Reaction

It's been a few days and I guess my 3 readers have been waiting for some reaction. What can I say? The election's result was not the one I had hoped for, but, it is what it is.

Despite my reservations about the next four years, I'm willing to accept the reality that Barack Obama is my new President. And yes, you'd have to be some kind of tool not to recognize the historical significance of this election.

Moreover, I'm willing to do something the Left has not done so well over the last 8 years: Respect the man and the office. Many examples come to mind, but right off the bat I can say with certainty that I won't be driving around with a "Not My President" bumper sticker on my car.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a clean slate. I may be skeptical — especially considering the current leadership of the Democratic party in Congress — but I am capable of giving Obama the benefit of the doubt and proceeding with a wait-and-see attitude. If Obama's governance reflects the centrist rhetoric he sometimes seemed to reach for during the general election, then fine. But again, with Pelosi and Reid running the show on The Hill, you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical. Even if he wants to govern that way — which let's be honest, is a big "if" — he may not be able to.

To be sure, this blog will continue to criticize the Left and any and all leaders who stray from the founding vision of this Republic — a vision of self-reliance and limited government — as well as the general (and frightening) leftward lurch the entire planet seems to be undertaking these days. And I'm sure there will be plenty of snarky and mocking rants along the way.

But when it comes to the President, there should be some level of respect, even when you disagree. Further, there should be loyalty, especially in these dangerous times. To do otherwise only comforts our enemies and says we are not a united people. Which again, is something the moonbats and the Left have done disgracefully well over the last 8 years.

I know it's a novel concept to some on the Left, but it's called putting the country first.

Much more on this election — including where the Republican party needs to go from here — in the coming days.

"Security" at the polling place

From Philadelphia:

Obama will take care of all your needs

Just ask this informed voter:



In case you missed that, she just said:

"I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage."

I don't think this even deserves a snarky comment. Do you?

Gore's revenge?

I had a busy weekend (in more ways than one) so instead of bombarding this blog with what should have been a lot of my brilliant commentary heading into this important election, there's been nada that last few days. I apologize to my 3 readers.

I do have a few thoughts about tomorrow that I wanted to throw out there.

I don't have a prediction about the winner, but I have a feeling The Hero will win my state of North Carolina.

This election has never really been about Barack Obama or The Hero, it's really been about revenge, plain and simple. It's been about the revenge of the Left for the last 8 years.

Let's face it, they've always felt the 2000 election was stolen, and they've never gotten over it. 2004 was supposed to be the big comeback, but they only managed to gain a slight majority in congress, which is nothing to shake a stick at. But they weren't able to push Kerry over the top. They underestimated W. and more importantly, overestimated the public's distaste for his presidency. There have been many failings of the Bush Administration, but the American people don't hate the man in the way the media and the hard left would have us believe. 2004 proved that.

Regardless, the DNC took the last 4 years and focused on one thing: winning back The White House in 2008. They built what will probably go down in history as the most effective political machine in history, and no matter who emerged as the candidate — Obama, Clinton, Edwards — they were going to have a monster of a campaign working for them. Obama's charisma, lack of baggage, centrist rhetoric and perceived status as an agent of 'change' has probably positioned him to win better than the other serious Democratic candidates would have been. Although, to someone of my leanings, Hillary would have been a better, more acceptable alternative.

But now, that's neither here nor there.

Just remember that this election has never really been about the two candidates. It's always been about the Left finally getting Gore's revenge.

I'm not trying to make excuses and I'm not conceding defeat. I'm simply stating a fact that this election was going to be a huge uphill battle for whoever the Republicans nominated.

When you think about where Bush's approval rating is and the current state of the Republican image, it's amazing that this race is even close. The reason? As I've stated before, the Democrats are notorious for nominating the wrong candidate in their primary process. Obama, if he wins, is only barely acceptable to the American people as a whole. Someone who would have been more acceptable, like Hillary, would probably win by 15 points.

But in this election from Hell, I guess 'barely acceptable' is all the Left had to really do, and that's probably the saddest thing of all — look how low our expectations for our leaders have become.

For me, while The Hero may not have been my personal first choice to run from my side, and while he may not have ran the best campaign; he is still a good and decent man, a patriot, and someone who has devoted most of his life to working very hard for the betterment of this country. His record of bipartisanship and proven leadership is deep and cannot be disputed.

When I look back on 2008, that will always be enough for me, and that's why John McCain will get my vote tomorrow.

An Obama minion speaks

I have no idea if this is true or not. If it isn't, it's an entertaining conspiracy read. If it is true, well, it speaks for itself.

From Hillbuzz:

Ok, I want to clear my conscious a little. Hopefully you could make a blog post to help some fellow clinton supporters out.

I work for a campaign and can’t wait for this week to be over.

I was doing it for a job. I was not a fan of any candidate but over time grew to love HRC.

The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.

We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and “play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama”

We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence.

We did this the whole primary and it worked.

Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out tv, news, websites, etc.

This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.

Next, we infiltrate all the blogs and all the youtube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support.

People makes posts to the effect that the world has “gone mad”

Thats the intention. To make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending.

We have also had quite a hand in skewing many many polls, some we couldn’t control as much as we would have liked. But many we have spoiled over. Just enough to make real clear politics look scarey to a mccain supporter. Its worked, alough the goal was to appear 13-15 points ahead.

see, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner, go with the flow, become “sheeple”

The polls are roughly 3-5 points in favor of Barack. Thats due to our inflation of the polls and pulling in the sheeple.

Our donors, are the same people who finance the MSM. Their interests are tied, Barack then tends to come across as teflon. Nothing sticks. And trust, there were meetings with Fox news. The goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch Bill Oreilly he has become much more diplomatic and “fair and balanced” and soft. Its because he wants to retain the #1 spot on cable news and to do that he has to have access to the Obama campaign and we worked hard at stringing him a long and keeping him soft for an interview swap. It worked and now he is anticipating more access. So he is playing it still soft.

This is why nothing sticks.

The operation is massive, the goal is to paint a picture that is that of a winner, regardless of the results.

There is no true inauguration draft or true grant park construction going on. There will be a party, but we are boasting beyond the truth to make it seem like the election is wrapped up.

Our goal is to continue to make you lose your moral. We worked hard at persuasion and paying off and timing and playing the right political numbers to get key republican endorsements to make it seem even more like it was over and the world was coming to an end for you all.

There is a huge staff of people working around the clock, watching every site, blogs, etc. We flood these sites. We have had a goal to overwhelm.

The truth is here. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

I am saying this because I know HRC was better for the country, and now realize this. I was too late by the time I connected to her. To me Barack was just a cool young dude that seemed like a star. I didn’t know him or his policies, but now I understand more than I care to and I realize his interests are more for him, and the DNC and all working like puppets with dean. I always thought a president wanted the better good for the country. The end result I see is everyone dependent on the government, this means more and more people voting for the DNC. This means the future is forever altered. I don’t see this as america, so I am now supporting John Mccain.

Sarah Palin is a huge threat, and our campaign has feared her like you can’t imagine. If it seems unfair how she has been treated, well its because she has had a team working round the clock to make her look like a fool.

this is a big conspiracy and I am so shocked that its not realized.

We released a little blurb the other day that the Obama campaign was already working on reelection and now putting our efforts towards 2012. This was to make it seem like it was above us to continue caring about 2008. Trust me, its a lie. David is very smart, but its a sticky ugly not very truthful kind of intelligence.

Its not over yet, but I think the machine is working. And its a hill to climb.

I will be quitting my post on nov 5th and my vote will be for John Mccain. Fortunately, my position has been a marketing position and I don’t feel I had any part of anything I would feel guilty for. But I look forward to getting out of this as the negativity and environment upsets me.

I wish you all well, and goodluck.

PS my name is not really sarah. but I am a female and I understand your plight.

Maybe some people shouldn't vote?

Those civics classes in our Government schools must really be paying off. John Stossel provides some food for thought:

When the guard is down

Parker Griffith, Democratic candidate for Congress in Alabama's 5th District said this a few weeks ago:

I think America's greatest enemy is America and its materialism.

And I think that . . . uh . . . we have nothing to fear from radical Islam. We have nothing to fear from any other religion if we are strong on our own beliefs. I don't fear radical Islam.

Further evidence of what the Left in this country really thinks. The only thing we have to fear is...America!

In the interest of fairness (which I will probably be required by law to do under The Obama Administration) I should say that the candidate has tried to spin the remarks and say they were taken out of context. Read that story here.

Maybe the remarks were taken out of context, to an extent. But, the larger issue to me is this: There are a hell of a lot of people that would agree with those exact words, context or not.

And do you think those people reside on the Right, or on the Left?

I have leaned Libertarian most of my life, and in fact, I've never voted a straight Republican ticket. But the more and more I see of this type of thinking coming from the other side, it brings me inexorably closer to an unmovable position: Until the Democratic party purges itself of those who believe this naive, stupid and dangerous nonsense, I have zero interest in "reaching across the aisle".

Obama in his own words

A few of my favorite Obama quotes:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest... So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society."

"To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

"I'm not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me."

"Spread the wealth around." "Economic Justice." "Redistributive Change." Why does all this sound like code for reparations to me?

And on the suburbs quote, it reminded me of a famous Capitalist Fanboy saying:

"I'm not interested in the inner-cities. The inner-cities bore me."

The death of journalism

Let's be honest, it happened a long time ago.

But, Orson Scott Card, a registered Democrat and, by the way, a hell of a fine novelist, has written one of the most important and scathing columns I think I've ever read.

In it, he skewers the media and his own party for their lack of integrity in reporting on this whole economic mess we find ourselves in.

Trust me, it's a must read.

An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Sen. Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

Read on my friends, read on.

Biden grilled

Wow.




UPDATE: Tough questions lead to getting cut off.

Collective hysteria

Believe it or not, a very small few of us remain flabbergasted that Mr. O is still a serious candidate for the highest office on Earth. And on that note, I'm not sure it can be said much better than Mark Levin has put it over at NRO.

It begins:

I've been thinking this for a while so I might as well air it here. I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places. I can't help but observe that even some conservatives are caught in the moment as their attempts at explaining their support for Barack Obama are unpersuasive and even illogical. And the pull appears to be rather strong. Ken Adelman, Doug Kmiec, and others, reach for the usual platitudes in explaining themselves but are utterly incoherent. Even non-conservatives with significant public policy and real world experiences, such as Colin Powell and Charles Fried, find Obama alluring but can't explain themselves in an intelligent way.

There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.

To the hardcore leftists, middle-of-the-road Obama supporters, and the so-called conservatives who have joined the Barack kool-aid brigade; I'm sure this all sounds like the wacky hyperbole of bitter Republicans who just can't take a (potential) loss.

I'm sure it sounds like anything but the voices in the wilderness screaming out against a serious leftward paradigm shift that could have permanent consequences for this great society.

Maybe.

But I'm sure at some point in history, at some point in the past, those of us who were thought of as crackpot kooks holed-up in our bunkers, watching our own countries circle the drain...must have been right at least once.

Maybe?

In the meantime, anyone waiting for this conservative to wet his finger, hold it to the wind, and jump on the Barry Bandwagon is going to be waiting for a very long time.

The soft tyranny of feel-goodism

As half the country prepares to vote for the most liberal presidential candidate in history, I thought this quote from C.S. Lewis seemed appropriate:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

I wonder what awaits us on the other side of November 4th.

Remember Beirut

Many people believe the War on Terror began on September 11, 2001. Or possibly in August 1998 when the U.S. Embassies were bombed in Africa. Or perhaps even on February 26, 1993 – the first time the World Trade Center was attacked.

But actually, The Long War really began 25 years ago today, on the morning of October 23, 1983. On that day, Islamic terrorists bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon killing 241 brave American warriors, 58 French soldiers, 6 civilians and injuring scores of others.

The organization Islamic Jihad took responsibility for the attack. (Wouldn't you think true so-called 'freedom fighters' would launch attacks and go on about their day? Why do Islamic thugs take so much joy in the death they deliver?)

Islamic Jihad is an arm of Hezbollah, which receives help from the zealots who run Iran.

So while the vile acts of 9/11 certainly brought this war home to our doorstep, they were by no means the first shots fired. The Jihadists have hated us long before 2001, long before 1998, 1993 and yes, even before 1983. The attacks and hijackings of the 1970's were merely omens of things to come – much bigger things.

So as you go about your day today, try to remember those brave American soldiers who died in Beirut in 1983. And while you're at it, think of those American soldiers who are out there fighting right now, meeting and humiliating thousands of terrorist idiots on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan...and wherever this war takes us.

Swing low, sweet chariot

Okay, I know it's a little odd to be cracking on Hillary at this point, especially considering people like me were wishing she was actually The Hero's opponent in this Election from Hell.

But this is still one of my favorite pandering moments of all-time. I give you Hillary Clinton adopting the 'local accent'.

If Obama loses...

These top 5 reasons should just about sum up what the narrative will be:

5. This is a racist country.
4. This is a racist country.
3. This is a racist country.
2. This is a racist country.
1. Dick Cheney rigged it.

Just helping you prepare, that's all.

Everything's racial, didn't you know?

According to this blurb, 'socialist' is just a code word for 'black'.

Barack Obama and his worshippers have created the perfect criticism-shield. Basically at this point, any disagreement with his ideas is a 'racist attack'.

And you thought it was tough to dissent during these last eight years? You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Welcome to the new absurd reality.

Another nice political ad

Where have these been?

Nice political ad

Factual, effective, and very well-done. This needs to be getting massive air time.

Biden makes the case for McCain

The gaffe-master is at it again. Instead of reassuring folks about voting for Obama, Joe Biden admitted to a gathering of supporters that electing an inexperienced and weak-on-national security candidate will indeed probably embolden our enemies. In doing so, he indirectly made a strong case for The Hero.

This is part of what he said:

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

So much for easing the minds of those undecided voters.

He also said this:

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

One possible translation: Oh and by the way, Barack Obama's Iraq policy will ultimately look pretty much exactly like Bush/McCain Iraq policy. So, please help us calm the Code Pinkers and the moonbats down as they flip out when they realize we're not pulling out of there anytime soon.

So much entertainment value in this election. I wish there were two more years to go instead of two more weeks.

'Change' = Liberal supermajority

For everyone talking about a needed 'change'. Well, this would definitely be a 'change'.

This election is indeed incredibly important and historic, but probably not for the reasons you think. The Wall Street Journal has a powerful editorial about the potential Democratic supermajority. You really need to read the entire article but here's the setup:

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

If this election is over, and Barry and the Democrats are truly headed for a landslide victory and an increase in congressional seats, then my one hope is that after four years of their ridiculous nanny-state-ism, the electorate will swing back to their natural state: center-right; and a revitalized Republican party will come back stronger than ever.

I can 'hope', can't I?

Debate advice for The Hero

Not that he's listening. But there's really no need to throw out a bunch of one-liners about ACORN, Ayers, and the like. Mainly because the electorate has made it clear that A) they don't seem to care and B) going 'negative' turns undecided voters off and probably won't help The Hero at this point anyway.

What he needs to do is draw distinctions between how he will handle the financial mess and how Obama will. How his legislative record is vast and bipartisan, and how Obama's is short and extreme in its leftism.

He should also explain the difference in philosophy: That while government's role is important, it is not the solution to every problem, and no budget is big enough to deliver on the across-the-board entitlements promised by Obama.

There's no need to call Obama a Marxist (even if he is) – just explain to people why his ideas mirror Marxism. Then let them decide if our founding fathers envisioned a massive central government, sitting in Washington, sucking up taxpayer money and redistributing it among those who refuse to work as hard as others.

But most of all, The Hero simply needs to pose the essential question: Do we really know who this man is?

Victor Davis Hanson at NRO puts it well and here's a brief highlight:

I don't think anyone knows what Obama's true agenda is on things like FISA, NAFTA, Iraq, Iran, public financing, guns, abortion, capital punishment, coal, nuclear power, or drilling — or how to assess his claims of a new bipartisanship against the most liberal and partisan, albeit brief, record in the Senate.

So, The Hero doesn't need to 'go down swinging' as Dick Morris believes. He just needs to ask the American people if they are ready to trust this country to someone they really don't know. He needs to look them in the eye and show them the true leader that he is. One thing I know about the American people is, when they see a true leader, they'll follow.

Just my two cents.

I miss Jeremiah Wright

It seems people on my side are starting to realize that the Billy Ayers story isn't really sticking. Even this humble blogger has privately conceded to some of my own 'associates' that I don't think there's much fire with that smoke. Now, you can make the argument that even if there's just a little bit of fire, it merits further discussion and probably disqualifies someone from the Presidency. Well, I haven't spent much time hammering the Barry/Billy thing because to me there are numerous other and more legitimate facts that disqualify Obama for the Presidency. (And you will hear all of them as the election approaches).

To me, what's always been the more important aspect of the Billy Ayers story is not so much Obama's relationship with him, but what the hell someone like that is doing as a professor at an accredited university – and what exactly is the 'education reform' he espouses?

But that is for another rant.

My purpose here was to say that Tucker Carlson has a really good point:

Why won't the McCain campaign attack Obama for an association more damaging than Bill Ayers—the one with Chicago pastor Jeremiah Wright?

The McCain campaign's attempt to tie Barack Obama to terrorist-turned-professor Bill Ayers appears to have failed. Most people still don't seem to know who Ayers is. And there still isn't evidence that the two were more than acquaintances. By the end of the week, McCain will likely have moved on to another line of attack. The obvious question is: Why not Jeremiah Wright?

Unlike Ayers, the Rev. Wright indisputably was one of Obama's closest friends. Obama himself has said so. Nobody in America needs to be reminded of who Wright is. As long as you've decided to go after Obama's character and associations, Wright seems like the obvious place to start. The 30-second attack ad essentially writes itself.

I can sense the Obama supporters rolling their eyes and saying, "Here we go again."

Just indulge me for a moment. You don't need associations to expose Obama's flaws to the American people. Look at his record, his thin resume, his blatantly false 'moderate' rhetoric (demonstrated by said record). All of this is fair game.

But, if you're going to go after his associations, by all means go after the one that was an actual relationship. This is something that The Hero and I disagree on. He has said Jeremiah Wright should be off limits. Me? I've never understood why they let it fade from the discussion. If I was The Hero's campaign manager, I'd be running Wright ads daily.

Talking about Jeremiah Wright's 'God Damn America' gatherings is not a distraction from substance. It speaks directly to the character and judgment of someone who would attend those gatherings for so many years. Especially since we're not talking about a Chicago City Council seat here, we are talking about the Presidency of the United States.

But hey, that's just my opinion. If you really don't care that Obama was a member of that church for 20 years, there's nothing anyone can say that will change your mind anyway.

A refresher:

Dow has biggest one-day gain since 1933

Good economic news usually equals bad political news for Democrats. (Isn't it nuts how true that is?)

If the economy shows signs of recovery, especially now, The Hero's campaign may just have some life yet.

I can hear your internal dialogue: "But why Capitalist Fanboy? Why would this help The Hero?"

By all means, let me explain.

For some reason, people seem to think Democrats are the party to turn to in rough economic times. Despite the lack of reason for that, it is nevertheless a political reality. However, if the economy seems to be stabilizing (which it will) as the election approaches, people will (and should) get back to looking at the overall view of these candidates: The character, the associations (ancillary or otherwise), the statements (yes, of spouses too), the leadership resume, the actual records of bipartisanship (or lack thereof), and well, you get the picture. You know, stuff that actually qualifies one to be President.

I'm not saying I know what's going to happen on November 4th, I'm just saying don't plan your Obama victory parties just yet.

From the AP (begrudgingly, I'm sure):

NEW YORK (AP) - Wall Street stormed back after its worst week ever and staged the biggest single-day stock rally since the Great Depression on Monday, catapulting the Dow Jones industrials to a 936-point gain and finally offering relief from eight consecutive days of stock market carnage.

While no one was saying the worst was over for the staggering financial system or troubled economy, buyers returned to the stock market with gusto, with some saying stocks had been driven down to fire-sale prices.

The surge came as executives from leading banks were summoned by the Bush administration to Washington to work out a plan to get loans, the lifeblood of the economy, moving again. And it followed signals that European governments would put nearly $2 trillion on the line to protect their own banks.

The Dow gained more than 11 percent, its biggest one-day rally since 1933, and by points it shattered the previous record for a one-day gain of 499, during during the waning days of the technology boom in 2000.

The Left is the 'tolerant' side

Right?

ACORN: Dig up the vote

Get out the vote? No way, it's 'dig up the vote' for ACORN. The community organizers have apparently been registering dead people to vote in Indiana. They don't have any problem with zombies voting – as long as they vote Democrat, of course.

From The Northwest Indiana Times:

CROWN POINT | Lake County Republican Chairman John Curley wants a federal investigation into hundreds of voter registrations bearing fictitious signatures or the names of dead and underage people.

"Fraudulent applications are the workings of ACORN groups operating from Milwaukee and Chicago who are getting out the vote for Obama. I'm Republican, but I want everyone who should vote to vote. But I want a clean election," Curley said at a Wednesday news conference.

Lake County elections officials acknowledged they have found problems and had to reject a large portion of the 5,000 registration forms turned in recently by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, an activist group that conducted registration drives across the county this summer.

An ACORN spokesperson couldn't be reached Wednesday for comment. Telephones to ACORN offices in Gary, Indianapolis, Chicago and Milwaukee were reported to be disconnected.

One of the consistent talking points of the Left during this election is that the McCain campaign has not been an 'honorable' one.

I guess organizations like ACORN show the Left has a flexible view of that concept.

Where's the rage really coming from?

As the media begins their latest narrative – which is that the crowd at McCain/Palin rallies are just a 'lynch mob' of racist hicks hating on Obama – we must ask the question, which side is really spewing the divisive rhetoric?

Which side is really lowering the national discourse?

Apparently, it's been completely fine to go after The Hero in the most personal ways (his age, POW injuries, wife's money, etc.) but to even mention the radicals that have consistently floated in Obama's orbit for most of his adult life is 'hateful' and 'negative'.

The hypocrisy is mind-numbing.

It's hard to blame anyone who gives up and tunes all this crap out. On more than one occasion lately I've seriously considered doing just that. (But my 3 readers would probably be disappointed. Okay, maybe they wouldn't even care.)

Anyway, the lovely Michelle Malkin analyzes the whole mess here, and includes a great photo gallery.

Alaska's summer was third coldest...ever

From the Anchorage Daily News:

Summer is officially over in Alaska, and if you got out in the sun to enjoy both days of it you were lucky.

Those were the two July days the temperature at the offices of the National Weather Service in Anchorage hit 70 degrees or better.

"Those temperatures occurred at the beginning of the month (of July) and were immediately followed by a long stretch of cool and wet weather.

"With only two days above 70 degrees this year, that sets a new record for the fewest days to reach 70,'' the weather-watching agency reported Friday.

Add to the lack of heat and sunshine what the agency calls "an astonishing 77%" of days colder than normal, and you get the picture.

This summer was every bit as bad as you thought it was.

Gardens didn't grow. Salmon returned late. Bees didn't make honey. Swallows didn't breed.

And the sunbathing, well, what sunbathing?

On average, Anchorage sees 16 days that hit 70 or better.

Not this year. Not since 1980 has there been a summer less reflective of global warming than this one. Consider these 2008 benchmarks from the weather service that say this month won't be any better:

Over the course of the past 87 years, September temperatures have reached 70 only 17 times, and two of those 70-degree days came in the same year, according to the weather service.

I wonder what will happen to the political landscape when, in 10 years, they figure out we're actually spiraling toward an ice age. Will the climate pimps pressure companies to increase carbon emissions?

Cleric: Replace capitalism with Islamic system

According to AFP:

Muslims should take advantage of the global financial crisis to build an economic system compatible with Islamic principles, influential Sunni cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi said on Sunday.

"The collapse of the capitalist system based on usury and paper and not on goods traded on the market is proof that it is in crisis and shows that Islamic economic philosophy is holding up," said the Egyptian-born, Qatar-based cleric.

"The Western system has collapsed and we have a complete economic philosophy as well as spiritual strength," he said at Sunday's opening of a conference on Jerusalem.

"All riches are ours... the Islamic nation has all or nearly all the oil and we have an economic philosophy that no one else has," Qaradawi said.

He urged Muslims to "profit from the crisis to bring about the triumph of the (Islamic) nation, which holds the spiritual and material resources for victory."

The fundamentalists already want to take us back to the middle ages socially, might as well throw in economically as well.

The world wants Obama, do we?

The sophisticates of Europe have spoken, and they have decreed that if we racist rubes of America fail to elect Obama as President, then the "world's verdict will be harsh".

This according to Jonathan Freedland of The Guardian:

An America that disdains Obama for his global support risks turning current anti-Bush feeling into something far worse.

But what of the rest of the world? This is the reaction I fear most. For Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama.

The crowd of 200,000 that rallied to hear him in Berlin in July did so not only because of his charisma, but also because they know he, like the majority of the world's population, opposed the Iraq war. McCain supported it, peddling the lie that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Non-Americans sense that Obama will not ride roughshod over the international system but will treat alliances and global institutions seriously: McCain wants to bypass the United Nations in favour of a US-friendly League of Democracies. McCain might talk a good game on climate change, but a repeated floor chant at the Republican convention was "Drill, baby, drill!", as if the solution to global warming were not a radical rethink of the US's entire energy system but more offshore oil rigs.

If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.

Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for.

And the manner of that decision will matter, too. If it is deemed to have been about race - that Obama was rejected because of his colour - the world's verdict will be harsh. In that circumstance, Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote recently, international opinion would conclude that "the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race".

I'm not even going to take this opportunity to counter the insulting implication that we are a bunch of hick racists who would never elect a black President. That idea has of course been floating around and you can be sure if Obama loses in November, that discussion will explode into a national debate. It's ridiculous, but I will rant about that another time.

However, to Mr. Freedland's point, I'm tired of caring what the rest of the world thinks. That's not because I think we, as Americans, are so much better than people from other countries. That's not the point. It's because to constantly be gauging the attitude of Europe towards the U.S. is to accept that we are indeed a problem for them, a scourge to the planet, an obstacle to global progress. Interestingly, that seems to be exactly the view of the Left currently in this country – and it's a view that I reject.

America is not the problem, not the scourge, not the obstacle. America is the solution to problems. America is the progress. America is the hope of the world. Period.

Show me a society that has produced more, given more, liberated more, and inspired more; and done so in such a short time. This is not arrogance, just truth.

Now, that doesn't mean that we should trample across the world waving our flag and getting involved in every conflict or situation that comes up. Not in the least. But we should humbly assist those who need (and want) our help, continue to grow our economic strength to our benefit and the developing world, and most of all, continue to lead by example. But hopefully, always with an eye on our own affairs here at home first.

Are we perfect? No, of course not. But I resent the idea that this election – and Obama's predicted victory – has turned into the 'Great American apology to the world' for the last eight years. What, really, do we need to apologize for?

I know the Europeans are all excited about Barry, but I'm not waking up in the morning worrying about how Pierre from Paris is feeling about U.S. politics. I'm sorry, I'm just not.

If anti-Americanism will be 'cured' by Obama's election, I'm happy to refuse the pill.

"It's almost hard to remain objective." Yeah, we know

This video is certainly not new, and it's not like it's a shock – or rare – that a mainstream journalist is completely in the tank for Obama. But this is still one of my favorite examples of an 'objective' network reporter letting their guard down as they fawn over Barry.

Islamic law officially adopted in British courts

From the Times Online:

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

Some might call this a natural progression of multiculturalism in a forward-thinking society. Me? I wonder why any culture would willingly shred its own institutional fabric, especially for the hollow aim of appearing politically sophisticated. Is it not possible to remain sensitive to other cultures without surrendering your own identity?

I guess you could say my negative reaction to this story is melodramatic, a mountain out of a molehill. After all, this is only relating to a small portion of Muslim civil cases and has little effect on the British legal system as a whole. Well, you may be right, or it may be the creeping decline of democratic Western civilization that I've been sensing for some time now.

While you ponder that, ponder this from Mark Steyn's great essay The future belongs to Islam:

In a few years, as millions of Muslim teenagers are entering their voting booths, some European countries will not be living formally under sharia, but -- as much as parts of Nigeria, they will have reached an accommodation with their radicalized Islamic compatriots, who like many intolerant types are expert at exploiting the "tolerance" of pluralist societies. In other Continental countries, things are likely to play out in more traditional fashion, though without a significantly different ending. Wherever one's sympathies lie on Islam's multiple battle fronts the fact is the jihad has held out a long time against very tough enemies. If you're not shy about taking on the Israelis and Russians, why wouldn't you fancy your chances against the Belgians and Spaniards?

"We're the ones who will change you," the Norwegian imam Mullah Krekar told the Oslo newspaper Dagbladet in 2006. "Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children." As he summed it up: "Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours."

Maybe it's true: A great civilization cannot be conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.

How to remove spines nonsurgically

According to this story from the Telegraph, one school in England has decided to do away with spelling tests because they are too 'distressing' for the children.

Whitminster Endowed Church of England Primary School, near Stroud, has decided not to give pupils lists of words to learn by rote as homework.

Headmistress Debbie Marklove said there was a risk that children would feel a "sense of failure" if, having learned the words at home, they were unable to spell them at school the next day.

She wrote to all parents of the 105 children aged between four and 11 at the school to tell them about the change.

"You will notice that the children will not be given spelling lists to learn over the week and then be tested in class," she wrote.

"We have taken the decision to stop spellings as homework as it is felt that although children may learn them perfectly at home they are often unable to use them in their daily written work.

"Also many children find this activity unnecessarily distressing.

As far as I know, no one has revealed this to be a joke.

I don't even really get frustrated by stories like this anymore – it's just the way of things. Europe is farther down the abyss, but with the continued pussification of America, we're not far behind. Sometimes I think we may as well just throw up the white flag to the terrorists or whoever else wants to dominate us.

Everyone gets a trophy, no one comes in first, and failure is not allowed – because that would hurt feelings. Instead of raising a generation of tough-minded, self-reliant warriors who have learned from hard work (and occasional failure), we're raising soft losers who will need more time on the psychiatrist's couch and happy pills when they learn that life is tough and you actually have to put forth effort to succeed.

Right now, the West is losing itself, and no one seems to care.

For all you moral equivalence types

...who are somehow able to talk about 'Radical Christianity' with a straight face, as if it is just as much a source of violence, blood and death across the planet. Or for those who would silence criticism of fundamentalist Islam because Muslims who commit acts of terror in the name of jihad (or merely sympathize with them) are such a rare anomaly, it is politically incorrect and 'hateful' to even speak of it.

Well, Clifford May has an interesting story to tell you at NRO. It's a must read actually.

Not since the Nazi book burnings of the 1930s has free speech been as endangered as it is today. Firebombing publishers, murdering filmmakers, issuing death threats against writers and cartoonists, suing researchers, restricting freedom of expression through bogus “human-rights commissions” and the U.N. — these are some of the ways militant Islamists, their enablers, and their apologists are seeking to silence their critics.

Much more on this topic to come...

Let's point some fingers!

According to Dominic Lawson with The Independent in the UK, Democrat fingerprints are all over the financial crisis:

Of all the characteristics of a successful politician, none is more essential than bare-faced cheek. Never has this been more evident than in the past fortnight, as senior Democrat members of the US legislature have sought to lay all the blame for the country's financial crisis on the executive arm of Government and Wall Street.

Neither of these two institutions is blameless – far from it. Yet when I see such senior Democrats as Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Senate's Banking Committee, play the part of avenging angels – well, I can only stand in silent awe at the sheer tight-bottomed nerve of it. These are men with sphincters of steel.

What is the proximate cause of the collapse of confidence in the world's banks? Millions of improvident loans to American housebuyers. Which organisations were on their own responsible for guaranteeing half of this $12 trillion market? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises which last month were formally nationalised to prevent their immediate and catastrophic collapse. Now, who do you think were among the leading figures blocking all the earlier attempts by President Bush – and other Republicans – to bring these lending behemoths under greater regulatory control? Step forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

In September 2003 the Bush administration launched a measure to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under stricter regulatory control, after a report by outside investigators established that they were not adequately hedging against risks and that Fannie Mae in particular had scandalously mis-stated its accounts. In 2006, it was revealed that Fannie Mae had overstated its earnings – to which its senior executives' bonuses were linked – by a stunning $9.3billion. Between 1998 and 2003, Fannie Mae's executive chairman, Franklin Raines, picked up over $90m in bonuses and stock options.

Yet Barney Frank and his chums blocked all Bush's attempts to put a rein on Raines. During the House Financial Services Committee hearing following Bush's initiative, Frank declared: "The more people exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness [at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae], the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially." His colleague on the committee, the California Democrat Maxine Walters, said: "There were nearly a dozen hearings where we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Mr Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr Franklin Raines."

I'll go ahead and be all bipartisan and nice and say, "Gee whiz, there's a bunch of Washington blowhards from both parties that need to get booted out of office for this mess," if that'll make you feel better.

But I damn sure know the first two I'd start with.

Crap sandwich

The Senate passed a 451-page, pork-filled $850 billion Wall Street bailout last night, in case you didn't know. Read about it here.

Jonah Goldberg wrote an absolutely brilliant piece a couple of days ago at NRO about the House's own failed attempt at a bailout and how both sides screwed it up.

Meanwhile, President Bush, his popularity ratings stuck at below-freezing numbers, has decided to cling to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson for warmth on the grounds that the vaunted former Goldman Sachs CEO has the credibility to sell the solution to a problem he’s been exacerbating for 18 months. When a reporter for Forbes magazine asked a Treasury spokesman last week why Congress had to lay out $700 billion, the answer came back: “It’s not based on any particular data point. We just wanted to choose a really large number.”

There’s a confidence builder.

As for the reputedly free-market purists of the congressional GOP, with whom my sympathies generally lie, I cannot let pass without comment the fact that they controlled the legislative branch for most of the last eight years. Only now, when capitalism is in flames, does this fire brigade try to enforce the free-market fire codes without compromise.

I loathe populism. But if there ever has been a moment when reasonable men’s hands itch for the pitchfork, this must surely be it. No one is blameless. No one is pure. Two decades of crapulence by the political class has been prologue to the era of coprophagy that is now upon us. It is crap sandwiches for as far as the eye can see.

Mr. Goldberg and I probably disagree on what level of involvement is needed here by Big Gov in 'assisting' Wall Street. But his vitriol toward both parties on the failed House bill was too good not to point out.

As far as the new Senate bill, why am I not surprised? This is Washington after all. A smaller bill gets defeated in the House of Representatives, then a much bigger, more expensive porker of a bill gets passed by the Senate and will likely now pass in the House.

Crap sandwich, alright.

Shocker: Debate moderator is in the tank for Obama

Seriously, is anyone really shocked by this story?

PBS journalist Gwen Ifill, moderator of the upcoming vice presidential debate, dismissed conservative questions about her impartiality because she is writing a book that includes material on Barack Obama.

Of course she dismissed questions. I mean, Gwen Ifill is a PBS journalist, after all. She also smirked (and drew complaints) after Sarah Palin's speech at the convention, and was less than fair to Evil Dick Cheney four years ago in his debate with the missing man John Edwards.

Ms. Ifill's book is called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama" and is slated to come out on January 20, 2009. Yes, that's inauguration day. If Barry wins, the book should sell pretty good. If McCain wins, the book will sell about five copies to her immediate family.

Look, no one should be surprised that a highly-respected member of the mainstream media is a Liberal, clearly biased, and in the tank for Barry. But what is surprising is how the debate commission didn't even consider this glaring conflict of interest when they chose her to moderate this debate. In the words of Matt Damon, "it's absurd."

Count it as another huge obstacle for Sarah Palin tonight, who hasn't done herself any favors lately with extremely poor interviewing. Good luck Sarah, you'll need it.

Kids can't vote

I've never been a fan of kids being used for political purposes, especially since the ankle-biters can't vote.

I'm going to agree with the way Jonah Goldberg put it over at The Corner:

All I need to know about your politics...

is whether you find this creepy or not.

There really just isn't much more to say about this, except, Kim Jong-il would be proud.

And I weep for the future.

UPDATE: Apparently the youtube link is dead. Someone removed the video (likely out of embarrassment).

Crisis is the friend of The State

No doubt you've heard by now that Big Government is swooping in to 'save the day' and hand over $700 billion of your money to help the Wall Street / Bad Loans / Worthless Mortgage mess. But the very latest is that the deal seems far from done. Here are current details from the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush and the two men fighting to succeed him joined forces Thursday at a historic White House meeting on a multibillion-dollar Wall Street bailout plan, aiming to stave off a national economic disaster. Key members of Congress said they had struck a deal earlier in the day, but its future was unclear.

The tentative accord would give the Bush administration just a fraction of the $700 billion it had requested up front, with half that total subject to a congressional veto, Capitol Hill aides said. But nothing appeared final. Amid several signs that conservatives were balking, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, emerged from the White House and said the announced agreement "is, obviously, no agreement."

Both of Congress' Republican leaders, Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell, issued statements saying there was not yet an agreement.

Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, who have both sought to distance themselves from the unpopular Bush, sat down with the president at the White House for an hourlong afternoon session that was striking in this brutally partisan season and apparently without precedent. By also including Congress' Democratic and Republican leaders, the meeting gathered nearly all Washington's political power structure at one long table in a small West Wing room.

Am I supposed to be comforted?

We are merely armchair political observers here at CF, certainly not economic experts, but we are skeptical that Big Gov and massive amounts of taxpayer money are the cure.

In fact, maybe we don't need a cure?

Oh boy, I've gone and said it now.

The perfect beauty of Capitalism is that it is far from perfect. There is risk, there is danger, there is prosperity, there is crushing loss. That's the price we pay. When things turn south we don't abandon free markets and turn to Socialism overnight. We take small, measured steps to restore order and let those who made poor decisions live with the consequences.

Cruel, I know. But that's Capitalism, more to the point, that's Conservatism: Not everyone's going to make it. We don't like that, we wish it were different, but it's reality. Not everyone is going to succeed. We do what we can to help those we can, but those who make bad choices again and again cannot be saved. There is no such thing as Utopia - not on Main Street and not on Wall Street. Prosperity for as many as possible is worth the risk that a few will fail, including financial titans like AIG.

Socialism, on the other hand, removes that risk so everyone is equal -- and equally miserable. Nationalizing major financial institutions in not the answer.

If you want to punish 'greedy' CEO's then by all means, get out the tar and feathers and send them up the river; certainly if illegalities are found. But remember that 'greed' is a powerful motivator, and risk is one ingredient in the fuel of freedom. Without it, where would this country be today? There are no guarantees.

So consider these things as you hear the Prophets of Doom on television telling you that Big Gov's bailout is the only way to prevent another Depression. Free markets will work these things out without the need for expanded government, more oversight and unnecessary regulations that do more harm than good in the long term.

Oh, and to the European press, the rumors of Capitalism's death are greatly exaggerated.

The sun will come up tomorrow people, and we're a long way from bread lines. No matter what NBC News tells you, remember that.

Patriotic student told to leave California public school

This story seems to be typical these days:

DOS PALOS -- Students at Dos Palos High School protested Thursday -- by wearing patriotic regalia to school -- after a sophomore student was forced to remove a T-shirt depicting the American flag.

Officials at the Merced County school confirmed Thursday that Jake Shelly was forced to take off a red, white and blue tie-dyed American flag T-shirt on Tuesday. The shirt said nothing offensive, just: "United States of America, Washington, D.C."

The school's assistant principal issued Shelly a bright yellow T-shirt that read "DCV: Dress Code Violator" to wear for the rest of the day. He was given his shirt back after classes ended.

"It was really embarrassing and humiliating to have to wear that all day -- and just for supporting your country," his sister Kaycee Shelly said.

Kaycee Shelly told members of the media at lunchtime that her brother was overwhelmed and did not want to do any more interviews.

Earlier in the day, he was speaking with a local news station when an unidentified teacher walked up to him, ripped off the microphone clipped to his shirt and told him he was not allowed to talk to the media.

District officials said they apologized to the student, his family and the local American Legion on Wednesday -- Constitution Day.

"In reviewing the dress code at the time, an administrator felt the shirt was in violation of that section of the dress code," said Superintendent Brian Walker. "She asked him to remove it and he did."

This is classic moonbat Liberalism at work. A kid wears an American flag shirt to school and some wacky administrator overreacts and sends them home -- no doubt sensing this bold display of patriotism could, will, must offend someone.

California, you just have to love it. It's amazing how such a beautiful state could become so pinko over the years. But hey, at least they don't try to close down Marine recruiting offices out there. Oh....wait.

Islamic thugs attack U.S. embassy in Yemen, kill 16

While the headlines are dominated by a (supposedly) shaky economy, it's important to note that Islamic terrorists do not care what's happening on Wall Street.

I've never been an 'issues' voter, and certainly not a 'one issue' voter. But if I was, it damn sure wouldn't be the economy...stupid.

From the AP:

SAN'A, Yemen (AP) — Attackers armed with automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades and at least one suicide car bomb assaulted the U.S. Embassy in the Yemeni capital on Wednesday. Sixteen people were killed, including six assailants, officials said. No Americans were hurt in the deadly attempt to breach the compound walls, which the U.S. said bore "all the hallmarks of an al-Qaida attack."

Multiple explosions rang out outside the heavily guarded facility, and gunfire raged for at least 10 minutes at the concrete checkpoints that ring the compound. The dead included six attackers, six Yemeni guards and four civilians, the state news agency SABA reported. Security officials said people lined up for visas were among those killed or wounded.

It was the deadliest attack on a compound that has been targeted four times in recent years by bombings, mortars and shootings. Yemen, the ancestral homeland of Osama bin Laden, has struggled to put down al-Qaida-linked Islamic militants, often to the frustration of U.S. counterterrorism officials.

Yemeni security officials said a little-known group called Islamic Jihad, unrelated to the Palestinian group of the same name, claimed responsiblity for the attack. But Yemeni authorities have blamed the group in past attacks that have later been claimed by al-Qaida in postings on the Internet.

Read the entire story here.

NY Times' scorched Earth policy on Palin

I've been way too busy the last few days and haven't had as much time to rant as much as I'd like to. Hopefully this week things will slow down and I can get back into a groove with this blog.

I did want to say a few words about that old liberal fishwrap The New York Times and their 'objective' coverage of Sarah Palin. If you haven't heard, the Times published no less than four hit pieces on Governor Palin this past Sunday. Between the supposedly 'hard' news stories and the Op Ed columns, their concern over what was once a sure win for Barry is obvious. And since the Times (unfortunately) drives much of what is reprinted in papers around the country and broadcast on the networks, the Palin-bashing has plenty of outlets to bleed from.

It is clear that the Times is in absolute panic mode - as is most of the Left - due to Palin's growing popularity.

And speaking of Op Ed columns, I couldn't leave you tonight without mentioning Bob Herbert's laughably paranoid diatribe from a couple of days ago which you can read here.

Mr. Herbert writes:

John McCain, who is shameless about promoting himself as America’s ultimate patriot, put the best interests of the nation aside in making his incredibly reckless choice of a running mate. But there is a profound double standard in this country. The likes of John McCain and George W. Bush can do the craziest, most irresponsible things imaginable, and it only seems to help them politically.

Bob, I am in the uncomfortable position of telling you that you and your Democratic party are the 'incredibly reckless' ones. Once again, your party has shown its complete and utter ineptitude at choosing presidential candidates. (See Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry). Obama is probably the least qualified and least experienced presidential candidate in history; and he's at the top of your ticket. He's also probably the most liberal high office candidate in history as well, despite the centrist rhetoric he's tried to adopt in the general election.

Now, can't you just go back to writing about how we're greedily abusing the planet's resources while exploiting the third world? Oh wait, that's Thomas Friedman's job. What do you normally write about again?

You don't have to take your subconscious buyer's remorse out on us. Tell it to a bottle of scotch.

India bombings carried out by Muslim terrorists

From the AP:

NEW DELHI (AP) — Police commandos carried out raids across New Delhi, detaining several people believed to be connected to a series of blasts that ripped through the Indian capital, killing at least 21 people and wounding about 100 others, police said Sunday.

A series of at least five explosions struck a park and crowded shopping areas in New Delhi just after sundown Saturday, a prime time for weekend shoppers in the crowded, chaotic city.

An Islamic militant group claimed responsibility for the bombings in an e-mail sent to several Indian news organizations.

By Sunday the death toll had risen to 21, said city police spokesman Rajan Bhagat. At least 97 others were wounded, he said.

Read the entire story here.

Some more 9/11 notes from around the web

I didn't get a chance to post a roundup of 9/11 related stories and notes the other day. Here are a few I thought were worth pointing out:

From Mark Steyn:

With allies like these...

23% of Germans, 30% of Mexicans and 36% of Turks believe the United States government was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Click here to read an excellent column from Victor Davis Hanson over at National Review:

A highlight [emphasis added]:

While many rightly point to lapses in the conduct of the Iraq war, faulty intelligence, and wrongheaded emphasis on supposed arsenals of WMDs rather than the casus belli outlined in the 23 writs authorized by the Congress, few can answer a more existential question: Had we not met, defeated, and humiliated tens of thousands of jihadists on the battlefields of Iraq, where else might we have inflicted such a terrible defeat on our enemies — given the nuclear sanctuary of Pakistan, the bellicose governments of Iran and Syria, and the duplicity of the Gulf monarchies? And if we had not killed, captured, scattered, and turned our enemies abroad, how then might we have prevented them from coming back here to attack us at home? And are the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, as in the past, aiding anti-American terrorists, or helping to hunt them down?

RedState.com has a fine take on the kooky Left's attitude towards 9/11 called "September 11th for Demmies":

Highlights:

This attitude shouldn't be a surprise to us. Perhaps the particular viciousness of the mocking graphic will catch you off-guard, but the "sick of 9-11" routine is hardly new. "Progressive" folks have been telling America to get over 9-11-01 since 9-12-01. (Well, 9/13, 9/12 was reserved for mealy-mouthed columnists to bleat about the "danger" of reprisals against Muslims in America which the New York Times kind of American was all too certain would be swift, abundant, and heinous from the bitter, gun-toting, religious nuts in flyover country.)

Take, for example, this article by Chris Thompson, currently of the Village Voice, published at East Bay Express on the first anniversary of 9/11. The essential point of his article was that it was all too dramatic and, really, oughtn't we just treat it like a fluke and never the more fret? "What really happened one year ago? Some bad men got lucky and hurt us, so we bombed the s**t out of some caves they were hiding in. Now what's on TV?" That wasn't snark. It was his point.

Joan Smith at The Independent/UK said it in February of 2003. She wonders when we'll get over it, and summarizes her position by saying, "If the world has become a more dangerous place since 11 September 2001, it is not solely because of the activities of a bunch of Islamic terrorists." It's America, you see. Sort of like, when a person is being mugged, and they punch the mugger in the face; well the mugger isn't really the only one bringing violence to the street is he?

Another great Mark Steyn piece called "Being Sad isn't Enough":

Highlights [emphasis added]:

Seven years is a long time in a present-tense culture, and attitudes to the war - if, indeed, it is still a war to most people - evolved pretty quickly. Here's what I wrote on the third anniversary, marked by the Beslan massacre, in The Spectator, September 11th 2004:

On the eve of this week’s anniversary, hundreds of children were murdered in their schoolhouse by terrorists. Terrible. But even more terrible was the reaction of what passes for the civilized world, the reluctance to confront the truth of what had occurred. The perpetrators were “separatists”, according to The Christian Science Monitor – what, you mean like my fellow Quebecers? They were “commandoes”, according to Agence France-Presse – you mean like the SAS?

“We have been confronted with a deep human tragedy,” said Dutch Foreign Minister Ben Bot, speaking for the European Union. “I am appalled that a school and its pupils are being used for political ends,” said UNESCO’s Director-General Koichiro Matsuura. A “tragedy”? “Political ends”?

Five days after the slaughter, The New York Times finally got around to using the I-word, and then only in paragraph 24:

While the extent of international support may be debated, the attacks bear some trappings of Islamic militancy. Officials here in Beslan said they had found notebooks with Arabic writing, and witnesses reported hearing Arabic exhortations, though the attackers mostly spoke Russian.

Any Arabic exhortation in particular? Only the slogan of the age, “Allahu Akbar.” Nothing to worry about, folks. They may kill kids, but they’re just “separatists”, “radicals”, “activists”. No connection with any events you may have heard about in Madrid, Istanbul, Bali, Tel Aviv or New York. The approved tone in polite society is that of my Telegraph colleague Adam Nicolson: keep it tasteful, keep it elegant, lots of exquisitely honed over-written allusions - each dead child was “a Pietà, the archetype of pity. Each is a Cordelia carried on at the end of Act V…” Lovely stuff, may even be an award in it. But not a word about the killers or a hint of their identity. Only a limpid, passive sadness. Nicolson is sedated but, unlike Clinton, not arousable.

Three years after September 11th, the Islamist death cult is the love whose name no-one dare speak. And, if you can’t even bring yourself to identify your enemy, are you likely to defeat him? Can you even know him? He seems to know us pretty well. He understands the pressures he can bring to bear on Spain, and the Phillipines, and France, too. He’s come to appreciate the self-imposed constraints under which his enemy fights – the legalisms, the political correctness, the deference to ineffectual multilateralism. He’s revolted by the infidels’ decadence but he has to admit it’s enormously helpful: the useful idiots of the pro-gay, pro-feminist left are far more idiotic and far more useful to him than they ever were to Stalin.

Monica Crowley talks about the anniversary in this column over on her blog:

In the seven years since the attacks of September 11, 2001, there has been a movement to call the enemy by an euphemism, to strip away any label describing them as they really are: radical Islamic terrorists.

These Islamists believe they are engaged in a holy war against us. Listen to them. They have declared war on us. Listen to them. They routinely tell us what they believe, what their intentions are, and how they plan to carry them out. Listen to them. They tell us they are coming back for us. Listen to them.

Finally, check out this post from Crush Liberalism which I found particularly good:

Highlights [emphasis added]:

To those of you on the left: Feel free to Google that date if it doesn’t ring a bell for you.

It’s hard to believe that it’s been seven years since that fateful day. All of us remember what we were doing when we heard about the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, as well as United Flight 93 going down in Shanksville, PA. The face of this country changed forever.

See, gone were the days of Clintonian capitulation. Gone were the days of Reagan’s scamper out of Beirut. Gone were the days of bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan, or trying to serve an warrant to Osama bin Laden or reading him his rights. That fateful day marked the turning point in this country when we looked at the backwards savages who slaughtered in the name of their god and said “We will hunt you down like the couscous-sucking dogs that you are and snuff you out, for however long it takes!” We meant it, too.

At least, we meant it back then.

There's much more out there obviously. But the anniversary has come and gone now. You can go back to watching 90210 and burying your head in the sand.

Seven years later

The gray skies today were fitting. It's a somber anniversary. Always will be, and should. No domestic politics today, I just thought I'd share a picture I took at Ground Zero last month when I visited New York. It was my first time at the site, and it really brought the memories of that day back. I know that life goes on, but I guess part of me has never fully been able to move on. Truthfully, I don't think I want to. Some would call that angry, or sad.

But I don't ever want to forget the heroism that we witnessed that day and still witness from our troops across the globe today. I don't want to forget the national unity that we all felt, either. But most importantly - and to some maybe most unfortunately - I don't ever want to forget the horror of a perverted enemy that stands for nothing but bloodlust.

Whatever we do as a nation from this point forward, however you feel about how we should or should not respond to Islamic terrorism, my greatest hope is that my young nephews won't have to grow up in a world riddled with the debris caused by Radical Islam. One way or another, we're going to have to figure this problem out. We're going to have to erase it.

May we proceed to that end with undying love for America and her ideals, with wisdom, and most of all, with strength.

Lipstick on a pig part 2

It's been a really long day and since I get paid elsewhere, posting on this blog is low on the priority list. So, I don't even have the energy to get into Matt Damon tonight. But don't worry, I'll get to him.

After absorbing this 'lipstick on a pig' story all day I'm convinced it's another one of these fake controversies that get blown out of proportion. It's pretty much a non-story. But isn't that what political campaigns are now? 24-hour 'gotcha' games fueled by nothing-better-to-do media?

Look, Obama wasn't insulting Palin - at least not directly - and the McCain camp should've just let it go. In fact, they would have looked a lot better (and won even more favor than they're already getting lately) if Sarah Palin had come out today and said, "Look folks, he wasn't talking about me...let it go."

Nevertheless, Obama screwed up by using a word from one of the best lines in Palin's convention speech. (And if you watch the video clip, it's almost as if he knew it was a poor choice as it was coming out...kind of funny.) That was the mistake: Not that it was a sexist insult, but that he should've known it would remind people of the pit bull line.

Now, I will admit to being slightly amused at seeing a Democrat become the victim of the same 'gotcha' tactics that the press has used on the Right for years. I mean, how many times have they twisted something Rush Limbaugh (like him or not) has said in an effort to mute his credibility? (Intellectually honest people only need answer that question.)

Advice to both campaigns: When you're stumping at these rallies, you're already playing to a friendly crowd. Why waste time bashing the other candidate? You're preaching to the choir aren't you? Why not spend that time talking about your ideas and what you want to do? I mean, both camps have said they want to move past these 'negative partisan politics'.

Right?

Lipstick on a pig

As I wake up this morning, the Barry 'lipstick on a pig' controversy seems to be taking on a life of its own. It's no surprise, so much of this is a circus and these things tend to explode and then fade in a matter of days. I have no idea if Barry was taking a shot at Palin personally or just referring to the 'dressing up' of bad policies. From what I understand, both he and McCain both have used this phrase or similar phrases in the past.

But, after Palin's speech, a seasoned politician wouldn't have touched that word (lipstick) with a 10-foot pole. Way to go, Barry.

Sarah Palin: Checking the facts

FactCheck.org has a lengthy piece up today debunking some of Sarah Palin's so called 'extreme' positions. You'll find after reading it that most of what's circulating out in the blogosphere and mass emails is just not true. It's also interesting that some of those false claims end up in legitimate news stories and broadcasts without being verified.

Here is their summary: [emphasis added]

We've been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain's running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn't cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.

She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She's been registered as a Republican since May 1982.

Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesy" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

Now, I've already heard Joe Biden call Sarah Palin 'extreme' on a couple of occasions. First, he needs to make sure what he's backing that up with. Second, if being a gun-toting, moose-hunting, God-fearing, America-loving hockey mom makes you 'extreme', then what the hell does that make Jeremiah Wright? Mainstream?

I haven't had a chance to work on a complete write-up about Palin and my thoughts on her being chosen by McCain, but hopefully I will soon. Stay tuned peeps!