Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Hillary redneck rejects First Arab President of U.S.

As Jeff Foxworthy says, if your mama can cuss out a Highway Patrolman without taking the cigarette outa her mouth, she might be a redneck. Out here in bitter, backwoods, redneck country, I know some ol' gals like this one. She probably wouldn't make a good President, but she ain't no fool. She knows an Arab when she sees one and she don't want no Barack Hussein Obama for her President! Me neither.

Redneck Woman Rails on Obama - Watch more free videos

Mary Katharine Ham on Ed Morrisey Show

Watch my beautiful young friend Mary Katharine Ham on the Ed Morrisey show talk about the bailout, the presidential election, and her work at the Worldwide Standard! John Randall updates on all of the Senate races in the second half and talks about how you can help boost the NRSC.

Obama's change you can believe in -- or not

"Burning Down the House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis"

I posted this 10-minute video earlier but it got yanked for some lame excuse. Can't imagine who's behind that, can you? Here it is again. It's well worth 10 minutes of your time to watch it all.

Democrats cover up Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac scam

A Video Portrait of Barack Hussein Obama, "The One"

"I Invented The Internet, Episode 1: The Audacity." Lorne Baxter explores the life of Barack Hussein Obama, Jeremiah Wright and the theology behind it. Produced by Illuminati Pictures (www.nohussein.com). Music by Intelligentzia.

Obama plants an ACORN that blows up economy

Stanley Kurtz has been digging in Obama's skeleton closet in Chicago and looky what he found.

Obama goes kinder and gentler with attack ads

Getting tired of nasty campaign attack ads? Ready for a kinder, gentler type of attack ad? Here you go. (Courtesy of The Onion)

'Reinvesting' our economy to win an election

I don't know whether to cheer or jeer since the bailout/rescue bill went down in flames. Which is it anyway, a bailout or a rescue? If this mess just threatens Wall Street, so what? Ain't got no dog in that fight. But it's bigger than that and has already come to my street. The sweet wife and I have a home mortgage with Countrywide, a credit card with WaMu and 401K and retirement funds also being threatened.

But anything Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank are pushing can't be good, can it? Or is Nasty Nancy lying? I'm sure I saw her lips moving.

Nancy Pelosi's nasty rant about how President Bush and those evil Republicans got us into this mess is not only a lie, it's a DAMN LIE! And like Hitler's big lies that got us into WWII, I strongly suspect Broomhilda knew exactly what she was doing when she stepped to the podium just prior to the vote and torpedoed the bipartisan rescue bill. If it passed, John McCain would have benefitted and might win the election. But failure of the bill and worsening of the economy, according to conventional wisdom, will benefit Obama and the Democrats.

There's two possibilities here. Pelosi's either dumber than a box of rocks and can't count votes or she sabotaged the rescue intentionally.

Megan McArdle at The Atlantic votes for the stupid theory with a strong whiff of sabotage thrown in.

Pelosi cut a deal in which, as far as I can tell, every single Republican in a safe seat had to vote yes so that the Democrats could maximize their no votes. Given that the Republican caucus is pretty much in open revolt, this was beyond moronic. She then spent a week openly and repeatedly blaming the Republicans and the Bush administration for the current crisis. The way she set things up, it was "Heads I win, tails you lose": vote for the deal and I'll paint you as heartless reactionaries bailing out our fat cat friends. If you're going to do that, you'd better make sure you have some goddamn margin for error in your own party. She didn't. Then she got up and delivered yet another speech blaming the Republicans for the bailout deal she was about to pass.

The Washington Prowler at The American Spectator supports the sabotage theory with a side of stupidity at counting votes.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered her Majority Whip, Jim Clyburn, to essentially not do his job in the runup to the vote on Monday for the negotiated Wall Street bailout plan, according to House Democrat leadership aides.

"Clyburn was not whipping the votes you would have expected him to, in part because he was uncomfortable doing it, in part because we didn't want the push for votes to be successful," says one leadership aide. "All we needed was enough to potentially get us over the finish line, but we wanted the Republicans to be the ones to do it. This was not going to be a Democrat-passed bill if the Speaker had anything to say about it."

James Simpson at American Thinker says it's not stupidity, it's strategy and it's name is
The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis

In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress - with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?


One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.

I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent - the failure is deliberate. Don't laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.

Is Nancy Pelosi that nasty, that she would blow up the economy to win an election? Not only yes, but HELL YES! And so far the polls are confirming her low opinion of the voters' intelligence at understanding just who's trying to help and who's trying to hurt our economy.

And she's got the entire mainstream media blowing the same BS trumpet with her vs. a handful of us right-wing bloggers, but I gotta try.

The time bomb that went off on Wall Street goes back 31 years to our worst ex-president, good ol' Yellow Dog Democrat Jimmy Carter, was made worse by good ol' Democrat Bill Clinton in 1995 and has had its skids greased all along the way by the same Democrats who now loudly proclaim they're trying to "rescue" the economy, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and Co.

As usual in Congress, the bill that started it all had an innocent sounding name, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). In liberal lingo, an "investment" is a tax increase and "reinvestment" means robbing people who make money to bribe Democrat voters, also known as welfare.

Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media names the players on the scorecard in
Who caused “the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression?”

"The Community Reinvestment Act” (see here for more).

* The original Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law in 1977 by Jimmy Carter. Its purpose, in a nutshell, was to require banks to provide credit to “under-served populations,” i.e., those with poor credit.

The buzz word was “affordable mortgages,” e.g., mortgages with low teaser-rates, which required the borrower to put no money down, which required the borrower to pay only the interest for a set number of years, etc.

* In 1995, Bill Clinton’s administration made various changes to the CRA, increasing “access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities,” i.e., it provided for the securitization, i.e. public underwriting, of what everyone now calls “sub-prime mortgages.”

Bottom line? It forced banks to issue $1 trillion in sub-prime mortgages.

Ace quotes a "geek accountant" who explains in plain terms just how bad the mess we're in is and how much worse it could get - soon.

The accountant's poster name is Inspector Asshole, so get ready for some graphic talk. It's a bit rough, but so is this credit crisis.

They (these distressed assets) have to be shown on the balance sheet and marked down to marked down to market value. This means that suddenly, normally healthy companies have assets that actually have value, but have been artificially and temporarily valued at fucking zero goddamned dollars even if they bought them for several million. Even, and I want the market-valuation absolutists to read this very carefully - even when those assets are ownership of actual real property that have intrinsic worth. Due to this rule, the credit markets are being affected in a way that is not tied directly to the fact that loans were made to itinerant phrenologists and spastic mimes. Those were the root cause. The problem with valuation of these loan packages including defaulted mortgages is a fucking multiplier.

Let's put it this way - think of the "credit drain" and bad things as a military force. The CRA loans to carnies and strippers with Tourette's Syndrome is like a company of infantry - pretty impressive. The problem with marking down to market prices is like giving each sonofabich a Davey Crockett nuclear howitzer.

This means that through temporary and artificial means, a company that would say own 30,000 houses/shitty mortgages, all with $3K worth of salvagable copper in them that could be torn out and sold- that they bought for $3 million - suddenly don't have jack shit on their books. All of it is valued at zero because no one will buy it. That isn't a rumor - that is actually happening. Marking down to zero isn't done on a goddamned whim. It is documented. People/entities with these assets that have intrinsic value cannot label them on their balance sheets as what they paid for them - they must write that they are worthless.

This makes huge companies suddenly in dire straits. They may not be able to make payroll NEXT WEEK. A number of companies, who might be loaded with these, will fail.

This is because they suddenly have to book a loss - huge paper losses - that have no real relation to the situation over just the next three months.

Let me repeat - healthy companies will be unable to prove they own enough assets to float a loan. Past liabilities will be dishonored. This will spread within 21 to 30 days up and down the food chain. Each 2 weeks will result in larger and larger cycles of shrinkage of asset valuation, sudden outlays for demand notes, inability to meet payroll, layoffs, and cancellations (with penalties) of contracts.

Distribution networks would be among the first hit. I haven't gone further than that in my research. But right there, we're looking at some severe dislocation. Severe as in diabetics having to stock up on insulin.

This does have the possibility of being retardedly bad - think what would happen if 1/3rd of the train and truck traffic ceased. Stopped without notice.

The problem is systemic - not just to the credit market - it is systemic to how we do business between states. It is systemic as in "No Produce Scheduled Until Next Week" type signs in your Safeway.

If it doesn't get fixed in 2 weeks, by January some communities will be isolated due to no diesel for the road crews. In New York.

I'm not alone in smelling a rat in Pelosi's ill-timed rant. Wesley Pruden of The Washington Times smells it, too, and offers a female remedy plan. If a bad woman raised a stink to make this economic mess worse, a good woman just might be the answer in this trying hour.

Pruden speculates that the solution to this fine mess that Nasty Nancy seems determined to prolong is: A Job for the Right Woman

Perhaps her tantrum was not a tantrum at all, but a carefully orchestrated two-step to pay back John McCain for his attempt to get Barack Obama back to Washington, even if it meant postponing the Ole Miss debate (that neither man won), where together they could have twisted enough Republican and Democratic arms to win passage of the bailout that nobody wanted and nearly everybody agreed was necessary. If Mr. Obama had made common cause with Mr. McCain even after the debate in Mississippi, there might still have been enough time to make the difference.

Maybe that's what the Obama campaign wanted to avoid. The tears the Anointed One shed after the vote looked a lot like the tears of a crocodile. He even tried to be lighthearted, to show a little insouciance if not actual wit. (An insouciant Barack Obama? Who knew?) He's "confident" of a "solution," but "it's sort of like flying into Denver. You know you're going to land, but it's not always fun going over those mountains."

This sets up an opportunity, maybe the last good one, for John McCain to start burning barns. Who better to start it than Sarah Palin, the stubborn mom with true grit who so terrifies the Democratic left, to debate - in her own voice, unrestrained by the Nervous Nellies and Willie Wimps of the McCain camp who don't understand her Everywoman appeal - Joe Biden about what's real, about the prospect not of a recession but a depression, and the tough decisions ahead and the need for a maverick president with the experience of persuading partisan foes of making painful decisions.

Merely voting "present" won't do it. The people in all 57 states, clinging bitterly to God, guns and now to their life's savings, deserve nothing less.

Somebody needs to point out Nasty Nancy's "challenged" math. When 95 Democrats vote against their leaders' plan and 65 Republicans cross the aisle to vote for it, how does that equate to lack of GOP support killing the rescue bill? Sarah to the rescue is our best hope.

And if you're expecting Obama to come riding in to save the economy, don't bother. He's way too busy getting his dry cleaning done.

Obama said he was "working the phones" as part of his "long-distance encouragement" plan to save the economy right up until the vote went down in flames yesterday. He even had a speech written taking credit for the passage, but had to toss it and quickly change gears.

So today, we get a different tale. The New York Times today gives a totally different version about Obama's involvement in the rescue.

Aides to Mr. Obama said he had not directly reached out to try to sway any House Democrats who opposed the measure. But where Mr. McCain had accused Mr. Obama of taking a hands-off approach to the financial crisis, Democratic advisers said they believed that Mr. McCain now had a role in the legislation’s failure.

So if it had passed, Obama was ready to claim credit. But after it failed, he not only was not involved, it's all John McCain's fault. That's the biggest problem with being a liar. You have to remember the lies you told yesterday so today's lies won't conflict with yesterday's.

My beautiful friend Mary Katharine Ham cites the hypocrisy and lies of Obama, Pelosi, Barney Frank and the whole crowd of Democrats.

The man who's been assuring voters of his very serious weighing in by phone from the campaign trail...didn't actually pick up a phone. This is the real Obama. He is a leader of crowds, not crises.

This won't be a story, but it should be, and Republicans and McCain should point it out. The argument against Dems is the utter lack of competent leadership by Obama and Pelosi, not whining about a Pelosi speech.

Pelosi lost more than 12 of her fellow California Democrats, close friends and allies, and Committee chairs in this vote. Obama failed to take a public position on the vote or to convince any teetering Democrats with promises of a trip to their Districts or other help from the Messiah himself, losing Dems from the Chicago area and much of the Congressional Black Caucus with whom he could have had sway.

And yet, the guy who got his hands dirty, tried to make a few things happen, and didn't quite get the ball across the goal line is the one who takes the political heat for this. Which is why, as Bill Kristol and Dean Barnett have suggested, McCain may as well go all-out on the leadership front. It's where he's comfortable working, and where Obama will never dare to walk ahead of him.

Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi willfully ignored the impending crisis for years before they suddenly saw the light and were able to blame a politically palatable entity for it—Republican embrace of "unbridled" capitalism and deregulation. They too seem to have reaped the benefits of inaction, succeeding in pinning the blame on the markets they meddled with, letting their vulnerable members oppose an unpopular bill, and possibly getting a second run at a bailout bill filled with the pork they cut out the first time around.

In Washington, sometimes "leadership" ain't all its cracked up to be. But isn't the political windfall of inaction—conveniently kvetching without responsibility—usually a privilege reserved for the minority party? Pelosi and Co. seem to be enjoying it no matter the circumstances. Maybe that's the "change" Obama's been talking about bringing to Washington.

And speaking of "change" by Obama, Jonah Goldberg points out an amazing change in The One's view of the economy's "long-term fundamentals."

The man has spent two weeks irresponsibly excoriating his opponent for saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong -- a perfectly leaderly thing for McCain to have said during a panic. Then, campaigning in Colorado on Monday, the day the market plunged 777.68 points, Obama proclaimed: "We've got the long-term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows."

Amazing. The fella who kept agreeing with John McCain in the debate now agrees with McCain's upbeat comment on the economy. But now that McCain has engaged himself to deal with the credit crisis, suddenly Obama disavows that he had even "long-distance encouragement" involvement.

All this bad news, economic and political, is putting me in a personal depression as well as threatening an economic one. And then I read something that puts the troubles of this life into a little lighter perspective. Like death. Seriously. P.J. O'Rourke keeps his sense of humor.

I looked death in the face. All right, I didn't. I glimpsed him in a crowd. I've been diagnosed with cancer, of a very treatable kind. I'm told I have a 95% chance of survival. Come to think of it -- as a drinking, smoking, saturated-fat hound -- my chance of survival has been improved by cancer.

...I have, of all the inglorious things, a malignant hemorrhoid. What color bracelet does one wear for that? And where does one wear it? And what slogan is apropos? Perhaps that slogan can be sewn in needlepoint around the ruffle on a cover for my embarrassing little doughnut buttocks pillow.

Furthermore, I am a logical, sensible, pragmatic Republican, and my diagnosis came just weeks after Teddy Kennedy's. That he should have cancer of the brain, and I should have cancer of the ass ... well, I'll say a rosary for him and hope he has a laugh at me. After all, what would I do, ask God for a more dignified cancer? Pancreatic? Liver? Lung?

Now that's class. Any man who can keep a sense of humor even when cancer comes calling is my kind of man. Add P.J. to your prayers. And while you're on your knees, pray for our country, too, something along the lines of "God save us from the Democrats!"

Monday, September 29, 2008

Hillary tells the truth about Obama

Obama Mocks America's Christian Heritage

Noted Bible scholar Barack Obama explains that America is not a Christian nation. He learned well in his 20 years at the feet of the not-very-reverend Jeremiah Wright's "G-- D--- America!" pulpit.

Obama: Not Faithful to Our Military

A Marine mom speaks about Obama's shameful record on not supporting our troops at war.

Sarah Palin Better Than Barack Obama!

Great ad to get you warmed up for Sarah Palin's debate with Joe Biden on Thursday. I vote we just shuck Biden and go directly to Obama. Sarah could whip both of 'em without breaking a sweat.

Produced by Our Country Deserves Better PAC.

When a recession turns into a depression

Ronald Reagan "got it" when it came to understanding middle-class Americans because he was one. I think the best example of this was a comment Reagan made when asked if he thought the economy was in a recession back when he was President in the '80s. His reply was "A Recession is when your next door neighbor doesn't have a job. A Depression is when YOU don't have a job."

I gotta admit, the failure in the House to pass a rescue/bailout bill to end the current credit crisis has got me in a recession, heading toward a depression. I'm afraid too many Americans don't "get it" that this isn't about Wall Street so much as it's about Main Street. If we don't stop the bleeding on Wall Street, the folks on Main Street who are calling Congress opposing the "bailout" are going to regret it.

An economic slowdown gets serious when it gets personal. This one has gotten personal with me. First, one of my credit cards, Washington Mutual Bank, went bankrupt and was purchased by a larger bank. Now Wachovia Bank is another victim of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'm not a Wachovia customer now, but I have been in the past. And Wachovia is a North Carolina-based bank. This crisis is getting personal to me and the wider it spreads the more personal it is with more and more voters.

I haven't seen my monthly 401K statement since the crisis hit, but I suspect when the next one arrives it's going to show a decline instead of the increases it's been showing previously. And if that happens, as it almost certainly will, this "banking credit crisis" get even more personal with me.

I'm a conservative Republican, but the view of some Republicans and Democrats in Congress that we should just do nothing about the current credit crisis and "let the free markets handle it" sounds pretty dangerous to me. It's not a bet I'm willing to wager with my own personal finances.

William Kristol, a noted conservative, is swimming against the flow as one of the few speaking in favor of Congress taking firm action now.

And in an op-ed in The New York Times today, Kristol urges John McCain and conservative Republicans to take this credit crisis seriously.

We face a real financial crisis. Usually the candidate of the incumbent’s party minimizes the severity of the nation’s problems. McCain should break the mold and acknowledge, even emphasize the crisis. He can explain that dealing with it requires candor and leadership of the sort he’s shown in his career. McCain can tell voters we’re almost certainly in a recession, and things will likely get worse before they get better.

And McCain can note that the financial crisis isn’t going to be solved by any one piece of legislation. There are serious economists, for example, who think we could be on the verge of a huge bank run. Congress may have to act to authorize the F.D.I.C. to provide far greater deposit insurance, and the secretary of the Treasury to protect money market funds. McCain can call for Congress to stand ready to pass such legislation. He can say more generally that in the tough times ahead, we’ll need a tough president willing to make tough decisions.

And Kristol also goes against conventional GOP wisdom in his advice to McCain on how to win this election he seems on the verge of losing.

John McCain is on course to lose the presidential election to Barack Obama. Can he turn it around, and surge to victory?

He has a chance. But only if he overrules those of his aides who are trapped by conventional wisdom, huddled in a defensive crouch and overcome by ideological timidity.

The conventional wisdom is that it was a mistake for McCain to go back to Washington last week to engage in the attempt to craft the financial rescue legislation, and that McCain has to move on to a new topic as quickly as possible. As one McCain adviser told The Washington Post, “you’ve got to get it [the financial crisis] over with and start having a normal campaign.”


McCain’s impetuous decision to return to Washington was right. The agreement announced early Sunday morning is better than Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s original proposal, and better than the deal the Democrats claimed was close on Thursday. Assuming the legislation passes soon, and assuming it reassures financial markets, McCain will be able to take some credit.

But the goal shouldn’t be to return to “a normal campaign.” For these aren’t normal times.

I'm not an economist and I don't even play one on TV. But even the economists admit they don't really understand what's going on with our economy right now and how it should be handled. In academia, economics is called "the inexact science." One thing seems abundantly clear to this bitter, backwoods redneck from North Carolina. This crisis is not fixing itself and politics as usual won't fix it either. Obama's strategy is the same he has for everything in this campaign, blame it on President Bush and the Republicans. If McCain's unprecedented move to stop campaigning and go to Washington to deal with the crisis works out, then he will have won the gratitude of the voters.

If not, the crisis will worsen and then God help us all, I fear the voters are going to put the fox in charge of the henhouse in Washington. Obama and the Democrats in Congress got us into this mess pushing "subprime loans" through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And if Johnny Mac can't get us out of it, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Obama are going in power and then the feathers will fly.

If most voters are like me, preferring action rather than a "wait and see" attitude, they have a clear choice between McCain and Obama on the most important issue of this election. McCain took action, while Mr. Community Organizer was "Vapid, Hesitant & Gutless" as usual. Obama hasn't even publicly said whether he opposes or supports the rescue plan. He returned to the campaign trail after Friday's debate for politics as usual and said today he had "called a few Democrats" to urge them to vote for the plan. His "encouragement by long-distance" crisis plan continues. Meanwhile, McCain left the debate and spent his weekend working in Washington to try to get a rescue plan passed.

But it you write for The New York Times or any other MSM, McCain is "impetuous" during this crisis and Obama is "measured and cerebral."

It was classic John McCain and classic Barack Obama who grappled with the $700 billion bailout plan over the last week: Mr. McCain was by turns action-oriented and impulsive as he dive-bombed targets, while Mr. Obama was measured and cerebral and inclined to work the phones behind the scenes.

Mr. McCain, who came of age in a chain-of-command culture, showed once again that he believes that individual leaders can play a catalytic role and should use the bully pulpit to push politicians. Mr. Obama, who came of age as a community organizer, showed once again that he believes several minds are better than one, and that, for all of his oratorical skill, he is wary of too much showmanship.

It's a good thing I didn't have a mouthful of coffee as I read that last line about Obama being "wary of too much showmanship" or my keyboard would have gotten a brown bath. Mr. "Citizen of the World" who triumphantly toured Europe before his nomination and made a speech in front of the Victory Column in Berlin before adoring thousands of Germans is "wary of too much showmanship"? On what planet?

Yet there is one paragraph in the NYT analysis piece that I agree with as the writer expresses "concerns" about Obama by Democrats.

For Democrats, the episode was one more reminder that Mr. Obama was more analyzer-in-chief than firebrand — though in this case, they gave him high marks for his style. Still, given concerns among Americans about the economy, Mr. Obama risked seeming too cool and slow to exert leadership.

It's a concern of Democrats that McCain has looked like a Commander-in-Chief in this crisis while Obama has been Mr. Analyzer-in-Chief and "risked seeming too cool and slow to exert leadership." Too cool and slow to exert leadership is another way of saying Obama is Vapid, Hesitant & Gutless.

Obama keeps repeating that McCain "doesn't get it" on this crisis while it seems abundantly clear that Obama is the one who don't get it.

And Kristol advises that VP Nominee Sarah Palin should use Obama's own words in Thursday's debate with Joe Biden to show how Obama "doesn't get" the middle-class values he claims to champion while saying McCain didn't use the words "middle class" in last Friday's debate.

The core case against Obama is pretty simple: he’s too liberal. A few months ago I asked one of McCain’s aides what aspect of Obama’s liberalism they thought they could most effectively exploit. He looked at me as if I were a simpleton, and patiently explained that talking about “conservatism” and “liberalism” was so old-fashioned.

Maybe. But the fact is the only Democrats to win the presidency in the past 40 years — Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton — distanced themselves from liberal orthodoxy. Obama is, by contrast, a garden-variety liberal. He also has radical associates in his past.

The most famous of these is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and I wonder if Obama may have inadvertently set the stage for the McCain team to reintroduce him to the American public. On Saturday, Obama criticized McCain for never using in the debate Friday night the words “middle class.” The Obama campaign even released an advertisement trumpeting McCain’s omission.

The McCain campaign might consider responding by calling attention to Chapter 14 of Obama’s eloquent memoir, “Dreams From My Father.” There Obama quotes from the brochure of Reverend Wright’s church — a passage entitled “A Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.”

So when Biden goes on about the middle class on Thursday, Palin might ask Biden when Obama flip-flopped on Middleclassness.

Another classic case of Obama's convenient change of convictions from left-wing liberal to "middle class" values just in time for the election.

Jennifer Rubin at Pajamas Media frames the fight over passage of a bipartisan rescue/bailout bill as both sides claim credit for an expected victory and neither accepts any blame for the defeat today.

Now the race to grab credit for the bipartisan bill is clearly on. The Democrats will claim that they prevailed despite the “disruptive” involvement of John McCain who rushed back to the Capitol and briefly suspended his campaign last week. The problem with that: it doesn’t mesh with the facts. It was Harry Reid and Hank Paulson who had summoned McCain to Washington. And it was McCain who surmised that the House GOP was definitely not on board — a requirement which Pelosi herself had set for a successful deal. McCain will also argue that the principles he laid down last week — greater transparency and oversight and limits on executive compensation — were in fact achieved.

Barack Obama played no role, it appears, in the deal making. But he may well benefit in the short and long term from the refocusing of the race on our economic woes. Certainly his standing in the polls has improved since the crisis began. The counterargument — that the Democrats and he specifically contributed to the crisis by averting their eyes and indeed blocking needed reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – has not yet penetrated to average voters.

I sincerely hope and pray a majority of voters aren't fooled by Obama, Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Reid & Co. But I said the same thing about Bill Clinton and I was wrong. Twice for eight long years. It seems most voters still aren't even convinced the credit crisis is real. God help us all.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Obama uses dead soldier's bracelet for politics

Did you see this exchange in the debate, when Obama counters McCain's comments about honoring our war dead with "I've got a bracelet, too," and then actually had to read the bracelet to remember the name on it?

It gets worse. Far worse. The mother of the dead soldier whose bracelet Obama is wearing specifically asked him not to wear it. And he's still wearing it, even boasting about in the debate.

From Townhall.com:
As it turns out, he is wearing the bracelet in defiance of the wishes of the dead soldier's family (HT: NewsBusters). The mother of Sgt. Ryan David Jopek of Wisconsin -- who is herself an Obama supporter -- personally asked Barack not to wear the bracelet. Yet he did so anyway -- and then used it to try to score political points.
If you've been wondering how low Obama will go to win an election, we still don't know.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

Take 10 minutes and you'll understand the who, what and when about the cause of the current housing subprime mortgage crisis that threatens our entire banking system. "A highly informative video that traces the cause of our current crisis that had its roots planted 12 years ago."

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Answer to 'Biggest Question in the Universe'

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Genesis 1:1-3.

Guess what NASA's cosmologists have finally figured out? God was right! We're living in the part of the universe where the light is and cosmologists discovered that's only 1 percent. The rest is 3 percent gas and the other 96 percent is this strange stuff called ... darkness!

Let's see, three times as much gas as light, surrounded by a whole bunch of darkness. Sounds more like Washington than the universe.

The Washington Post gives the details of this startling breakthrough in And Now, the Biggest Question in the Universe

The working explanation, though by no means the definitive one, is that everything we know -- the whole cosmic fabric ranging from your coffee cup to the sun to entire clusters of galaxies -- is only about 1 percent of what's actually out there. Another 3 percent or so is hot interstellar gas we can see because it radiates X-rays and radio waves. Then things start getting weird. An invisible substance called dark matter, possibly phenomena such as giant black holes and unseen particles, is thought to compose 22 percent of the cosmos. Everything else, almost three-quarters of the total, is dark energy, a force that is apparently driving the universe apart.

Of course, the NASA scientists aren't satisfied with God's answer. They're trying to figure out just what all this darkness "stuff" is made of. Personally, I'm much more interested in the 3 percent of gas surrounding us here in the light. If we could burn that stuff... free energy!

NASA Astrophysicist Gary Hinshaw says figuring out what all that strange dark stuff is will answer the two biggest questions of all.

"I think it's one of the classic questions of human civilization: Where do we come from, and why are we here?" Hinshaw said.

News flash! God already told us that, too. We were created by God is where we came from and the reason we are here is to glorify Him. All the rest is just groping in the darkness surrounding us. But you gotta be a dumb ol' redneck like me to be satisfied with God's answers.

McCain leads, Obama blinks and follows

John McCain has got more guts than a Polish sausage factory. Has any presidential candidate in the history of this nation ever suddenly shut down his campaign to go to Washington to deal with a national crisis that's more important than politics? None that I know of.

Newt Gingrich is a far better historian than I and he says President Dwight Eisenhower's promise in the midst of war is the closest match.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said the decision to suspend campaigning and lend a hand to the negotiations in Washington was "the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate." He said it rivaled Dwight Eisenhower's declaration during the 1952 campaign that he would go to Korea as president, if necessary, to help end the conflict there.

"This is the day the McCain-reform Republican Party began to truly emerge as a movement which puts country first, solutions first, and big change first," he said in a statement.

McCain's gutsy move caught everybody by surprise, particularly Obama, the Democrats and the media (same crowd), an even bigger shocker than his pick of Sarah Palin. Why you'd think the man had supported an unpopular war at the peril of his own political future. Oh right, he already did that.

Rick Moran at American Thinker said this at first blush yesterday:

This is an eye opener. First of all, the Dems don't dare call it a gimmick. McCain has effectively silenced the Democrats about the crisis for a few days.

Secondly, this is bold, decisive leadership - and McCain thought of it first so he gets the cookie. Obama is eating his dust right now and is no doubt kicking himself he didn't think of it first.

Third, this kind of surprise move will make the voters sit up and take notice. Some who may have been moving away from McCain will give him a second look. After all, we now have proof that in this race, there is one guy who talks about bi-partisanship and another who actually does something about it.

Moran was wrong on one count, Democrats did indeed dare to call it a gimmick. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi had both called on McCain the day before to stop campaigning and come to Washington to pull reluctant Republicans on board their bailout plan. But when McCain took them up on their obviously sarcastic request, Reid was so mad he hung up on McCain when he called to tell him he was on the way. And then Reid called McCain's request to President Bush for a bipartisan economic summit at the White House a "photo op." Gimmick or guts?

The contrast could not be sharper between John McCain's quick, decisive and gutsy action in the midst of a national crisis and Obama's hesitancy and indecision. His first reaction was "Huh?" Then he said he could do two things at once, keep on campaigning and deal with the crisis in Washington by "long distance." Finally he recognized how bad his absence from an economic summit might look and caved in.

We're still waiting for Obama's rescue plan, which he hasn't had the guts to admit is nonexistent. He can't even do one thing at once. Mr. Vapid, Hesitant and Gutless is looking about as presidential as a first-term Senator who's never run nothing before but his own mouth.

Sarah Palin nailed Mr. "Vapid, Hesitant & Gutless" Obama's response to McCain's leadership in her interview with NBC Katie Couric.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, in her third interview since joining the Republican presidential ticket, licked her finger and stuck it in the air, saying that Sen. Barack Obama might wait and "see what way the political wind's blowing" on the Wall Street rescue package.

Maybe Obama needs a Weatherman to know which way the wind's blowing and his buddy, ol' Bomb-Throwing Bill Ayers, wasn't available because he had all the long-distance lines tied up talking to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the mainstream media and the leftwing nutroots.

The New York Times grudgingly acknowledged that today's extraordinary meeting at the White House by Obama, McCain and Congressional leaders with President Bush was initiated by McCain, but had to note McCain read his startling statement from a teleprompter. Obama can't speak without one, but that's not news and it's news that McCain used one? They don't even try to hide their bias against McCain.

The meeting with Mr. Bush on Thursday was precipitated by a call from Mr. McCain, who cast his request as a matter of urgent national priority. “Following Sept. 11, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis,” he told a small group of reporters, while reading the brief statement from a teleprompter, in a small ballroom at the Hilton New York hotel. “We must show that kind of patriotism now.”

Dan Balz of The Washington Post "analyzed" McCain's bold move but the headline and the lede give away his pro-Obama slant. Under the headline Selfless or Reckless? McCain Gambles On Voters' Verdict, Balz gives his game away, answering the question himself: "He's Reckless!"

John McCain is a gambler by nature, and the bet he placed Wednesday may be among the biggest of his political life.

So is it reckless or selfless to gamble your political career on doing what's best for your country? I seem to recall the same thing being said about John McCain two years ago when he gambled his political career vs. winning a war for his country. Not reckless then either.

He managed once again, at least in the short term, to shake up the presidential race at a time when national and state polls show Obama opening up a clear lead. And by day's end, he had forced his rival to blink. Obama initially resisted McCain's call to join him and return to Washington. But hours later he was forced to capitulate whenPresident Bush called him and asked him to participate in a White House meeting with congressional leaders and his GOP rival.

Mr. Blinky still thinks he's in charge despite being forced to board McCain's bus at gunpoint. He's insisting the debate Friday is still on even though McCain has said he won't be there. Unless McCain blinks, it's going to be a lonely debate. Balz points out how foolish that plan is.

Obama ... may look high-handed if he insists on going ahead as negotiations in Washington reach a critical moment by this weekend.

Balz also states the obvious contrast, McCain's bold leadership vs. Obama's "long-distance encouragement" plan for dealing with a crisis.

At a minimum, voters were treated again to contrasting styles of leadership Wednesday, with McCain willing to act boldly, if impulsively, to inject himself into the middle of delicate negotiations to force a solution, and Obama adopting a cooler approach designed to show calm in the midst of crisis while preferring to give long-distance encouragement to all parties in the talks.

Finally, Obama's rescue plan is revealed. No need for an economic summit in the White House. Mr. Cool can handle it via long distance.

Oh well, on to Plan B for Obama since the long-distance deal didn't float. I fully expect him to emerge from the White House this afternoon, smile at the cameras and say with a perfectly straight face that he is delighted to be the One who will lead us to financial stability with his secret plan. He'll announce the details right after McCain works it out with the adults, if there are any others in D.C.

Speaking of juveniles, I was picking up a sub sandwich after work yesterday and the shop had MSNBC on with Chris Matthews going ballistic. He wasn't concerned at all about the financial crisis. He was flipping out because McCain said Friday's debate had to be delayed.

The thrill up his leg musta climbed up higher as his girlish voice got shriller and shriller, demanding to know why the debate couldn't be held on schedule? I wondered, what is the big deal? William Kristol must have heard the same panic I did because he answered my question.

As for the question of Friday night's debate, which some in the media seem to think more important than saving the financial system--if the negotiations are still going on in D.C., McCain should offer to send Palin to debate Obama! Or he can take a break from the meetings, fly down at the last minute himself, and turn a boring foreign policy debate, in which he and Obama would repeat well-rehearsed arguments, into a discussion about leadership and decisiveness. And if the negotiations are clearly on a path to success, then McCain can say he can now afford to leave D.C., fly down, and the debate would become a victory lap for McCain.

So the action of these few days becomes more important than the talk of that hour and a half Friday night. One could even say the contrast between the two men in action becomes the true debate over who should be president. The media, being talkers and debaters, love debates, overestimate their importance, and are underestimating the possible effect of McCain's dramatic action. In the debate itself, McCain should mock the media's greater concern for gabbing than solving our economic problems, and should associate Obama with such a talk-heavy media-type approach to politics. If the race is between an energetic executive and an indecisive talker, the energetic executive should win.

I've been expecting McCain to eat Obama's lunch in the debates, simply because he can think on his feet and Obama can't talk coherently without a written speech flashing across a teleprompter in front of him. Hillary ate him alive in the last debate he was in, which is precisely why Obama hasn't participated in one since. And now that events have overtaken the campaign and the only issue that really matters is what to do about this economic meltdown, what can Obama answer when McCain asks him what his plan is? Call it in by long distance?

Or as Kristol and others have suggested, if McCain sends Palin to debate Obama, well. I'd drive down to Mississippi just to watch that.

And I'd take my camera so I could get a picture of Obama with that "deer in the headlights" look on his face when Sarah locks and loads.

One more item. Remember that Washington Post-ABC-BS poll yesterday that showed Obama with the big lead? The one the media chattered about constantly all day? Total BS. Today's
Gallup daily tracking poll has the presidential race back to a dead heat at 46-46, with McCain gaining two points and Obama dropping a point. Why am I not surprised? The Gallup numbers show McCain gaining and Obama dropping.

This update covers interviewing conducted Monday through Wednesday, and as such includes one night after McCain's announcement that he was suspending election campaigning and flying to Washington to help seek a bipartisan solution to the financial crisis. A night by night analysis of interviewing results, however, does not suggest that McCain had a dramatically better night against Obama on Wednesday. Instead, the data show that McCain has been doing slightly better for the last three days than he had in the previous week, and with some strong Obama days falling off of the rolling average, the race has moved to its current tied position. This is the first report since Sept. 13-15, in which Obama did not have at least a one percentage point edge.

You know how to tell when one of the talking heads of the mainstream media is lying? Watch closely. They lie every time their lips move.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Obama vs. Palin: Different 'Faith Journeys'

Since Obama compares himself to Sarah Palin (because he knows Biden can't hold a candle to her) I'll play along. Let's compare "faith journeys."

Obama kicks of his "Faith, Family and Values Tour" this week to prove his Christian creds to us ignorant rednecks still clinging to God and guns.

Jan LaRue at American Thinker calls it by a more truthful title, Obama's Faith, Family and Variable Values Tour, and looks at Obama's record.

And Terry Eastland at The Weekly Standard writes Clinging to Her Religion: The faith journey of Sarah Palin, 'Bible-believing Christian'

Jan LaRue kicks off with: Obama's "faith" journey

For openers, no one who contradicts Jesus Christ on the subject of salvation should be directing Christian traffic at the intersection of faith and politics. That's a lot of cheek to turn. Maybe audacity should be added to the list of deadly sins.

Obama told Chicago Sun-Times columnist, Cathleen Falsani, that he is "rooted in the Christian tradition, and that "there are many paths to the same place." Falsani found it an "unlikely theological position for someone who places his faith squarely at the feet of Jesus." Obama told her it depends "on how a particular verse from the Gospel of John, where Jesus says, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me,' is heard."

Those seeking further illumination about Obama's Christian beliefs, beyond his 20-year indoctrination by the most left, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright and Rev. Michael Pfleger, might mull over Newsweek's cover story, "Finding His Faith," with a Bible in hand. I also offer for consideration my own musings in "Sermon from Mt. Obama Raises Big Questions."

Terry Eastland receives the kickoff and runs it back with:

A few weeks before the Republican convention, Time magazine asked Sarah Palin what her religion was. "Christian," she said. Asked whether she was any particular kind of Christian, she replied, "No. Bible-believing Christian." Ever since John McCain asked Palin to be his running mate, her religion has been high on the list of subjects journalists have pursued. Although Palin herself hasn't brought it up and has mostly declined to be interviewed on the matter, it is already clear that her religious background contains material unfamiliar to media and political elites. Few politicians at Palin's level describe themselves as Bible-believing Christians.

Palin was baptized a Roman Catholic as an infant. When she was a teenager, she and her mother began attending the Wasilla Assembly of God. There she was "saved," as she has said, and also rebaptized, by full immersion, in Beaver Lake.

At Wasilla High School, Palin was known for her Christian faith. In an interview, John Bitney, who went to high school with her and later worked for her in the governor's office, recalls that she was "just a Christian girl" who was well regarded for her character. He adds that she "didn't preach" at anyone. A basketball star, she led a chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

Read both essays if you need more details, but you'll find no surprises on big issues important to evangelicals, abortion, homosexual marriage and the right to adopt, the usual suspects on most social conservative agendas. Short version: Palin's against 'em all and Obama's for 'em all.

In other news on the Palin-Obama front, Charlie Martin at American Thinker and Pajamas Media reports Palin's nasty rumor list is still growing, up to 91 as of today.

And Martin says he's beginning to suspect a common thread running through this constant output of nasty rumors that turn out to be lies.

...these stories often directly touch on something that has just been noticed in the mainstream press: “Palin cut ’special needs’ funding” came out shortly after she mentioned being an advocate for special needs children in her acceptance speech; “Catholic charities” came out after questions about Biden losing support among blue-collar Catholics made it appear that Palin might be attracting more Catholic voters...

The correlation between the particular line-item and other political stories seems far more than just random. Still, it’s possible to explain this without assuming there is some central controller — a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy — passing them around. But Rusty Shackleford at the Jawa Report may have changed my mind.

Ahah! You don't suppose Obama campaign manager David Axlerod's astroturfing sock puppets would spread a nasty rumor about Palin, do you?

McCain leads: Obama leaves, politics as usual

Two years ago at our darkest hour in the war in Iraq, John McCain said he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war. He doubled down, calling for a surge of troops to victory.

It was a huge gamble, but McCain, Gen. Petraeus, President Bush, our troops and our country won.

Now John McCain is taking another huge gamble, saying he'd rather lose an election than see his country's economy sink. And he's doubling down again, suspending his campaign until the crisis is solved and calling on Obama and the Democrats to join him in working out a solution.
Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night's debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.
Obama's response? He turned down McCain's invitation this afternoon and says he will continue with his campaign, politics as usual. Whatever happened to that bold, new candidate who wanted to "change" politics as usual and lead us on to greener pastures? Captain Vapid rides on alone.

"Vapid: Insipid, tedious, dull, uninteresting." (The American College Dictionary)

"Vanity Fair: From John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, a fair which goes on perpetually in the town of Vanity. Symbolizes worldly ostentation and frivolity... given over to vain pleasure or empty show."
(The American College Dictionary)

Christopher Hitchens at Slate, a columnist for Vanity Fair and a big-time Obama supporter, asks "Why is Obama so vapid and hesitant and gutless?" to mangle a Jeff Foxworthy phrase, that just might be a sign that Obama ain't a redneck, plus a sign he ain't getting no redneck votes.

Us rednecks do not read Vanity Fair and until this redneck looked it up in the dictionary, I wasn't even sure what "vapid" meant. "Airhead" was the first thing that popped to mind. Close enough. I also didn't know just where that fancy-dancy, leftwing-liberal Noo Yawk magazine Vanity Fair got its name. But I have heard of John Bunyan's Christian classic, Pilgrim's Progress, and it's a pretty good sign that your magazine's philosophy "Symbolizes worldly ostentation and frivolity... given over to vain pleasure or empty show" when that's the name you call yourself.

But I guess I'm an even stupider redneck than I thought I was or there's not as many of us rednecks as I thought there was. Obama's doing just fine without us redneck voters. Captain Gutless Vapid don't need no stinkin' plan for the economy. He's a Democrat and that's enough.

Else why has Captain Vapid, who has yet to offer even a hint of a plan to get us out of the current economic crisis we are in, suddenly vaulted into his first clear lead in the race, 9 points overall and a 14-point lead in dealing with the economy, sez a Washington Post-ABC News poll?

And while Captain Vapid hums insipidly, the adult on the other ticket takes a risky move. John McCain has suspended his campaign to return to Washington to work in the Senate to help resolve the crisis.

Captain Vapid says "Why bother to lead when my numbers improve dramatically in the polls?"

More voters trust Obama to deal with the economy, and he currently has a big edge as the candidate who is more in tune with the economic problems Americans now face. He also has a double-digit advantage on handling the current problems on Wall Street, and as a result, there has been a rise in his overall support. The poll found that, among likely voters, Obama now leads McCain by 52 percent to 43 percent. Two weeks ago, in the days immediately following the Republican National Convention, the race was essentially even, with McCain at 49 percent and Obama at 47 percent...

In the new poll, voters once again gave Obama higher marks than McCain when it comes to dealing with the economy, 53 percent to 39 percent. Two weeks ago, Obama's edge on the question was a narrow five points, his lowest of the campaign. Among independents, Obama's advantage on the economy -- now 21 points -- is greater than at any point in the campaign... He also now holds a double-digit lead as the more honest and trustworthy candidate, flipping what had been a slight McCain edge two weeks ago.

That last sentence is the one that gobsmacks me. As Ace named him, "Captain Bullshit" is "the more honest and trustworthy candidate"!!!???? This man has been on the stump for more than two years, telling whoppers that would make Bill and Hillary blush, and the big majority of the voters think he's "more honest and trustworthy" than McCain, whose biggest problem is he tells the truth even when it hurts? Sanity has left the planet.

I can sorta, kinda get where voters lean to Democrats on the economy. They're wrong, but I get why. But Obama is "
honest and trustworthy"?! I'm speechless. If Obama and the media have sold the voters that bag of BS, us rednecks might as well lean over the kiss our behinds goodbye.

Conventional wisdom has long said voters trust Democrats to handle the economy ever since Herbert Hoover started the Great Depression and FDR ended it, right? Wrong as hell! Herbert Hoover paddled and bailed but he couldn't save the ship. Democrats in Congress touched off the panic with some stupid banking regulations and the Roaring '20s came to a crashing end in a perfect storm of economic consequences piling up.

Conventional wisdom is the product of a liberal-dominated public school system, that been telling lies as history since the Great Depression, like Joe Biden's ridiculous rewrite of history, remembering how FDR came on the TV to reassure Americans when the stock market crashed in 1929.

And FDR didn't end the Great Depression on TV. His government programs spending money like water on make-work "jobs" actually competed with private enterprise and made the Depression worse. World War II put Americans back to work with good ol' American capitalism, making real products like guns and tanks in the shut-down factories. Thank you Hilter and Tojo, we couldn't have done it without you. May you rot in hell.

Hitler was right about one thing: If you tell the people great big whoppers often enough and long enough, they'll start believing it's the truth.

And here we are again, paying the tab for a Fannie-Mae & Freddie-Mac meltdown created by Obama, Barney Frank and the Democrats in Congress in 2005, which Senator John McCain and a few Republicans tried to head off at the pass but got cut off at the knees. So who do the voters trust to handle this mess? The same SOBs who created it!? And who gets the blame? The poor slobs who tried to stop it!? Madness.

Ain't Fox News the most popular TV news show by far? I hope lots of voters saw Jim Angle's report last night on the Democrats whodunit and the Republicans who tried to stop them. Angel answered the big question "Who's responsible for the Fannie and Freddie Mess?" Guess who.

OK, rant over. My only hope is this poll is by WaPo-ABC, so it could be BS. Maybe the pollsters asked if McCain had stopped beating his wife? Maybe they asked if Obama is honest or trustworthy, pick one? Maybe
WaPo-ABC is so far in the tank for Obama they'd tell a big baldfaced lie?

You think? If not, it's looking like even if Obama dumped Michelle and eloped with Clay Aiken, they'd become the first all-male White House duo.

WaPo-ABC's numbers do seem a bit high for Obama. The latest
Gallup has Obama maintaining a 3-point edge, Rasmussen has Obama up by 2.

And Kathryne Jean Lopez at The Corner on NRO reports:
"The poll — shock! — skews Dem. There were 10-percent more of them polled. Fight on."

Actually the WaPo-ABC poll is based on a "16-point Democratic party ID advantage" says McCain-Palin campaign lead pollster, Bill McInturff.

So just in case there's still hope voters ain't so stupid after all, here's the straight skinny from the Ace of Spades on the Fannie-Freddie mess.

It was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, ACORN, Franklin Raines, Penny Pritzker, Jim Johnson, and of course Barack Hussein Obama who actually built the bomb.

And I Repeat... Even now, the lisping marble-mouthed shufferin'-shucatash socialist moron Barney Frank is still fighting to federally guarantee the zero-money-down "seller financed" down payment mortgages that got us into this mess.

Because he's fucking stupid. As are most Democrats. They have no idea how money is made or how services and goods are exchanged. All they know is they want to distribute those services and goods more "fairly."

He doesn't agree with the basic idea that People who don't have enough money to afford a house shouldn't have one. He honestly believes that idea is "unfair."

Everyone should have a house. People who can't afford them most of all.

And if you tell him doing so will cost the government another 1-2 trillion in ten years, and will put the economy in crisis again, he'd say, "Fine." It's a fair trade as far as he's concerned.

Because who's paying that 1-2 trillion? People who have money. If provoking a crisis is the only manner to get the wealth distribution he craves, that's fine by him.

Thanks Ace. I know you're a big shot blogger up in Noo Yawk City, but I think I'm gonna induct you as an honorary Southern redneck.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Michael Yon in Afghanistan: 'Death in the Corn III'

Michael Yon reports the truth with the bark on about the war in Afghanistan in the third of a series with British army troops deep in Taliban territory in "Death in the Corn III."

The story of 2 Para and 3 Para will never be fully told. But it’s obvious that they did their duties as soldiers, in so many missions that I was briefed on but have not described here, such as helping deliver the critical turbine to the Kajaki dam. Despite the bad trajectory of the war in general, there have been some stunning successes.

The British soldiers will not quit. Despite hardship and loss in Iraq when their own press veritably disowned them, the soldiers kept fighting in Iraq (there really was some serious fighting down there in Basra), and their morale was far higher than the British media would have us believe.

My first month back in Afghanistan leaves mixed impressions. Clearly we are losing and the clock is ticking. But then, we nearly lost Iraq in 2006, yet that war was turned around at the very brink of disaster. Losing doesn’t mean lost. It means try harder and try smarter. Keep slugging and keep thinking.

Death in the Corn: Part I of III

Death in the Corn: Part II of III

Biden drop-kicks the coal-miners' states

Run-off-at-the-mouth Joe Biden does it again. Joe sez on camera: "No coal plants in America!" How many coal-mining states are there? Jonah Goldberg at The Corner on NRO answers.
I don't know why the McCain campaign wouldn't just run that video of Biden in the relevant parts of West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado etc. Or better yet, why the RNC couldn't run ads with that clip in the relevant congressional districts.

Rock on, Joe. You're on a roll.

NRA blasts Obama and Biden on Guns

The National Rifle Association has released four new ads attacking Obama. Enjoy.

Way of Life - Barack Obama TV Ad

Pennsylvania Values - Joe Biden TV Ad

Hunter - Obama TV ad

Veteran- Barack Obama TV Ad

The Big Bank Heist of 2005: Whodunit?

The current economic crisis we're in sorta reminds of my grandmother's cure for all that ails you: Black Draught. It tasted awful and the results were even worse than the taste. But the alternative of doing nothing was worse still, so shut up, hold your nose and swallow your medicine.

Wesley Pruden at the Washington Times likens the $1.8 trillion bailout for the current crisis to Bonnie and Clyde "dealing in wholesale" banking.

Now we see what Bonnie and Clyde could have made of themselves if only they had gone to Harvard Business School. Machine guns and fast getaway cars are not nearly as efficient as computers, lawyers and imaginative accounting.

Bonnie and Clyde relieved depositors of their savings at little banks in out of the way places, dealing only in retail. The Lehman brothers and their sisters, Bear Stearns and AIG, relieved investors of their money on Wall Street and now get to relieve taxpayers of their money from coast to coast, dealing in wholesale. The brothers and sisters have given "free markets" an entirely new meaning. They're free to take the money and run, with Hank Paulson driving the getaway car.

But Pruden, like all the rest of us taxpayers, will have to pay the bill. So he moves on with the obvious question: How'd we get into this mess?

We're told that this is no time to play the blame game. But why not? Since we're all stockholders now in a vast Ponzi scheme, we should have some say in who gets thrown into the street and who doesn't. The Democrats are particularly eager to avoid the blame game. They fiercely opposed legislation in 2005 that would have imposed sanity on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whence came this misery. The legislation was written by three senators, including, as it happens, John McCain. The senators who blocked it were, as it happens, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd. This unholy trio took more than a quarter of a million dollars in campaign contributions from executives and employees of Fannie and Freddie. Just a coincidence, of course.

Economists Charles Calomiris and Peter Wallison provide the details in The Wall Street Journal of this Congressional whodunit from 2005.

In light of the collapse of Fannie and Freddie, both John McCain and Barack Obama now criticize the risk-tolerant regulatory regime that produced the current crisis. But Sen. McCain's criticisms are at least credible, since he has been pointing to systemic risks in the mortgage market and trying to do something about them for years. In contrast, Sen. Obama's conversion as a financial reformer marks a reversal from his actions in previous years, when he did nothing to disturb the status quo. The first head of Mr. Obama's vice-presidential search committee, Jim Johnson, a former chairman of Fannie Mae, was the one who announced Fannie's original affordable-housing program in 1991 -- just as Congress was taking up the first GSE regulatory legislation.

In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent.

...If the Democrats had let the 2005 legislation come to a vote, the huge growth in the subprime and Alt-A loan portfolios of Fannie and Freddie could not have occurred, and the scale of the financial meltdown would have been substantially less. The same politicians who today decry the lack of intervention to stop excess risk taking in 2005-2006 were the ones who blocked the only legislative effort that could have stopped it.

I love a good whodunit, but I prefer ones with a happy ending. The only way this one will turn out well is a McCain-Palin victory at the polls. If Obama and Biden join Pelosi and Reid in power, we're gonna long for the good ol' days when Bonnie and Clyde robbed only one bank at a time.