When a lifelong liberal thinks the Democratic party has moved too far to the left, maybe it's time for the Dems to do some self-reevaluation. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn), former Democratic vice presidential nominee only 8 short years ago, described the Dems hard left turn during an interview with George Stephanopolous. See the video here.

Lieberman describes the Dems as isolationist, protectionist, and anti-free trade. He left out that they are also anti-capitalist, liberty killing, statist appeasers mired in a blinding fog of misguided moral equivalence.

Lieberman says the man who most closely resembles Lieberman's role model, JFK, is John S. McCain. Liebs will get no argument from me there, since I think the current group of socialist hyper-partisans who lead the Democrats have little in common with Jack Kennedy. Kennedy was a military man (warmonger !), a tax cutter who understood free markets (capitalist pig !), and stood up to communism (imperialist !). Moveon.org, DailyKos, and Code Pink would NOT approve. Neither would Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or any of the other leftist class warriors populating the congressional halls these days. I presume JFK would not be welcome in Berkeley, California either.

Joe Lieberman was excommunicated from the progressive church for one mortal sin. He wouldn't support the party's cut and run strategy in Iraq. That amounted to a tacit endorsement of a George W. Bush policy (so I guess that's really two mortal sins in one. I believe Dems are currently forbidden by liberal sharia law to agree with Bush on anything, ever). Lieberman, unlike Pelosi and pals, realizes that foreign policy is slightly more complicated than strict adherence to the 1960's slogan "war hurts children and other living things."

So does John McCain. Here's an excerpt from McCain's recent foreign policy speech:

"In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well. I detest war. It might not be the worst thing to befall human beings, but it is wretched beyond all description. When nations seek to resolve their differences by force of arms, a million tragedies ensue. The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer and die. Commerce is disrupted; economies are damaged; strategic interests shielded by years of patient statecraft are endangered as the exigencies of war and diplomacy conflict. Not the valor with which it is fought nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war. Whatever gains are secured, it is loss the veteran remembers most keenly. Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war…But I am, from hard experience and the judgment it informs, a realistic idealist. I know we must work very hard and very creatively to build new foundations for a stable and enduring peace. We cannot wish the world to be a better place than it is. We have enemies for whom no attack is too cruel, and no innocent life safe, and who would, if they could, strike us with the world's most terrible weapons. There are states that support them, and which might help them acquire those weapons because they share with terrorists the same animating hatred for the West, and will not be placated by fresh appeals to the better angels of their nature. This is the central threat of our time, and we must understand the implications of our decisions on all manner of regional and global challenges could have for our success in defeating it".

There isn't anyone running on the Democrat side who can even sniff McCain from the standpoint of experience, and it's experience that informs judgement. Obama's racist pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wrong, says "Hillary has never been called a (bleep)", but he leaves out that Obama has never spent any time in the Hanoi Hilton either, which is a whole helluva lot worse than being called a name (assuming Obama has even ever been called that name).

Barack Obama calls McCain's talk "the politics of the past", and boils McCain's lifetime of experiences and judgement down to calling McCain "a Bush 3rd termer". That is denigrating and disrespectful of a man who has given as much for his country as John McCain has.

If McCain is a "realistic idealist", Obama is merely an "idealist". Reality is excluded from the equation. Obama acts as if the power of his rhetoric alone can sway the world. Obama seems to believe, unlike McCain, that he CAN "wish the world to be a better place than it is". That has little to do with the politics of the past or the future, or the politics of hope and change, but it does have a lot to do with the politics of naivete. As the old saying goes, 'wishing won't make it so'.

If we must consider McCain to be a quasi-Democrat, okay, so be it. But if we must elect one of those three remaining Democrats to be the president of the United States, and we do, I'll take the one who most closely resembles JFK, not the ones who most closely resemble Hugo Chavez.

Remember those 600,000 pages of Iraqi documents that were found during Operation Iraqi Freedom ? Some, but not all, have now been translated, and the Department Of Defense (DOD) has published redacted versions online, along with conclusions about Saddam's links to terrorism.

The venerable Grey Lady, the leading light of liberal print media, the New York Times, reported on the findings with the following headline: "Oh, By the Way, There Was No Al Qaeda Link".

So there you have it. Bush lied, kids died. Damn neocons. End of story. Nothing more to see here. Let's move on. What do you guys want for dinner - pizza, Chinese, or what ? Vote for Obama !

Well, actually, there is ONE little teensy weensy problem with the conclusions of the New York al Times, which is…

THEY ARE LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH.

Far from proving that Saddam didn't have ties to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, the documents proved the exact opposite. They proved Saddam DID have terrorist ties aplenty. Here's the report's abstract summary:

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

That sounds quite different from the al Times "Oh, By the Way, There Was No Al Qaeda Link", doesn't it ? This is why you can NEVER depend on the liberal media to report the truth. NEVER. They are not there to report the truth, they are there to create their own truth. There is a word for that. It's called 'propaganda.' If you get one lesson from this blog, get that. Find the real truth, not the swill they dish out.

Ken Timmerman details some of Saddam's specific ties to terrorism here. Following is a sample:

One of the most damning documents to emerge from the Harmony data base, I wrote, was a Jan. 18, 1993 order from Saddam Hussein, transmitted to the head of Iraqi intelligence, “to hunt the Americans that are in Arab lands, especially in Somalia, by using Arab elements or Asian (Muslims) or friends.”

In response, the head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service informed Hussein that Iraq already had ties with a large number of international terrorist groups, including “the Islamist Arab elements that were fighting in Afghanistan and [currently] have no place to base and are physically present in Somalia, Sudan, and Egypt.” In other words, al-Qaida.

The authors of the IDA study note that Saddam’s Iraq “was a long-standing supporter of international terrorism,” and that these particular documents provided ‘detailed evidence of that support.'”

The study also points out that the captured documents “reveal that Saddam was training Arab fighters (non-Iraqi) in Iraqi training camps more than a decade prior” to the 2003 war.

But the study shies away from identifying them as al-Qaida terrorists, even though many of them were members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, whose leader, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahri, became the deputy leader of al-Qaida in 1998.

Saddam was a terrorist supporter and a terrorist himself. They were doing much more than flying kites in Iraq prior to the american invasion.

As the Clinton/Obama mud-slinging festival continues, voters must be confused. Should they reject Hillary for making things up out of thin air, or should they reject Obama for hanging with his racist pastor for 20 years ? Decisions, decisions. The voters COULD look at the issues, but good luck finding any differences between the two candidates there. They both serve the same puppetmaster. It's said 'Vive le difference !', but in this case, there's no difference to vive. Instead, let's look to one of the Democratic heavyweight deep thinkers, DNC head Howard Dean (the Democrat's answer to Dan Quayle) for a suggestion.

Here's what Howie says about who you should vote for:

“The real issue is this. Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?”

Point well made, Howie. Sounds like a strong endorsement of John McCain to me. Now, Mr. Dean did make the above statement in 2004, and he was talking about Jon Carry, but I'm sure Dean, being an honorable man (lol), would see that McCain's military resume is quite a bit stronger than Hanoi John's. I mean, at least McCain didn't commit treason. That should count for something. Then again, treason might be a plus with today's hate america far left crowd….

But I digress. It seems Sen. John McCain is going to launch a biography tour next week, and he will talk about his days as a Vietnam POW. In response, the honorable (lol) Howard Dean issued the following statement:

“John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can’t change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush the last seven years. While we honor McCain’s military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn’t understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.”

The McCain people didn't much like Dean calling McCain a "blatant opportunist" in response to McCain talking about Vietnam. They think McCain has earned the right to talk about it, and then some. Also, it's about time to drop the 'McCain promises to keep the troops in Iraq for 100 years' crapola. The honorable (lol) Howard Dean knows darn well that McCain promised nothing of the sort, and was only referring to a possible small leftover guardian force, like we've had in Germany and Japan for 60+ years, not a large active fighting force. The equally honorable Obama and Clinton know this as well.

John McCain, btw, has been awarded the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, two Bronze Star Medals, a Purple Heart and the Distinguished Flying Cross. That takes away the Left's 'chickenhawk' strategy for this election cycle (darn the luck !), especially since Barry and Hillary haven't served in the military at all, though Hillary took imaginary sniper fire. Thus, unlike 2004, military service will be MEANINGLESS to the Democrats. The Dems will do a complete 180 degree turnaround on the issue, and even turn McCain's military service into a negative. Instead of the 'John Kerry, reporting for duty' theme, the Dems are using a 'John McCain, warmongering Bush 3rd termer' meme (that word's for you, Rev). The Dems are, like I said, very honorable.

And they support the troops, no doubt about that.

Just like they did in Vietnam, a war that we won on the battlefield, but lost in the press and in the realm of public opinion. As General William Westmoreland said of US involvement in Vietnam:

"It's not that we lost the war militarily. The fact is we as a nation did not make good our commitment to the South Vietnamese."

The enemy in Vietnam said the same thing. Here's General Vo Nguyen Giap, supreme leader of the North Vietnamese Army, in a 1989 interview with CBS:

“We paid a high price [during the Tet offensive] but so did you [Americans]… not only in lives and materiel. Do not forget the war was brought into the living rooms of the American people… The most important result of the Tet offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory… The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion.”

Sounds like deja vu all over again. What's that they say about people who ignore history ?

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama's view of the Iraq war is unqualified. "I WILL END THE WAR IN IRAQ !" Obama bellows to thunderous applause. That is his promise, that is what his supporters want, and that's why they support him. When I heard Obama speak in person, his unqualified statement about ending the war in Iraq brought his largest applause of the day, by far. In Ohio, Obama's second most popular position was probably his opposition to NAFTA, but now we all know he was just kidding about that, as was Hillary. You got played, Ohio. Never forget that the Hopester and Clinton 2.0 are above all, politicians. They are masters at telling people what they want to hear.

So, the question to ask is:

Does Obama really intend to pull the US troops out of Iraq, or is that just red-meat campaign chum to get the voters to bite ?

Let's look at a little history to begin to answer the question. It is well known that Obama made a speech in 2002 against the Iraq war. Everybody knows, because Obama won't let us forget it. He brings it up every five minutes. Any time Obama is criticized for anything, he comes back with 'yes, but I was against the Iraq war, unlike Hillary and McCain, so my judgement is better'. It's really becoming quite irritating, especially since Obama didn't have to cast an actual vote on the war, since he wasn't in the Senate yet. We aren't supposed to remember that in 2004, Obama said he wasn't sure how he would have voted, since he wasn't privy to the intelligence that the rest of Congress saw.

There's more you aren't supposed to remember about 2004, like the following Obama statements about the war, according to a Boston Globe article:

In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.

"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."

The statements are consistent with others Obama made at the time, emphasizing the need to stabilize Iraq despite his opposition to the US invasion. But they also represent perhaps his most forceful language in depicting withdrawal from crisis-ridden Iraq as a betrayal of the Iraqi people and a risk to national security.

These comments from Obama in 2004 sound a whole lot like comments the Republicans make. Just like them, as a matter of fact. It seems Obama did realize that abandoning Iraq would have dire consequences. So what changed ? Is abandoning Iraq to the radical Islamic influences of Iran and Al Qaeda now desirable ? No, it most certainly isn't.

In 2005, Obama's stance changed, and what changed was: politics. As public sentiment soured on the war, particularly Democratic sentiment, Obama soured too (just like a slew of other Dems). He began calling for an immediate troop withdrawal, the consequences to Iraqis be damned. After all, this was Obama's political career we were talking about. He wanted to be president, and couldn't afford to consider the consequences of an Iraq pullout any longer. Look what happened to Joe Lieberman when he opposed a troop withdrawal. The Democrats kicked Lieberman out of the party, and Lieberman was a former Democratic VP candidate ! The left would tolerate no dissent. In order to become president, Obama had to reject Bush's war in every way, as did Hillary, as did Edwards, as did all the Democratic contenders. Never mind that several of those Democratic contenders had voted to authorize Bush's war in the first place. That old history needed to be erased, and some new history created in it's place.

In Dem world, such position changes and conformity to the politically correct view is called 'leadership". Obama became a great 'leader', by, um, following. Others would call that 'taking the path of least resistance', but hey, those who don't hop on board the Obama Hope wagon are probably just racists anyway, right Dems ? Who cares what they think.

In conclusion, I would be very surprised if a president Barack Obama started pulling the troops out of Iraq immediately, unless the generals and Iraqi leaders also wanted it. To do so would be deeply irresponsible, and Obama knows it. He's a smart guy. He's also smart enough to keep telling the Democratic primary voters exactly what they want to hear, like any good salesman.

Advocates of an american troop pullout from Iraq say the establishment of a democratic government cannot be accomplished in that country. Hillary Clinton is one such advocate. Her cynical view of Iraq makes more sense today, since it turns out Hillary doesn't much favor democracy in america either. After all the caucuses and primaries that have been held, after millions of americans have expressed their voices at the polls, Queen Hillary The First said the following, according to a Newsmax story:

“I just don’t think this is over yet, and I don’t think that it is smart for us to take a position that might disadvantage us in November…And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They’re just like superdelegates."

In other words, Hillary thinks we should forget the will of the people and forget the voters - the elected delegates should just pledge themselves to her anyway, since, after all, she is the rightful heir to the throne, not that Obama fellow. I mean, Obama has never taken pretend sniper fire in Bosnia. Obama has never been deeply involved in a pretend Irish peace process. Obama doesn't have 35 years of pretend experience. How can he possibly be ready on DAY ONE like the Once And Future Queen ? What's fair is fair america. Forget that silly notion of democracy. The Clintons have. Lots of other Democrats have also. Florida and Michigan appear to be permanently disenfranchised.

In fairness, maybe the Hilldog just misspoke. There's been lots of that going around lately. Of course, two weeks earlier she said the exact same thing to Newsweek:

"Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to.”

Okay, maybe she misspoke twice. It's been a long campaign. Clinton campaign advisor Harold Ickes attempted to clarify Hillary's remarks, by SAYING THE EXACT SAME THING:

“I think what Mrs. Clinton was trying to make clear was that no delegate is required by party rules to vote for the candidate for which they're pledged,” said Ickes. “I mean obviously circumstances can change, and people's minds can change about the viability of a particular candidate and that's permitted now under our rules ever since the 1980 convention.”

Thanks for clearing that up, Harold. Let's turn the country into a banana republic.

Since the country is having economic problems, probably the wisest course of action would be to just install Hillary as the president, and forget the rest of the primaries and the general election. That way, we can dispense with all this unnecessary debate and voting nonsense, and get about the business of 'fixing' america [similar to the way you 'fix' a sporting event]. I'm certain Hillary and Bill would agree.

Every time I think I've heard it all, I'm proven wrong.

I can't wait to hear the left wingers argue with me on this one.

Parents "do not have a constitutional right to home school their children," wrote California appellate Justice Walter Croskey.

The hell they don't, judge Croskey. Have you read the U.S. Constitution ? Apparently not. Makes me wonder how you got to be a judge in the first place. Or maybe you should stay away from those west coast medical marijuana stores.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

A California court ruled this month that parents cannot "home school" their children without government certification. No teaching credential, no teaching…The 166,000 families in the state that now choose to educate their children at home must be stunned.

No doubt. But look who's HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY about this act of judicial communism !

"We're happy," the California Teachers Association's Lloyd Porter told the San Francisco Chronicle. He says the union believes all students should be taught only by "credentialed" teachers, who will in due course belong to unions.

That's just great, Lloyd ! Think of all those brand new union dues ! Never mind the fact that home schooled kids perform way better than their public school counterparts.

For some parents, the motive for home schooling is religious; others want to protect their kids from gangs and drugs. But the most-cited reason is to ensure a good education. Home-schooled students are routinely high performers on standardized academic tests, beating their public school peers on average by as much as 30 percentile points, regardless of subject. They perform well on tests like the SAT — and colleges actively recruit them both for their high scores and the diversity they bring to campus.

Hmmm. That's an inconvenient fact for Big Brother. Sounds like they'll have to come up with some sort of phony excuse to impose the will of the Politburo here….

The case was initiated by the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services after a home-schooled child reportedly complained of physical abuse by his father. A lawyer assigned to two of the family's eight children invoked the truancy law to get the children enrolled in a public school and away from their parents. So a single case of parental abuse is being used to promote the registration of all parents who crack a book for their kids.

I fail to see the justification for banning home schooling due to one case of child abuse. That's like banning automobiles because of one car crash.

This isn't the first time this was attempted. Congress made the effort back in the 90's.

In 1994, a federal attempt to require certification of parent-teachers went down in flames as hundreds of thousands of calls lit up phone banks on Capitol Hill. The movement has since only grown larger and better organized, now conservatively estimated at well over a million nationwide. But what they can't accomplish legislatively, unions are now trying to achieve by diktat from the courts.

Here we go again. This California judge isn't following the Constitution, he's attempting an end run around it. I'd love to hear the opinions of our three remaining presidential contenders on this issue. Let's see if any of the three still understand what liberty means. California has made all of the home-schooled children truants, and all of their parents criminals. At a time like this, I wish I didn't have an anti-profanity rule on this blog. I'll have to resort to cartoon profanity:

*&!!^$$!!* those *##!!%%%#ers !!!

According to an Associated Press story, more Ohioans than ever are on food stamps, nearly one in ten.

Amid a sluggish economy, a record 1.1 million Ohioans are getting food stamps, the state’s welfare agency said. That’s about 10 percent of the state’s population.

Caseloads have almost doubled since 2001, when an estimated 628,000 people were in the program, according to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.

Low wages, unemployment and more expensive groceries, gasoline and other necessities have contributed to financial hardships facing many families. Ohio’s jobless rate is 5.3 percent, up from 4.4 percent in 2001.

I would say the lack of good jobs is far and away the number one reason for this situation, with all the other cited reasons running second. This begs the question, why does Ohio lack good jobs ? The entire country was hit with the loss of manufacturing jobs, but other states have recovered much better than Ohio. Why ? One big reason is that Ohio has one of the worst business environments in the entire country. According to The Tax Foundation's rankings, Ohio has the 5th highest state/local tax burdens in the country, and is ranked 46th out of 50 for it's business tax climate. Ohio had one of the lowest tax burdens in the 1970's, and now has one of the highest. Former Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who is campaigning for John McCain, put it this way:

"John McCain knows as I know…that capital seeks the path of least resistance and greatest opportunity. Ohio's regulatory environment, it's tax climate, and the general cost of doing business is non-competitive, and as a consequence we're losing capital and losing jobs."

Blackwell was also highly critical of his own Republican party under former Republican governor Bob 'good riddance' Taft. Blackwell complained that "Ohio Republicans…campaigned like Ronald Reagan and then governed like Jimmy Carter". Amen to that. The same thing happened at the national level under Dubya. Blackwell, one of the few real conservatives in Ohio, lost his bid for the Ohio governorship to Democrat Ted Strickland by 24 points in 2006.

So, now that the Democrats control the statehouse, what does Strickland plan to do to help Ohio ? Has Strickland seen the light about Ohio's onerous tax burden that inhibits the creation of new jobs ?

No such luck, Ohio. His first budget did nothing to address the situation.

The news gets worse. The USA has nearly the highest corporate tax rates in the world, so the business environment is already unfriendly. When you add Ohio's unfriendly business environment on top of that, we have sort of the perfect storm of business unfriendliness right here in the Buckeye state. We are the worst of the worst. No wonder jobs aren't being created. No wonder the rust belt keeps rusting. On top of that, add high energy costs due to our climate. I mean, what's so hard to figure out here ?

When Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama blew through town talking about renegotiating NAFTA (and forgot all about it as soon as they left), that was the red herring. The problem isn't NAFTA. Globalization isn't going away. Free trade isn't going away. You might as well wish for the return of the horse and carriage (okay, bad example. That one might make a comeback the way things are going.) Instead of fighting globalization, we have to adapt to it. First, we have to stop treating business and free enterprise like it's the enemy (that's you, left wingers). Second, here's my crazy idea, and somebody tell me why it wouldn't work to immediately transform the business climate from unfriendly to super-friendly, and those job losses into job gains:

We stop taxing business. Completely.

For you liberals out there, c'mon, think outside the box. The purpose of our country isn't to accrue money to the government, it's to create conditions for the prosperity of our citizens. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness gets much more difficult without a decent income.

And it beats food stamps.

The short answer is…yes, it did. It made the mortgage banking industry much more speculative than it was under the former Depression-era banking regulations. The Depression-era banking regulations were designed to, not surprisingly, protect against severe economic recessions and depressions (like maybe what we are moving into now ?)

Deregulation also resulted in record levels of home ownership for lower and moderate income persons, so the news hasn't always been bad. There are two sides to that coin, and the fact is, to a large extent the government pushed the banking industry into what it has become.

While watching Chris Wallace's sunday morning show last week, I heard Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) talking about the economy, which he referred to as the "Bush-McCain economy". Good old Chucky, ever the partisan. Schumer, an Obama supporter, must not have received the message that Obama is beyond partisanship and into unity.

But regarding financial deregulation, is Schumer correct ? Is this the "Bush-McCain economy" ??? It's certainly not McCain's, at least not any more than it's Schumer's. And for the most part, it's only Bush's in the sense that Bush didn't reverse deregulation, which has been going on for 30 years. In fact, Deregulation was a done deal by the time Bush took office. The last vestige of the Depression-era banking regulations was thrown off in 1999, when Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed commercial & investment banks to consolidate, a move that contributed to the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis. The effects of these regulation changes aren't felt the next day, they are felt years later.

Banking deregulation really started with the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) during the Carter era. The CRA was designed to meet the credit needs of low and moderate income neighborhoods. It required banks to offer credit throughout their entire marketing area, rather than only in the wealthier areas (a practice known as 'redlining'). The bankers were almost unanimously opposed, but the measure was put through to increase home ownership and loans to small business. In 1995, Clinton updated the CRA, and the revisions were credited with helping to substantially increase the amount of loans to small businesses and to low to moderate income home loan borrowers. A large part of the increase in home loans was due to secondary mortgage market loans. The revisions also allowed the "securitization" of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. Public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997. These are the roots of the subprime mortgage situation. So if you ever hear Hillary on the campaign trail blaming it all on Bush (and you surely will), know that she is not being honest with you.

Deregulation resulted in the huge increases in home ownership that we have today, by allowing low and moderate income people to purchase their own homes. This has been a great boon to lower income people for the most part. It also in turn drove up the price of housing (supply and demand). Bankers became more and more creative with these mortgages due to the government mandates, and they also became, as I said before, more and more speculative, and far less conservative than they were under the Depression-era regulations. Now, pols like Chuck Schumer are looking to pass the buck when the dark side of deregulation rears it's head (and there definitely is a dark side. The subprime crisis isn't the first time. Maybe you're old enough to remember the S&L crisis of the 80's that followed Reagan era deregulation manuevers). Guys like Schumer think the public is too stupid to figure out the truth, and the truth is, deregulation is not all bad. Neither is it all good, and both political parties have been involved in it.

But since politicians are politicians, some Democrats will just blame it all on Bush, knowing they are lying the entire time, especially the ones like Chuck Schumer who have been around for a long time. Bush has a lot to answer for, economically speaking, but deregulation isn't really on him. I suppose you can blame Bush for not reregulating the deregulated financial industry, he IS the president after all and he could have tried to do that, but I wonder what guys like Chuck Schumer would be saying when home ownership opportunities for lower and moderate income people dried up following such a move. Never mind, I already know the answer.

When Barack Obama gave his speech about race and racism the other day, he more or less fessed up to one thing…that he was not being honest when he said he had never heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright make racist, hate-filled, anti-american statements. Here's Obama Version 1 versus Obama Version 2:

VERSION 1 (the evasion):

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation."

VERSION 2 (the truth):

"Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely — just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."

Good. I'm glad we cleared that up. The fact that Obama covered up initially is troubling, but at least we can move on now. Btw, Mr. Obama, none of my pastors or priests (I can't speak for the rabbis) have ever made any racist statements along the lines of Rev. Wright for me to disagree with. Any pastor or priest I've ever heard give a sermon tended to talk about God and scripture, not how America gave AIDS to Africa, how whitey keeps blacks in poverty, the United States of KKKA, or how we deserved 9/11. That stuff seems a little off-topic to me. Some have told me I don't understand the culture in black churches. I admit I've only attended a handful of black services, but I haven't heard anything like Rev. Wright in those either.

The other question Obama needed to address in his speech was why he attended Wright's church for 20 years and why Wright was his advisor and friend, given Wright's racist rhetoric. In this regard Obama failed miserably (but in very eloquent fashion. The man sure can give a speech). Obama said Wright's inflammatory statements were not the full content of Wright's character. While I am certain that is true, so what ? I mean, there was certainly more to Don Imus than a guy who made a tasteless racist joke, but Barack Obama was quick to call for Imus' resignation last year. Here's Obama on that issue:

“There’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude,” - Barack Obama in an ABC interview, April 11, 2007

Obama also told ABC that he would never appear on Imus' show after hearing Imus make the 'nappy-headed hos' remark. There was no call for wider understanding from Obama on the Imus incident, and remember, Imus was JOKING. Rev. Wright wasn't. It seems what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

Obama was basically saying that we all know people who make racist comments when he said he could no more disown Wright than he could the black community, and by talking about his white grandmother fearing black men on the street. That's why Obama's speech included a synopsis of the history of race in america, from slavery to the civil rights movement. Obama even used Wright's age as a justification of Wright's attitudes. I'd call that speech Obama's racial "kitchen sink" strategy.

Obama does have a rather unique viewpoint, since he grew up in both black and white cultures, and Obama is right that we've all heard racial statements made from time to time. That is inescapable.

But the thing is, Obama kept going back for more, and didn't disavow it until the you-know-what hit the fan. Along that line, Obama's website just recently removed a testimonial from Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

And the latest Gallup national poll has Hillary in the lead.

Democrats cried 'voter disenfranchisement !' in the 2000 presidential elections.

Democrats cried 'voter disenfranchisement !' in the 2004 presidential elections.

So there was more than a touch of irony when Democrats disenfranchised the voters of two entire states in their own 2008 presidential primary elections. You couldn't make this stuff up. Nobody would believe it. I hate to say I told you so Dems, but you made Howard Dean the head of the Democratic National Committee all on your own…so…

I told you so.

As if it wasn't bad enough that the Democrats hold enough super delegates in reserve (796) to trump the will of the people in any reasonably close primary election, now the decision over what to do about Florida and Michigan hangs over their heads like the sword of Damocles.

And the Democrats don't seem to have the slightest idea what to do about it. There's leadership for you. I even heard one Democratic pol from Florida blaming the whole thing on the Republicans. I guess some habits are hard to break.

The would-be leaders of the Democratic party, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, offered their own self-serving "solutions" (and with a straight face too ! Politicians are a special breed).

Hillary says the Florida and Michigan primaries should be counted, even though everyone knew they wouldn't count beforehand, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan (note - "Uncommitted" received 40% of the vote against Hillary in Michigan. There's a ringing endorsement of the former first lady, I mean co-president). Hillary's "solution" would result in two huge wins for, who else - Hillary. Pure integrity, that gal. At this point, I would like to take a moment to congratulate the left for finally catching on to the tactics of the Clintons, albeit 15 years too late. Welcome to the light.

For his part, Obama offered a "compromise" position, whereby each he and Hillary would get 50% of the delegates in the two states. Beautiful solution, Barack. It disenfranchises the voters, and virtually guarantees that you are the nominee. More integrity right back at ya, Hillary.

Let's call both of these candidates the unDemocrats, and the whole process the unDemocratic primaries.

On the plus side, the voters in both Puerto Rico and Guam will be enfranchised, and may even play a crucial role. The second irony is that these people who can't even devise a fair primary election are vying to run the country. Yep, I bet they'll be able to manage universal health care just wonderfully.

I suppose eventually the Dems will realize there have to be do-overs in Florida and Michigan, since angering the voters in two big swing states won't be very helpful when the general election rolls around. I'm pretty sure someone will make Howard Dean aware of that. Of course, the best course would be to remove Dean as head of the DNC and replace him with someone more competent, like maybe Brownie.

I can see it now. There will be no nominee when the Democratic Convention starts. Obama will hold a 75 delegate lead, and Hillary will have captured the popular vote and won the big swing states (this is my dream scenario). The super delegates will run screaming from the convention hall start picking their candidates…

And it's a tie with only one super delegate left !

And that super delegate is…

Bill Clinton !

With Al Sharpton standing right next to him.

So Bill picks Obama.

Then Hillary is named as Obama's vice president (following the divorce).

Nine months later, Obama becomes the first U.S. president to commit suicide.