republicans started calling for a few years ago wasn't deregulation (although that would have been a good idea considering the disaster that was looming with Democratic interference in the market) but, instead, some oversight. That is, given that the government was bossing the market around, at least it should investigate to see what the result was and make sure everyone was playing honestly (including Fannie and Freddie).

Sensible Republicans are still calling for more policing. They understand that the smart money is on letting the market function normally, which will prevent handing out insane loans that are doomed to failure, and which will ensure that housing prices curve with inflation, rather than soaring above inflation. The government's involvement should be limited to ensuring that the lenders are acting honestly (no cheating, no discrimination).

So, let's get things clear here: The problem was too much regulation (not deregulation), with the Democrats forcing the banks to give bad loans. The Republicans certainly wanted less regulation, but what they were calling for in the past (and what the intelligent ones seek now) is government policing or oversight, which is an appropriate role for the government in a national money market.

Cross-posted at Bookworm Room

We have all seen how poor Obama's judgement is on his friends and associates. From choosing to pal around with William Ayers, an unrepentant American hating terrorist, and his twenty year mentorship with the racist pastor Wright...the list is long. So, why would anyone trust Obama in choosing such an important position as the next Supreme Court Justice?

Whoever Obama would choose for the Supreme Court, I'm sure the ACLU would approve without objection.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin has been freed! She is on the attack and bringing up the Obama/Ayers connection!

Palin Says Obama Pals With Terrorists By JIM KUHNHENN, AP

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. (Oct. 4) - Republican vice presidential
candidate Sarah Palin on Saturday accused Democrat Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists" because of an old association with a
former '60s radical, stepping up an effort to portray Obama as unacceptable to American voters. [...]
Palin's reference was to Bill Ayers, one of the founders of the group the Weather Underground. Its members took credit for bombings, including nonfatal explosions at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol, during the Vietnam War era. Obama, who was a child when the group was active, served on a charity board with Ayers several years ago and has denounced his radical views and activities.
[...]
The Republican campaign, falling behind Obama in polls, plans to make attacks on Obama's character a centerpiece of candidate John McCain's message in the final weeks of the presidential race.

I've put this guy's videos up before. He is awesome! He's trying to wake folks up. Break the chains and the embrace true change!

Crossposted from Stop the ACLU

The Associated Press provides one of their best "gee, ya think so?" headlines of the year: Push to register felons to vote could aid Obama

Undaunted by the heat, James Bailey spent his late-summer afternoons walking Virginia's bleakest neighborhoods on the hunt for ex-cons -- each a potential voter who might cast the decisive ballot in this hotly contested state.

Finding them isn't the hard part. It's getting them to admit that a past mistake has kept them from the ballot box.

"People are really, really reluctant to say, 'I lost my rights to vote,'" Bailey said of his quest, which continued in the run-up to Monday's registration deadline in Virginia for the November election.

Nationally, there are roughly 4 million released felons whose convictions have cost them the right to vote at least temporarily, if not permanently. To return to the ballot box, felons must negotiate suffrage laws that vary from state to state, in many cases working with election officials who can be both unfamiliar with the law and hostile to former convicts seeking to register.

Such challenges matter little to Bailey and others trying to return former criminals to voter rolls, an effort they consider crucial in light of the results of the past two presidential elections: A shift of a few hundred votes in Florida in 2000 would have changed the outcome of the presidential race, and the results in 2004 came down to a margin of 119,000 votes in Ohio. 

The nonprofit groups and individual activists making the push on felons' behalf agree the effort is broader this year than in previous elections, even if they aren't necessarily making a coordinated push. They expect that effort to benefit Barack Obama more than John McCain, given that the population of former felons is disproportionately black.

First, they still can't get over Bush's two presidential wins. Sad, really.

Second, it always seems to be the case that giving felons the right to vote helps Democrats, and it is not just because so many are Black. A good guess would probably be that criminals know that punishment for what they do is much less under Democrats, usually along the lines of a short sentence, which is then reduced as "time served," and some therapy.

Third, have you ever noticed that the Democrat Party keeps up the pressure to register the most politically clueless, along with those who are offering nothing to society? Felons, the homeless, college kids who think they will get free drinking money, illegal aliens, etc. If someone was really interested in the issues and in voting, well, they would get their butts out there and register themselves. It really isn't that hard. If you do not have the will to go register yourself, maybe you should sit on the sidelines and watch.

Oh, and in Ohio register-and-vote land

What must a voter do to prove they're a qualified, eligible voter when they register and vote at the same time?

Anyone who registers to vote must fill out the same paperwork, whether they do it in person minutes before voting or at any other time. You are not required to show identification, but must provide either your driver's license number or the last four digits of your Social Security number. 

Maybe if people would be required to show ID, it would only be a tiny problem. You know, that thing you need to show to pass a check, use your credit card (not that companies taking your CC look at them that much anymore), and are required to have on your person when you drive. Something that is rather easy to get and not that expensive. But, we can all infer why Democrats do not want people to have to show ID to vote.

Crossed at Pirate's Cove

7.62mm justice

An Al-Qaida in Iraq leader suspected of executing a Russian official and orchestrating a recent wave of bombings in Baghdad has been killed by U.S. forces in a shootout, the U.S. command said Saturday.

Mahir Ahmad Mahmud al-Zubaydiand his wife were killed Friday when U.S. troops surrounded a building in an attempt to capture him in Baghdad's Adhamiya neighborhood. Al-Zubaydi, also known as Abu Assad and Abu Rami, was a leader in the insurgency behind nearly simultaneous bombings at two Shiite mosques Thursday that killed at least 24 people and wounded dozens.

The death of Zubaydi "will send shock waves through Baghdad's terrorist bombing networks," U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll said. The military described Al-Zubaydi as responsible for "all terrorist operations" in eastern Baghdad.

Are there even any virgins left in Paradise for al-Zubaydi?

More via Operation Iraqi Freedom

"Sadly, here again is a case where AQI has put innocent lives in danger in order to protect themselves and shield their terrorist efforts," said Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll, Multi-National Force-Iraq spokesman.

Coalition forces evacuated several children from the building before performing a controlled detonation of unexploded ordnance inside the residence. When the house caught fire after the detonation, forces called for assistance from the local fire department, and as a safety precaution, began evacuating surrounding buildings.

Al Qaeda has failed epically in Iraq, and is barely able to recruit. Obama would like to throw that away and hand the country back to AQ and Iran. Leadership!

Say, we haven't had a football post in awhile. Something to step away from politics a bit. Today's games (line in parentheses)

• Tennessee (3) at Baltimore - right on the money, 13-10 Titans
• Seattle at Superbowl Champions Big Blue (7) 44-6 Gmen. Stat of the day-Giants 523 yards, Seahawks 187
• Deadskins at Egirls (5) - 23-17 Skins. Skins outrushed Eagles 203-58
• Cincy at Cowgirls (17.5) (Can't tell I am a Giants fan, eh?) Stat of the Day-first pass by Palmer is picked off (yeah, I know the game is just starting) Dallas with the 31-22 win over the Bengals
• San Diego (7) at Fins - Dolphins 17 Bolts 10 Stat of the day-Fins have double the wins they had in 2007
• Chicago (3) at Lions. Bears 34-Lions 7. Bears yardage 425, Lions yardage...wait, did I just read the Bears had 425 yards of offense?
• Falcons at Green Bay (3.5) Atlanta 27 GB 24. Michael Vick who?
• Indy (3) at Houston- Colts 31 Houston 27. Texans show everyone how to blow a game late
• Chiefs at Panthers (9.5) 34-0 Carolina. Sister Toldjah should be happy. Yardage 441-127. No worries, though, Chiefs fans. A little birdy told me W and Nancy P. plan on initiating a bailout plan for the KC, and Native Americans plan on suing over the team name.
• Bucs at Broncos (3) 16-13 Bucs
• Patriots (3) at Nancy Pelosi Stadium San Fran N.E. 30 - San Fran 21
• Woops, forgot the line on Arizona-Buffalo. No matter, big win for the Cards, 41-17. When you turn it over 4-0, and get sacked 5 times, yeah, gonna lose
• Sunday Night - Steelers at Jaguars (4)
• Monday Night - Vikes at Saints (3)

What's your take? Who ya rooting for? Who do you want to see destroyed on the field today? What's the over/under on a T.O. meltdown?

My how things change - or not.

Any idea who said this and when?

"I believe that most Americans would agree on the problems this country faces and which the next administration must solve. They include the need, once again, for an economy that works. The economy today is in very, very bad shape, the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, xx% higher than when Mr. X took office, raging inflation. The latest wholesale price index is once again raising the specter of double-digit inflation. The purchasing power of the average American has slipped so much that it's now the equivalent of the purchasing power in XXXX. It's not getting better, it's getting worse. All the leading indicators now point downward. Stock investors are losing confidence. Over $XX xxxxxx of value has disappeared from the stock market in less than a month. We need a government that works, we need a government that cares, and once again, we have to get back at work on education, on health, on housing, on the environment, on energy. And we need a foreign policy that once again reflects the values and the beliefs of the American people. This will take leadership, and we need leadership, too. The Republican administration, the Republican Party has had eight years to solve these problems. All of them have gotten worse. The Republican ticket does not offer new plans for their solution but is engaged in a frantic effort to defend the past. This nation desperately needs new leadership. The XXXXXX-YYYYYYY ticket would offer a new generation of leadership dedicated to solving the problems I have listed, and that is the basis of our appeal."

Sound pretty familiar?

Answer after the jump -

Friday I told you all to go see the new conservative movie An American Carol. Before I get into the review, here's the trailer:

I thought the movie would be hilarious. And it was. I loved it. David Zucker, best known for directing Airplane! and the Naked Gun movies, did a great job. While his biggest target was obviously Michael Moore, he didn't limit himself to just Moore.

The premise of the movie is that Michael Malone (Kevin Farley), an Oscar winning documentary filmmaker who gets no real respect from Hollywood and whose films make no money, is desperate to become relevant. So he starts a movement to abolish July 4th. Movealong.org is involved. Malone's nephew Josh is a sailor in the Navy and is about to ship out to the Persian Gulf, and he's asking for his uncle to come see him off and help take care of his family. Malone laughs it off, asking how his nephew the sailor could ever possibly be related to him. Meanwhile, a trio of terrorists led by Robert Davi are plotting to wage the ultime jihad -- and guess who is their unwitting co-conspirator? One night, as Malone is contemplating what his "hero" John F. Kennedy (Chriss Anglin) would have done, JFK himself pays Malone a little visit, and castigates him for exploiting everything he stood for. He then informs Malone that he'll be visited by three ghosts who will try to show him the error of his ways. Malone is then visited by General Patton (Kelsey Grammar), George Washington (Jon Voight), and the Angel of Death (Trace Adkins), although the majority of the movie features General Patton. He tries to show Malone the error of his ways, with little success. Eventually, though, Malone comes around.

I really enjoyed the movie. It wasn't always laugh-out-loud hilarious, but I don't think it was meant to be. The primary message is that some things are worth fighting for (had Lincoln lost or declined toe fight the Civil War, Malone would be the largest slaveholder in the state, and a cruel one at that). There were some really hilarious moments, though -- my favorites, I think, were the scenes featuring the ACLU zombies and the singing radical college professors indoctrinating your children, wishing it was 1968 again. Paris Hilton and Simon Rex even made appearances (as themselves), hosting the MoveAlong.org Awards, where Hollywood celebrities decry poverty (while dripping in jewelry), world hunger (while feasting on lobster and steak), and wallow in their hatred of America and love for themselves.

There were some poignant moments too. Jon Voight was an incredible George Washington. He makes a brief appearance, but it brought tears to my eyes. It was the most powerful scene in the movie.

All in all, it was not the best or the funniest movie I've ever seen. But it was funny, it was relevant, it was enjoyable, and it had a great message. I would definitely recommend that everyone watches it.

Throw a rock into a pack of dogs, and the one that yelps the loudest is the one that got hit. And God bless Sarah Palin, that girl knows how to throw a rock. Misquoting Albright: Yelp! Fact Check: Yelp! Analysis: Yelp! Yelp! Yelp! With some "racism" sprinkled on top.

And class, you do remember what the House of Eratosthenes Glossary told you an analysis is, right? That's right...

An Editorial, with a different name so that editors can justify placing it where the news belongs.

Putting the "Ass" in "Associated Press," one of the wire service's Obama water-carriers attempts to smear Sarah Palin as a racist for spotlighting Barack Obama's longtime relationships with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers:

Analysis: Palin's words carry racial tinge

Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism...
:
[Associated Press continues with more of its unadulterated nonsense]
:

Meanwhile, back in the real world, McCain continues to forbid his campaign from going after Obama for his longtime friendship and ideological partnership with Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- and refuses to attack Obama on the Fannie/Freddie/CRA debacles because he fears being perceived as a racist.

Earth to McCain: They will see RAAAACISM in whatever you and Palin will say and do from now until Election Day.

Fight or get rolled.

Wake. Up.

The fact is, the democrats have been staying in office when they haven't deserved to, for generations, by pretending they have some kind of monopoly on championing issues that have special meaning to women. By driving a big fat wedge between men and women -- pretending that what hurts women helps men, and vice-versa. Palin used their own words against them, and beat them at their own game. There was no meaningful misquoting, in letter or in spirit. Albright spoke recklessly, back when it seemed safe, and her words were put on a Starbuck's coffee cup, where they came back to haunt her. Point Palin.

And Bill Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist. He feels he didn't do enough when he set those bombs. A qualified presidential candidate wouldn't have any connection to him whatsoever. Barack Obama would, in all likelihood, be barred from seeking any position with the CIA, the FBI, or obtaining any sort of secret clearance. And rightfully so. It's called an unfavorable adjudication, and he's got it written all over 'im, through the Ayers matter alone.

Truth hurts. The dogs are yelping. Can someone please hand the Governor a big ol' sackful of rocks -- big un's.

Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes.

Slate Magazine is diagramming Sarah Palin's sentences, and concludes -- surprise! -- she's a doofus.

Scanning this article (it is not worth more than a scan), what is remarkable is that despite being one of the best all-around destinations on the Internet for good, insightful writing, when it comes to politics Slate remains utterly unselfconscious in its bias. There isn't the slightest suggestion that the exercise of diagramming Sarah Palin's sentences, which author Kitty Burns Florey starts out by characterizing as "scal[ing] the heights of inanity," would be a tad more compelling if some control subject were suggested.

I'm not even asking that they apply this new brand of political analysis to the brilliant oral thinkings of the Honorable Barack Obama; we know that is unnecessary seeing as how he is a certified intellectual and academician. His words are beyond diagramming; they are our future, made flesh.

But ... Joe Biden? Are his verbal jetés (forget the fibbing part) really amenable to a diagram that Kitty wants someone with time on his hands on the GOP side to throw up there for serious analytical scrutiny?

How about -- any politician on earth? The stentorian John Kerry? Bill Clinton -- whoa, yes, there are some sentences in that portfolio I'd love to chart. Also the Missus over there, yes, some real beauts.

"Sentence diagramming": It's the new way to make your political cheap shots look pointy-headed and thoughtful-like!

Diagram this: Duh.

Originally posted on Likelihood of Success, Ron Coleman's earlier, funnier blog.

Here are the top 20 songs on my MP3 list right now. To be honest, I haven't found a lot of great, new stuff to listen to over the last few months. Take a look at my list and suggest some new songs for me...

50 Cent: Hate It or Love It
AC/DC: Thunderstruck
Evanescence: Bring Me To Life
Gin Blossoms: Jealousy
Gratitude: If Ever
Glukoza: Schweine
John Mayer: Say
Nickelback: Far Away
Nickelback: Photograph
Nickelback: Savin' Me
Nickelback: Someday
Motorhead: Ace of Spades
Nas: Hero
Pink: Who Knew
Saving Abel: Addicted
Seether: Out of My Way
Snow Patrol: Chocolate
The Mercenaries 2 Choir: Oh No You Didn't
TI: No Matter What
Wu Tang Clan: Reunited

I just watched this opening from the movie Idiocracy and it seemed frighteningly plausible. Be forewarned, there's some bad language in this, but take a look at it, and think about the demographic trends in the world today. It's like the Peter Principle applied to the human race...

Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:

Thomas Sowell: Do facts matter?

Cracked: 5 retarded get-rich quick scams (people still fall for)

Cassy Fiano: Vandalism against people with McCain signs in Virginia (w/pics)

Double Viking: Letizia Filippi bikini pictures

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!

PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.

Per Rasmussen polling,

Only half (49%) believe that the current Congress is better than individuals selected at random from the phone book. Thirty-three percent (33%) believe a randomly selected group of Americans could do a better job and 19% are not sure

So, with that in mind, let's see what RWN's readers think.

This week-end I caught David Zucker's An American Carol. The general idea behind it is a Michael Moore stand-in wants to ban the 4th of July -- and 3 ghosts, General Patton (yes, that General Patton), George Washington, and the Angel of Death try to straighten him out.

The general idea behind the movie is supposed to be A Christmas Carol meets Airplane and the movie is at its best when it sticks to that formula. However, at times the movie moves away from comedy and focuses on a heavy handed conservative message. Although personally, I didn't mind that, it was sort of a strange mixture: Airplane style humor, a serious message about the war on terror, and a straightforward conservative take.

Did I like the movie? Yes. Would you like the movie? If you're reading this page, yes, you probably would. However, that's part of the reason why the movie is bombing at the box office in week one. It's a movie that seems to be targeted at a very narrow slice of the populace: hard core, politically aware conservatives who like spoof style comedy mixed with a serious message.

Long story short, I thought the movie was very funny at the beginning and at the end (It was more serious in the middle), I'd give a thumbs up, and if you're reading RWN, you're probably exactly the sort of person who'd love the movie. That being said, I think the movie would have been better and would have had an opportunity to reach a much larger audience if they'd stuck with a formula more similar to Team America: World Police, which kept it funny all the way through and didn't use a hammer and tongs to get its message across.

Last night on instant messenger, a female friend of mine sent me a link to a new book that Jessica Valenti over at Feministing is coming out with. Yes, believe it or not, this apparently isn't some sort of off-the-wall parody -- it's a real book,

After sending me the link, my friend's comment was, "What is it with feminists and wanting to turn America's teenagers into raging whores?"

Good question.

The best thing I can come up with is that when people do stupid or embarrassing things, it makes them feel better to think that other people are doing it with them. Some of us can get past our flaws by simply shrugging our shoulders, saying "the flesh is weak," and admitting that we're not living up to our ideals.

But, these hardcore liberal feminists? For them, it's not enough to say that, "I'm not a virgin" or "I like to sleep with a lot of guys," they have to come up with some kind of justification for why it's the best way to live.

That's not a prelude to a long preachy rant, it's just basic common sense when we're talking about whether we should be encouraging virginity.

And does America really have "An obsession with virginity" anyway? Since when? I interviewed Dawn Eden about her book, "The Thrill Of The Chaste" and it was fascinating to me that she had been doing interviews all over the place, for months and months off that book. That's not even virginity, it's chastity, and it's apparently so rare that it kept her in bookings for more than a year.

Even setting that aside, is virginity some sort of huge problem -- especially with young women?

Take a look at these stats from an article that was at MSNBC back in March,

In the first study of its kind, researchers at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found at least one in 4 teenage American girls has a sexually transmitted disease.

The most common one is a virus that can cause cervical cancer, and the second most common can cause infertility. Nearly half the black teens in the study had at least one sexually transmitted infection, versus 20 percent among both whites and Mexican-American teens.

A quarter of teenage American girls have STDs, but wow, watch out for that virginity -- and we didn't even get to out-of-wedlock pregnancy yet!

If you want to know why liberals and conservatives don't get along, books like this tell you all you need to know. Point out just about anything good, decent, or helpful for the country and there will be liberals coming out of the woodwork to corrupt it, pervert it, or tear it down -- and all the while, they'll have a smug, sanctimonious attitude about the almost unbelievable, life-wrecking stupidity that they're advocating.

Folks, I'd like to take a moment to encourage you to chip in a few bucks to Tom McClintock.

He's the only candidate endorsed both by Tom Tancredo's Team America PAC and the Club for Growth, so, as you'd imagine -- this is a guy you can trust on illegal immigration and on issues of fiscal conservatism.

Plus, the district the guy is in? It's a R+11 district. That means if McClintock gets in, the Democrats will never move him out of there and we'll have a guy up there we can count on for years to come.

In fact, the only reason this district is competitive is because the guy who's holding it now, John Doolittle, is sleazy and McClintock's opponent, Charlie Brown, built up a reputation and the donors for a war chest by running close against Doolittle the last time.

So, if you're looking to really make a donation count, let me strongly suggest that you put some money towards Tom McClintock's campaign. This is a guy who deserves your support.

Currently, there are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents who caucus with the Dems in the Senate. That means the Dems need 9 more seats to get to 60, which would allow them to shut down any Republican filibuster attempts at will.

At the moment, the situation is particularly precarious for the GOP. McCain is down by 5-7 points nationally, the GOP's spineless capitulation on the bailout has taken the wind out of conservative sails, and the political environment is still slanted heavily against the Republicans. Just to give you an idea of how bad it is, there doesn't appear to be a single seat held by the Dems in the Senate that's seriously in jeopardy.

However, the same can't be said on the GOP side. Here's how I am currently assessing the GOP's Senate prospects (seats that look safe aren't included)...

Republican Seat Strongly Leaning Democrat Takeover

Jim Gilmore (R-VA) vs. Mark Warner (D)
Steve Pearce (R-NM) vs. Tom Udall (D)

Republican Seat Leaning Democrat Takeover

(I) Ted Stevens (R-AK) vs. Mark Begich (D)
Bob Schaffer (R-CO) vs. Mark Udall (D)
(I) John Sununu (R-NH) vs. Jeanne Shaheen (D)
(I) Gordon Smith (R-OR) vs. Jeff Merkley (D)

Republican Seat That's A Toss-Up

(I) Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) vs. Kay Hagan (D)

Republican Seat That's Leaning Towards Retention

(I) Norm Coleman (R-MN) vs. Al Franken (D)
Roger Wicker (R-MS) vs. Ronnie Musgrove (D)
(I) Saxby Chambliss vs. Jim Martin (D)
(I) Mitch McConnell (R-KY) vs. Bruce Lunsford (D)

As you can see, the Democrats look likely to pick up at least 6 seats right now. That could easily be 7 if Liddy Dole doesn't get going. Her numbers have dropped considerably over the past few weeks.

Furthermore, the GOP seats in Colorado and Minnesota are leaning the right way today (there is a Star Tribune poll showing Franken ahead, but their polls are always ridiculously skewed to the left), but that could easily change by election day.

Worse yet, If McCain were to drop further, as opposed to making up a little ground, it's not out of the question that the Democrats could win ALL of these seats. That would be very unlikely, but it's possible.

My best guess today? A 7-8 seat pick-up for the Dems. Although that wouldn't get the Dems to 60, all it would take to stop a filibuster would be 2-3 squishes refusing to go along. Anything over a 55 seat majority has the potential to be big trouble for the GOP if Obama makes it to the White House and the Dems are almost guaranteed to hit that number and then some.

Found via Slashdot, Matt Lasar reports:

The United States Senate has unanimously passed a bill that requires the Federal Communications Commission to explore what "advanced blocking technologies" are available to parents to help filter out "indecent or objectionable programming." The "Child Safe Viewing Act" (S. 602) was sponsored by Senator Mark Pryor, Democrat of Arkansas.

"With over 500 channels and video streaming, parents could use a little help monitoring what their kids watch when they are not in the room," Pryor said in a press statement following the passage on Wednesday. "Today's technology to protect children from indecency goes above and beyond the capabilities of the V-Chip. It's time for the FCC to take a fresh look at how the market can empower parents with more tools to choose appropriate programming for their children."

The text of the bill notes that the average child watches four hours of television a day. It also observes that "99.9 percent of all consumer complaints logged by the Federal Communications Commission in the first quarter of 2006 regarding radio and television broadcasting were because of obscenity, indecency, and profanity." Many of those complaints are controversial, it should be noted, because they come from Web based autoforms that allow people who have not actually seen a program to file a complaint.

Well. I've complained not to the FCC but on my own personal bloggy soap-box about advertising and content thrown into the middle of shows aimed at families--NFL football games or the dancing shows, for example. Do I want more rules like this to find ways to censor?

The problem is that I'm usually sitting right there during this programming but the ads come on so quickly that the image is already in my kid's head (the news blurbs are the worst and would ostensibly not qualify for censorship). The only answer is just turning the whole thing off.

Right about now, I'm just not in the mood to have the government creating another law to make my life better. They need to stop legislating on this crap and stick with building the military and rebuilding America's infrastructure. All the rest of this legislative nonsense is not their business.

Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com

Al Gore tells lies about the climate as fast as they can be debunked. Now he wants us to believe that nonexistent global warming is causing more powerful tornadoes and floods. Proclaims the Goracle:

Yes, we've always had tornadoes in Iowa and in Tennessee. But they're coming more frequently and they're stronger.

Via Watts Up With That, the following graph from the NWS/NOAA confirms that the number of severe tornadoes has been going down since the early 1970s. The trend for reported tornadoes overall is up, but that's only because improved technology and increased obsession with the weather has led to better reporting of minor incidents:

Gore also claims that recent flooding in Iowa was caused by global warming driving up the humidity. But water vapor only stays in the air for 10 days, whereas it has been 10 years since it's gotten any warmer — as University of Alabama, Huntsville confirms:

As always, Gore's lies are demonstrably false. Nonetheless, a complicit media can be counted on to exploit them as further justification for our economy to be hamstrung and our liberties suspended.

Meanwhile, John McCain promises to bring Gore into his administration to wreak havoc in the name of the global warming farce:

Asked if he would be a visible presence in international talks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and replace the Kyoto Protocol, McCain, who has clashed with fellow Republicans over climate change, said he would do "whatever is necessary to try to move forward."

He said he would involve former Vice President Al Gore in efforts to address the issue. "I would tap him, I would tap people who have been involved in these issues for many years […] I have great respect for Al Gore."

Incredibly, McCain is the less unthinkable of our presidential alternatives.

On a tip from Lou. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

The New York Times reports the cutback in consumer spending:

When the final tally is in, consumer spending for the quarter just ended will almost certainly shrink, the first quarterly decline in nearly two decades. Many economists, who began the third quarter expecting modest growth, now believe the cutbacks are so severe that the overall economy did not expand either, and they warn that a consumer-led recession could be more severe than the relatively mild one earlier this decade. [Ed: The one that wasn't reported because Clinton was president? That one?]

"The last few days have devastated the American consumer," said Walter Loeb, president of Loeb Associates, a consultancy, who said he worried that the constant drumbeat of negative news about the economy was becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. "They all feel poor."

Hmmm....I wonder why Americans feel so poor? It's not like the press hasn't been gleeful about a potential American economic implosion.

Hopefully, Americans are paying off debt. They'll spend more for Christmas. They'll spend more if Obama is elected because the press will glorify and edify his name and proclaim this:

Appropriately subtitled in German. Watch the whole thing...groovy things are to come! And there will be no more tears, and no more sorrow:

Life is REALLY, REALLY, um......, really, really, really bad now, but it will be so much better soon. Hang on hippies, salvation is nigh!

UPDATE:

I'm not sure that even The One cans save us from this.

UPDATED AGAIN:

Comment from rrobin:

Really, Melissa, instead of acting like we're amused by this whole Obama election travesty, it's time to fight. It's long past the time to give ourselves the luxury of just playing with trolls around here. We can't just play while everything we hold dear just slips away...

I'm responding here because for some reason I can't comment. Anyway, to clarify:

I am not amused. At. All. In fact, let me lay out the point of the post since I obviously didn't communicated clearly. The press has been a participant in the economic debacle. They decide what to print and how to print it and it makes a difference. Journalistic integrity is a farce. Had there been honest reporting, the Senate democrats' despicable conduct regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failure would have been reported--but it's Demorcats so they get a pass. The American public has FINALLY been informed about the mortgage crisis, but most of the information is coming out AFTER a Trillion dollar spending bill passed that is not going to work and in fact further enables bad behavior.

I am not amused. The Press desires to put Barack Obama into the Presidency so badly, they will not give all the facts about Obama so people can make an informed decision.

I am not amused. Congress Democrats played around with the "rescue bill", played politics and packed the bill full of pork, and acted like the asses they are, with seeming indifference for the American economy, because a bad economy favors Obama, don't you know? They so desire power, they will take the world economy down a freaking black hole to do it? It's too late. No matter what happens, the next four years are going to stink, no matter how the press tries to spin it if Obama is elected. With a McCain presidency, the Republicans will be tagged for a disaster that McCain himself tried to prevent--oh and President Bush, too. But we don't hear about that because the press bias is so complete, so egregious and so pathological.

So no, I'm not amused. I'm enraged. And now, my blood pressure is up, thanks! And what makes me even angrier is that we have a candidate who pussy-foots around and won't name the problem because he's a Senator who thinks he's better than everyone because he's part of the "In Gang". So no, he won't go after his fellow Senators because they are part of the same inbred, elite problem.

For McCain to have an ice-cube's chance in hell at being elected, he is going to have to LEAD. He is going to have to not come across as a mild-mannered Senatorial negotiator or focus on his Maverickness. He's going to have to explain why his ideas are so much better and do it in a persuasive way. Does he have it in him?

For all the press bias and for all the Democrats willful destructiveness, Americans will respond to a positive, rational, optimistic message--like the one that Sarah Palin articulates so well. Coming from McCain, it will have even more punch. He has the experience and hard-earned stripes which is in stark contrast to Obama's lack of experience on the one hand and his disturbing "experience" on the other.

In this post, I was attempting to demonstrate the press bias, the collusion and delusion of the Democrats and the real-world consequences, and also to show the foundation of Obama's ideology. Obama is a leftist socialist Hippie clothed in a tie and wearing a bright smile. He is dangerous for America and must be defeated, but he's viewed as a savior by his followers. Just like the bailout, they will find out, too late, that they've been duped. Or, they'll be so invested in their perspective that they will follow wherever Obama leads. And that's a frightening thought.

Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com

The media's attempt to install an unqualified ultra-left radical in the White House has entered the Twilight Zone with the alarmingly powerful AP's attempt to smear as racist anyone who objects to Obama's close association with anti-American terrorists.

Obama is a protégé of unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, who introduced him to the Chicago political scene at his apartment back in 1995. Highlights of Ayers's resume include bombing the Pentagon, the Capitol, and New York City police headquarters, getting away with it because of "prosecutorial misconduct," then bragging in the September 11, 2001 edition of the New York Times that he wished he had done more.

Also in attendance at Obama's coming out party was Ayers's wife Bernardine Dohrn, another unrepentant terrorist who invented the Weather Underground's three-fingered "fork salute" in honor of the fork the Manson Family stuck in Sharon Tate's pregnant belly.

Obama has worked closely with Ayers on the Woods Fund and the Annenberg Challenge. When their friendship actually began is unknown, but Dohrn knew Obama's noisily anti-American wife at least since 1988.

No reasonable person aware of this information would want Barack Obama to have access to America's nuclear codes — which is why AP has declared discussion of the topic to be racist. Here's how it tried to slap down Sarah Palin for bringing it up:

By claiming that Democrat Barack Obama is "palling around with terrorists" and doesn't see the U.S. like other Americans, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin targeted key goals for a faltering campaign.

And though she may have scored a political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret. […] Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false [sic] image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?

It doesn't matter that Obama's terrorist mentors Ayers and Dohrn are Caucasians. All resistance to the Obamessiah is racist.

Hat tip: Pagan Power; on a tip from Burning Hot. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

The Heritage Foundation's "Morning Bell" points me to something Sebastian Mallaby said today in the WaPo:

[B]laming deregulation for the financial mess is misguided. But it is dangerous, too, because one of the big challenges for the next president will be to defend markets against the inevitable backlash that follows this crisis. Even before finance went haywire, the Doha trade negotiations had collapsed; wage stagnation for middle-class Americans had raised legitimate questions about whom the market system served; and the food-price spike had driven many emerging economies to give up on global agricultural markets as a source of food security. Coming on top of all these challenges, the financial turmoil is bound to intensify skepticism about markets. Framing the mess as the product of deregulation will make the backlash nastier.

You had better believe that the intended "bad guy" in government is going to be "deregulation" and thereby the Republicans. And given the probable outcome of the election, free markets will have no champion in the Oval office. The external "bad guy" has already been established - Wall Street (while Freddie and Fanny keep a low profile).

The internal "bad guy" has yet to be identified. But even Democrats understand that they can't side-step the fact that some of the responsibility for this has got to be pinned on government (since it is government on which most of the responsibility lies.). It is just a matter of picking the right victim (no pun intended).

So imagine the scenario - a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic president. Any chance the real reason for this debacle will ever see the light of day?

Of course not. So in anticipation, Mr. Investigations, Democrat Rep. Henry Waxman, has scheduled a whole month of investigations concerning the "financial meltdown". Any guess as to where they might be headed with this?

Well, let's see - on October 16, 2008 the topic is "The Regulation of Hedge Funds". That's when George Soros will tell Congress how he recommends they regulate Wall Street. On October 22, the topic will be "The Breakdown of Credit Rating Agencies". Obviously they need much stricter regulation, wouldn't you say? And finally, on October 23 - wait for it - "The Role of Federal Regulators" is the topic.

But as the Heritage Foundation and any number of others have pointed out, the failure here wasn't deregulation at all. And the claim that Republicans have led the charge to deregulate over the past few years simply doesn't hold water either.

I certainly wish it did, but as with much this administration has done, they instead tried to out-Democrat the Democrats:

First of all, by every quantifiable measure, regulation has increased under President Bush:

* Money spent by federal regulatory agencies is up to $44.9 billion in 2007 from $27 billion in 2001, a 44% increase.

* Total people employed by federal regulatory agencies is up to 244,000 in 2007 from 172,000 in 2001, a 41% increase.

* Total number of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations is up more than 4,500 pages since Bush took office.

* Cost imposed on Americans is more than $28 billion in new regulations since Bush took office.

In total, the federal government imposes a nearly $1.1 trillion regulatory burden on the American people every year. Many of these regulations are justified. Providing transparency and creating information are value-added government functions. Regulation is not per se inconsistent with market principles. Some reinforce property rights and market mechanisms.

But creating a massive government duopoly in the residential real estate market does not reinforce market mechanisms. It perverts them, and it perverts them to such a degree that some estimate that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae purchased more than a third of the $3 trillion in junk mortgages created during the housing bubble. They did so because heavy government regulation required them to push as much money into questionable mortgage buyers as possible.

Yes that's right, the reason for the meltdown wasn't lack of regulation, but instead regulations and policy that forced a particular behavior contrary to how, if left alone, normal lending institutions would have behaved.

That's not a deregulation problem. That's a policy problem. But, that's not where these investigation will be pointed. To admit that is to admit that Democrats had a huge hand in the debacle.

Let me lay out that very probable scenario again for you - Democratic House, Democratic Senate, Democratic president.

So with that in mind and carrying it to its logical conclusion, what will be the "government problem" they discover as the "investigate" this?

Deregulation, of course.

And the solution?

I'm sure you can't begin to imagine even in your worst nightmares, but I can promise, you won't like it.

[Crossposted at QandO]

Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:

Cassy Fiano: Putting out is SO much better for girls than abstinence.

Michelle Malkin: The missing SNL bailout skit (This is the best SNL skit evar)

SMH: The top 100 books of all-time

Egotastic!: Nicollette Sheridan in a bikini

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!

PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.

For years, conservatives have been talking about the potential consequences of out-of-control spending -- and guess what? The consequences are here.

The markets are plunging, we're probably already in a recession, and we may be genuinely headed towards a financial crisis of global proportions.

And this crisis? It isn't merely another turn of the wheel in the market, another capitalistic cycle. It's directly related to our national debt and our foreign debtors, who are deliberately withholding credit. Are they actually trying to create a crisis or merely protecting their investments? Either way, nations like China have now confirmed that they have an effective weapon that they can use against the United States economy. If they cut off our credit, they can create a crisis at will.

That's what this deficit spending has done to us.

Meanwhile, the national debt is at 10 trillion dollars and headed towards 11 trillion -- and that's not even using the sort of accounting standards we force businesses to use, which would count Social Security's unfunded liability of 10 trillion plus and Medicare's unfunded liability of 60 trillion plus towards the debt.

Are those fixable problems? Theoretically, since we can cut back a bit and hold our spending in place as the economy grows enough to get us out of this mess, yes. But -- that's only going to work if there is a complete change of attitude in this country. Not only do we need to erase the deficit, we need to actually start paying down the debt.

What that means is that we need to freeze spending, put together a surplus, and use it to retire our debt instead of giving it back as a tax break or using it for new programs.

Let me tell you what else it means.

* It means the first question that should be asked about every government program is, "Can we afford it?"

* It means we need to stop shrugging our shoulders at wasteful programs that only cost "a few million dollars."

* It means that we need a freeze on the growth of the federal government, not just for a year, but for the foreseeable future.

* It means we literally can't afford any new social programs, including socialized medicine.

* It means that both parties, for once, need to put aside partisanship and actually cut the costs of Social Security and Medicare.

* It means that, yes, we conservatives are going to have to agree to cut military expenses. We need to spend less on the military, less foreign aid to allies, and we need to start scaling back what we're doing across the world as soon as feasibly possible, with as little disruption as possible to our allies.

What it all comes down to is that voters in this country -- conservative, moderate, and, yes, for the first time ever, even liberals -- should have 4 words that they keep repeating over and over to politicians, "We can't afford it." It means that politicians should have to justify every new expense, really justify it -- before we spend the money.

It's not enough to nibble around the edges anymore or even merely shoot for erasing the deficit. What this credit crisis has alerted us to -- or should have at least, is that the problem we are creating now with our spending has the potential to literally destroy the future of this country within the next 50 years if we don't change course.

One happy side effect of the Obama campaign is that it's going to destroy the effectiveness of the Left's "That's racist" attack forever. As the phrase is used more and more, in increasingly ridiculous ways, people are becoming numb to it -- and if people are indifferent to being called racist, because it's so overused, it has no power.

Yes, there may be rare times when "That's racist" is genuinely called for, but America isn't a racist society, white people are as likely to be held back by racism as blacks these days, and the old Democratic KKK style bigots (other than Robert Byrd) are almost universally considered to be fringe loonies.

So, it's about time we got to this point.

PS: Next step, killing Affirmative Action, which is racist, un-American, and should be unconstitutional -- once and for all.

Here are the latest battleground state poll numbers for McCain. I don't want to depress you, but the stats are extremely grim given the amount of time we have left before the election,

That's right. Obama is up in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, and Virginia -- among others.

You may be wondering how many of those states McCain can afford to lose and still pull it out. Well, the answer is zero given that Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota & Wisconsin all look very unlikely to go red.

Unless McCain -- or events -- provide a game changer soon, it's going to be a very ugly November for the GOP and America...

One of the most amusing things about the Clinton-Obama primary season was watching Bill-n-Hill's outrage at the upstart Obama besting them at their own say-anything game. And, like the Clinton's of yore, it worked for Obama. Obama played dirty and any hit back was protested with pained charges of racism.

Obama is doing the same thing with McCain and Palin. Palin, especially, is handling Obama's sly game well. But it does serve a purpose to look at the greater character of the man, for as his tactical predecessor Bill Clinton demonstrated, this propensity to "play" the opposition, and really the American people, reveals a narcissism and contempt for Americans that can lead to troublesome behavior. This behavior reminds me of the high school hot jock: he treats his girlfriend like dirt because she's dumb enough to dig him when it's obvious he's a player and everyone paying attention knows it. Obama shows a disturbing level of contempt for the American people.

Jennifer Rubin says in her article "Hypocrisy Doesn't Even Begin To Describe It":

But more than hypocrisy is at work here. It is not just far Left, American-hating radicals he now disowns. You get the sense that he believes everyone can be played. Rashid Khalidi can believe that Obama finds no one suffers more than the Palestinians. Jews can buy that he was moved by the Holocaust from a summer camp experience. Voters in his Congressional race in 1990 can be told that there is no difference ideologically between him and 100% ADA-rated Bobby Rush, but the rest of the state in 2004 (and eventually the country) can buy that he's a post-partisan reformer. Terrorists come to believe he shares their scorn for America, but Iowa voters hear him talk about his appreciation that only in America could his story have happened. Primary voters in Ohio are coddled with protectionist promises - and then privately scorned while he is talking to San Fransciso liberal donors.

There is no end to it -- everyone gets the version of Obama that perfectly fits his own world view. It is not hypocrisy. It's fraud. Whatever he told or shared with Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, or Pfleger counts for no more that what he told or shared with other now inconvenient groups and individuals. He's sold the same piece of political real estate to multiple buyers for multiple, conflicting uses.

So Obama's ACORN affiliations can be ignored and the implications for what this affiliation means as president is off limits. And so far, the press has colluded with Obama.

It will be interesting to see if the press starts honestly reporting to inoculate themselves against the blame should Obama win the presidency and turn out to have played them, too. In order to be played, there has to be a desire to play. So far, the press has enjoyed the game. As long as they get to be the girlfriend they've been happy. Obama is just that good.

Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com

When you're watching the debate tonight, make sure to head on over to RWN to catch Dr. Melissa Clouthier's liveblogging.

Bit by bit, the slime from Obama's Chicago days seeps to the surface, despite the media's lack of interest:

As a state senator, Democrat Barack Obama awarded $75,000 in government grants to a Chicago social service organization led by a rabbi who is also his wife's cousin, records show.

In 1999, Obama arranged for $50,000 for adult literacy and counseling services offered on Chicago's South Side by a group called Blue Gargoyle. A $25,000 grant for the group's youth services followed the next year.

The group's executive director when the grants were awarded was Capers Funnye, a South Side rabbi and Michelle Obama's first cousin once removed.

Obama is a regular Santa Claus. He and his buddy Bill Ayers have funneled a fortune into Jeremiah Wright's anti-American church of racial hatred and former PLO chief propagandist Rashid Khalidi's Arab American Action Network. Imagine how generous he will be once he has access to your bank account.

On a tip from Burning Hot. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

During the Palin-Biden debate, I remember thinking about how Palin talked about the economy--telling people that everyone will have to take responsibility and change behavior and that it will be tough for a while but that things will get better because Americans are resilient.

Is there any more that someone can promise? Eliminating capital gains taxes would help. And reducing the size of the government and stopping handouts would help--both to corporations and individuals.

Palin also said that the government was too often the problem. She said it with conviction because she believes it. McCain believes that government is the solution which is why he sometimes sounds maddenly like Obama, himself. I don't believe this approach will work. Right now, Americans are angry as heck and distrust the government's solutions. If McCain is smart, he won't be talking about his picky policies, he'll be talking about getting out of the way. That will be the big idea.

And in this post, I'm kinda thinking out loud. It seems that what America needs is confidence, optimism, realism and assurance ala Ronald Reagan. Speaking of lipstick on a pig--the American economy and the government policies that got us here is looking porcine. Better to not try to dress it up other than to say it stinks now but will get better and due to the dedication of individual Americans, the situation will rebound.

Plus, is it really that bad? Or are people living in denial (every restaurant I passed Saturday night was packed here in Houston)? Or has there just been SO much consumption that cutting back a little seems dramatic when it is in fact a modest decline and people are still living relatively large?

Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com

In a ringing endorsement of our leadership in Congress, RWN's readers found them to be inferior to random people from the phone book by a 6-to-1 margin.

Would you like to replace every member of Congress with a randomly selected person from the phone book of the same political party?

Yes: 86% (616)
No: 14% (104)

You can count me among the people who'd prefer random people from the phone book to our current members of Congress.

Granted, doing that would cost us fine public servants like Jim DeMint and John Shadegg, but for every Demint and Shadegg, there are at least 10 members of Congress who are either corrupt, hopelessly incompetent, or voting little differently than they would if they were trying to deliberately destroy the country.

That's why even random Americans would be a significant improvement over what we have in the Senate today...

Since Obama hasn't yet undergone the technical requirement of getting elected, his demented acolytes can still get in trouble for crossing every imaginable line to brainwash on his behalf. Remember this video?

An update:

A middle school teacher in Missouri was suspended Monday for putting a video on YouTube of his students chanting lines from Barack Obama speeches and wearing military fatigues.

The video, called "Obama Youth — Junior Fraternity Regiment," was posted by a YouTube user named "keepitwildtv" on Oct. 2. The school learned the video was on the Internet and took action against the teacher Monday morning.

Joyce McGautha, superintendent of the Urban Community Leadership Academy, a charter school for students in fifth through ninth grades in Kansas City, Mo., said that the video was probably taken last May during the Junior Fraternity's morning meeting at the school.

The kids were supposed to be learning reading and writing, not chanting fascistic praises to the Obamessiah. However, in the world we seem to be headed for, ideological correctness will probably be much more valuable than mastering even basic skills.

On a tip from Lyle. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Listen to tonight's Right Wing News Radio show. It's 30 minutes of me, talking about the debate, how McCain should change his strategy, the political landscape, racism, the Pickens plan, and more. Don't miss it!

Well, I'm tired of this whole election season because it started two years ago. Tired. Of. It. I need booze, but I'm afraid if I drink one drop I'll keel over. Don't worry, hearing the lies being spouted will get the adrenalin going.

Here's the guys also liveblogging: My favorite (besides me, of course) Ann Althouse, Stephen Green and my friend, Brendan Loy.

Rachel Lucas and also liveblogging smokin' hot commenter Cassy Fiano have joined the Piranha Party (my only problem is that ah need uh dikshonary to spell piranha). Rachel says:

You know, I'm liking McCain a little better now than I did before because like I said, he finally took his nuts out of the coffin he's been stowing them in all year. But he's still not good enough, and the Republican party is not good enough. Obviously I think they're better than the Democrat party but, hello, that doesn't really take much.

So, it's a Town Hall meaning essentially, that it's rigged with ostensibly "impartial" and "undecided" voters. Uh. Huh. We'll see. And as an aside, I don't like Tom Brokaw anymore. Let's see if a member of the media can redeem his Obama-butt-kissing self.

8:00 CST Hello Tom, you're looking....old and tired.

Obama periwinkle tie. McCain red tie. Hmmm....Obama looks nervous. Brokaw says "the world has changed and not for the better".

Question #1: What will you do for old people who are losing their retirement?

Obama believes this is "the final verdict on the failure of the last eight years". And let the lying begin--stripping regulations. REALLY? And who was stripping them? Hmmmmm?

McCain says that Americans are angry, upset and a little frightened. McCain has the answers. Energy independence and home values--buy up bad home loans in America. Isn't that socialism? SHIZEN! The problem in America today is that "we don't have trust in our institutions". Ugh: First impression--McCain is sounding like a bumbling Senator. Why didn't he go over the regulation deal that Obama said? Does he want to lose?

The only upside? Obama is as boring. Oh hell, he's talking about parents not spending time with kids because they are working to eat.

Question #2 What will the bailout do to help the average person?

McCain calls it a "rescue". Stabilize home values. Yikes! What about the people who followed the rules? Michelle Malkin says:

We're going to have to do something about home values...for retirees...I would order Treasury Secretary to renegotiate home loans." Oh, dear. HE WANTS TO EXPAND THE BAILOUT. He wants to do what ACORN wants to do. We're Screwed '08.

Obama is coming out swinging and lying. How nice. Is he joking about warning about regulations? McCain better answer these charges. Gotta love Obama--"people don't want to hear about politics" and then he talks politics.

Brokow redirects: Are you saying that things will get worse?

Obama says no. Um, he's delusional.

McCain says "depends on what we do". Americans are great. Sigh. We know.

Question #3 How can we trust either of you when both parties got us into this global economic crisis?

Obama "understands your cynicism". "George Bush budgets"...and he's talking about cutting spending.

McCain goes back to his reformer thing and trumpets McCain-Feingold. "The situation today cries out for bi-partisanship", now he goes after Obama's record. As an side: I don't think people connect oil independence with the economic pinch today.

8:22 CST So far, Obama is winning this debate, hands down. What do you think?

Question #4 What sacrifices will you ask Americans to make?

McCain will have to cut programs that "aren't working".

Wow! Obama is for off-shore oil drilling and clean coal. But we have to start saving homes. Oy vey, tax breaks for fuel efficient cars. Huh. That requires effort from us? By the way, that tax break just got passed in that behemoth of a bailout.

Obama is stumbling around right now. Generally, the debate is boring. Wait a minute, Obama just got my attention--when he's lapsing he goes to Marxist talk. He wants rich people to "pay their burden" because you can't ask a woman who's making $35K as a teacher to "tighten her belt". So, go after people who are making money and employing the little people.

McCain is answering this. Obama's tax increases on small businesses will hurt the very people he wants to help.

Question #5 Brokaw is breaking rules "Would you tighten up on Social Security and Medicare."

Obama won't answer that straight. He's going back to the tax cuts for 95% of workers. A friend writes "Obama = Hoover". Every time I hear Obama say "fair" I think communism. It's a knee-jerk reaction.

McCain "it's not that hard to fix Social Security"..."we need to sit at the table and fix it." Medicare is a little tougher--"have a commission".

Commenter at RWN says:

I'd like to be the first to say....McCain is kicking his ass. Posted by Glibertarian

Question #6: Another impartial question "What will you do to move fast to deal with Global Climate Change and creating green jobs?" [Wow, is that a direct lift from Obama's campaign page?]

McCain differs with Bush. Well, I think he's smart to have an answer because it's politically expedient, but hells bells woman, you're really concerned about this? You know what that makes me think? It makes me think the economy isn't that bad.

Obama "this is one of the biggest challenges of our times." And he actually favors nuclear power. Uh huh. Obama is going after McCain's history of voting against alternative fuels. That sounded like an attack to me. I thought Obama didn't attack.

Tom's follow-up: Should we fund a "Manhattan like project to solve Global Warming"? Meh.

McCain goes after Obama's obfuscation. And he explains oil's importance.

Question #7: Selling health care coverage as a commodity is a lucrative industry.

It's the framing of these questions that sounds remarkably DEMOCRAT to me. What the hell? Who are these people? And who says "commodity" and "lucrative" regarding health care and I'm in the health care profession.

Obama is going to lower insurance premiums by MAGIC! Woo hoo! And it's going to happen by putting medical forms on the internet. Hmmm...will the government control this? (I'm for this, by the way, but the devil is in the details of HOW this is done with protecting privacy).

McCain is talking health records on line too, walk-in clinics to impose efficiencies. McCain goes after Obama's big-government solution. McCain talks about going across state lines to get health care. This is HUGE. If this one thing was done, it would introduce competition. Good answer.

Brokaw: Is health care a privilege, right or responsibility?

McCain says responsibility.

Obama says health care is a RIGHT. He's MR. SOCIALISM. ARGHHHHHHHHHH! How is he going to lower premiums? Oh, and Obama is going to go after health insurance companies who "cheat the customers". Big government. Scary.

Question #8: How is the economic crisis going to affect America's roll as 'peacemaker'?" Again, this question is framed in Obama's favor.

McCain--the question is to know when American help can make a difference. McCain is talking about judgment.

Obama is talking Iraq. And talking about taking the Iraqi money. Same old answer.

Brokaw--What is the Obama Doctrine and McCain Doctrine for the use of military force?

Obama "we may not have a military obligation but a moral obligation". He would have gone into Rwanda. When genocide is happening and we stand idly by, it diminishes us. Hmmm...he's interventionist as long as it's cruel and NOT in America's interest. He'd set a no-fly zone in Darfur.

McCain goes after Obama about Iraq and Obama being wrong. McCain wants a "cool hand at the tiller". He talks about Somalia--we were sent in as "peace keepers and tried to act as peace makers" and had to come home in defeat. McCain sounds solid on this.

Question #9 Do we go into Pakistan?

Obama--Afghanistan and Pakistan is central front on terrorism. End Iraq. Blah, blah, blah.

McCain calls out Obama for being irresponsible for "announcing an attack against a country". He says our relations with Pakistan are critical.

Ace says that Obama is notorious for packing the crowd with friendlies and he's asking everyone to keep track of the names.

Brokaw: The senior British commander and Cooper Cole, "what we need is an acceptable dictator".

Obama: We are going to have to make the Iraqi gov't take responsibility because we'll need more troops in Afghanistan. Obama says a democracy in Afghanistan.

McCain: Gen. Petreaus just took over command for Afghanistan and will bring the same strategy to Afghanistan, the surge. McCain wants to bring this to Afghanistan.

Question #10: How do we affect pressure on Russia without having another cold war?

McCain says Russia, led by Vlad Putin, the Russians aren't playing nice. Use economic and diplomatic leverage against them.

Obama says we have to "see around the corners". Obama, once again, was telepathic like everyone else paying attention.

Is Russia under Putin an evil empire?

Obama "they have evil actions".

McCain "maybe". Crowd laughs. "I think we can deal with Russia but they need to understand that they're dealing with a tough America."

Question #11: If Iran attacks Israel, would we wait for the UN Security Council?

McCain: No. Iran is a threat not just to Israel but to the whole Middle East.

Obama says he will do "everything that's required to prevent" Iran getting nukes. Uh huh.

John Hawkins says that McCain sounds better on military. Obama is better on economy and the economy is the much bigger problem. He says Obama is winning. So pbbbblt! I think you guys are looking through Republican, and not independent eyes.

Question #12 What don't you know and how will you learn it?

Obama is talking about the American dream.

McCain says we don't know what will happen because of "unprecedented challenges". What he won't know is what the unexpected challenges will be. McCain knows what it's like in dark times. He knows what it's like to rely on comrades for support and courage and love. He believes in the country and it's greatness.

A Senate Insider IMs me and says: "It's a draw. Debate doesn't change anything."

Brit Hulme says the debate moderator seemed most concerned about getting his time to get the questions out. Brokaw seemed the biggest ego in the room and that's saying a lot.

Final thought: Boring. This whole thing was boring. The questions Brokaw picked were lame.

Frank Luntz's Focus Group: Found the debate interesting. Wow. The majority liked Obama better. What a bunch of dumbasses. And they're deciding the election? Help. Us. All.

Anything neutral benefits Obama. McCain has to be better than good. He has to be great. In basketball (sorry, for the sports analogies political junkie nerds), you don't win by playing defense and I felt like both candidates were trying to NOT make a mistake rather than trying to make a positive point. Playing safe serves neither of them, but certainly doesn't serve McCain. He needs to be knocking down three-pointers.

My feeling is that Obama will pull away after this, but time will tell. If I had to say, though, I say Obama wins.

First off, I have no complaints about Brokaw as a moderator -- besides his incessant carping about the candidates going overtime. He has continued a surprising trend: pretty good moderators for all the debates.

Unfortunately, this debate was very similar to the first debate.

On foreign policy, McCain sounds much more confident, knowledgable, and compelling than Obama. I think the average American would probably look at these two guys and think, "If there's a foreign policy disaster, I'd want McCain handling it." However, the economy is a much bigger issue right now, so winning on foreign policy isn't going to carry him to the presidency.

Furthermore, Obama consistently sounds better than McCain on the economy. Obama sounds better, hits harder, and sounds crisper on these issues than McCain, who doesn't have the same confidence on the economy that he has on foreign policy. Additionally, Obama hammers Mccain's brains out on the middle-class tax cut vs. a corporate tax cut issue and McCain does a poor job of defending his position.

McCain did score a few points on the spending crisis, but he lost the debate and probably the election with his godawful proposal to double down on the bailout by nationalizing the home mortgages of the irresponsible people who helped cause this whole housing crisis. It's apparently a 300 billion dollar plan in addition to the 700 billion dollar bailout.

In other words, McCain felt like he needed a game changer after supporting the bailout and instead of playing to his strength, fiscal conservatism, he lurched way off to the left with an appalling socialistic proposal that will further depress and outrage conservatives. Moreover, even if it somehow proved popular, you can't beat liberals at their own game; Obama would just steal the idea and up the price tag. It's a terrible, no-win idea for McCain.

Long story short: no really great stand out lines, McCain wins on foreign policy, but McCain lost on the economy and probably ended his chances to be President by proposing to nationalize the mortgages of irresponsible home owners instead of going in a fiscally responsible direction.

Huge winner by default: Obama.

Last night on my radio show (which you should definitely listen to right now), I said that McCain should turn the bailout into an opportunity to play to his strength: fiscal conservatism. I suggested that he...

#1) Call for a freeze on federal spending, which is something Obama says he won't do. So, hit him on it. (McCain did this.)

#2) McCain also needs to hit the Dems on Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and promise to reform them. There are real differences there. You put Obama in there and we will be right back in the same place again in four years, doing another bailout. (He did hit the Dems on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but didn't do a good enough job of it. The key point should be that if Obama and the Dems deny that Congress strong-arming Freddie & Fannie into giving shaky home loans had anything to do with the crisis, how are they going to be able to fix it?)

#3) Here's a promise that will win a lot of votes: no more bailouts. Put John McCain in the White House and he's not bailing out any other companies. He supported the bailout, but it was a one time thing.

McCain not only didn't do number three, he went in exactly the opposite direction. He's promising what looks to be another bailout to the tune of 300 billion dollars and it involves nationalizing bad mortgages. Here's the McCain campaign's explanation of what they want to do,

AMERICAN HOMEOWNERSHIP RESURGENCE PLAN

John McCain will direct his Treasury Secretary to implement an American Homeownership Resurgence Plan (McCain Resurgence Plan) to keep families in their homes, avoid foreclosures, save failing neighborhoods, stabilize the housing market and attack the roots of our financial crisis. America's families are bearing a heavy burden from falling housing prices, mortgage delinquencies, foreclosures, and a weak economy. It is important that those families who have worked hard enough to finance homeownership not have that dream crushed under the weight of the wrong mortgage. The existing debts are too large compared to the value of housing. For those that cannot make payments, mortgages must be re-structured to put losses on the books and put homeowners in manageable mortgages. Lenders in these cases must recognize the loss that they've already suffered.

The McCain Resurgence Plan would purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage servicers, and replace them with m anageable, fixed-rate mortgages that will keep families in their homes. By purchasing the existing, failing mortgages the McCain resurgence plan will eliminate uncertainty over defaults, support the value of mortgage-backed derivatives and alleviate risks that are freezing financial markets.

The McCain resurgence plan would be available to mortgage holders that:

· Live in the home (primary residence only)
· Can prove their creditworthiness at the time of the original loan (no falsifications and provided a down payment).

The new mortgage would be an FHA-guaranteed fixed-rate mortgage at terms manageable for the homeowner. The direct cost of this plan would be roughly $300 billion because the purchase of mortgages would relieve homeowners of "negative equity" in some homes. Funds provided by Congress in recent financial market stabilization bill can be used for this purpose; indeed by stabilizing mortgages it will likely be possible to avoid some purposes previously assumed needed in that bill.

The plan could be implemented quickly as a result of the authorities provided in the stabilization bill, the recent housing bill, and the U.S. government's conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It may be necessary for Congress to raise the overall borrowing limit

In other words, we're going further down the road to socialism, at a cost of 300 billion dollars, to reward people for buying homes that they couldn't afford.

My immediate first response, when I heard McCain's plan was on Twitter at about 9:10 PM last night. It was, and I quote,

"OMG. McCain just suggested buying up homes and helping to pay people's mortgages. Insane! Who came up with that nutty idea?"

...And it is a nutty idea. Just to give you an idea of how nutty, I had a typically very responsible person suggest to me semi-seriously last night, "Hey, should I buy a couple of homes really quickly and default on the mortgages? You should do the same thing! Then, we'll just get the money right back!"

My response was that,

#1) McCain was suggesting the idea and the proposal would kill any chance he has to win, which means it probably won't be implemented.

#2) Even if he wins, the government can't even hand out free money right. I wouldn't put any more faith in their ability to carry out that program than anything else they do. So, don't risk it.

Here's why this is such a deathblow to McCain's campaign: McCain's support for the bailout was a huge disappointment to conservatives and it's why he went from being tied with Obama to roughly 6 points behind.

To make up that gap, McCain needed a game changer that would be popular, that would fire up his conservative supporters, and that would differentiate him from Obama. This proposal seems likely to fail on the first two counts and if, shockingly, the plan turned out to be popular, then Obama would just support a bigger plan.

Republicans can't compete with Democrats when it comes to handing out taxpayer goodies. It's always a sucker's game to even try. Why? Because conservatives hate the giveaways and liberals are always willing to offer more.

Additionally, by supporting this socialistic plan, McCain is doubling down on the same mistake that killed him during the bailout: he's proving definitively that he's not really a fiscal conservative. Since that has been his primary selling point to conservatives who don't agree with him on a host of other issues, it's a critical mistake. In fact, if John McCain were trying to deliberately lose the election, he couldn't have done much better than this idea.

You know, I am going to vote for McCain and I would encourage you to vote for McCain, too, but the campaign has just gone off the rails since the mortgage crisis hit the news. Even if most conservatives were inclined to do it, there just ain't enough happy talk on earth to fix the horrific mistakes the McCain campaign has been making over the last few weeks.

PS: Whether the money for this scheme would be part of the Paulson plan is iffy. The McCain camp notes that the Paulson funds "can be" used for that purpose,

"Funds provided by Congress in recent financial market stabilization bill can be used for this purpose; indeed by stabilizing mortgages it will likely be possible to avoid some purposes previously assumed needed in that bill."

However, when they note that, "It may be necessary for Congress to raise the overall borrowing limit," it implies this will be over and above the money that has already been allocated.

In any case, however you slice it, it's raw socialism and rewarding bad behavior to the tune of 300 billion dollars.

The right side of the blogosphere was all over the map on this debate -- which is out of the ordinary. Normally, you see most bloggers going in the same direction, but after looking through the blogosphere, the opinions seem to be roughly split between...

* McCain barely squeaked out a victory in a dull debate.

* The debate was dull and McCain did very little to help himself. We're in deep trouble.

* McCain's housing bailout is a nightmare! I can't believe he proposed it!

There were a few "McCain won big" posts, too, but they were decidedly in the minority.

Here are the some of the comments from around the blogosphere that caught my eye,

"I thought that, quite unfortunately, this was a big win for Obama tonight. Not that he did anything great, but that he was very steady while McCain had a very ineffective first two-thirds of the debate. Darn." -- Quin Hillyer at AmSpec Blog

"All in all this was a pretty dull debate. Can we have Rick Warren replace Bob Schieffer for the next debate? I think he's done the best job of any of these appearances. And you got more of a feel for who these guys are instead of their canned talking points. (UPDATE: I see that Fred Barnes just said the same thing. Great minds....)

I'm with Alex Castellanos on CNN who said that we just learned that McCain wants to buy everyone a house and Obama wants to provide everyone health care. And we're a country that's broke.

We're in deep trouble.

And having Democrats in control of the government is not going to improve anything. But I don't think that John McCain gave any undecided voter a reason to make a different choice four weeks from now." -- Betsy's Page

"Well, there's an hour and a half of my life I'm never getting back.

Generally dull, little back-and-forth, questions that were pretty "meh," and a bunch of answers that were very predictable to those of us who have been following this race.

Because he's trailing, we needed to see something different from McCain tonight. It wasn't a bad night for him, and most of his answers were fine. But there wasn't anything that any of us are going to remember in a couple of days..." -- The Campaign Spot

"I'm declaring McCain the winner of this debate by a wide margin. He was very, very effective.

Unless someone is already pre-disposed for Obama, they will be drawn toward McCain's greater experience and presumably better judgment. It came through on question after question." -- Gina Cobb

"We have a disaster here -- which is what you should expect when you delegate a non-conservative to make the conservative (nay, the American) case. We can parse it eight ways to Sunday, but I think the commentary is missing the big picture.

...Obama comes off as just your average Center-Left politician. Gonna raise your taxes a little, gonna negotiate reasonably with America's enemies; gonna rely on our very talented federal courts to fight terrorists and solve most of America's problems; gonna legalize millions of hard-working illegal immigrants.

McCain? He comes off as Center-Right .. or maybe Center-Left ... but, either way, deeply respectful of Obama despite their policy quibbles.

Great. Memo to McCain Campaign: Someone is either a terrorist sympathizer or he isn't; someone is either disqualified as a terrorist sympathizer or he's qualified for public office. You helped portray Obama as a clealy qualified presidential candidate who would fight terrorists." -- Andy McCarthy at The Corner

I can't underscore enough what a rotten idea John McCain's ACORN-like government mortgage buy-up is. I said it during my liveblog. And I'll say it again: "HE WANTS TO EXPAND THE BAILOUT. He wants to do what ACORN wants to do. We're Screwed '08." -- Michelle Malkin

"Instant analysis? McCain won, but not by nearly enough to matter. He was up against a punk kid, and barely came away on points. Barely." -- Stephen Green from PajamasMedia

"What's the bottom line? McCain performed well, I think, subject to some concern that he may have come across as pretty old. Obama showed, in the first debate and again tonight, that he too can come across well under pressure. He's no longer stammering and indecisive as he once was on the stump. On the whole, he's a plausible rogue and I suspect that he passed muster with most people who aren't knowledgeable about the issues. McCain did fine, but I don't think anything happened that will significantly affect the momentum of the campaign." -- John Hinderaker at Power Line

"And what about the non-homeowners who have worked hard and decided, responsibly, not to live under the Damocles' Sword of an Adjustable Rate Mortgage knowing that, at some point, that rate was going to adjust upward and put them in serious trouble?

Screw us, apparently.

...Did I just hear John McCain tell me how government control makes him nervous? Little did I know that he only gets nervous unless its his administration taking more control.

Sounds like another left-wing power grab to me. I already see one of those candidates in office. And if I have to resign myself to having a borderline socialist in the White House, I'll go ahead and take the authentic one instead of the poser. At least that way I'll see the socialism coming straight at me instead of having it blindside me in the middle of the most boring debate in the history of the planet." -- The Sundries Shack

My debate analysis in three words "Congratulations, President Obama." -- Viking Pundit

"Did my ears just malfunction?

Did John McCain say minutes ago that part of the solution should be for the Fed to buy my mortgage, then "renegotiate" the mortgage based on the newer, lower property value?

...What do you have to do to qualify, miss a couple payments?

No wonder Obama didn't have a response to that new tack. He's kicking himself for not thinking of it first.

Has anyone an earthly clue how much that would cost the government (err... me & you) to do? You don't want to know, because you, your children, your grandchildren and your great grandchildren can't pay for it." -- Steve Schippert at Wizbang

I'd like to take a moment to encourage you to give money to Lou Barletta.

Barletta is a conservative who's beating Democratic congressman Paul Kanjorski in a Democratic district primarily on the issue of illegal immigration.

Barletta is no Johnny-come-lately on that issue either. Here's an excerpt from a WAPO article on Barletta's efforts from back in August of 2006,

An immigrant's grandson, Louis J. Barletta, the mayor of this once-sleepy hill city, leans forward behind the desk in his corner office and with an easy smile confides his goal.

Barletta wants to make Hazleton "the toughest place on illegal immigrants in America."

Hispanic demonstrators outside the Hazleton, Pa., city hall protest a law that makes it illegal to rent to or hire an illegal immigrant.

"What I'm doing here is protecting the legal taxpayer of any race," said the dapper 50-year-old mayor, sweeping his hands toward the working-class city outside. "And I will get rid of the illegal people. It's this simple: They must leave ."

Last month, in a raucous meeting, the mayor and City Council passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act. (Barletta wore a bulletproof vest because, he says, Hazleton is menaced by a surge in crime committed by illegal immigrants.) The act imposes a $1,000-per-day fine on any landlord who rents to an illegal immigrant, and it revokes for five years the business license of any employer who hires one.

The act also declares English to be the city's official language. Employees are forbidden to translate documents into another language without official authorization.

If this is the kind of guy you want speaking for you in Congress when they vote on illegal immigration issues, I'd suggest you chip in a few bucks to help him get elected. Lou Barletta deserves your support!

Once again, the Weekly World News is covering the stories the mainstream media has been ignoring like Batboy running wild, meetings between our leaders and aliens and now -- perhaps most importantly -- Obama posing nude at Harvard Law School.

That's right, folks, instead of "Barack Hussein Obama" or "The One," you can just call him the "Stallion" from here on out...

The shocking photo obtained by Weekly World News reporter Hideaki Tailor reveals that Obama revealed himself during his time at Harvard Law School.

In order to pay his way though Harvard Law, Barack Obama posed nude for several sessions of a figural drawing class.

Why had this been a secret for so long? Retired sculptor and art professor Lorraine Feinbaum explained, "Back then he only went by the nickname, 'Stallion,' as he was quite fit but slender.

..."As the child of a working-class family, he did what he needed to do in order to get his first-class education," explained Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Naturally, San Fran Nan approves -- well, assuming this is a real article, right? But, the Weekly World News wouldn't lie to us, would they? Well, if you have doubts, I would just say that you should keep in mind that this article is written by Hideaki Tailor, the very same reporter who broke the explosive "Bat Boy Falls for Meghan McCain" story...

Now, I know what you're probably thinking at this point and I will have to agree with you 100%. Number one, Obama was probably coked up when he posed nude and number two, yes, Meghan McCain is quite the hotty!

PS: Of course, Obama didn't really pose nude, so don't send me humorless emails about it -- but he has used coke and Meghan McCain is definitely a good looking woman.

the RWN Forum.

At 4:07 PM EST, I'm going to be on the Jaz McKay show.

Click on Stickam in the left corner to listen to the show.

Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:

Thomas Sowell: The real Obama part 2

Divisible By 0: The 8 phases of dating (bad language)

Cracked: 6 emails you get when your company is about to go under

Egotastic!: Kendra Wilkinson bikini pics

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!

PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.

Obama's exotic name has a special appeal for his supporters. Aside from his skin color and the astonishing fanaticism of the left-wing militants who make up his inner circle, he has no other characteristics that would compensate for his conspicuous lack of qualifications. Obama sounds like Osama; liberals themselves seem to be the most likely to confuse the two. Hussein is of course the name of a genocidal socialist dictator with whom we were effectively at war for over a decade. But what's so special about the name Barack?

It turns out Buraq is the name of the mythical creature that carried Mohammad off to heaven, though non-Muslims have reason to believe the prophet was more likely to have headed in the opposite direction. Just as Obama is half African and half American, Buraq was half mule and half donkey.

Muslims could certainly find some symbolism in an American president who would be highly unlikely to effectively resist Islamic terror and expansionism being named after a vehicle for the ascension of Muhammad.

Any day now we'll turn on the news and the talking heads will be yukking it up, tickled pink that so many thought they were serious about the whole Obamania phenomenon. Either that or I'll wake up gasping with relief that it was all just a weird nightmare.

On a tip from Heckrules. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

If you've ever wondered what the acronym ACORN stands for, it stands for "Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now". And, as you might imagine, it is an organization of and for community organizers.

As we learned when we took a peek at the original bailout bill put forward by Barney Franks and Chris Dodd, ACORN has some "federal connections". They're funded by your taxpayer dollars through a slush account called the Housing Trust Fund - we covered that here.

So what does ACORN do with those dollars? Well, they're in the lobbying and "activism" business.

Each ACORN office carries out multiple issue campaigns. ACORN members across the country work to raise the minimum wage or enact living wage policies; eliminate predatory financial practices by mortgage lenders, payday lenders, and tax preparation companies; win the development of affordable housing and community benefits agreements; improve the quality of and funding for urban public schools; rebuild New Orleans; and pass a federal and state ACORN Working Families Agenda, including paid sick leave for all full time workers.

Your tax dollars also go toward funding the ACORN Housing Corporation which provides "first time homeowner mortgage counseling and foreclosure prevention assistance, and low income housing development."

So here's an organization directly involved in expanding the debacle which has fomented this financial crisis and we find they're fueled by tax revenues.

ACORN is also involved extensively in voter registration, bragging on their website that they've "helped more than 1.7 million low- and moderate-income and minority citizens apply to register to vote."

Except many of those registrations have been fraudulent. The latest example comes from Nevada where, it seems, the Dallas Cowboy offensive lineup was featured among the ACORN registrations:

Secretary of State Ross Miller said the fraudulent registrations included forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team.

"Tony Romo is not registered to vote in the state of Nevada, and anybody trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot on Nov. 4," Miller said.

Bertha Lewis, spokesperson for ACORN dismisses this as a systemic problem claiming the organization is intolerant of such activities:

"When we have identified suspicious applications, we have separated them out and flagged them for election officials. We have zero tolerance for fraudulent registrations. We immediately dismiss employees we suspect of submitting fraudulent registrations," she said. "Today's raid by the secretary of state's office is a stunt that serves no useful purpose other than discredit our work registering Nevadans and distracting us from the important work ahead of getting every eligible voter to the polls."

If that was the only case in which ACORN registrations were questioned and found to be wanting, she might have an argument. But ACORN's fraud is legion. 5,000 ACORN registrants in St. Louis were sent letters by election officials asking the recipient to contact them. Fewer than 40 responded.

And ACORN's response? Much like it was in Nevada:

ACORN founder Wade Rathke responded to the Missouri findings by calling the election officials "slop buckets" and accusing them of having "broken the law in trying to discourage new voters illegally."

In Kansas City, 15,000 ACORN registrations have been questioned and in November, 4 ACORN employees were indicted for fraud. Additionally ACORN officials have been indicted in Wisconsin and Colorado, and there are on-going investigations in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

Interesting, other than Tennessee, that they're all taking place in battle-ground states, isn't it?

And who has been an advocate for, worked with and trained members of ACORN?

Why "that one" of course. Brad O'Leary puts it all in context for you:

Following the DNC Convention, Saul Alinsky's son, L. David Alinsky, wrote a letter to the Boston Globe. "Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing his effectiveness," the son wrote. "I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It's a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."

The great community organizing Obama did was through the radical Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). ACORN is notoriously known for its radical, and often illegal, practices and adherence to the radical philosophy of Saul Alinsky. According to the Washington Post, Alinsky's "disciples hired Barack Obama, a 23-year-old Columbia University graduate to organize black residents on the Southside, while learning and applying Alinsky's philosophy of street level democracy."

Recently the Obama campaign has sought to distance the Senator from the radical organization, claiming Obama merely represented ACORN in a lawsuit enforcing the Illinois "Motor Voter" law. Apparently the Obama campaign does not want Obama's ties to an organization that has a "decade long history of voter fraud, embezzlement and misuses of taxpayer funds" that Consumer Rights League Chief Public Advocate, James Terry testified about last month to the House Judiciary. Alinsky wrote: "An organizer works for change...does not have a fixed truth - truth to him is relative and changing."

Obama trained ACORN activists. A 1995 Chicago Reader article on Obama stated "Obama continues his work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons." Obama also ran Project Vote, known for widespread voter fraud, which Time magazine called "a non-partisan arm" of ACORN. In a speech to ACORN in 2007, cited by Newsmax, Obama gushed "I have been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois. ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it and we appreciate your work."

I'm sure he does - especially their work in the key battle-ground states for this election.

[Crossposted at QandO]

"God will choose the next president," said a visiting acquaintance today. And she's reading prophecies, too. She also mentioned that an extremely socially conservative person was voting for Obama because the person was employed by the federal government and freaked out when McCain mentioned freezing the federal government. See, a big fat government has government employees who are paid by the government and the government is...

YOU.

You pay the taxes. Does this seem obvious?

Increasingly there are the have and have nots--the haves have a intimate relationship with the government teat. The have nots, pay their taxes and ask nothing of the government besides safety and roads without potholes.

The intoxicating part of socialism (the government milk is laced with narcotics and arsenic; the people sucking live like infants in what our family calls a "milk coma"--that lulled state that is sated but not quite asleep) is that someone else pays and it's not "me". To get to power socialists point to the few corrupt and sow seeds of discontent. It's fear that gives elites the strength who then make policies to give themselves more power. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is Exhibit "A".

I haven't run the numbers as I"m no statistician or economist, but I just wonder what percentage of the American public directly links their employment or accepts handouts from the government. That might explain why both candidates sound like big government, protectionistic socialists.

Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com

As the economic crisis brings us to the edge of a depression, moonbats are rubbing their hands with glee. Chirps Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize for his environmentalist research:

It's a cruel thing to say … but if we are looking at a slowdown in the economy, there will be less fossil fuels burning, so for the climate it could be an advantage.

Crutzen is paid to pretend that fossil fuels don't just heat your house, but the whole planet, which liberals see as a bad thing, despite the threat of a mini ice age.

Fortunately, economic depression — which would be the inevitable result of implementing the environmental agenda — is not the only solution to the phantom global warming menace. Crutzen has suggested recreating hell on earth in another way:

He believes that dispersing 1 million tons of sulfur into the stratosphere each year, either on balloons or in rockets, would deflect sunlight and cool the planet.

We already have some sulfur in the air; it comes down as acid rain, which eats statues and buildings in addition to poisoning plants and fish. But Crutzen says not to worry about that.

Even for an environmentalist mad scientist, economic collapse does have one drawback:

[T]hings may get worse if there is less money available for research and that would be serious.

With his funding potentially threatened, Crutzen catches a glimpse of reality: modern environmentalism is a frivolous fad that only people with more money than they know what to do with can afford.

On a tip from mega. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

You have read here before my supposition that if Obama loses, America will be proclaimed racist. It is not, of course, racist if a person votes for Obama only because he's black.

Shrinkwrapped wrote an excellent post titled "Some Thoughts on Race, Racism, Capitalism, and Paradigm Shifts" and you MUST read it:

I do not think America is a racist country yet that is a subtext of Barack Obama's candidacy. Every criticism of Obama is immediately attacked as racism and we have already been told that if Obama is repudiated it will be because Americans are racist. Only by electing Barack Obama can we prove to the world and to ourselves that America is no longer a racist country. Beyond the "boy who cried wolf" quality of the charge, I suspect a great many Americans resent being called racist for opposing a candidate who is not only as far to the left as any candidate in memory but also uses race to further his political interests.

It's not skin color, it's ideology. Beliefs matter. If Obama loses, it won't be his skin color that decides it. It will be the fact that he's a liberal who doesn't seem to like America very much.

Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com

Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:

Ann Coulter: Pull the hair plug on this guy

700 WLW: Sarah Palin no longer wears her wedding ring?

Cracked: 5 bizarre ways the weather can kill you without warning

CelebSlam: Penelope Cruz bikini pics

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!

PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.

My buddy Amanda Carpenter sent me the calendar I'll be using for 2009: Pretty in Mink from the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute (They're still displaying the 2008 calendar at the moment. Not sure why).

This calendar brings two great things together: beautiful conservative women and furs that absolutely infuriate animal rights nuts. Just to give you an idea what it's like, here's Ms. July, Amanda Carpenter.

You may also appreciate Ms. September, Ann Coulter,

My hat is off to the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute for doing this calendar. We need more organizations promoting conservatives in general and conservative women in particular.

After I ran a hard hitting story from the Weekly World News yesterday that revealed Barack "Stallion" Obama had actually posed nude while he was Harvard Law School, the WWN actually emailed me and told me to check back last night for a blockbuster story -- and my friends, they delivered!

You've heard of Barack Obama's druggie half-brother in Kenya who was living in a hut? Well, some of his relatives are apparently even sketchier,

At a shocking press conference this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama announced that he has a half-man half-bat half-brother.

The boyish looking half brother of undetermined age had been living in a cave in the Karura Forest outside Nairobi, until he was recently discovered by Dr. Robert Ndesango of Kenyatta University. Dr. Ndesango, who had been researching in the cave, was at first startled by the unusual boy, who quickly introduced himself as Obatma. Soon enough, the boy was showing him his part of the cave and pictures he'd drawn on the walls.

Tests indicate that the boy mutant is indeed Barack Obama's younger half brother; the two share a father but have different mothers.

....Senator Obama stood proudly next to the brother he claims to have first met on a trip to Kenya during the late 1990's. Michelle Obama declined to attend the announcement and said through a spokeswoman, "That boy is strange. He will not be coming near my house or my kids."

When asked how Obama's half brother came to be a half-bat mutant, Obama said it was "a family matter that should remain private."

First, Obama won't give us the real scoop on his association with Bill Ayers and now he's refusing to reveal how he came to have a half-bat mutant brother? C'mon, America wants some real answers this time Obama!

PS: Although this story about Obama and his mutant brother is obviously bullet proof, I have to admit that another article in the WWN that claims Sarah Palin is actually an alien from the planet Wazeela is completely bogus. How do I know that? It claims Wazeela is "37,000 miles due east from the Sun" and of course, there is no such thing as "due east" in space.

A while back, The Anchoress had up a post called "What's Wrong With the World?"

It started like so,

I'm feeling a bit punk - feverish and swollen glands - so I'm just going to throw this question out and invite answers from readers and from other bloggers:

In 100 words or less: What's Wrong With the World?

About 100 years ago, a British paper invited many writers to answer the same question, What's Wrong With the World? They extended the invitation to G. K. Chesterton who wrote back,

Dear Sirs;

I am.

Sincerely,
G.K. Chesterton

I will take his answer for my own. Have at it.

Chesterton's answer was short, memorable, and seems profound at first glance. However, ultimately it's just a cop-out. There are many things you could say were wrong with the world back then and today, but G.K. Chesterton wasn't one of them.

So, I thought it might be interesting to take a real crack at it. We're not talking about a perfect world here, because we will never have that on earth -- so I avoided answers like "unlimited resources." Also, I also tried to avoid touchy feely answers, like "love," "decency," or "change" because they're so vague in this context that they're practically meaningless. With that in mind, here's what I came up with...

"Not enough Christianity, capitalism, democracy, freedom, free markets, free press, property rights, privacy, & rule-of-law. Too much bad religion, atheism, agnosticism, socialism -- and way too many corrupt and/or all powerful governments."

Let me know in the comments section if, improbably, out of all the things wrong with the world I missed anything ;).

Wackjob ultra-liberal Naomi Wolf is still on her fantastically silly "Bush is turning America into a fascist society" kick.

Here's Wolf at Alternet,

Background: the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, three to four thousand soldiers, has been deployed in the United States as of October 1. Their stated mission is the form of crowd control they practiced in Iraq, subduing "unruly individuals," and the management of a national emergency. I am in Seattle and heard from the brother of one of the soldiers that they are engaged in exercises now. Amy Goodman reported that an Army spokesperson confirmed that they will have access to lethal and non lethal crowd control technologies and tanks.

...I interviewed Vietnam veteran, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and patriot David Antoon for clarification:

"If the President directed the First Brigade to arrest Congress, what could stop him?"

"Nothing. Their only recourse is to cut off funding. The Congress would be at the mercy of military leaders to go to them and ask them not to obey illegal orders."

"But these orders are now legal?'"

"Correct."

"If the President directs the First Brigade to arrest a bunch of voters, what would stop him?"

"Nothing. It would end up in courts but the action would have been taken."

"If the President directs the First Brigade to kill civilians, what would stop him?"

"Nothing."

"What would prevent him from sending the First Brigade to arrest the editor of the Washington Post?"

"Nothing. He could do what he did in Iraq -- send a tank down a street in Washington and fire a shell into the Washington Post as they did into Al Jazeera, and claim they were firing at something else."

"Given the danger do you advocate impeachment?"

"Yes. President Bush struck down Posse Comitatus -- which has prevented, with a penalty of two years in prison, U.S. leaders since after the Civil War from sending military forces into our streets -- with a 'signing statement.' He should be impeached immediately in a bipartisan process to prevent the use of military forces and mercenary forces against U.S. citizens"

First of all, it's worth noting that this speculation is based on complete and utter horsecrap. Here's an article from the Colorado Springs Gazette on the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division,

If U.S. Northern Command needs troops to respond to a national emergency, commanders now have 4,000 soldiers on alert to answer the call.

Northern Command at Peterson Air Force Base, which was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to coordinate the military response to everything from the aftermath of hurricanes to nuclear fallout, has relied primarily on part-time National Guard troops.

That changed last week with the Army announcing a full combat brigade will be on alert for the next year, ready to roll out nationwide. Despite conspiracy theories that this could be a first step toward martial law in the U.S., there won't be tanks on Main Street or active-duty troops putting down demonstrations. That is barred by federal law banning the military from being used on U.S. soil for domestic law enforcement.

Instead, the soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Ga., have been training to back up civilian authorities in providing medical care and dealing with chemical, biological, high explosive or nuclear attack.

...The brigade's commander, Col. Roger Cloutier, said his soldiers, recently returned from Ramadi, Iraq, are excited about being assigned to help in America.

...Cloutier said he's also drilling his troops on the rules they face when operating on American soil. His soldiers won't act as cops; other wartime Army tasks such as intelligence gathering are also forbidden in America.

And while the Army is used to being in the lead, on domestic missions, they'll be followers.

"We're in a support role to a lead federal agency," Cloutier said. "Every mission we do would be at the request of local and state officials."

In other words, we've got to impeach Bush immediately, in a bipartisan fashion, to stop him from implementing martial law across all 50 states with 4000 soldiers, who are, "barred by federal law...from being used on U.S. soil for domestic law enforcement."

What does it say about the American Left that this lunatic is considered a feminist icon, is published in many of the most prestigious liberal papers and magazines, and was even a consultant to Bill Clinton and Al Gore?

If you haven't listened to Right wing News Radio yet, you should do it right now! It's 30 minutes of my talking about the debate, how McCain should change his strategy, the political landscape, racism, the Pickens plan, and more. Don't miss it!

Today is Q&A Friday #95 at RWN.

So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about just about anything: politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective, movies, music, literature, or TV. Then today, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.

Ask away!

PS: My co-blogger, Dr. Melissa Clouthier, said it might be fun to answer a couple of questions as well. So, if you have any questions for her, feel free to fire away.

"You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." -- Barack Obama

"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they're charging a lot of money for this stuff." -- Barack Obama

"...I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment -- this was the time -- when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals." -- Barack Obama

"I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." -- Barack Obama

"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a (flag) pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest..." -- Barack Obama

"And if that child should ever get the chance to travel the world and someone should ask her where is she from, we believe that she should always be able to hold her head high with pride in her voice when she answers, 'I am an American.'

That is the course we seek. That is the change we are calling for." -- Barack Obama

"America is ..., uh, is no longer, uh ... what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don't want that future for my children." -- Barack Obama

"I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though. ..." -- Barack Obama

"Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. Except the highs hadn't been about that, me trying to prove what a down brother I was. Not by then, anyway. I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory. I had discovered that it didn't make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmate's sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you'd met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl. ...You might just be bored, or alone. Everybody was welcome into the club of disaffection." -- Barack Obama

"...I inhaled frequently. That was the point." -- Barack Obama

"I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying." -- Barack Obama

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations." -- Barack Obama

"Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." -- Obama's website

"...I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- Barack Obama

"Rick Warren: ...Now, let's deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?"

Barack Obama: "Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." -- Barack Obama

"Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go." -- Barack Obama

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen." -- Barack Obama

"As Sen. Hillary Clinton was preparing to campaign here today, Sen. Barack Obama was meeting with voters at a diner and apparently pretty hungry.

'Why can't I just eat my waffle?' he said, when asked a foreign policy question by a reporter at the Glider Diner." -- Barack Obama

"In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school, two years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies." -- Barack Obama

"Let's not play games. I was suggesting - you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith." -- Barack Obama

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling conventions. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.

But this strategy alone couldn't provide the distance I wanted, from Joyce or my past. After all, there were thousands of so-called campus radicals, most of them white and tenured and happily tolerant. No, it remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names." -- Barack Obama

"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: (White) People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time." -- Barack Obama

"That's just how white folks will do you. It wasn't merely the cruelty involved; I was learning that black people could be mean and then some. It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn't know that they were being cruel in the first place. Or at least thought you deserving of their scorn." -- Barack Obama

"It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere...That's the world! On which hope sits!" -- Barack Obama

"Nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky." -- Barack Obama

"I don't believe it is possible to transcend race in this country. Race is a factor in this society. The legacy of Jim Crow and slavery has not gone away." -- Barack Obama

"I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." -- Barack Obama

"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person..." -- Barack Obama

Although the liberal media would like us to think it's relevant that Sarah Palin's husband once belonged to the Alaska Independence Party, it remains to be seen whether it will show any interest in recent revelations that Barack Obama — who unlike Todd Palin is running for office — was a member of the ultra-left New Party. From Politically Drunk on Power:

After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.

On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.

From the New Party's October 1996 Update:

Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).

More, from a November 1996 Progressive Populist article:

New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.

From a 1996 DSA newsletter, under the heading of New Party Update:

[T]he NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. […] Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.

The DSA and its New Party were socialist in the same sense as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics — i.e., they were communists, reviled as extreme even by the Green Party. From American Thinker:

The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within.

That sounds like the Obama/Ayers strategy, all right.

Now the New Party has joined the huge crowd under Obama's bus. There are enough skeletons under there already to keep journalists busy for years, should they ever develop a sense of curiosity.

On tips from Cheetah, V the K, J, and rrobin. Hat tips: NewsBusters, Nice Deb, Ace of Spades HQ. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Sarah Palin inspires vitriol for many reasons among the smug knobby-headed class. The latest unguarded moment came courtesy David Brooks who called Sarah Palin a "cancer on the party" to a group of writers from The Atlantic. (As AllahPundit points out, this outburst is a lot like Peggy Noonan's opinion, also caught in an unguarded moment. And, of course, it differs little from Barack Obama's "gun clinging" comment.)

Why do they dislike her so?

1. Her state school education and path to power devalues the elite's Harvard training.


2. She's homespun. Intellectuals despise homespun. They prefer the calculated indifference they've worked so hard to master over the years.


3. Sarah doesn't seem to care what they think. Perhaps her most grievous error is that she just doesn't give a moose turd what David Brooks thinks. Everyone should care what David Brooks thinks. And Peggy Noonan. And the rest of the obnoxious snobs.

The elites have no feedback loop and that's the problem.

Sarah Palin ain't dense. I don't think she's even anti-intellectual. I think she's smart, actually, and not just politically--in that scrappy, street-smart way. She strikes me as above-average smart. What she has, though, is an understanding of how the theories of DC affect the real person who works, raises a family, and lives a life. She has the feedback loop.

When a person has spent his whole life living theoretically, a person who lives real makes him feel insecure. The DC elites are no different than the actors in Hollywood. No wonder they all pal around together. At a certain point, their lack of concrete contributions and endless pontifications sounds hollow and empty. They want their lives to have meaning so they inflate their contributions in their own minds. No one dissuades them of the notion because they hang around people just like them.

This divide isn't a matter of Republican or Democrat, or even smart or stupid (because I don't think anyone is making the argument that Brad Pitt is a genius). The divide is a matter of ideas only or ideas with context. The coastal elites have no context, but they have plenty of ideas of how those people who do should live their lives.

A soldier knows who he is and what his job is and the concrete value of it. A mother of a special needs child knows who she is and what her job is and the concrete value of it. A doctor knows who he is and what she does and the concrete value of it. A welder knows what he is and what he's making and the concrete value of it.

The fact is, America's founding fathers weren't just intellectuals. They were intellectuals who were grounded in real world experience. They had farms or businesses or were inventors or something. The sum total of their intellectual contributions were so profound because the ideas were rooted in an understanding of human nature and the real world.

Sarah Palin comes to the national scene as a business woman, mother and real person who experienced how Washington, D.C. ideas affect life. She has substance while the DC set theorizes. I don't get the sense that Palin is anti-intellectual, so much as she's pro-common sense. Intellectual means nothing if the ideas stink and produce unintended destructive consequences.

In order to have the healthy dose of sense, though, a person must see an idea through to fruition and live with the results. Most DC insiders, intellectuals and Hollywood elites don't have to worry about living personally with the results of their ideas--they will be fine economically and personally no matter how things turn out. They have no feedback loop. Sarah Palin has risen to power and been educated in a most interesting way--she knows the power of government to harm and seeks to limit that power.

It's no wonder the elites are so threatened.

Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com

Britain shows us that socialism works as efficiently in housing as it does in everything else:

Mother-of-seven Toorpakai Saiedi, 35, receives £170,000 a year in benefits — a staggering £150,000 of which is paid to a private landlord for the rent of their seven-bedroom house in West London.

The detached property in Acton has two large reception rooms, two kitchens, a dining room and a 100ft garden.

Ealing Council is picking up the £12,458 a month bill — which is nearly five times the rent for a similar property in the same road.

It's not all roses for Toorpakai, an Afghan asylum seeker whose estranged husband drives a taxi. Her son Jawad complains:

Some of the rooms in England we would not even put our chickens in because they are so small.

Jawad is a student who admits to spending most of his time driving around or playing snooker. He's philosophical about the fairness of living like royalty on the backs of British taxpayers:

When the council chose to put us here we did not say no. If someone gave you a lottery jackpot would you leave it?

But society's ability to pay out housing jackpots to parasites is limited — as Americans have already learned thanks to the subprime crisis that is crippling our economy.

On a tip from Lyle. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Brigitte Gabriel, author of the bestseller, "They Must be Stopped," and founder of ACT! For America, was gracious enough to take some time to talk to me about her book, which was published just last month.

Favazza: Your book outlines some of the ways in which the Muslim Brotherhood plans to establish an Islamic government in North America and implement Sharia law. In their efforts to implement this plan, what has been the most damaging effect thus far--and what is the single most dangerous effect to come?

Gabriel: One of the most damaging effects of the implementation of the Muslim Brotherhood project is the slow islamization of the west in the name of multi-culturalism, tolerance, and diversity. The Muslim Brotherhood has crafted a master piece of a plan to infiltrate and dominate the West and "establish an Islamic government on earth." The plan was written in 1982 and since then we can see how far they have advanced just by looking at Europe and how the continent has morphed in the last 30 years from Europe into becoming Eurabia.

The Muslim Brotherhood project is unusual because it includes methods other than violence to implement cultural Jihad. This plan relies on the non-Muslim population to unsuspectingly endorse and embrace it in the name of multiculturalism and freedom of religion.

Just two weeks ago Sharia law became officially recognized Islamic court governing Islamic affairs in England parallel to British courts. The Muslims were able to do that without even having to go to war with Britain. As a result of the implementation of this Sharia Islamic court, British Muslim girls now can get married off at the age of 9 years old. Women can be beaten, raped, and even killed in the name of honor in Britain in the 21st century. We are seeing the acceptance of pedophilia in the name of religion. We are seeing the allowance of rape, physical abuse, and in some cases death in the Islamic communities in Britain be allowed in the name of multiculturalism and tolerance.

What is frightening is this type of infiltration is becoming a reality not only in Britain but also in the United States. Who would have thought that sharia would come to Harvard University, which in 2007 regulated "women-only" gym hours. An Imam in Des Moines, Iowa, gave an opening prayer at the 2008 Iowa legislative session, in which he called on Allah to "give us victory over those who disbelieve" - meaning victory over us "Infidels." Muslim taxi drivers in Minnesota are refusing to pick up passengers carrying alcohol. The first Islamic public school (Khalil Gibran Academy) in New York opened in Sharia law operate in many parts of the United States. American colleges are designating Islamic prayer rooms on college campuses for use by Muslims only. These are only few examples of what I see as a cultural Jihad in America. This situation is becoming so worrisome because this is exactly how Islam started spreading in Europe until the Europeans have resigned to accept that Islam is dominating the continent to the point where Sharia law is now operating in Europe. The archbishop of canterberry wasn't so far off when he said earlier this year that Sharia law is inevitable in England. If we do not wake up here in America , Sharia law will be coming to a neighborhood near you.

Favazza: Why are madrassas a threat to the safety and security of the United States and the world at large? What damaging behaviors and ideals are taught in these Saudi-funded schools?

Gabriel: The world now faces a new generation of students being indoctrinated into hate. We are witnessing the making of an Islamonazi army filled with hatred and intolerance to anything non Muslim being indoctrinated in madrassas all over the world. Madrassa in Arabic means "school," and throughout the centuries it has come to mean an Islamic school of learning. Madrassas are connected to their local mosque and incorporate secular subjects along with Islamic studies. Since 1973, wealth from oil revenues has allowed the Saudis to spread their totalitarian Sunni Wahhabi beliefs throughout the world by financing Islamic madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere.

Besides the teachings of the Koran and Hadith, Saudi madrassas notably teach hatred and condemnation of the West, non-Muslims and Shiite Muslims as part of their history curriculum. These books are provided by the government of Saudi Arabia to Islamic madrassas all over the world. Here is just a couple of examples of the material found in these books: from an eighth-grade textbook: "As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath: while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the Communion of Jesus."

From a ninth-grade textbook: "The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them."

This type of propaganda fosters an environment of hate, loathing and resentment toward Western culture, Christians, and Jews, Shiites, secular Muslims and non-Muslims. Saudi textbooks frequently quote verses from the Koran or Hadith that condemn non-Muslims, especially Christians and Jews. In many instances, the verse will direct the reader to commit murder in the name of Allah. There are approximately 25,000 public schools in Saudi Arabia, which accommodate 5 million youth. In addition, there are roughly 225 Islamic madrassas registered in the United States. There are also Islamic madrassas in nineteen world capitals.

How do you expect a child raised on this steady diet of hatred, violence and intolerance of non Muslims to grow up and respect western democracy and be tolerant of other people, faiths, and cultures?

Favazza: How are public schools in America getting away with teaching Islam, when those same schools are often the very ones banning prayer or religious jewelry?

Gabriel: Pressure groups, both Muslims and allied leftists and multiculturalists, manipulate nervous publishers who bow to the God of diversity and multiculturalism and rely more heavily on diversity experts than on trustworthy scholarship.

Susan Douglas, among few others are provided by the Council on Islamic education as consultants in Islamic studies for American public schools to top publishers of schools books. Ms. Douglas, taught social studies at the Islamic Saudi Academy (ISA) in Alexandra, Virginia, until 2003 (Usama Amer, Douglas's husband, also taught at the Islamic Saudi Academy). Douglas now edits middle and high school world history textbooks and acts as an advisor to state education boards on curriculum standards concerning Islam in world religion studies. Douglas has also trained thousands of school teachers in classroom preparation of Islamic studies in elementary and high schools and universities. Now, there's a case of the fox guarding the henhouse.

The Islam Project, written by the Council on Islamic Education (CIE) and the Islamic Society of North America, is an initiative in the United States public middle and high schools that incorporate all aspects of Islam--religious, social, spiritual and political.

The Council on Islamic Education is frequently consulted by major U.S. publishers of world history and geography school books for grades K to 12. Houghton Mifflin, McGraw-Hill and Prentice Hall are the three main publishers of world history texts in the United States.

Da'wa is one of the main tools listed in the Muslim Brotherhood's plan to dominate America. The website (www.DawaNet.com) includes a section called "How to Make America an Islamic Nation." Another page entitled "Da'wa in Public Schools" describes the school environment as "fertile grounds where the seeds of Islam can be sowed inside the hearts of the non-Muslim student."

The American public has been asleep not paying attention how far the multiculturalists have influenced our public school system. We must wake up now before it is too late. This is why I titled my book They Must Be Stopped!

Favazza: Why are American taxpayers funding Islam classes in charter schools?

Gabriel: Most Americans do not have a clue that this is taking place. This is why I am exposing what is happening in the hopes that Americans will rise and stop the insanity. I give many examples in the book about some of these schools and how they are supporting terrorism using tax dollars. One example is the Islamic Academy of Florida, a private school for grades one through twelve, in Tampa Bay. In 2003 the academy received more than $350,000 worth of taxpayer-funded school vouchers to help underprivileged children attend their school. In the same year a federal grand jury in Tampa issued a fifty-count indictment against the academy for being an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The indictment claimed the academy was helping support the Palestinian Islamic Jihad by raising funds through school vouchers and fundraisers.

The Islamic Academy of Florida and others mentioned in the book are prime examples of Islamic terrorists and their associates operating right under our noses. The amazing thing is that taxpayers were unintentionally funding the overseas murders of innocent citizens, including Americans. Worried about the War on Terror overseas? With 225-plus registered Islamic schools in the United States, we better start scrutinizing these schools, their books, and operations, as well as their leadership and their associations with terrorist organizations.

Favazza: In your book, you cite the Prophet Mohammed discussing "the deficiency of a woman's mind" and how most of the inhabitants of Hell are female. If you could share only one piece of advice with an Islamic woman searching for hope, what would you tell her?

Gabriel: I would tell her that God, however she defines who God is, the creator of heaven and earth, infinite intelligence, have created her perfect and in his image and blessed her with the same intelligence and ability as a man to accomplish and change the world. The creator made us so different in such a beautiful way so we as women and men can complement each other and be an extension of each other to make a perfect wholesome unit with unlimited ability both contributing in our own way to make a perfect life and fill the earth.

She as a Muslim woman can hold on to hope and just look at how far Western women have come fighting for their rights and getting organized. Women have gone up to the moon, lead armies, became prime ministers and presidents. They have done it all by holding on to hope and getting organized and proving that women are just as capable as men. We women of the West, are doing everything we can to expose the plight of women under Islam and asking our governments to put pressures on those oppressing you to stop it.

Favazza: What are the best steps Americans can take to preserve our freedom and way of life?

Gabriel: History reveals very clearly that the apathetic give way to the passionate and the complacent are subdued by the committed. We must get organized and have the same passion to fight for our freedom as our enemy has to destroy our freedoms. This is why I founded ACT! For America. ACT for America.org is mobilizing people all over the country and giving them the tools to resist the Islamic infiltration in our society on every level: schools, government, universities and corporations. We now have over 200 chapters across America and tens of thousands of members.

We are now conducting "Citizens Action Training" seminars all over the country to give people the tools and knowledge to mobilize effectively.

We just launched our congressional score cards and voter education project. We keep tabs on bills we consider important to our national security and the threat of Islamofascism. We research how each congressman and senator votes on these bills. In this very important upcoming election we want to make sure every American knows exactly how their elected officials voted. Our motto at ACT for America is: If our elected officials are not going to see the light we are going to make them feel the heat!" The American public is watching them and taking notes.

I encourage every person reading this interview to go to our website (www.actforamerica.org) and join us in taking back America and protecting our nation.

Favazza: As a stable, safe Iraq becomes a realistic achievement, how can America make the most of its newest ally?

Gabriel: America must insure that it exhibits enough long term strength to convince the terrorists who wish to destroy the peace there that we mean business and we are going to apply whatever force necessary to defeat our enemy and the enemies of peace.

We must convince the Iraqi people as well as the government that America is committed to standing with them to establish stability in Iraq and that we will work with them in defending that stability until the Iraqi people are strong enough to do it on their own.

We also must implement long term educational strategy starting with elementary schools all the way to the colleges teaching about western democracy, human rights and individual freedom. We must show hands on democracy and education in action so that the new generation of Iraqis will experience what people can do when they are given the opportunity to function freely and become all they can be.

We also must insure that radical Imams teaching violence in mosques are kept in check by the Iraqi government. This is going to be one of our main challenges to see that a new generation of young Iraqis do not get indoctrinated into hatred through religious institutions.

We must commit to helping Iraqi woman secure an education and some rights even under an Islamic government. Women are the back bone of society. You free women and give them opportunity and you will get a society that is more tolerant, educated with peace as one of its most important goals.

Cross-posted at Examiner.com and KatieFavazza.com.

Via Michelle Malkin, Lufkin paper reports:

A Lufkin woman received a surprise visit from the Secret Service last week because of a "death threat" comment she reportedly made about Sen. Barack Obama to a campaign volunteer asking for her support of the presidential candidate.

Two federal agents arrived at Jessica Hughes' home Thursday to ask her if she said, "I will never support Obama and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor."

Hughes said her words were deliberately twisted by a volunteer who was apparently unhappy Hughes was rude during a phone conversation the two had. The Lufkin mother, a Republican, said she received a call on her cell phone Wednesday from a woman with the Obama Volunteers of Texarkana.

"She asked if I was an Obama supporter, to which I replied, 'No, I don't support him. Your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the state Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you should find something better to do with your time.' (And then) I hung up."

(Hughes is referring to a "born alive" Illinois bill that did not pass in the Illinois state Senate in 2005 and had previously been opposed by Obama because he said it undermined Roe v. Wade, according to FactCheck.org, a non-partisan organization. A federal version of the bill, which Obama said he would have supported, passed by unanimous consent and was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002.)

The Obama campaign seems strangely sensitive and quick to use the long arm of the law when their feathers are ruffled. Can you imagine the power of the Attorney General in an Obama administration?

McCain should come out with his Cabinet, so people would know who would do what. That would put pressure on Obama to do the same. The information would certainly give people more of an idea of which administration would work for him.

Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com where I am trying to keep some perspective on this whole election.

And look how it has manifested itself this time:

Nebraska's "safe haven" law, intended to allow parents to anonymously hand over an infant to a hospital without being prosecuted, isn't working out as planned.

Got that? Key word "intended". In fact, they intended to put a 72 hour limit on the age of the infant. But they didn't:

When it was introduced in the Legislature, the bill had a presumed age limitation of 72 hours, said Todd Landry, director of the state's Division of Children and Family Services.

"The original intent was to protect infants from the immediate danger of being harmed," he said.

However, the law's final language uses the word "child" and does not specify an age limit, leaving it open to interpretation. Other states' laws specify the maximum age at which a child may be relinquished, ranging from 72 hours in several states to 1 year in North Dakota, according to the National Center for State Courts.

And, of course, we all know the definition of "child" has it's age expanded all the time (see the SCHIP nonsense where the law tried to expand "child" to age 23).

The unintended consequence?

Frustrated parents are dumping their teenagers at Nebraska hospitals -- even crossing state lines to do it -- and the state Legislature has scheduled a special hearing to try to stem the tide.

[...]

Of the 17 children relinquished since the law took effect in July, only four are younger than 10 -- and all four are among the nine siblings abandoned by a man September 24 at an Omaha hospital.

On Tuesday, a 14-year-old girl from Council Bluffs, Iowa, was abandoned at Creighton University Medical Center in Omaha, Nebraska, just across the Missouri River from Council Bluffs.

Kind of reminds you of the sex education bill Obama "intended" only to teach kindergardners about improper touching. Or even the social policy Congress intended to to expand homeownership by forcing banks to loan to marginal applicants.

Why we trust government with much of anything is beyond me.

Oh, I know - let's hand them our health care too!

[Crossposted at QandO]

Conservatives, liberals, and independents tend to have a different view of the world and all too often, pundits on the right and left end up preaching to the choir instead of putting out columns that make good sense to people who don't necessarily share our political views.

So today, I'd like to do something a little differently: I'd like to explain to the independents out there why they should want John McCain in the White House next year instead of Barack Obama.

Since most independents would probably acknowledge that McCain is more experienced than Obama, is more capable of handling a crisis, and has proven his bona fides as a bipartisan reformer, there's no need to go back over that well-traveled ground. However, what I would like to point out is that,

As Forrest Gump would say, (Obama is) "like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get:" Paradoxically, one of the things that has helped Obama immeasurably is that his legislative record is so sparse that he has been able to simultaneously portray himself as different things to different groups of people.

All at once, he has been a doctrinaire liberal and a moderate, a radical anti-war candidate and a man who takes a pragmatic approach to foreign affairs, and a bipartisan senator who loves to reach across the aisle as well as a bitter partisan infighter who loves to fight Republicans. So, however you slice it, large numbers of Americans are destined to feel like they were misled when Barack Obama gets into office.

Who are those Americans going to be? I'd suggest that they're the people buying into the image of Barack Obama as some sort of reasonable, bipartisan moderate. If you judge Obama by his record (what there is of it), as opposed to campaign rhetoric, you'll find a candidate who is every bit as far to the left as Rush Limbaugh is to the right.

As Sarah Palin has said, this is a man who has been "palling around with terrorists" like Bill Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn. He spent 20 years going to a radical, anti-white, anti-American church. He had the most liberal voting record in the entire Senate in 2007. In other words, this is a man who is comfortable on the farthest fringes of the American Left. Combine his radical views, his stunning lack of experience, and the rapidly shifting promises he has made during the campaign and it's extremely hard to predict exactly what he'd do and how far he would go if he gets into office. Given what we know about Obama, it would be far less risky to hand a teenage boy a bottle of whiskey and your car keys than it would be to hand Barack Obama the keys to the White House.

Giving the far Left your power of attorney, your pin number, and the keys to your house: Because our Founding Fathers designed a system of checks and balances to keep different branches of government from getting out of control, we don't typically have radical shifts in D.C. Usually different parties control the different branches of government or alternately, bad legislation can be stopped in the Senate, where the minority party has a lot of power.

Unfortunately, because the Republican Party in general and George Bush in particular have done such a lousy job over the last four years, the Democrats are going to have huge majorities in the House and Senate after the 2008 election and so if Obama gets in as well, the Democrats will essentially have carte blanche to do almost anything they want for at least two years.

Put another way, you may not like John McCain or the Republicans in Congress very much, but are you really willing to give Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama a blank check for the next two years? That's the situation we'll have if Barack Obama gets into office and it's why independent Americans who fear having the country radically shifted to the left would be wise to vote for John McCain.

"It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it": Americans are sick and tired of spending our blood and treasure in Iraq -- and that's perfectly understandable. However, given all the money we've spent, the sacrifices our troops have made, the enormous importance of the conflict in the war on terror, and the staggering potential consequences if we lose (genocide, regional war), doesn't it make sense to make sure that we win?

Granted, because of the surge, which McCain supported and Obama opposed, the situation in Iraq has improved immeasurably. In fact, it has gotten so much better that it's not completely out of the question that Barack Obama could guide us to victory there. However, as Sarah Palin said of him,

"This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign."

Four years from now, it's unlikely that the United States is going to be taking significant numbers of casualties in Iraq or spending more than a fraction of what we do there today -- and that's no matter who the President may be. Since that's the case, shouldn't we at least be sure that we emerge victorious?

Come hell or high water, John McCain will do what it takes to win. He has essentially staked his entire political reputation on it. But, Barack Obama? The word "victory" never crosses his lips and he's setting a timeline that has the potential to hand over a war our troops have almost won to our enemies. If the American people allow politicians in Washington to steal a victory from our troops at this point, then future generations of Americans can and should damn us as utter fools.

Throwing good money after bad: The most disturbing thing about the 700 billion dollar bailout is not the fact that it rewards bad behavior, that it apparently didn't fix the problem, and that it dramatically increased the size of our national debt -- although those are all reasons the bailout should be condemned.

No, the biggest problem with the bailout is actually that Democrats in Congress, Barack Obama included, are refusing to acknowledge the root cause of the bailout, even though it's so obvious that they're doing skits about it on Saturday Night Live.

If Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress to demand that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac give loans to bad risks in the name of "affordable housing," then we're going to be right back in the same place, bailing these banks out again in a few more years. In other words, if you want the exact same people in Congress who created the current bailout mess to create another one we're going to have to pay for somehow in five years, vote Barack Obama into office and that may be exactly what we get.

We don't have a debt because Washington doesn't tax enough; we have a debt because Washington spends too much: Many people have noted that the budget was balanced under Bill Clinton, but rocketed upwards under Reagan and George W. Bush. If you only have a superficial understanding of politics, that doesn't seem to make sense. After all, isn't it the Democrats who always want to hand out goodies while the Republicans always talk about fiscal responsibility?

Here's the little secret that explains that: primarily it is Congress, not the President, that ends up driving the size of the budget. So, folks, if we have more bailouts coming up in 2009 (and we do), the current group of Democratic big spenders in Congress adds to their margins (and they will), and Barack Obama, who is planning nearly a trillion dollars in new spending gets in, the deficit will take off like a space shuttle.

On the other hand, John McCain isn't a big spender. To the contrary, his reputation as a fiscal conservative has been one of the primary things that has kept conservatives on board who have disagreed with him on a host of other issues. Furthermore, John McCain wants to put an end to earmarks, has proposed a spending freeze, and has even set a goal of balancing the budget by 2012.

Now, honest question: since we're putting our children's financial future on the line -- who do you think will do a better job of controlling spending under those circumstances? Here's a hint: it isn't the guy who wants to spend enough to bankrupt 57 states.

Looking at the last 10 national polls or so, the real numbers are probably something very close to Obama 48 vs. McCain 43. The undecided voters will probably break towards McCain at a better than even rate, but to have a chance, McCain needs to close that gap significantly in October. In other words, he needs to hold Obama in place or pull him down a point or two, while raising his own numbers 4-5 points. That's a tall order, but not impossible.

Chris Muir the famous web cartoonist offers this bitter pill to leftists today:

As a side note, since my specialty is preventative medicine, I would recommend no pills. A little red meat for the brain-addled vegans might be helpful, though. They invariably vote Democrat and it could all be cured with a good B-complex. With the lack of nutrition, it's no wonder the Left is so fearful and jittery. It's just bad biochemistry.

And that little feeble attempt at humor is going to get me a load of hate mail. Don't mess with vegans.

Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com

Question: "Is healthcare a "right" or a "responsibility"? -- rrobin

Answer: There is no such thing as a "right" that other people have to pay for. That's why food, shelter, education, and healthcare aren't "rights."

If we are foolish enough as a society to ever start treating healthcare as a "right," there will be no end to the number of other "rights" that are currently taken care of through the free market that will have be taken over by the government and provided for by the taxpayers.

Now, as a society, do we have a duty to make those things available to members of our society who live in a responsible way? Yes.

By that, I mean, we couldn't call ourselves a prosperous, decent society if only the rich could educate their children or afford healthcare. However, I'd also add that I think we should expect people to take responsibility for their own lives.

If you're 21 years old and would rather buy a big screen TV than get health care for 6 months, that may work out fine for you, but, don't complain if you have some bad luck and it doesn't.

PS: I am generally in favor of the sort of system John McCain proposes, although I'm not so sure about the details in his plan. What we need to do is give tax credits to individuals for their health care, instead of to companies.

That would enable us to cover a lot more people, make it so that you don't lose your healthcare when you lose your job, and it would be much cheaper, capitalistic, affordable, and easier to implement than the disastrous socialized medicine the Democrats are pushing.

Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:

A Big Victory: Why I hate this election

Holy Moly: Video: The obligatory surprisingly awesome remake of A-Ha's "Take On Me."

Boston Globe: Awesome "earth from above" pics

Popoholic: Angela Lindvall in a bikini

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!

PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.

Question: "If you could enact a single piece of legislation, for the sole purpose of streamlining/improving the way Congress as a whole functions, what would it be?" -- Good_Ol_Boy

Answer: Term limits, term limits, and term limits. It's more important than a balanced budget amendment, a fair tax, or any other piece of legislation you can name.

That's because as long as Congress is primarily composed of people who look at their job as a posh career with wonderful benefits instead of a way to best serve their country, DC will remain a cesspool.

This excerpt from Rasmussen Reports helps explain the problem,

(M)ore than 90% of Congress is likely to be elected this November due to an electoral system designed to benefit incumbents. The biggest advantage offered those in the House of Representatives is a process known as Gerrymandering where Congressional Districts are loaded with friendly voters from Representative's own party. In effect, Members of Congress--working through their state legislature--get to choose their voters rather than letting voters choose their Congressman.

Also aiding incumbents is high name recognition from news coverage, large staffs funded by taxpayers, and other perks. While the staff positions are technically excluded from politics, the constituent services they provide in a Congressman's name are among the most effective of all campaign techniques.

...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.

Our current system is heavily weighted towards incumbents. Can they still lose? Absolutely -- and they do. But, it's like starting a basketball game with one team ahead by 20 every time. Will they win every time? No, but they have such a huge advantage it's going to be difficult to overcome unless they make a huge mistake.

Moreover, if you want to know why it's so impossible to get Congress to implement even the most common sense reforms, it's because they're usually willing to do things that they know are bad for the country to help protect their jobs.

Until we get a majority of Republicans and Democrats in Congress whose first priority is serving this country instead of feathering their nests, I fear that it will be difficult to get our country back on the right track.

Apparently the Left's messiah doesn't want to wait to be elected before throwing a monkey wrench into our foreign policy:

At the same time the Bush administration was negotiating a still elusive agreement to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders in private conversations that the president shouldn't be allowed to enact the deal without congressional approval.

Mr. Obama's conversations with the Iraqi leaders, confirmed to The Washington Times by his campaign aides, began just two weeks after he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination in June and stirred controversy over the appropriateness of a White House candidate's contacts with foreign governments while the sitting president is conducting a war. […] Iraqi leaders purported to The Times that Mr. Obama urged Baghdad to delay an agreement with Mr. Bush until next year when a new president will be in office — a charge the Democratic campaign denies.

But as noted earlier:

A recent article in the New York Post quoted [Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar] Zebari as saying that Mr. Obama asked Iraqi leaders in July to delay any agreement on a reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq until the next U.S. president takes office.

If we would just enforce the Logan Act, which makes it a felony for unauthorized citizens to negotiate with foreign governments, it would save American strategic interests from the train wreck that awaits us if this punk is actually put in office.

On a tip from nanc. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Question: "Why is there a PETA ad linked from the right-hand frame of RWN?" -- jimb123

Answer: I've actually been meaning to write a post about this, so now is as good a time as any to do it.

First off, long time readers of RWN know that if people are willing to pay me to run ads, I'll happily run their ad whether I agree with their cause or not. That's not to say that I don't ever turn anything down -- I've actually turned down 4-5 ads over the years. I don't remember each and every one, but two of them I turned down because I thought they were racist and one I remember giving a no-go to because I thought it was homophobic. I've also temporarily pulled some ads -- and had the advertiser redo them if they wanted them to run on RWN -- because I believed they were over-the-line in some fashion or another.

Anyway, not everyone agrees with that approach, but...

#1) I make a living off of this, so I don't think I can afford to turn down too many ads.

#2) I am a capitalist and I love the idea of getting paid money by people who don't agree with me. Better the money be spent to support a conservative blogger than to fund some left-wing cause.

#3) Honestly, I don't think money from groups I don't agree with is well spent at RWN. There are not a lot of my readers who are going to support some liberal cause just because they run ads on RWN.

That brings me to the PETA ad, as well as the ad for "W," the T. Boone Pickens Plan, and the tips to fight global warming.

I think PETA is a group of dangerous, animal rights wack jobs. I don't think the T. Boone Pickens plan is viable (although I have an open mind on the issue and am trying to get an interview with him so he can convince me I am wrong), and I think that global warming alarmism is silly.

So, why are all of these left-wing groups (and T. Boone Pickens) advertising on RWN right now? My best guess is that the left wing groups are all excited right now and flush with cash because of the election, so they have advertising budgets big enough to even reach out to conservative websites.

Now, the PETA ad in particular I think bellies right up to the line. It's definitely a gross looking ad from a group with a bizarre agenda. However, I don't think PETA is worse than say, the UN (which I really thought hard about running spots for), and while their ad is grotesque, I don't think it's so over-the-line that it shouldn't be allowed on the blog.

That's why I am running the PETA ad and the ads from some of the other left-of-center causes that you're seeing on RWN...

Having the media behind it has encouraged the Obama campaign to take the Audacity of Hype to appalling extremes of arrogance. Obama's Fight the Smears site even denies that BHO worked for the Radical Left vote fraud outfit ACORN, even though it is public knowledge that he was a top trainer for ACORN brownshirts (or rather, redshirts), and represented them as a lawyer as part of their campaign to force banks to make mortgage loans based on race instead of ability to repay — a contributing factor to the subprime meltdown that led directly to the current economic crisis.

But look what the Obamunists failed to stuff down the memory hole:

The picture above comes via the Cleveland Leader, which reports:

Attempts to hide evidence of Obama's involvement with ACORN have included wiping the web clean of potentially damaging articles that had appeared, and were previously publicly accessible. Unfortunately, those behind the attempted cover-up failed to realize that in today's day and age, nothing disappears forever. There also exists another layer of the web, the hidden web, which is full of information included in proprietary scholarly databases where these very same "missing" articles can be easily uncovered.

Digging into the hidden web, the Leader retrieved an article published in the journal Social Policy by ACORN honcho Toni Foulkes, from which it quotes:

Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar (the name of the Republican governor at the time) and we won. Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them).

Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends.

Social Policy recently scrubbed this article from its website. You have to wonder what else will be scrubbed from the historical record if the Hard Left's messiah and his glassy-eyed acolytes manage to take control of not just the mainstream press, but the government.

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit; on a tip from Burning Hot. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.