1. Japanese officials were executed for waterboarding prisoners during World War II.

Wrong. Japanese officials were executed primarily for mass murder and for waging war against other countries. Torture was among the charges, and among the numerous torture charges was Japanese water torture (aka, water cure), not waterboarding. The two are not the same thing. Water torture involved putting a hose down a prisoner's throat and pumping water into him until his insides burst or nearly burst, often resulting in death. In addition, the Japanese usually executed the prisoners following water torture and/or other forms of torture. Even without water torture, those Japanese officials would have been executed.

2. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge was pressured by the Bush White House to raise the terror alert level prior to the 2004 elections for political reasons.

This one is debunked by Tom Ridge himself, who said he was never pressured to change the terror alert level.

"There was no pressure at all. There was a judgment call on their part and on my part," Ridge, 64, a former Pennsylvania governor and an Erie native, told the [Erie-Times News] newspaper.

In addition, there was a threat made by Bin Laden prior to the 2004 election, which Ridge himself thought might be to disrupt our presidential elections, just as Al Qaeda bombed trains in Madrid three days before Spain's elections.

Not to mention that the terror alert level was NOT raised (and it probably SHOULD have been). The charge made for a nice phony left wing attack du jour, however.

3. George W. Bush is a chickenhawk who went into the Air National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam.

The truth is, Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam, but he didn't have enough flying hours, so other pilots were sent instead. In addition, CBS producer Mary Mapes, who did the phony partisan hit piece on Bush with anchorman Dan Rather, which was based upon forged documents, KNEW Bush had volunteered, but never mentioned it. Remember, the thrust of the CBS Rather/Mapes hit piece was that Bush was a coward who was trying to avoid combat. And it was THIS NEWS STORY that attempted to influence an election, coming shortly after the 2004 Republican convention.

4. The federal government is efficient.

This one doesn't really require an explanation, but what follows is a letter to the federal government from an irate citizen that has been making it's way around the internet. I have no idea if the letter is authentic, but it sure is funny, and it sure does illustrate exactly how efficient our federal government isn't. That would be the same federal government to whom we are about to hand over our entire health care system, not that anything could possibly go wrong there.

Warning – there is profanity.

Dear Sirs,

I’m in the process of renewing my passport, and still cannot believe this. How is it that Radio Shack has my address and telephone number and knows that I bought a cable t.v. from them back in 1987, and yet, the Federal Government is still asking me where I was born and on what date.

For gosh sakes, do you guys do this by hand? My birth date you have on my social security card, and it is on all the income tax forms I’ve filed for the past 30 years. It is on my health insurance card, my driver’s license, on the last eight damn passports I’ve had, on all those stupid customs declaration forms I’ve had to fill out before being allowed off the plane over the last 30 years, and all those insufferable census forms that are done at election times.

Would somebody please take note, once and for all, that my mother’s name is Maryanne, my father’s name is Robert and I’d be absolutely astounded if that ever changed between now and when I die!

I apologize, I’m really pissed off this morning. Between you an’ me, I’ve had enough of this bullshit! You send the application to my house, then you ask me for my address!

What is going on? You have a gang of Neanderthal asses workin’ there! Look at my damn picture. Do I look like Bin Laden? I don’t want to dig up Yasser Arafat, for crying out loud! I just want to go and park my ass on a sandy beach.

And would someone please tell me, why would you give a shit whether I plan on visiting a farm in the next 15 days? If I ever got the urge to do something weird to a chicken or a goat, believe you me, I’d sure as hell not want to tell anyone!

Well, I have to go now, ’cause I have to go to the other end of the city and get another blasted copy of my birth certificate, to the tune of $60. Would it be so complicated to have all the services in the same spot to assist in the issuance of a new passport the same day? Nooooo, that’d be to damn easy and maybe makes sense. You’d rather have us running all over the place like chickens with our heads cut off, then find some ass to confirm that it’s really me on the damn picture – you know, the one where we’re not allowed to smile (bureaucratic ignorant morons)! Hey, you know why we can’t smile? We’re totally pissed off!

Signed
An Irate Citizen.

P.S. Remember what I said above about the picture and getting someone to confirm that it’s me? Well, my family has been in this country since 1776, I have served in the military for something over 30 years and have had security clearances up the ying yang. However, I have to get someone ‘important’ to verify who I am – you know, someone like my doctor WHO WAS BORN AND RAISED IN INDIA!

Sincerely,
You Sure In The Hell Should Know Who.

Last fall, when I kept hearing that the Obama presidential campaign would accept fraudulent campaign donations, I decided to test it out for myself. I tried to donate $15 to the Obama campaign using my credit card and a phony name. The name I used even signaled my fraudulent intentions. It was 'Campy Aignfraud,' (as in 'Campaign Fraud'). Not only did the Obama campaign accept my donation, but six months later, they haven't returned the money, and 'Campy' still receives e-mails and literature from them. Here's an e-mail I (Campy) received this morning from Obama's activist arm, which is called Organizing For America:

Campy –

It makes you wonder whether they see the same thing we do.
Advocates for the status quo are calling for President Obama to fail while millions of families struggle. They're playing the same old political games and offering the same failed policies at a time of crisis.

In the coming days, opponents will do everything they can to destroy the President's proposed budget, a bold plan to help fix our broken economy and healthcare system and finally make energy and education the priority we all know they must be.

Americans…deserve better than the kind of divisive politics we've seen year after year. They deserve a truthful debate about real issues and a budget that will turn this economy around so that they can turn their lives around.

The e-mail went on to ask for a donation of $25 or more.

I'd like to say this in response to Obama's e-mail – No, I DON'T see things the same way you do, Mr. President, and I object to you "playing the same old political games" even as you complain about others doing the same. Just because I disagree with your enormous unfunded spending plans that will skyrocket the deficits and debt, it doesn't make me an "advocate for the status quo." In fact, those calling for fiscal responsibility from their government are the real advocates for change, not you, Mr. Obama. I also think it's pretty pathetic that you keep lumping everyone who disagrees with you in with radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, by saying your critics are "calling for President Obama to fail while millions of families struggle." If that isn't "playing political games," I don't know what is.

First, Obama said that if his enormous and unprecedented stimulus package didn't pass, it would be "catastrophic" for America, that we'd plunge into another Great Depression. Then, Obama said the same thing about his bloated, pork-filled Omnibus spending bill, the largest in history. Now, he's playing the exact same tune about his budget, the largest budget in the history of the country, about $500 billion larger than any other budget. Obama beats the fear drum over and over, and at the same time he has the nerve to talk about ending "divisive politics," and calls for a "truthful debate about real issues." Give me a break already. The government spending our country into third world status and printing trillions of dollars out of thin air IS a real issue. It's the ultimate real issue. It would be nice if our President would engage in a "truthful debate" about it. But he won't. Instead, he demonizes his dissenters. Post-partisan, my butt. Obama's vauge buzzwords and phrases have become very tired. His talk about the "failed policies of the past" about makes me want to throw up. The biggest failed policy of the past I can think of is the endless red ink our government runs up, and Obama is DOUBLING the rate of the red ink. Obama embodies the failed policieis of the past, but this time on steriods.

I did a little checking about where the donations for Obama's Organizing For America group go. It turns out they go directly to the Democratic National Committee. As the Washington Post reports:

The [Organization For America] brought Obama's massive campaign e-mail and address list under the umbrella of the DNC, which is run by Obama's handpicked chairman, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine…DNC financial filings give little indication of the contours of OFA, since the project's expenditures are not separated from the committee's overall operations.

So, in essence, the Organization For America IS the Democratic National Committee, yet the Obamans make the OFA appear to be an independent grassroots movement. There's your hope and change, folks. It's the same old cynical partisan politics as ever.

And did any of you notice that in his April 12th e-mail to 'Campy', Obama is calling for donations to HELP PASS HIS BUDGET, when that budget has ALREADY PASSED IN BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE ???? All that's left is for the two chambers of Congress to reconcile the two versions. Obama doesn't need any money to help pass a budget that has already been passed. That's just misdirection on Obama's part, more smoke and mirrors. He's just trying to raise money for the DNC. The budget has nothing to do with it. Obama is being dishonest and playing political games to fool the rubes.

As for Obama's call for "truthful debate about real issues," the Republicans offered an alternative to Obama's budget that would have resulted in $4.8 trillion LESS in spending over the next 10 years. It was voted down in the House along party lines. While Obama was quick to point out a few weeks ago that the Republicans didn't have an alternative budget, did you ever hear him mention it again once the Republicans proposed one ? No, you didn't.
Obama disproves his own rhetoric time after time. Obama didn't want to consider any alternative budget. Obama just wanted to play partisan politics during his endless campaign.

P.S. – Speaking of Obama's budget, it will be interesting to see how Obama's "tax cuts for 95% of all Americans" fares. In the House version, those tax cuts EXPIRE IN 2010. Yes, that's right. They expire NEXT YEAR. They'd be ONE YEAR tax cuts. What a great help to the middle class, a one time $400 tax cut. Suckers. In the Senate version, they expire in 2012. I guarantee you that none of Obama's spending and tax increases will expire.

Wake up, America. You're being played.

Barack Obama – 52%
John McCain – 46%

The anti-Bush backlash is complete. Barack Obama (D-IL) will become the 44th president of the United States of America, and take with him solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress (as of now, 54-44-2 in the Senate, and 248-187-1 in the House Of Representatives). This gives Democrats a level of governmental power not seen since the days of Jimmy Carter. For the sake of our country, I sincerely hope this Democratic rule works out better than the disaster of the Carter years. It may seem to many that there is nowhere to go but up following 8 years of George W. Bush. That is not the case. In the past, things have been much worse than they are right now. Which direction this country takes under an Obama presidency remains to be seen, but I pray that God grants our new president the wisdom to make positive change. Though it seems Barack Obama and myself could hardly be further apart in political ideology, I don't want him to fail so I can prove some ideological point. I want him to succeed, for the good of our country and citizens.

From a historical viewpoint, Obama's win is phenomenal. I'm old enough to remember the civil rights struggles of the 1960's. An Obama presidency would not have been possible back in those days, when racism was still prevalent and institutionalized. That we can now elect a black man to the highest office in the land serves as witness to how far we have traveled away from that wicked path. Dr. Martin Luther King's dream was realized in voting booths across the nation yesterday. There was no Bradley Effect, as many had anticipated. I never believed there would be one. I never believed race would be a significant or determining factor in this election. In fact, I think there was probably a negative Bradley Effect. If anything, Obama's race worked to his advantage. That was a long time coming too.

The central question I have about Barack Obama is – How will he govern ? Is the real Obama the man with the most liberal voting record in the Senate, the one who ran to the left in the Democratic primaries, the one with the far left extremist friends, or is the real Obama the one we saw in the general election, a more centrist leader who reaches across the aisle for bipartisan solutions ? The answer to that question remains to be seen, but we will surely find out. I hope for the latter, and I fear the former.

P.S. – What the heck is going on in Minnesota ? First they elected a professional wrestler as their governor, and now the comedian Al Franken could actually win a Senate seat. Words fail me.

This has been the longest presidential election cycle ever. It's been going on for, what, about 17 years now ? It seems like it. I have Obama's rap down so well that I know what he's going to say before he says it. I amuse my girlfriend by pausing the television and then telling her exactly what Obama is about to say, and then playing back Obama's answer to see how close I was. I'm usually right on the money. It's almost eerie, really. If you listen to Obama enough, you start to realize how robotic he is, how programmed his responses are. The media refers to this as Obama being "focused" and "on message." He certainly is that. Maybe familiarity does breed contempt, because I have Obama fatigue, and he hasn't even been elected yet. Not that I mean to bring anyone down from their "hope" and "change" Obama high. I'm just making an observation.

This has also been the most expensive election cycle ever, by far. According to the Wall Street Journal, the presidential campaign has cost $1.6 billion in 2008, more than double what it cost four years ago. In total, WSJ estimates the cost of all the political campaigns across the country at $5.3 billion. Barack Obama has raised more than $620 million, smashing all previous records. Ironically, both presidential candidates talk about keeping the money and special interests out of Washington D.C. At least John McCain stuck to his public campaign financing pledge, even though it put him at a huge disadvantage. Obama did not stick to his word, choosing instead what was politically convenient. If past is prologue for an Obama presidency, that does not bode well.

It does appear that Obama will win, if the polls are to be believed. All the polls have Obama ahead. Professional people run these polls, so they are probably accurate. As proof, look at how accurate the polls have been in the past. Why, they haven't been wrong since way back in………2004, the last presidential election. The polls had John Kerry winning that one by 3-5%, and he lost by 3 million votes. Maybe everybody should go vote in spite of the fact that the experts are saying Obama has it all wrapped up, just to be sure. I'm not a big fan of letting the media tell me how things are supposed to be anyway.

This election is historic, and interest is high. The voter turnout should be the largest ever. I'm glad people are taking an interest in politics. That is a good thing. Americans have been far too lethargic about political matters in the past. In some parts of the country, such as Indianapolis, Philadelphia, some Alabama counties, some Missouri counties, and others, enthusiasm is so high that more people have registered to vote than are even eligible to vote. Indianapolis, for instance, has registered 105% of it's eligible voters. Now, THAT'S enthusiam, folks. Power to the people ! From a single ACORN grows a mighty oak tree. And the Democrats tell me they are going to make darned sure that every one of those registered voters will indeed get to cast their ballots. There won't be any voter suppression THIS time, by God. Dead or alive, the voters will have their voices heard.

I voted early last saturday, and the process didn't exactly fill me with confidence that Ohio voter fraud will be rooted out. Nobody was asked to produce any identification. You just had to fill out a piece of paper that required you to write down either the last four digits of your Social Security number, your Drivers license/State ID number, or a utility bill/bank statement with your name on it (or your name written in crayon on a Post-It). Even if you had none of those, you could still cast a provisional ballot. Using the terminology of my former profession as a computer programmer, the system appears WAAAAAYYY easy to hack, doubly so if they are only checking the ballot cards against voter registrations, as I suspect they might be doing. If this election turns out to be close and hinges on a few hundred Ohio votes, we are going to have a firestorm of national controversy that will make Florida in 2000 look like a tea party. I hope I'm wrong about this, but I was concerned. So was the fellow I struck up a conversation with while waiting to vote. His name was Luke Skywalker.

I'm not going to try to tell anyone how they should vote. Each person has to make that decision for themselves. If you want to make the catastrophic mistake of voting for the inexperienced left wing socialist Barack Obama, that is your prerogative. I'm certainly not going to try to influence you to vote instead for the genuine American hero John McCain, who has earned the right to be president through a lifetime of public service and the acquired knowledge of over two decades in Congress. No, I would never do that.

Happy voting, America !

Time for a little economic straight talk. This week's headlines informed us that Exxon/Mobil made a record profit of $14.3 billion for the 3rd quarter of 2008. Barack Obama immediately added this tidbit to his campaign stump speech to illustrate the unfairness gap between the haves and the have-nots, and also to bash John McCain's tax plan. The Barack Obama's of the world get very upset when private companies make such large profits. They see it as E-V-I-L and G-R-E-E-D-Y. In ObamaWorld, the more money you rake in, the more evil and greedy you are (federal government excepted). What Obama and friends leave out of the equation is this – Exxon/Mobil also paid $11.3 billion in taxes for the 3rd quarter. Isn't that enough ? Isn't that too much ? That money funds those endless government programs Obama loves so much (Obama has proposed increasing spending on no less than 175 government initiatives. I wonder when he finds time to sleep). You see, in order for Obama to redistribute wealth, there must be wealth to begin with, and it's our private sector that creates it. With so many American businesses struggling and/or failing right now, why is Obama holding up for derision the one company that is doing the best ? The reason is, Democrats play class warfare games to get elected, but Obama should realize that killing the golden goose doesn't make for very smart economic policy. It's not like we'd be better off if all our companies were losing tons of money, as the automakers, banks, airlines, and many others are doing. Count me as one who wishes all our businesses were as successful as Exxon/Mobil. That would take care of 98% of America's problems right there. In order to help our businesses be successful, which in turn enables our citizens to become employed, successful, and prosperous themselves, it just might be a good idea to HELP the business sector rather than add ever more hurdles for it to overcome. That's why John McCain's tax/economic policy, which lowers the business tax rate, keeps the capital gains tax rate low to encourage investment, and enables American businesses to be more competitive, is a REAL GOOD idea, while Obama's tax/economic policy, which penalizes business success and adds new business burdens, is a REAL BAD idea, unless we as a nation have some sort of perverse death wish.

While I'm on the subject, let's explode another Obama falsehood, one that he's repeated about 100,000 times by now. McCain's tax/economic policy is NOT the same as George W. Bush's, not at all. Bush cut the individual income tax rates for 100% of us, like Obama is proposing for 95% of us. McCain is NOT proposing individual income tax rate cuts. What McCain is proposing is to cut the business tax rate from 35% (second highest in the entire world) to 25%. I only wish McCain was cutting that tax rate even lower to attract more new businesses and more new jobs to this country. The object of taxation isn't to centralize wealth in the hands of the federal government, it's to help the people. Nothing helps people more than jobs. No government entitlement even runs a close second to employment for promoting the general welfare.

All this brings me to the news item of the day. In Janurary 2008, Barack Obama described his energy policy as follows:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

Obama plans to bankrupt the coal industry, by design. The coal industry supplies 70% of our electricity. Funny, the Messiah didn't mention his coal bankrupting plans when he was campaigning in coal mining states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, or West Virginia. He pretended to be a friend of coal then.

During the same interview, Obama went on to say, "under my plan, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket".

And you folks thought Obama was a friend to the middle class. You won't think so when you get your utility bills during an Obama administration. Obama's plans for coal come from the same left wing environmental mindset that have restricted our domestic oil supply and stopped nuclear power, leaving us dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia. If you are naive enough to believe Obama when he says he isn't beholden to special interests, you better think again. The environmental lobby is one of those special interests. Barack Obama will hurt every person in this country to appease them, by his own admission.

Most amazing of all is, Obama said he planned to bankrupt the coal industry and send electricity prices soaring BACK IN JANUARY, yet we haven't heard a word about it until now, on the verge of the election. Millions of people have already voted, and I bet next to none of them knew about this.

Instead of getting substantive information from the media, information that could help us make an informed decision about who should be the next president, we get "hope and change", and we get questions like the ones that Leisa Zigman, a reporter for KSDK-TV in St. Louis, asked Obama during a recent interview:

1.) “Your presidential campaign may go down as the most organized in history. Yet the polls remain tight in Missouri. In the last seven days what else can you say to sway undecided and McCain-leaning Missouri voters?”
2.) “Today, Bob Clark, founder of Clayco Construction, sent a letter to his employees. In part it read, ‘Sometimes, but rarely, a person appears at the right time and the right place to transform ordinary people into thinkers and doers who can accomplish more than they ever thought they could. That truly is the definition of inspiration. Barack Obama has this quality. I have witnessed it personally many times.’ In 2004, Mr. Clark raised thousands for the Bush campaign, but for the past two years, he’s raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for your campaign. Please respond.”
3.) “Who has helped your campaign more: Missouri U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill or Oprah?”
4.) “What was it like when you were in St. Louis in front of 100,000 people? What were you thinking as you looked out from the Arch to the Old Court House and beyond?”
5.) “Many people are worried about your safety. What are your thoughts in light of the alleged skinhead plot?”

One only marvels at how the Messiah maintained his composure under such withering journalistic scrutiny.

Wake up, America. You only have one more day.

Liberals have an affinity for the big government nanny-statism of socialist Europe. Don't ask me why. It doesn't make much sense to me, but that's the way it is. However, if a Conservative actually uses the word "socialist" to describe liberal socialist policies, liberals become apoplectic. Don't ask me to explain that one either. That makes even less sense. I mean, it's not like The Communists of the old USSR bridled at being called Communists. Of course they didn't. They WERE Communists. They were proud of it. They thought their way was the best (wrong, comrade, but nice try). Yet liberals, who propose one collectivist, socialist, big government policy after another, take umbrage at being called Socialists. I don't get it. It's as if liberals are afraid to air their true beliefs in public, for fear they will be exposed. Why ? Let's stop all the game playing, and call a spade a spade. Let's measure European socialist policy against American free-market capitalist policy. Maybe we can discover which policy works the best (the question was actually settled long ago, but apparently, liberals keep forgetting).

Back in 2004, a pair of Swedish economists, Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag, did a study called "The EU vs. USA", for the Swedish think tank Timbro. You may recall that Sweden is one of those European socialist countries that liberals like to point to as a model of success, a country we should pattern ourselves after.

So, how did the USA stack up to the European Union in the study ? I'm glad you asked. Here are the results:

[The study] found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average, as the chart below shows.

The authors admit that man doesn't live by GDP alone, and that this measure misses output in the "black" economy, which is significant in Europe's high-tax states. GDP also overlooks "the value of leisure or a good environment" or the way prosperity is spread across a society.

But a rising tide still lifts all boats, and U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average in 2000, and the gap hasn't closed since. It is so wide that if the U.S. economy had frozen in place at 2000 levels while Europe grew, the Continent would still require years to catch up. Ireland, which has lower tax burdens and fewer regulations than the rest of the EU, would be the first but only by 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and Britain would get there by 2010. But Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would have to wait until 2022.

Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says.

Americans are richer, have more disposable income, and have greater economic growth, by far.

Europeans have a black market. That's what happens when freedom is forced underground.

Only Ireland, which has emulated the American ideals of lower taxes and fewer regulations, is catching up economically to the good old USA. Conclusion – freedom works, and top-down government control is a piss-poor substitute.

But what about that "fairness" and "spreading the wealth" that Barack Obama is always trumpeting ? Again, I'm glad you asked. Here's more from the study:

The percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden–the very model of a modern welfare state–were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income.

In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.

So what is Europe's problem? "The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west," the authors write. In 1999, average EU tax revenues were more than 40% of GDP, and in some countries above 50%, compared with less than 30% for most of the U.S.

And do I even need to mention that America provides military defense for Europe ? Europe is relieved of most of that huge burden, yet we are STILL doing far better than they are. Wake up and smell the coffee, America. We shouldn't be emulating THEM, they should be emulating US. The smart ones, like Ireland, are.

The American way is imperfect, of course. All systems are imperfect, but America's way is FAR better than the European way, and far better than any other way that has been devised. Yet, liberals, including Barack Obama, keep wanting to emulate the inferior model. Lord knows why. I don't speak liberal, but I do know this – doing it in the name of "fairness" is extremely misguided.

It's said that harsh economic times are when it's mostly likely for a people to embrace the wrong philosophy. There are numerous examples of that throughout history. That's what I think we are about to do here, by embracing Obama as a backlash against Bush (who governed as a big government, big spender, people. Again, wake up. It's not about R vs. D). Obama's a nice guy, good public speaker, well intentioned and all, but he's just wrong – end of story.

Be careful what you ask for America, because you just might get it. In fact, you are only a couple days away from getting it. Good luck with that. You'll need it.

"Bitter partisan fights and outworn ideas of the left and the right won't solve the problems we face today, but a new spirit of unity and shared responsibility will" – Barack 'The One' Obama

Wow. That's inspiring stuff. Do you feel the tingle ? I know I do. At least I think it's a tingle. It could just be acid reflux. I'm not sure, but I'm ready to cast aside all my fears, doubts, and independent thought processes, because this election is historic, the most important election in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF MANKIND, the most important election held in the known universe, ever. We must discard those "outworn ideas of the left and right" (and instead embrace only the outworn ideas of the left), because the only way we can achieve "unity" is to stop arguing over petty matters, such as the role of the federal government, federal taxation and spending, the economy, the U.S. Constitution, and so forth. Those things are not really important. What IS important is to blindly follow our "better angels", as embodied by Barack Obama, the new Messiah. How else can he deliver us from this mean, third world hellhole we call the United States of America ? How else will we ever take our place among the righteous nations of the earth, like Venezuela ? The old ways, the ways designed by our Founding Fathers, clearly do not work. Yes, those frayed and threadbare concepts promoted by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madision, and George Washington may have resulted in America becoming the world's pre-eminent superpower, the world's beacon of liberty, hope, and opportunity, and the creation of 30% of the world's wealth by only 5% of it's people, but c'mon folks, life is not a totally carefree utopian paradise here, there are still problems, so we need drastic CHANGE, a change that only a Messiah who promises to "change the world" (not kidding, The Big O really said that) can bring.

"We've got to transform the political culture, so it's responsive to you, not to the special interests, not to the fat cats, not to the lobbyists" – Barack Hussein Obama

Tell it, Barack ! Tell it ! And of course, the way to get rid of the special interests and lobbyists is to create an ever larger federal government bureaucratic monster that micromanages all essential aspects of our society (the "progressive" way), so every special interest and lobbyist in the country is forced to fight like a starving dog over the scraps being doled out from an all-powerful federal government that picks the winners and the losers. Ask National City Bank (NCB) about that. When our Congressional overlords handed Treasury $700 billion of taxpayer money to bail out the financial industry, our government designated NCB and northeast Ohio the LOSERS, and PNC Bank from Pittsburgh the WINNERS. PNC got bailout money and NCB didn't. PNC bought NCB with the bailout money, and now thousands of northeast Ohio jobs are gone like the wind. Lots of those newly jobless NCB people are my friends. Thanks goodness they can rest easy knowing they'll get that Obama tax cut for the middle class. I'm sure they are grateful.

Thinking you can reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests with more and more centralized government is one of the most braindead ideas I've ever heard. The truth is precisely the opposite. You minimize the influence of special interests and lobbyists by NOT letting the government pick all the winners and losers. You minimize the influence of special interests and lobbyists by limiting government and promoting individual liberty, which our old Founding Fathers figured out over 220 years ago, dummies that they were.

Oops, I apologize folks. There I go, thinking again, when I should be FOLLOWING the One, for the sake of, you know, "unity", "post-partisanship", and that "shared responsibility" thing. I'll have to work on that. It's going to take a LOT of work, so I may have another slip or two before I learn to obey my new massuh, like a good boy should.

"It is the essential belief that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper, that makes this system work" – Barack Obama

Amen ! To test the validity of this idea, go find one of your neighbors who has more than you do, and demand half his hard-earned money. You'll quickly find out how people REALLY respond to the forcible "redistribution" of their wealth. I suggest you pack some heat to facilitate your neighbor's desire to be his "brother's keeper", or you probably won't get his money. A mask might help too. It's no different at all when the government forces that same redistribution, and that's what the Messiah is proposing, all in the name of "fairness", of course.

But don't get me wrong, I love it ! It's "transformative", just like the Messiah says.

For those of you lucky enough to have a certain satellite television network, you can watch The Obama Channel, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (I'm not kidding about this either). You didn't have to wait for the Messiah's primetime Hollywood television special last night. You can get all the knowledge you need right from the Obama source, even though you pretty much get that anyway from almost every television station and newspaper in existence. I have the Obama Channel on in the background right now. It's all the Big Brother anyone really needs. Quite convenient. For instance, the Obama Channel just informed me that Obama had both parents and grandparents, and they worked at various jobs during their lives, right here in America ! His grandfather even served in World War II, and Obama also has relatives who resided in the Kansas heartland (and we all know how liberals revere Kansans). What more do you need to know, people ? Barack Obama is a regular American, just like you, just like me, and just like Barry's pals, the terrorist William Ayers, the terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, the racist anti-semitic, anti-american Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the radical Father Pleger, the mobster Tony Rezko, and former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi. There's nothing to see here. We are the ones we've been waiting for. The only other thing we need is the Fairness Doctrine to shut up all Obama's talk radio opposition, and the Employee Free Choice Act to remove the secret ballot in union voting. Then we'll all be free and "united", just like the Soviet Union was. The new worker's paradise could be just around the corner, and the inconvenience of the dissenting voice will be effectively muzzled. Oh, the glory !

As evidence of Obama's "transformative" agenda and his "new politics", just look at how he ran his most excellent political campaign. He lied about opted out of taking public campaign financing, while still saying he believes in it (taking both sides of an issue at the same time is one of Obama's special oratorical gifts. A mere mortal politician couldn't get away with that time after time, but the Messiah pulls it off effortlessly), and he has spent the most money in the history of American politics trying to get elected, almost doubling the previous campaign spending record held by George W. Bush in 2004. Obama has the entire American media serving as sycophantic shills for him as he does this, and Obama also gave $900,000 to the biggest voter fraud group in the country, ACORN. Over $200 million of Obama's campaign contributions remain secret, in spite of Obama's repeated calls for "transparency" in government. Hillary Clinton's people are saying the Obama campaign won the early Democratic primary caucuses through voter fraud and intimidation. There are reports of millions in illegal foreign contributions being received by the Obama campaign. I even tested the authenticity of donating to the Obama campaign myself. After hearing that online Obama donations were not being screened properly to prevent fraud, I went to Obama's website and tried to donate $15 with my credit card. The phony name I used for the transaction was 'Campy AignFraud'. I used a phony address as well. The Obama campaign accepted the fraudulent transaction lickety split, and never even asked for my credit card security code. They even sent me a nice followup e-mail, thanking the non-existent Campy for donating money with my credit card. Change We Can Believe In.

The Messiah is a special, special man, folks. Get on board the train, or be left behind at the station. I have, as Campy's campaign donation has proven.

Obama/Biden in 2008. Vote early and vote often. This is freaking historic.

This presidential election is about the future direction of our country. It is a referendum on what type of country we want in America. There are fundamental differences between the progressive (Obama/Biden) view and the conservative (McCain/Palin) view. As I see it, the differences are fairly stark, and are illustrated clearly by looking at tax policy. The progressives view tax policy as a moral issue, to be used to implement social change. Therefore they favor higher taxes on the wealthy to "spread the wealth around" to the less wealthy, as Obama puts it. It is a redistributive policy. Conservatives, on the other hand, view tax policy more as an economic calculation, to be used to stimulate the overall economy in the best possible manner. Conservatives feel economic growth is best accomplished by keeping taxes low for everyone, and in McCain's case, lowering tax rates for business and capital gains to create jobs and growth.

It is only natural to consider progressive tax policy as more socialist in nature, and to consider conservative tax policy as more individualist in nature. When you look at the economic state of our country, with $700 billion bailouts for the financial industry, a $165 billion stimulus package being passed, another $300 billion stimulus package being proposed by the Democrats, the federal government buying up shares of the largest banks in the nation, bailouts for automobile manufacturers, $53 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities, $10 trillion in national debt….

It is therefore entirely proper to ask the men and women who are vying to lead this country about the direction in which we're heading. Everyone I know is concerned about it.

Enter Joe Biden's interview with a local television newswoman from Florida, Barbara West.

West: Senator Obama now famously told Joe the plumber he wanted to spread his wealth around. A Gallup poll showed 84% of Americans prefer government focus on improving economic conditions and creating more jobs in the U.S., as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth. Isn't Senator Obama's comment a potentially crushing political blunder ?

Biden: Absolutely not. The only person who has spread the wealth around has been George Bush and John McCain's tax policy. They have devastated the middle class. We, for the first time since the late 20's, we have 1% of the people make over 21% of the income in America. That wasn't the way before George Bush became president. All we want is once again to have the middle class to have a fighting chance. That's why we focus all of our efforts on restoring the middle class and giving them a tax break..

Timeout. Let's take a reality break from Biden's talking points. First of all, George Bush did NOT "spread the wealth around" with his tax cuts. Bush cut taxes across the board for everyone, allowing all taxpayers to keep more of THEIR OWN money. That goes for both the wealthy and the middle class. Middle class taxes were far lower under the Bush administration than under the previous Clinton administration. How does giving the middle class more money devastate the middle class, as Biden put it ? Despite all Obama's talk of growing the economy "from the bottom up" with his middle class tax cuts, if you look at Bush's tax cuts realistically, they amounted to growing the economy both from the bottom up and from the top down, because he cut taxes for all. When Obama/Biden talk about returning to the tax policies of the Clinton era, those policies taxed the middle class MORE. Obama/Biden are being dishonest in their portrayal of the Bush tax cuts.

West: You may recognize this famous quote, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around ?

Biden: Are you joking ? Is this a joke ?

West: No.

Biden: Is that a real question ?

West: That's a question.

Biden: Ha, ha, ha. He is not spreaking the wealth around. He is talking about giving the middle class an opportunity to get back the tax breaks they used to have.

Huh ? Giving the middle class back the tax breaks they used to have ? That's a lie. As I just said, Bush CUT middle class taxes, and Biden is acting like Bush raised taxes on the middle class. Utter dishonesty from Biden.

Biden: We think the people should be getting a tax break, and not continue to distribute the wealth up…it's a ridiculous comparison, with all due respect.

Here Biden talks about wealthier people keeping their own money as a "distribution of wealth up", which it plainly isn't. It's THEIR OWN MONEY. That's not redistribution. Someone should tell Biden that other people's money doesn't belong to Joe Biden or the federal government. It belongs to the people who earned it. Regardless of our view of what constitutes fair tax policy, we need to at least be honest in our uses of terminology. Biden isn't being honest.

West: Getting back to the spreading the wealth question, what do you say to the people who are concerned that Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country, much like Sweden ?

Biden: I don't know anybody who thinks that except the far right wing of the Republican party.

Really ? Barack Obama's plans for universal health care, to nationalize pre-school, greatly expand government spending, redistribute wealth, and greatly increase taxes, don't bring to mind european-type socialism, such as that practiced in Sweden ? Of course they do, to any thinking person. Again, this election is about the fundamental direction this country will take in the future. These are just the type of questions that should be asked of our candidates.

But Biden objected. Biden addressed the interview at an event in North Carolina – saying it’s one more example of how “mean” the campaign has gotten. “I was on a television station the other day doing a satellite fed to a major network in Florida, and the anchor quotes Karl Marx, and says in a sense, isn’t Barack Obama Karl Marx,” Biden said. “I mean, folks, this stuff you’re hearing, this stuff you’re hearing in this campaign, some of it’s pretty ugly. And some of the innuendo is pretty ugly.” According to the Orlando Sentinel, the Obama campaign pulled an appearance by Biden's wife from the Florida television station, and also limited access of other Obama campaign members.

Are you kidding me ? Hasn't one of the complaints from Democrats about the Bush administration been that the Bushies won't answer any hard questions, and that they limit access to reporters ? Now we have the Obama campaign doing the very same thing in response to fundamental questions about which direction our country is heading. And Biden calling these fundamental questions "mean" and "ugly" ? I don't think so. Biden's arrogance is off the charts.

With all due respect, Mr. Biden, you work for us, the people. We can and should ask you any damn question we please, and you are supposed to answer it. That's how the public becomes informed and reaches a decision. I only wonder why these questions weren't being asked earlier than one week before the election. It would also help if you told the truth, Mr. Biden, at least once in a while. You aren't doing much of that either.

The NY Times endorsed Obama ? What a shocker. This is almost as unexpected as the old headline proclaiming 'John Wilkes Booth Hates Abraham Lincoln'. Sure didn't see that coming. The Times released this non-bombshell on it's internet site. Here's the Times' reasoning, according to Yahoo:

"He [Obama] has drawn in legions of new voters with powerful messages of hope and possibility and calls for shared sacrifice and social responsibility," the Times said. "He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation's problems."

The part about Obama bringing in "legions of new voters" is certainly correct, but what was that stuff about Obama calling for "shared sacrifice and social responsibility" ???

Obama wants the "rich' to pay for universal health care, nationalized pre-school, and all the rest of his trillion dollars in new "investments." At the same time, he wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, about half of whom don't even pay income taxes, and he wants the "rich", who already pay the lion's share of income taxes, to pick up the slack. I'm missing the "shared sacrifice" in all that, unless Obama's using "shared sacrifice" as a metaphor for The Next Great Depression that his million new taxing and spending policies will bring about. As for the "social responsibility" part, Obama is a pro-abortion extremist who has never voted against any abortion control measure, including partial-birth abortions and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that would provide medical care for live babies who have survivied abortion. Obama takes his pro-abortion radicalism to such an extent that he would allow live born babies to die rather than help them. In other times, that would be called infanticide, but not in Obama and the Times' view of "social responsibility." The old Nazi Dr. Mengele had a similar view of social responsibility.

The NY Times declared that the choice between Obama and Republican John McCain was easy. Not even close. They said:

"Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing."

What is the Times talking about here ? McCain doesn't want to raise taxes, he wants to decrease federal spending, and balance the budget. If those things are the "limitless demands and narrow vison of the far right, then our entire country is in big, big trouble. Or maybe it's all those calls by McCain for bipartisanship and working across the aisle to get things done that so irritates the NY Times. I don't know. Also, when the Times chooses McCain as the "best Republican nominee in the primaries", that tells you McCain was NOT the best Republican nominee, just the one furthest to the left in the Times' view.

But then again, who cares what the NY Times thinks ? I wonder who was the last Republican they endorsed for president ? I wonder if there has ever been one.

American newspapers are endorsing Obama over McCain at about a 3-1 rate. The only thing that surprises me there is that the numbers don't favor Obama even more. After all, Obama has no military experience, no management experience, no executive experience, no economic qualifications, little U.S. Senate experience, and next to no significant legislative accomplishments during his political career. He is the champion of the noncommital "present" vote. He has never run so much as a Dunkin' Donuts shop. He has associations with several shady and far left characters. His positions change like the wind (he even changed his tax policy this week in response to McCain's onslaught), but he gives a good speech, carefully crafted by his 300 advisors. He also says "hope" and "change" a lot. What's not to like ? Barack Obama, America's first entry-level president.

By choosing Obama over McCain, America will be choosing style over substance, again. And then we wonder why things don't work out so well.

For an alternative and far superior viewpoint to the NY Times, read Charles Krauthammer's column about who should be the next president.

If Barack Obama wins the presidency in november, and the Democrats maintain control of both houses of Congress, there will be a massive ideological shift in government. Not just Democrats, but LIBERAL Democrats, will run the whole show. This hasn't been seen since the days of FDR or LBJ, who gave us the New Deal and Great Society policies, respectively. I suggest that Obama come up with a name for his policies, like FDR and LBJ did. Since The One hasn't done that yet, I have some suggestions of my own. I think BO should call his economic scheme AMERICA – THE NEW FRANCE, or maybe SOCIALISM FOR DUMMIES. How about a THOUSAND POINTS OF LEFT ?
—-
Obama's pet media has descended upon poor Joe the plumber like a pack of snarling wolves, and have torn through his personal life. Just like they did to Sarah Palin. Does this say anything about what an Obama presidency would be like ? Will the media help to silence Obama critics by mischaracterizing or exaggerating their words, as they have during this campaign ? Will they cover up and/or ignore Obama's mistakes, as they have during this campaign ? John McCain had it right when he said, “Americans ought to be able to ask Senator Obama tough questions without being smeared and targeted with political attacks.” Yes, they certainly should, but that isn't the world we live in. The media thinks it's job is to discredit anybody who criticizes their hero.
—
Speaking of the media trying to discredit people, remember the left wing rage the media generated when they reported that a member of the crowd at a Palin campaign stop allegedly yelled out "kill him", which was allegedly directed toward Obama ? That led lots of Democrats to make allegations of racism toward the GOP. Obama even brought it up in the last presidential debate. It was supremely stupid to color McCain, Palin, and the GOP as racist due to a couple random shout-outs from the crowd in the first place, but as it turns out, the original charge isn't even true. Nobody at the Palin rally yelled out "kill him." The Secret Service reviewed the tapes, and concluded what was shouted out at one rally was "tell him", not "kill him", and at another rally the Secret Service said no comment anything like "kill him" was made (link). I can't wait for all the forthcoming apologies from the media, Democrats, and Obama. Not that they will ever come.
—
In my last post, I contended that McCain won the third presidential debate decisively. Two new polls came out yesterday. An AP poll had it Obama 44, McCain 42. A Gallup poll of registered voters had it Obama 46, McCain 44. Other polls have Obama further ahead, but they weren't done after the debate. The new polls show McCain closing the gap. Sounds like McCain got a debate bump to me. You don't do that by losing.
—
The unintentionally hilarious Democratic VP candidate, Joe Biden, appeared on the NBC Today Show, talking about Joe the plumber. Biden said "I don't know any Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood who make over $250,000. The Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood, the Joe the cops in my neighborhood, the Joe the grocery store owners in my neighborhood…they make less than $250,000 a year."

FYI – Joe Biden lives on a $3 million compound. There AREN'T any plumbers, cops, or small grocery store owners living in Biden's neighborhood.

Bonus Biden quote: "Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs."

I'm no Einstein, but doesn't "JOBS" have four letters ?
—
From the 'Boundless Ego' files – Can you BELIEVE that Barack Obama complained that he'd be 2-3 points higher in the polls were it not for FoxNews ? RIIIIIIIGHT. Like Obama doesn't have ENOUGH of a media advantage already. As Newsbuster's publisher Brent Bozell rebutted, "Okay, Sen. Obama, we will cede you the point that the Fox News Channel, by accurately portraying you and your record, has brought you down 2-3% in the polls. Now it's time for you to concede that were it not for NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, etc., etc., etc. Sen. John McCain would be up by 20%."

Amen.

If Obama wins, maybe he will amend the Fairness Doctrine to outlaw FoxNews so he won't have to be bothered with ANY media opposition for his re-election campaign.

Dos Vadanya.

If any of you read my last post, called A Deficit Disorder, you probably know my feelings regarding our federal government's economic policies range somewhere between cynical and disgusted. Lately, with mob boss Hugo Chavez Hank Paulson running the Treasury like Don Corleone, making the big banks an offer they can't refuse to force a partial nationalization of those institutions, "disgusted" might not be a strong enough term. Paulson even told Wells Fargo Bank, who didn't want to be nationalized, that if they didn't accept his offer, they should (cue Marlon Brando's Don Vito voice) "never seek my favors or protections again." I'm paraphrasing, of course, but Paulson really did say words to that effect. Heaven help us. That's what happens when you give the feds so much power.

So, I almost passed on watching the third presidential debate last night. However, I was interested to see if John McCain would go down fighting or go down easy, so I tuned in. I was glad I did. While the talking heads, with their sound-byte mentalities, were saying things like "McCain didn't score the knockout he needed", or that Barack Obama "didn't make a major gaffe" after the debate, I saw things much differently. I thought John McCain cleaned Obama's clock on almost every issue. As an economic Conservative and an economic Libertarian, I finally heard from McCain some of what I've been hoping to hear. I finally heard McCain outline some fiscal policies to balance the budget and reign in Fedzilla (as Ted Nugent calls it), and I finally heard McCain expose Obama for the wrong-headed, wealth redistributing, big government tax and spend liberal that he is. I only wish McCain had mentioned some of the fascist policies of the other two heads of the liberal triumvirate of terror who would control our government if Obama gets elected and the Democrats increase their control of Congress – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who would attempt to do things like eliminate the secret ballot in union voting (you VILL join ze union, comrade !) with the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act, and squelch free speech on talk radio (which mostly happens to be Conservative free speech) by imposing the equally Orwellian-named Fairness Doctrine. Ah, how I love the smell of our basic democratic principles burning in the morning.

McCain and Obama spent much time talking to Joe the plumber, who, after 15 years of working hard at his job, was finally in a position to own his plumbing business, and was concerned that Obama's tax plans would steal his hard-earned success and limit his ability to expand his business. (you really need to watch the entire video of Obama and Joe talking here). Obama's answer really does amount to stealing Joe's success, squelching Joe's American dream, and Obama taking the fruits of Joe's labor and "spreading the wealth around" to others. It's classic big government liberal-speak. In contrast, McCain showed how his tax cuts for business and low capital gains tax rates would enable Joe to grow his business, allowing Joe to hire people and create jobs. Obama's answer to Joe is the perfect example of how big government high-tax policies work against wealth creation and economic expansion. Instead of penalizing Joe for his success, the government should get the hell out of the way of people like Joe and let them do their thing. That is what would benefit society. McCain also rightly pointed out that Joe the plumber is not rich, though he would be under Obama's entitlement mindset. When Obama talks about tax "fairness", there really is nothing at all fair about it. Joe the plumber mentioned the flat tax during his conversation with Obama. The flat tax would be fair, but to Obama, those "rich" folks like Joe, who pay 35% income tax rates, aren't being taxed enough, whereas the non-rich, who often pay little to no income taxes, deserve even more money from the government. Once again, the word "fairness" takes on an Orwellian meaning in liberaldom (some animals are more equal than others).

McCain also pointed out that the last president wrong-headed enough to increase federal spending and raise taxes during a severe recession like this one was Herbert Hoover. Hoover's policies are widely seen as leading to the 1929 Great Depression. Are we about to allow history to repeat itself by electing Obama ? McCain noted that we shouldn't be raising ANYONE'S taxes during these harsh economic times. Amen, brother. We should be cutting back on government spending and stimulating the economy instead, as McCain said he plans to do, with both a hatchet AND a scalpel, and the veto pen too. Aww, Johnny, you had me at "freeze government spending."

McCain's plans are responsible, at least relative to Obama's. Obama's plans are nuts, unless our desire is to create a socialist country. I know I don't want that. I hope you don't either. Our founders sure didn't, which is why we have that wonderful document called the Constitution. It's too bad that very few are paying any attention to it these days, and that goes for both sides of the political aisle, including both Barack Obama and Hank Paulson. I couldn't find where Paulson is allowed to forcibly nationalize privately owned banks anywhere in the Constitution, but I guess I just don't get the notion of the "living" and "evolving" Constitution (Damn right I don't).

McCain mentioned several times that Obama's answer to absolutely everything is more government spending, more government control, and more government, period. Obama would take our already overblown federal government and put it on even stronger steroids. That is exactly the wrong answer – wrong for liberty, wrong for fairness, and wrong for America. Taxes, while necessary, should always be kept as low as possible. We have an annual time known as Tax Freedom Day, which is when the average American has paid off his government tax burden. It varies from state to state, but now falls around the end of April. After the financial crisis is cleaned up, and counting all our unfunded liabilities and national debt, who knows, it might fall at the end of June, July, or even August. When the average American is working 4-6 months of the year just for the government, what is that, but forced labor ? And what is forced labor, but slavery ? Do we want to keep EXPANDING that ? Hell no. America isn't a government chain gang. That cannot possibly be good for any of us in the long run. Each and every one of us has a civic duty to keep America free, to keep taxes low, and to limit our Fedzilla, to keep the American dream alive. And if the citizenry can't see that now, with all that is currently going on in our country, then we are certainly doomed.

You can find a transcript of the third presidential debate here. McCain took it to Obama, finally, though I wish McCain had been even more forceful in making his case. In boxing parlance, McCain too often jabs and jabs, and then inexplicably backs off from throwing the overhand right that he just set Obama up for. Too bad, because I don't think Obama could hear the rest of us Conservatives delivering those overhand rights by yelling at the tv sets in our living rooms.

I'm sick and tired of hearing our D.C. politicians talking about when it's "okay" to run federal deficits. They all come up with some excuse to do it, or if they pretend to address the issue, they come up with some 5-10 year plan to balance the budget the year AFTER their presidential term ends. Yet, we keep putting these same con men in office over and over. I think it was 2003 when I first heard George W. Bush say it was "okay" to run a deficit (more federal spending than federal revenue) during either a war or a recession. Conveniently for Bush, he inherited a recession and started two wars, so, voila!, he could spend to his heart's delight, and he did, running deficit after deficit. Now, we have both Bush and the Democratic-led Congress jumping on board the deficit train, because we have another, voila!, recession, brought on by the financial crisis. Calling what's going on now in D.C. the "deficit train" is a severe understatement. It's really more like the deficit supersonic jet. After we end up spending a couple trillion beyond our means to fix the financial crisis brought on by living beyond our means (does the word "ironic" even have meaning any more ?), where will we be ? All the same deficit problems we had before will still exist, only worse. The deficits will be much larger. Now, add our two presidential candidates to the mix, Barack Obama (D) and John McCain (R), both of whom's economic plans are projected to add trillions more to the federal deficit in their first term by independent analysts. That means by 2012, our current federal debt of $10 trillion will explode up to $13-14 trillion. And the $53 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities will still be there, rolling in like a tsunami to sweep away our country's future.

What will we have accomplished by all this deficit spending ? Not a thing, really, and the destruction of our country, ultimately. And I haven't even got to the inflation part of the equation. All this deficit spending will devalue the dollar much further and result in inflation, stagflation, or whatever kind of -flation you prefer, none of it good for our country, none of it good for our citizens.

Pop question: Who was the last U.S. president to reduce the federal debt during his administration ?

If you said Bill Clinton, that's wrong. He added about $1.4 trillion to the debt during his eight years. He looks good compared to Dubya, who is projected to add around $4.7 trillion to the debt, but Clinton still ran it up, as did Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, and Roosevelt, if my calculations are correct. I can't even answer my own question, because the historical debt tables I found only went back to 1940, and every single administration since that time has added to the federal debt.

With the unfunded entitlement liabilities looming, it appears to me that without significant policy changes, the federal debt will rise geometrically, ultimately destroying the American empire. The current financial crisis will only be the beginning of a much deeper and unrelenting financial crisis.

And McCain is running campaign ads about William Ayers. Obama is running ads about McCain being the same as Bush. Obama pimps CHANGE while ignoring the huge deficit and debt increases his own policies will bring. Ditto for McCain.

Change, my butt. They are BOTH more of the same.

There are only two ways out of the mess we are in. We have to either jack taxes through the roof to pay for all this government spending, or we have to drastically reduce government spending. If we take the tax increase path, we'd have to virtually double our current tax revenue. Doubling taxes is an economy killer of an idea if I ever heard one, so the only viable path out of this is to drastically cut government spending.

Since it appears that the Democrats are going to take over both the Presidency and Congress this election cycle, and will have the power to mostly do whatever they want, let me deal with their plans. Color me more than skeptical that liberal Democratic control will result in anything other than giant government spending increases, along with an additional tax burden on all Americans. If any of you really buy into the "Obama will cut taxes for 95% of Americans" jive, let me remind you of a few things. First, it's really only about 80% that Obama will cut taxes for, and second, about half of those 80% don't pay any income taxes, so what Obama is really proposing for them is welfare, not tax cuts. Third, if you think Obama's little tax cuts are going to stimulate the economy "from the bottom up", as Obama likes to say, you only need to look at the failure of the $150 billion stimulus package that was passed earlier this year. It didn't stimulate anything, and neither will Obama's plan. Only 10-20% of the stimulus money was actually put back into the economy. In order to stimulate the economy, your have to increase private investment and induce business to grow. I'm philosophically in favor of tax cuts for sure, but Obama's tax cuts and his health care plan are really only expansions of the welfare state, and that only leads to MORE government spending, not less. In fact, other than the little middle class tax cut that Obama has devised to get elected, ALL of Obama's plans are for more and more big government. Exactly the wrong path to travel forward for America.

We are in trouble, and there is no relief in sight. We won't get any relief unless we demand it, and we aren't doing that. We are letting the status quo that has given us these enormous financial problems remain.

Soon I'll try to lay out some plans to fix what ails America, the Libertarian way, since it appears neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are up to the task, judging from the evidence I've seen most of my life.

As I mentioned in my last post, some Democrats are seeing all kinds of imaginary racial codespeak in the words of John McCain and Sarah Palin. So I have to ask those same Democrats, are the following words from Barack Obama an example of that same racial codespeak ? And if not, why not ?

A couple minutes after congratulating McCain for toning down his rhetoric, Obama warned that people shouldn't be "hoodwinked" or "bamboozled" by McCain.

In the movie Malcom X, Denzel Washington delivers these words as a warning to black people about white politicians who seek to mislead them. Denzel says, "Every election year, these politicians are sent up here to pacify us. You’ve been hoodwinked. Bamboozled.” (link to video here)

Also, Representative John Lewis (D-GA) compared McCain and Palin's rhetoric to that of George Wallace.

"Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse. "During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama."

Boy, I thought McCain=Bush was a real stretch. Now they have McCain being the same as George Wallace. Stop the insanity. What is doubly strange here is that John McCain has previously expressed his admiration for John Lewis. I assume that no longer applies. McCain has called upon Barack Obama to denounce these racial comments coming from the Democrats. Let's see if Obama does it. He should. Of course, if we use the Democrat's standard of hypersensitive intolerance for alleged racial codespeak, Obama will also have to denounce himself, since Obama using "hoodwinked" and "bamboozled" is a far more overt nod to race-based pandering than anything McCain or Palin have said. Btw, Obama used the exact same "hoodwinked" and "bamboozled" rhetoric about the Clintons in South Carolina during the primaries.

So, what say you, Democrats ? Do we have one standard here, or a double standard ? Any condemnations of your fellow Democrats yet, including Barack Obama ? Or are we still playing 'let's pretend' ?

When Democrat Barney Frank started taking some heat (though not nearly enough yet) for being one of the prime enablers of the mortgage crisis by sinking any regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and by pushing banks to eliminate loan standards in order to increase home ownership, Mr. Frank found the true culprits. It isn't Barney Frank, oh no. Even though his efforts may well sink the entire world economy, Barney Frank still won't admit to any blame. Instead, he pins blame on his favorite whipping boys, those racist Republicans. Quoting Mr. Frank at a mortgage foreclosure symposium in Boston:

“They get to take things out on poor people. Let’s be honest. The fact that some of the poor people are black doesn’t hurt them either, from their standpoint. This is an effort, I believe, to appeal to a kind of anger in people."

Even with our banks falling over like dominoes and the stock market dropping like a rock, the lying moron Barney Frank plays racial politics to cover his own malfeasance. Un-believable. We will NEVER get sound fiscal policy with disgusting pigs like Barney Frank as our congressional leaders.
—
ACORN (Association of Community Organizers For Reform Now) is being investigated in a dozen states for voter fraud, including all the key battleground states. ACORN has a long history of facilitating voter fraud. ACORN is recruiting for Barack Obama. ACORN was also involved in pressuring banks to eliminate their loan standards to increase low-income home ownership, which has led directly to the mortgage crisis. Barack Obama has funnelled $800,000 to ACORN, and the Democrats tried to push 20% of the $700 billion financial bailout package to ACORN. Thankfully they failed with that twisted effort.

Have ACORN or the Democrats done anything wrong ? Nope, not according to the Democrats or ACORN. Instead, it's the fault of, guess who, those racist Republicans, who the Dems claim are just trying to keep minorities from voting. Absolute bullcrap.
—
When Sarah Palin brought up Barack Obama's connection to domestic terrorist William Ayers on the campaign trail, a relationship that Obama has been consistently deceptive about, Democrats jumped in and accused Palin of racism. Here are the "offending" words from Palin:

“Our opponent is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country. This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America. We see America as a force of good in this world. We see an America of exceptionalism.”

Now, I don't see anything even remotely racist there, but Democrats use any chance to find that secret double-blind hidden GOP racist subtext.

“They are trying to throw out these codes,” said Representative Gregory Meeks, a Democrat from New York. “He’s ‘not one of us?’” That’s racial. That’s fear. They know they can’t win on the issues, so the last resort they have is race and fear.”

“Racism is alive and well in this country, and McCain and Palin are trying to appeal to that and it’s unfortunate,” said Representative Ed Towns, also a Democrat from New York.

I don't know why Ed Towns included John McCain in his accusations. Maybe it was because McCain pointed to Obama during the debate and called him "that one." Democrats saw racism in that too.

FYI – Meeks is also one of the Democrats who called it racist when the GOP, including John McCain, tried to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005. How'd that work out, Mr. Meeks ? Meeks even called the Fannie and Freddie regulators racist for trying to impose any semblance of fiscal sanity upon Fannie and Freddie.
—
Barack Obama has played the race card several times, first against the Clintons in the primaries, and in the general election he keeps saying things like, ""they [GOP] are going to tell you…he [Obama] doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." OF course, the Republicans have never said any such thing.

The Democrats and the Obama campaign have been so darned sure that the Republicans were going to use racist tactics against Obama that they are tilting at windlmills. Their paranoia has gotten the better of them. NOBODY on the Republican side is referring to race AT ALL, because it's a non-issue. It's a figment of fevered Democratic imaginations.

I have a suggestion, Dems. Grow up, and knock it off. The only side that ever brings up race is YOUR side. Therefore, I conclude that it must be the Democrats who are obsessed with it, not the GOP.

And I'm not bitterly clinging to my guns or my religion, nor do I mistrust people who don't look like me.

Senators Barack Obama and John McCain hooked up for another presidential debate last night in Tennessee. This one was moderated by liberal Democrat Tom Brokaw from the pro-Obama network NBC, in contrast to the first debate, which was moderated by liberal Democrat Gwen Ifill from the pro-Obama network PBS. At least Brokaw isn't writing a book subtitled "The Age Of Obama." I'm not sure who will be moderating the third and final debate next week, but in the interests of fairness and balance, I'd suggest someone like Keith Olbermann from the left wing network MS-NBC, or maybe Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton. I'm sure any Democrat will suffice. Except for a Blue Dog.

Tom Brokaw made sure that this so-called townhall meeting was just one more boilerplate debate filled with the same old stock questions. It was designed to introduce nothing much new, and therefore was less likely to lead to any major gaffes or shakeups. The advantage in such a status quo scenario goes to the person who is already leading in the polls. And wouldn't you know, that person just so happens to be Barack Obama.

If you saw the first presidential debate, you didn't really need to watch this one (but here's the transcript anyway). The questions were all the same, and the answers were mostly the same, with ONE BIG EXCEPTION. Obama in particular gave the exact same responses as he did last time, so there's really nothing new to report from his side. Obama has memorized his talking points better than any candidate in recent memory. He is so disciplined and programmed that I have actually reached the point where I know exactly what Obama is going to say before he says it. If Obama becomes ill in the next 30 days, I think I could fill in for him on the campaign trail. I've seen and heard the Obama show so many times that I have it down cold (I need to get a life). McCain was a little more extemporaneous, but he covered a lot of the same territory as well.

As far as who won the debate, I gave the first 15 minutes to Obama, the next hour to McCain, and the last 15 minutes to Obama. I thought McCain won the economic part of the debate (with ONE BIG EXCEPTION), and Obama won the foreign policy portion. I realize that's just my perception, and that the winner is subjective. Democrats think Obama won. Republicans think McCain won. I always like to flip through the various television networks after a debate to hear what they think, and it was just as I said. NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, and MS-NBC (the pro-Obama networks) were all saying how great Obama did. Over on the token right-leaning network, FoxNews, 86% of the viewers were saying McCain won. The dumbest thing I heard post-debate was Keith Olbermann and the lunatic fringe on MS-NBC saying that McCain had somehow played the race card when he pointed at Obama and referred to him as "that one" when describing an Obama Senate vote. Some people just shouldn't be handed a microphone, and the Olbermaniac is one of them.

I'd give McCain the nod as overall winner of the debate, but I have to deal with the ONE BIG EXCEPTION I mentioned earlier. During a discussion of the financial crisis, McCain said the following:

I think that this problem has become so severe, as you know, that we're going to have to do something about home values. You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes — at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those — be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.
Is it expensive? Yes. But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we're never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy. And we've got to give some trust and confidence back to America.

If this is what it appears to be, it is a $300 billion plan for the government to nationalize bad mortgages at taxpayer expense. This would be on top of the $700 billion bailout plan for Wall Street that has already been passed, and on top of the bailouts of AIG, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. If this is what it appears to be, John McCain just lost my vote. In my world, conservatives don't bail out people who bought houses they couldn't afford. In my world, people are responsible for their own actions. The taxpayers are NOT responsible. If this is what it appears to be, all McCain's talk of reducing spending and lowering taxes flies right out the window. I've had it with politicians who call themselves fiscally conservative, but govern like they are liberals, throwing around taxpayer dollars like candy. We just had 8 years of that, and I'm not voting for it any more. I'm done. You can't say you want to freeze government spending, as McCain has, and then turn around and say you are going to spend another $300 billion. This insanity has got to stop, and the only ones who can stop it is We The People. Our politicians have lost their minds.

And did anyone notice that both candidates dodged the most important question asked during the entire debate, the one about how we deal with the looming Social Security/Medicare funding crisis ? That issue deals with $53 trillion in unfunded liabilities, which will make the current financial crisis look like chicken feed, and neither candidate gave anything close to an answer. There was no Straight Talk, and no Change We Can Believe In on that question, just two pandering politicians trying to fool the public in order to get elected. The leadership deficit continues.

I was sitting around the cave last night, wondering 'What is it that some people see in Barack Obama that I don't see ?' Why don't I get that tingle up my leg when Obama speaks ? Why can't I see that he is The Messiah, The One, The Once And Future King ? With a name like Da King, I should be able to recognize the KING, shouldn't I ?

But alas, like Obama says, I just don't get it. I don't get how adding more and more government to this already unimaginably large and bloated federal government bureaucracy is the answer. Logic tells me Obama is exactly the wrong recipe for these economic times. Logic tells me Obama will be an unmitigated disaster as President. Logic tells me Obama may well kill America.

So, I thought maybe a couple drinks would help me see Obama's light. But after a couple drinks, Obama still didn't make sense to me, so I had a couple more drinks. Then a couple more, and so on, and so on.

And eventually, 12 beers and nearly a fifth of Jack Daniels later, just as my last brain cell was about to blink off to Neverland, it hit me. I had an epiphany, a REVELATION !! I GOT Obama !! OMG !! I-saw-the-light !!! And I saw that it was good.

You see, I had been looking at things the wrong way (sober). While I was busy analyzing issues and pondering tax policy, spending policy, and the issues, using LOGIC, I had missed the most obvious thing of all, something that anyone who has ever watched a Disney movie knows, something that even a child knows. Forget about logic. That isn't useful. It only gets in the way. All that is required is to realize that…

OBAMA IS MAGIC !!!!

You musn't ask yourself how Obama can raise spending by a trillion dollars and cut taxes for everybody at the same time, a logical impossibility. No, no, no. Don't even think about things like that. In fact, don't think at all, that is where you are going wrong. Don't worry your pretty little heads, children. Just remember, Obama is magic. He will bring all good things to all people. Just have a little faith. Obama is magic. He will make it ALL taste good. He is…………The Candy Man ! Yippee ! C'mon kids, sing it along with me:

Who can take a sunrise, sprinkle it with dew
Cover it with choc'late and a miracle or two
The Candy Man, oh the Candy Man can
The Candy Man can 'cause he mixes it with love and makes the world taste good

Don't ask yourself how Obama can be so unbelievably naive as to think Iran will suspend it's nuclear program and abandon it's plans to destroy Israel just because Obama meets with them and tells them they are bad boys. No, no, no. Just remember, the Candy Man can ! Obama will turn all those crazy Islamofascists into fuzzy wuzzy Care Bears ! C'mon kids, let's sing !

Who can take a rainbow, wrap it in a sigh
Soak it in the sun and make a groovy lemon pie
The Candy Man, the Candy Man can
The Candy Man can 'cause he mixes it with love and makes the world taste good

Don't bother thinking about all of Obama's wealth distribution schemes, or the fact that he spouts Marxist ideology, which is based upon stealing the fruits of a man's own labor. Don't say to yourself, 'why, the more we pay in taxes, the less money we'll have.' Don't bother thinking about where this march toward a government takeover of all aspects of society will lead. Don't worry about liberty. No, no, no. Don't think at all, because Obama is The Candy Man ! He'll make it ALL taste good ! C'mon kids, let's sing !

Oh, who can take tomorrow, dip it in a dream
Separate the sorrow and collect up all the cream
The Candy Man, oh the Candy Man can
The Candy Man can 'cause he mixes it with love and makes the world taste good

Vote for Obama, The Candy Man, and you'll never have another care in the world. You'll never have to think again. Everything will be free, magically delicious, and covered in creamy chocolate, with sugar and a cherry on top, because he mixes it with love and makes the world taste good.

Yippee !!! ZZZZzzzzzzzzz……

I write this post as a warning to all American voters. There is a presidential candidate who promises to continue the failed policies of president George W. Bush.

No, it isn't the old guy, and it isn't the governor of the igloo either.

It's the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.

Obama promises to give tax cuts to the middle class, just like Bush did. According to Democrats, we should return to the tax policies of the Clinton years, because the Clinton policies were a success. Clinton's taxed the middle class at a much higher rate than Bush. All of Obama and the Democrats talk of Bush's trickle down policies is a myth. Bush cut taxes for EVERYONE.

Obama promises to cut capital gains taxes for small businesses, just like Bush did. I guess we should return to the higher capital gains tax rates that Clinton gave us, because, you know, the Clinton years were so great.

Obama promises to leave the business tax rate at 35%, the second highest rate in the world, just like Bush did. We should find a candidate who will cut that rate to stimulate the economy and create jobs during this economic downturn, like McCain would.

Obama promises to give us a huge new government health care program, just like Bush did with Medicare Part D, the Prescription Drug Benefit, the first new Medicare program in decades. McCain, on the other hand, has a free market health care plan.

Obama the neocon promises to strike Pakistan if he has knowledge of high value Al Qaeda targets, just like Bush is doing now.

Obama the neocon wants to ramp up the war in Afghanistan, increasing the number of soldiers and putting American lives at risk, just like Bush, who started the war in Afghanistan.

Obama promises to greatly increase federal spending, just like Bush did. Spending increases on social policies under the Bush administration were the highest since LBJ's Great Society policies. Obama promises more of the same. Clinton and his Republican Congress held spending down relative to the last four decades of sharp federal spending increases, just as McCain is proposing to do.

Obama promises to add funding to the No Child Left Behind federal educational policy. Bush started that policy.

Obama promises to fund faith-based charitable organizations, just like Bush did.

Obama promises to give us more federal deficits, just like Bush did. Obama has even said that balancing the federal budget is not a priority for him, because there are too many programs he wants to "invest" in. The Tax Foundation has estimated that Obama's policies will lead to a federal deficit of $2.7 trillion for Obama's first term. More of the same.

Obama is against gay marriage, just like Bush.

Obama voted for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, I mean, "rescue package" that Bush asked for. For that matter, the majority of Democrats voted for it, though they increased it to an $840 billion bail…er, rescue plan. Apparently, $700 billion wasn't enough. The majority of Republicans voted against the plan.

Obama voted for the $165 billion Bush stimulus package earlier in the year, and Obama has even voiced support for a second stimulus package.

Obama voted for a huge federal spending bill that included tax breaks for the oil companies. Bush signed that bill into law. McCain voted against it.

During these rough economic times, John McCain has proposed a federal spending freeze to restore at least some measure of fiscal sanity and responsibility to our government. Obama, a big spender just like George W. Bush, is against it.

Obama supports a $25 billion loan to the automakers, just like Bush does, and Obama has pledged up to $50 billion for the car companies.

With the exception of Obama's repeated attempts to lose the Iraq War, all of Obama's foreign policies are nearly identical to those of George W. Bush, despite Obama's rhetoric to the contrary. Obama is against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Obama supports the two-state solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict. Obama opposed Russia (eventually) in the Russia-Georgia conflict. Obama supports adding Georgia to NATO. Obama has the same policy as Bush regarding North Korea. Obama supports Bush's policies in Africa, etc, etc. Obama HAS criticized Bush for supporting free elections in Palestine, which resulted in Hamas taking power. To date, I haven't heard anyone ask Obama what he prefers as a superior option to free, democratic elections. To my knowledge, there isn't a better alternative to freedom and the voice of the people. Maybe Obama prefers dictatorship. I don't know, and the media won't ask him. I know I'd sure be interested in hearing Obama's answer.

On Iraq, Bush refused for far too long to acknowledge his failing war policies. Obama has refused for far too long to acknowledge the Iraq successes due to the surge and various counterinsurgency strategies. Though their goals were different, that's the same display of stubbornness by both Bush and Obama.

Obama supports capital punishment, just like Bush does.

Obama at least CLAIMS to support gun ownership, just like Bush does.

Obama is soft on illegal immigration, just like Bush is.

It's only a phony political trick to win the election, but Obama has become a johnny-come-lately supporter of offshore oil drilling, just like Bush.
—-
John McSame ? Somewhat. But we also have Barack Hussein Bushbama. The biggest difference I can see is that Obama will increase taxes on the wealthy (pain "trickles down" too, you know), and Obama will put the federal government on even more powerful steroids than Bush did. Exactly the wrong recipe for these times. That's like going from the frying pan into the fire.

A lot of people view the Bush administration as the failure on conservatism. I say, what evidence is there of that ? Bush didn't even try conservatism. From the fiscal and government growth standpoints, Bush mostly tried liberalism. He just didn't pay for it. Obama wouldn't either.

I heard yesterday that the Nielsen ratings for the Palin-Biden VP debate were 40% higher than for the first McCain-Obama presidential debate. A transcript of the debate can be found here.

And the audience wasn't tuning in to see Joe Biden.

The VP debate was all about Sarah Palin. Democrats were eagerly tuning in to watch Palin fall flat on her face, and Republicans were watching anxiously in the hopes that she wouldn't.

It was a good night for the Republicans. Palin, who only 5 weeks earlier was occupied with running the state of Alaska, more than held her own with Joe Experience and his 36 years in Congress (36 years FOR CHANGE, apparently).

It wasn't that Biden had a bad night. He stayed on point, hammering home the idea that McCain was just like Bush, the key Democratic strategy for this presidential election. Biden displayed an expansive knowledge of political history. Adding to the gravitas of Biden's words was the fact that about half of his talking points were actually true. The other half, not so much. Palin also had some mis-statements, but it's pretty clear that Biden, not known as one to be constrained by anything so bothersome as the truth, won the Creative Political Fiction award for the night. Once the fact checkers get done analyzing the debate, I'm sure they will reach the same conclusion. Here are a few examples of Biden's, um, creativity:

Biden, Mr. Foreign Policy Expert, claimed NATO had driven Hezbollah from Lebanon prior to Bush screwing it all up. Wrong.

Mr. Foreign Policy Expert claimed that when he voted for the AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ, he wasn't voting for an authorization to use military force in Iraq, he was just voting to give Bush the authority to use a Dustbuster to vacuum the Iraqi desert, or something like that. Palin cleaned Biden's clock on that nonsensical position.

Mr. Foreign Policy Expert claimed Obama never said he'd negotiate with Iranian leaders without precondition, which, of course, Obama did say.

Mr. Foreign Policy Expert claimed that Gen. McKiernan said the surge strategy could not work in Afghantistan. Palin responded correctly that McKiernan (though Palin mistakenly called him 'McCellan') said no such thing. In fact, McKiernan said principles of the surge strategy COULD be applied in Afghanistan.

Biden claimed he was taken out of context when Palin confronted Biden for being against the use of coal for energy on that rope line. To be clear, Biden said there will be "no coal plants in America" on that rope line. Out of context, my fanny.

Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, which McCain did not do.

Biden said McCain also voted against funding the troops like Obama did. Untrue. There was only one bill for final passage, one that contained no timeline for withdrawal. Bush had already indicated that he'd veto any bill that had a withdrawal timeline. In the final bill presented for a Congressional vote, Obama voted AGAINST funding the troops. McCain voted FOR funding the troops.

Biden said he was for offshore drilling, but Palin pointed out that Biden had previously called drilling a "raping" of the environment.

Biden was grossly exaggerating when he claimed McCain had voted against alternative energy 23 times. We all know how bills get hundreds of add-ons thrown into them. McCain wasn't voting against alternative energy at all. As McCain said during his own debate, "nobody is against alternative energy."

Biden falsely said McCain was for deregulation, when McCain called for more regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. One fault with Palin in the debate was how she dodged the deregulation question. I am completely baffled by this non-response, especially since McCain also avoided the subject in his debate. As Democrats are repeatedly attacking Republicans on this issue, the Republicans are leaving all their ammunition in the gun. I don't get it.

Biden said no American would pay a higher tax rate under Obama than they did under Reagan. That is false. The highest tax rate under Reagan was around 28-29%. It would be 39% under Obama.

Biden claimed people will pay more taxes under McCain's health plan. Not true. They will pay less, since McCain's health care tax credit far outweighs the fact that they are taxable.

Biden claimed Palin instituted a windfall profits tax in Alaska. Not true. Palin made tax reforms that increased taxes on oil companies, but they weren't a windfall profits tax.

Biden said the financial bailout incorporated the four principles Obama laid out (as if Obama has provided any leadership on the bailout, which he hasn't), but two of the four principles Obama referenced in his speech are not included in the bailout package.

Biden repeated the same distortion of McCain saying "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" comment. McCain actually said the economy was in crisis.

As for Palin, her mis-statements were:

She claimed McCain's health care plan would be budget neutral. It would not be. It would reduce government revenues and not replace them.

Palin said Iraq troop levels were at pre-surge numbers. This one is true in spirit, if not precisely true. Troop levels are still a little higher than before the surge, but they have come way down.

Palin claimed that “millions of small businesses” would see tax increases under Obama’s tax proposals. At most, several hundred thousand business owners would see increases.

Palin said it was the VP's job to "preside over the Senate." Nope. The Constitutional power of the VP is only to break a tie vote in the Senate.

On the basis of who was the more honest, Palin won the debate. On the basis of who was the bigger bs-er, Biden did.

The Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd (D-CT), has NO idea how the mortgage crisis happened. I repeat, he is the CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE !!! Dodd says, "American taxpayers are angry and they demand to know how we arrived at this moment."

Well, Mr. Dodd, as CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE, you know damned well how the mortgage crisis happened, and the truth is slowly coming out. The mortgage crisis was created by Democrats like Chris Dodd, who repeatedly blocked regulation. Even former Democratic president Bill Clinton knows that, though I'm surprised he is admitting it. I'm always shocked when a Democrat tells the truth. It's a rare occurence. Most Dems are stonewalling for all they are worth. Here's President Clinton being interviewed on ABC:

CHRIS CUOMO, ABC NEWS: A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, "This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this." Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the '99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They're all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation?

BILL CLINTON: Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit [lie, he means. Yes, the Dems certainly do that. Constantly]. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Gosh, that sure doesn't square with the contention by Democrats and the pro-Obama mainstream media, who are so certain that it was those Bush deregulation policies of the last 8 years that caused the problem (a curious hypothesis, since the Bush administration didn't propose any deregulation of the financial industry during the last 8 years. The GOP only proposed REGULATION of the financial industry, and the Dems shot it down, every time).

The following exchange on Fox News sums up nicely how the mortgage crisis happened.

JIM ANGLE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, backed by the federal government, buy mortgage loans from the lenders who make them. But four years ago, both were in trouble over shoddy accounting. Fannie Mae Chief Franklin Raines, President Clinton's former budget director, was fired. To placate those in Congress who watched over them, Fannie and Freddie promised to do more to help poor people get mortgages. That led them to buy riskier and riskier home loans from private lenders creating incentives for everyone to make shakier loans.

PETER WALLISON, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: The problem is that they encouraged very bad mortgages to be made by banks and other institutions, because Fannie and Freddie would buy them.

ANGLE: Eventually, they bought trillions of dollars worth of mortgages, a substantial portion of them based on poor credit, then resold many of them to financial institutions who thought they were safe because the federal government was behind them.

PETER WALLISON, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: As a result of this appearance that they were backed by the government, people never paid very much attention to the assets they were acquiring or the risks they were taking.

ANGLE: And so shaky mortgages spread throughout the system. But in 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then chaired by Republican Richard Shelby, tried to rein in the two organizations bypassing some strong new regulations.

WALLISON: Which would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring this bad — these bad mortgages. It actually gave a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie the kinds of powers that a bank regulator had.

ANGLE: All the Republicans voted for it. All the Democrats, including the current chairman, Senator Chris Dodd, voted against it, and that was after Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had issued a stark warning to senators that Fannie and Freddie were playing with fire. Greenspan said without stronger regulations, "We increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis. Without restrictions on the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States."

Guess how Democrats responded to the "strong new regulations" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that Senator Shelby and other Republicans proposed ? They claimed everything over at Fannie and Freddie was just fine and dandy, they attacked the regulators, and they called Republicans racists for proposing the regulation, like they always do with any GOP legislation they don't like. Political correctness over sound policy, that's the Dem mantra. In the interests of fairness, some House Republicans also opposed the regulations, though the vast majority were for it. Virtually ALL Democrats opposed it, and that's why the regulations died.

When Barney Frank (D-MA) became the incoming Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee after the Dems won Congress in 2006, he said this at the National Press Club on December 11, 2006:

Now let me turn to housing — we have more to do yet in the deregulation. I’m just saying that one of the things that we did was to try and reduce the reporting requirement from the banks to the financial detectives. And far too much has to be reported now, in my judgment, of a routine nature. And the metaphor that I use is that we have told the law enforcement people to find a bunch of needles, and then we have set about building them a very big haystack. And we ought to thin that down so they can do a better job. One of the things that I want to stress to my liberal friends is that excessive regulation or ineffective regulation is bad for regulation. Regulation is very important. The market does need some corrections, but if you overdo it, then you weaken your case.

Yet, the Dems claim Bush was the deregulator of the mortgage industry. NOT. Barney Frank was against every attempt by Republicans to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as was Chris Dodd, as was Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) over in the House, as were virtually all Democrats. Remember this when the lying scumbags try to blame this all on the Republicans. The Democrats protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at every turn, and now we are all left holding that big bag of crap.

And guess who received the second most campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie ? Mister Hope and Change himself, Barack Obama. Number one is Chris Dodd. They say if you want to know the truth about something, follow the money. Yes, indeed. That's all you have to do here.

Here's another interesting quote from Barney Frank, made in 2003 during Senate hearings about regulations of Fannie and Freddie that the Bush administration was calling for:

Some of the critics of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac say that the problem is is the federal government is obligated to bail-out people who might lose money in connection with them. I do not believe that we have any such obligation. And as we said that it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy based on people. So let me make it clear: I’m a strong supporter of the role that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play in housing. But nobody who invested in them should come looking to me for a nickel, nor anybody else in the federal government.

Think of this when you hear Mr. Fwank making jokes about how the GOP killed the bailout deal the other day, and about how Fwank says the GOP put their hurt feelings above the good of the country. Fwank is full of it. He wouldn't tell the truth now to save his life, but he sure as heck will lie to save his job. Read many of Barney Fwank's statements about Fannie-Freddie here. It's enlightening.

The media's obsession with John McCain's VP nominee, Sarah Palin, is matched only by it's total lack of curiosity regarding Obama's VP pick, Hillary Clinton Joe Biden. In one short month, America has become intimately acquainted with Palin's entire life history, including, at last count, about 125 phony smears. If you want to know what Sarah Palin was doing on, say, August 14th, 1996, just ask the New York Times. They know, or at least they think they know. We even know her husband Todd's life story. At the same time, I bet 99.9% of America couldn't tell you the name of Biden's wife. An army of reporters didn't descend on Scranton, or to Delaware, or to anywhere, to dig up the dirt on Joe Biden and blast it all over the airwaves. All the media wants you to know about Biden is, he is very, very experienced and Obama made a very, very deliberative and wise pick in choosing him. Now, I don't really care about Biden's story either, to tell the truth, but somebody has to talk about him. I promise the same unbiased and respectful treatment the mainstream media has shown Palin. In other words, I'm just going to make fun of Biden. All in the name of fair play, of course.

Let's start at the end. In an interview with Katie Couric a couple days ago, Biden brought his decades of experience and knowledge to bear, weighing in on how the White House should act in a financial crisis. He said, “When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed, he said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’”

Excellent point, Joey. Except that FDR wasn't the president when the stock market crashed in 1929, Herbert Hoover was, and television wasn't available yet. In the same interview, Biden condemned the Obama ad about McCain's lack of computer skills, then said Obama wasn't behind the ad (in spite of the "I am Barack Obama, and I approve this message" endorsement at the end). Then Biden claimed he hadn't seen the ad at all.

While trolling for votes in Ohio this week, Biden took a firm stand against the use of coal for energy, in direct contradiction to Barack Obama's stance in favor of clean coal technology. Three days earlier, Joey praised the possibilities of coal to a crowd at the United Mine Workers of America annual fish fry in Castlewood, Virginia. Biden also became a sudden pro-gun rights advocate at that same Virginia fish fry, saying, “I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey. Don’t buy that malarkey. They’re going to start peddling that to you.” The National Rifle Association has given Biden a rating of "F", it's lowest grade, meaning he votes for gun control at every turn.

As you can see, Biden is a man of principle. It's just that his principles change with each campaign stop. Help like this, Obama doesn't need. At times, it almost seems like Biden is running against Obama rather than for him.

Okay, that gets us through the last week or so. Let's see, what else has the gaffemaster said ? A couple weeks back, Biden asked a man in a wheelchair (Missouri State Senator Chuck Graham) to stand up and be recognized at a campaign rally. Oops. Biden also said that Hillary Clinton was more qualified than him to be Vice President (no argument there). Biden said paying more in taxes was "patriotic." And speaking of running against Barack Obama, Joe Biden did, in the Democratic primaries, where Biden made an early exit, in spite of all his many qualifications.

So here are a couple Biden quotes about Senator Obama.

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” And to think Dems find racial code-speak when Republicans say "community organizer."

“When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘experience’ and ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.”

Here's a Biden quote about Senator McCain.

“John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off."

But enough quotes. Let's look at Biden's resume (at least the part he didn't plagiarize). Biden has been in the U.S. Senate since 1972. He is a long-time member and current charman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. With all that experience, Biden is an expert on foreign policy (look out, Palin). Here are Biden's positions on the biggest foreign policy decisions of the last three decades: Biden was against the Reagan Cold War buildup that led to the collapse of the USSR. Biden voted against the Gulf War after Saddam Hussein invaded our key oil ally, Kuwait. Biden voted for the Iraq War. Biden was against the Surge in Iraq that has transformed the war…

Question: Does being WRONG about everything count as experience ? I guess so. If you want a guy in the Oval Office who will always make the wrong call, Joe Biden's your guy.

Oh yeah, Biden's wife's name is Jill.

Anybody want to go double or nothing on his daughter's name ?

Hey America, how do you like your brand new insurance company, AIG ? We bought an 80% stake in that company for the bargain price of $85 billion. How about your nifty new mortgage companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ? They've been nationalized. They belong to all of us now. Who knew this was what Bush was talking about when he advocated an "ownership society" ? Bailing out the financial industry might end up costing us a a trillion or two, but no worries, it's only money. YOUR money, make no mistake about that, but what's a few trillion among friends ?

And from the looks of things, We The People are about to own a whole bunch more neato stuff too. Our fearless future leaders are both committed to bailing out the auto industry. Democrat Barack Obama has committed to providing up to $50 billion in loans to the automakers. And now the Republican candidate, John McCain, has gotten in on the action too. McCain reversed his previous position against loans to automakers while touring a GM plant in Grand Rapids, Michigan:

"I'm here to send a message to Washington and Wall Street: We are not going to leave the workers here in Michigan hung out to dry while we give billions in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street," McCain said. "It is time to get our auto industry back on its feet. It's time for a new generation of cars and for loans to build the facilities that will make them."

Yeah ! We'll show those sob's over on Wall Street ! We'll give taxpayer money away to everyone !!! That'll teach 'em ! Excuse me, readers, I have to go puke. I'll be right back…….

Associated Press reports that $25 billion in loans to automakers may whiz through Congress before the november elections, buoyed by the support of Barack Obama and John McCan (how do you like bipartisanship now ?).

Yeah, what the heck, as long as our leaders have abandoned all pretense of fiscal sanity, why not ? Bring on financial Armaggedon. Every day is Halloween, and we're using taxpayer money for candy. Ooh, look at JohnnyMac, all dressed up like a conservative, here's a big bag of taxpayer money for you. And Barry, you look so cute in your JFK suit, here's another bag of money for you.

$!*&##**! and !*&@**$$!

Somebody please tell me this is all a bad dream. This ship of fools is driving us right off the edge of the world.

I've been watching the notion of fiscal conservatism (responsibility) die a slow death for a long time now, but I have to admit, I never expected the death knell to sound with a Republican occupying the White House.

I know I probably shouldn't be a stickler about the United States Constitution, since we don't use it anymore, but are ANY of these bailouts Constitutional ?

Ah, never mind. Who cares ? It's a Brave New World, the previous rules no longer apply. I can hardly wait for the coming veto-proof Democratic majority, you know, the ones who REALLY like to spend taxpayer money. We are freaking doomed.

Are we really going to stand by and let all this happen ? Are we going to allow our government to endlessly nationalize industries and socialize business losses at taxpayer expense ? That is an incredible moral wrong, but it sure looks like we're going to let them do exactly that. I don't see anybody marching on Washington D.C. What's it gonna take, folks ? They are literally stealing the money right out of your pockets, and you don't seem to care.

And Joe Biden, saying tax increases are freaking "patriotic" ??? *$$!&%# you, Joe.

Thanks for listening to this rant. Maybe my sense of optimism will return tomorrow, but right now, I need a damn drink.

Update 9/21/08: Now for the coup de grace. Bush has announced a $700 billion mortgage bailout. And Democrats are saying Bush didn't go far enough, if you can believe that. The nightmare continues.

Barack Obama refers to "failed Bush-McCain policies" so often that I think he may have a kind of Bush Tourette's Syndrome. No matter what the issue is, Obama blames Bush and his separated-at-birth twin brother John McCain. Yesterday's e-mail from the Obama campaign was no different:

For eight years, Bush-McCain economic policies have favored reckless deregulation and huge tax loopholes for big corporations. Now, as these corporations crumble, American taxpayers are facing costly bailouts. More of the same failed ideas are not going to solve our economic problems. I'm calling for a $1,000 tax break for middle-class families — not just because they need help dealing with the rising costs of gas, food, and health care, but also because our economy needs to be reinvigorated from the bottom up, not the top down. I'm proposing a second stimulus package to save over one million jobs and provide immediate relief to struggling families. And I'll end the "anything goes" culture on Wall Street with real regulation. We can see clearly that our economy is stronger when we protect investments and pensions, and avoid devastating bankruptcies and bailouts.

But what are these "failed Bush-McCain economic policies" that have "favored reckless deregulation" ???

Bush Administration Press Secretary Dana Perino also wants to know. Here's an exchange she had with reporters yesterday following Bush's statements about the economic situation:

REPORTER: Well, I want to give you a chance to respond to what Speaker Pelosi is saying [Pelosi blamed Bush for the mortgage crisis, while exoneration Democrats], because it really seems like the — at least the sort of finger-pointing is ratcheting up, accusing Republicans, and it sounded like the White House, of mismanagement of financial-market regulation. It really seems as though there's a accusation that the White House is to blame in some way, or the Bush administration policy is to blame in some way. Your response?

PERINO: Well, unfortunately — unfortunately, I don't think that the reaction of finger-pointing from Democrats to the White House is anything new. I would ask you to go back and look and ask Speaker Pelosi or any of the other Democrats who are pointing fingers, what specific regulation did they want that we blocked? What specific regulation did we eliminate? In fact, it was the White House that worked to try to get them to act on GSE reform as early as 2003. Unfortunately, they did not act on that until most recently when there was a crisis and we got the authorities that we needed in August of 2007. What we were looking for in that GSE reform was a strong regulator. That's what we wanted. It was more regulation, more transparency, and a stronger independent regulator who could actually look at the books of the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and tell us exactly what was going on. In addition to that, we wanted FHA modernization so that more low-income people could have their mortgages backed by the FHA. They didn't move on that until there was a crisis at hand. We wanted rules — they're called RESPA rules, I can't remember what it stands for, it's Real Estate Settlement Act — but it would help people understand what they're getting into when they have a loan. Unfortunately they didn't act on that. Hank Paulson's regulatory blueprint that he laid out early last spring fell on deaf ears to the Democratic members of Congress.

As I discussed in my last post, the Bush administration only attempted to REGULATE the financial industry. It proposed no deregulation. John McCain also attempted to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005. Democrats united to shoot down all those measures.

The U.S. Constitution empowers Congress with controlling monetary matters. Regulation of the financial industry must go through Congress. President Bush can't do it. Can anyone point me to any regulation that Democrats proposed prior to the mortgage crisis ? Anyone ? Inquiring minds want to know.

When Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and pretty much all the rest of the Democrats blame the mortgage crisis entirely on Republican deregulation, they dishonestly ignore their own involvement. The last significant deregulation of the financial industry, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, which has been pointed to as a significant contributing factor to the subprime crisis, occurred in 1999 and was signed into law by Democatic president Bill Clinton. Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed the Senate by a vote of 90-8, so it had wide bipartisan approval. Obama's VP nominee, Joe Biden, voted for it, as did nearly the entire Democratic leadership. John McCain did not vote on the final version of that legislation. The Democrats hailed the passage of Gramm-Leach-Bliley at the time, saying that it would significantly boost the availability of low-income housing. It certainly did that. Unfortunately, we've since discovered that low-income people often can't afford expensive housing, so may of those loans are in default.

I ask you – had Barack Obama been in the Senate in 1999, how do you think he would have voted on a measure to boost low-income housing ? This is the Barack Obama who has been ranked as the most liberal Senator by the National Journal, the Barack Obama who votes with the Democratic leadership an astounding 97% of the time (so much for him being a "new kind of politician who works across party lines". The guy who really does that is John McCain). Is there ANY doubt that Obama would have voted in favor of that legislation ? I certainly think he would have.

Obama also favors a second stimulus package, that will only add more to the national debt, because it's not paid for. Is this what we need after the pols in D.C. have put taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts, with god only knows how much more to come ? No, it's precisely what we don't need. It is nothing but a further abandonment of responsibility, designed solely to get votes in november by pandering to the public.

Thus far, I've heard no real ideas from our politicians for solving this crisis, outside of maybe Ron Paul (that's the guy the other GOP presidential candidates thought was a mere curious oddity during the primary debates). The rest have their heads buried in the sand. All those bad loans held by the bailed out companies are still bad loans. There has been no reckoning. The only way bad debt is resolved is thru liquidation. Little of that is occurring. Our politicians are taking every measure possible to avoid that reckoning, which is only going to lengthen the mortgage crisis and cost the taxpayers a bundle in the process.

The Troopergate investigation was launched to determine whether or not Alaska Governor Sarah Palin(R) abused the power of her office by firing Alaska Safety Commissioner Walt Moneghan. The Safety Commissioner serves at the pleasure of the Governor, so Palin is allowed to hire and fire whomever she pleases for the job, but allegations have been made that Palin fired Moneghan because Moneghan refused to fire Palin's ex-brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten. Palin claims she fired Moneghan over budgetary matters and to move the department in a new direction. The investigation pre-dates John McCain's selection of Palin as his Republican Vice Presidential nominee, but is quickly becoming a political football as the presidential election nears.

Moneghan told the Anchorage Daily News on August 30 that nobody ever told him to fire Wooten. He said, "For the record, no one has ever said fire Wooten. Not the governor. Not Todd. Not any of the other staff.”

Also for the record, trooper Wooten remains on the job, despite admitting to tasering his 10-year old stepson and illegally shooting a moose (this problem doesn't come up much in Ohio). Wooten has also been accused of drinking alcohol in his police car on multiple occasions. Wooten denies this charge, but multiple witnesses contradicted him and he was suspended from duty because of it. Wooten has also been accused of threatening to kill Palin's father. Wooten denies this too, but is contradicted by the Palin family. Wooten, who has been married and divorced four times, divorced Palin's sister in 2005 and engaged in an ugly child-custody battle with her. Moneghan has referred to Wooten as "not a model trooper" (Ya think ?).

So, if Palin never told Moneghan to fire Wooten, why do we even have an investigation in the first place ?

Because even though Moneghan said nobody told him to fire Wooten, he still believes not doing so was the reason he got canned. In early september, Moneghan said, "I believe I was fired because of, primarily the reason of her former brother-in-law. I think that my unwillingness to take special action against her former brother-in-law was not well received." A reason Moneghan believes this is because Sarah Palin, Todd Palin, and several Palin staff members spoke to Moneghan about trooper Wooten, expressing their concern about him.

As evidence, a taped phone call between a state police official and Palin staff member Frank Bailey surfaced, in which Bailey questions why trooper Wooten is still on the job. Bailey said, "The Palins can't figure out why nothing's going on. And here's the problem that's gonna happen is that, there is a possibility because Wooten is an ex-husband of the governor's sister, and there is a custody situation, there is a strong possibility that the Governor herself may get subpoenaed to talk about all this stuff on the stand. Right in the coming months, which would be, it would be ugly…I mean, you know, I don't think anybody wants that. But you know, Todd and Sarah are scratching their heads, you know, why on Earth — why is this guy still representing the department?…I'm telling you honestly, I mean, she really likes Walt [Moneghan] a lot, but on this issue, she feels like she doesn't know why there is absolutely no action for a year on this issue. It's very, very troubling to her and the family."

I think asking questions about why trooper Wooten was still on the job despite his history of violations is valid, but the tape indicates there is more to this little soap opera than Sarah Palin has yet acknowledged. Palin responded to the tape, saying, "It seemed to be he [Bailey] just inquiring I think trying to process what do you do if there are complaints against a trooper and what is the status of this trooper. Though you will hear on the CD that it does sound like he's calling on behalf of the Governor [Palin]." I find it pretty unconvincing that Bailey wasn't calling on Palin's behalf, because there have been numerous discussions between Palin people and Moneghan regarding Wooten's status.

In summary, it appears beyond obvious that the Palin family wanted trooper Mike Wooten off the job, and they started talking to Moneghan about it before Sarah Palin even became the governor. The Palin family had very good reason. Moneghan didn't act on their wishes. Then Palin gets elected governor, and six months later, Moneghan loses his job.

So, did Sarah Palin fire Walt Moneghan because Moneghan wouldn't fire trooper Mike Wooten ????

I don't know, but this is not nothing. What I do know is that there is an investigation taking place, and it is being headed up by Senator Hollis French, a Democrat and partisan Obama supporter, who has promised to release a report "damaging" to Sarah Palin (interesting that French is promising a damaging report while the investigation is far from complete, and the key witnesses haven't even been interviewed yet. I told you, Troopergate is now a political football). The report is scheduled to be released FOUR DAYS PRIOR TO THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, on October 31st (Surprise!). Palin has her own lawyer now, who is trying to get the entire investigation thrown out, on the grounds that the current investigation doesn't have "jurisdiction." This is a move to delay the results of the proceedings until AFTER THE ELECTION. I suspect a lot more footballs are yet to be tossed on this.

Stay tuned.

The sources for this post were:

ABC News reports

Propublica.org

Washington Post reports

Democrats know Sarah Palin is the least qualified Vice Presidential candidate in history. Her experience is limited to four years on the Wasilla, Alaska city council, eight years as mayor of Wasilla, two years on the Alaska Oil And Gas Conservation Commission, and nearly two years as governor of Alaska.

Outrageous. If McCain wasn't a computer illiterate, as a recent Obama ad points out, I'd send him an angry e-mail (then again, maybe the Obama people might have mentioned in that ad that McCain's war injuries make it very difficult for him to type at a keyboard. When McCain surfs the web, someone else does the typing for him. Funny how the Obama people left that part out).

Why, the last time an American Vice Presidential candidate had less experience than Palin is way, way, way back in…

2004, when John Kerry made John Edwards his Veep pick..

Edwards' entire political career consisted of less than one term in the US Senate at the time. Edwards had no executive experience, and no military or foreign policy experience either. John Edwards later became one of the big three frontrunners for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, and garnered more votes than a slew of more experienced candidates. The Dems went on to nominate the only guy they could find with less time in the Senate than Edwards himself, Barack Obama. So, you see, sometimes experience matters to the Dems and other times, not so much.

Do you all remember how the media attacked Edwards like a pack of wild dogs for his inexperience, how they launched a firestorm of criticism and rumors about him, how they descended on his hometown like Huns, trying to dig up every fact ever known about the man, no matter how trivial or irrelevant ?

No, I don't either, because they didn't do it. That sort of thing is reserved for Republicans.

Interestingly enough, ABC's Charlie Gibson interviewed John Edwards right after his Vice Presidential nomination was announced, just as he did with Palin. You can imagine the sort of tough questions Gibson asked of Edwards, just as he did with Palin. But you don't have to imagine anything, because here is a link to the Gibson interview with John Edwards. I print here every question Gibson asked, every statement Gibson made:

GIBSON: In the first half-hour, we talked about how direct were the attacks from the Republicans on the podium last night [at the 2004 Republican National Convention], directed at the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards. A response this morning from John Edwards, the vice-presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. I talked with him a few moments ago.
GIBSON: Senator Edwards, they went at you hammer and tong last night from the podium here at this Republican Convention, saying the fundamental security of this country was at stake in this election, questioning John Kerry's ability to be commander in chief. I wonder how you felt as you listened.
GIBSON: Did it make you in any way second-guess the decision at the Democratic Convention not to mention George Bush from the podium so often, not to engage as directly?
GIBSON: You have used this line about two Americas and they have turned that from the podium night after night after night, saying, A, that there aren't two Americas, and, B, that what's really there are two of, two John Kerrys. And they get into this theme about John Kerry's conflicting votes on various issues. How are you going to answer that?
GIBSON: You speak with such equanimity this morning. Didn't they [the GOP] make you mad last night?
GIBSON: Did you get mad [at the GOP], though?
GIBSON: John Edwards, good to talk to you. Thanks very much.

Whew. One only wonders how Edwards didn't crack under such a withering attack. Of course, since Gibson was attacking the GOP, I guess it wasn't that difficult.

Any questions about how the mainstream media influences elections ?

If you still don't realize what's going on with the media in America, here are the questions Charlie Gibson asked Barack Obama during an interview three months ago. The Hot Air website accurately reported the gist of Gibson's questions to Obama as follows:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Pathetic. Sycophantic. Crap. And typical of how Obama has been treated by the MSM.

We don't have a mainstream media. We have a propaganda firm serving the interests of the Democratic party.

And FoxNews. The ones the rest of the mainstream media laughably criticize for being biased. If for nothing else, I commend FoxNews just for being off the Democratic media plantation.

As ABC's Charlie Gibson started interviewing Governor Sarah Palin (R-AL), asking her this series of questions:

"Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?""
and
"…didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?""
and
"Didn't that take some hubris? [to run for VP]"
and
"When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?"
and
"I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy".
and
"Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?"
and
"Have you ever met a foreign head of state?"

I found myself wondering why no reporter EVER sat down with Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and asked him these same questions during the 19 months of Obama's presidential campaign, when here they are asking Palin within 2 weeks of her VP nomination. Obama, with no executive experience, no governing experience, no management experience, no foreign policy experience prior to running for the presidency, no experience running any type of military outfit, indeed, no military experience of any kind, and none of the energy experience that Palin has either. Why didn't they ever ask him if HE had hubris, if he had the experience, if he had the qualifications, not just to be Vice President, but to be the leader of the free world, the Commander-In-Chief, the President of the United States ??? Even during 21 Democratic primary debates, I don't remember any reporter ever questioning Obama's credentials, not for one second. Hillary Clinton did question Obama's credentials, and the media castigated her for it. They called her mean-spirited. What incredible double standards we have in this country. Charles Gibson's first EIGHT questions all implied that Sarah Palin is not qualififed for the job.

When Gibson got done impugning Palin's experience, he tried to cast her as a religious kook, with these questions and statements:

"You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?"
and
"I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
and
"…are you sending your son [to Iraq] on a task that is from God?"

Again, Obama, who is a Christian, has never been asked any questions of this kind that I can recall. Apparently, "God's plan" is only important if you're running for Vice President. The only questions asked regarding Obama's church had nothing much to do with theology, they had to do with Obama's spiritual mentor of 20 years being an anti-american racist.

So, Gibson tried to establish right up front that Sarah Palin is a provincial holy roller who has never set foot outside the igloo. All in the spirit of fairness, I'm sure.

That being said, I thought the interview was tedious and repetitive (how could it not be, with Gibson asking the same question over and over and over ?), and I thought Palin looked nervous, and at times confused. She made some errors. She referred to Russia's aggression toward Georgia as "unprovoked", but that is an oversimplification. It was reported that way in the American media, but Russia's actions weren't unprovoked. Russia's response wasn't proportional, however, and was a clear act of aggression. In the later part of the interview that was broadcast on Nightline, Palin said we should do something about global warming whether it is man-made or merely the result of natural weather cycles. Uh, no. If global warming is the result of natural weather changes (i.e. solar activity), there isn't anything we can do about it. The last I heard, we don't have any control over the sun.

Gibson asked Palin over and over whether the USA should support Israel if Israel decided to act to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, and Palin repeatedly gave the same answer, that Israel is an ally and we shouldn't second guess Israel regarding it's own national security. Gibson tried real hard to get Palin to say Israel should destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, and I applaud her for not saying that.
Gibson asked Palin over and over whether we should cross into Pakistan without Musharraf's permission to take out Al Qaeda, and Palin repeatedly gave the same answer, that we must do what is necessary to defeat Al Qaeda and shouldn't take any options off the table. Gibson tried real hard to get Palin to say we should invade Pakistan, and I applaud her for not saying that. Gibson tried to get Palin to say we'd have to go to war with Russia if we let Georgia into NATO, and Palin took the bait on that one a little bit, indicating that was perhaps a possibility according to the terms of the NATO alliance, which, of course, it is.

Are y'all getting the drift of all these 'will you take military action ?' questions from Gibson ? The more times he can get Palin to answer in the affirmative to military action, or even acknowledge the possibility of military conflict, the more the media can portray her, and Republicans in general, as warmongers. Or maybe I'm just being paranoid from watching this same sort of thing happen my entire lifetime. When Obama says we should invade Pakistan, well, that's just sensible, because that's where Bin Laden is. When a Republican says the same thing, they are unilateral fascist warmongers.

I heard some response from the left. I heard Alan Colmes allege that Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was, but that was specious. Palin only asked for clarification on that question from Gibson, for specifics. I heard Clinton supporter Lanny Davis say he was shocked by Palin's declaration that we would go to war with Russia, but that was a severe misrepresentation of what she said.

I'm sure the furious spin will start today, as every word Palin spoke will be parsed, dissected, and recast.