MoltenThought II

MoltenThought 2.0

2011-09-06T07:27:00.003-05:00

A combination of work responsibilities, family responsibilities, Blogger memory issues, and easy Facebook availability has prevented my posting more frequently these last few months in this space.

Fortunately, I've got a project coming up requiring me to keep long-form writing skills sharp, so I intend to use this space for longer posts. More to come soon.

The Book on Voter Fraud

2008-10-22T09:01:00.002-05:00

This is how the Democrats steal elections and rob Americans of their voting rights.

The Myth of "Settled Doctrine"

2008-10-22T08:40:00.002-05:00

From The Catholic Thing:

So this “settled doctrine,” what is it? At every step it is a lie. It is a lie about when life begins. It is a lie that the fetus is not human from conception. It is a lie that we cannot strive to do something about it. It is a lie that it is the common good that these infants perish because we decide that it is “necessary,” a “choice,” a “right,” “the law.” It is a lie that we do not need the infants that we have systematically killed. It is a lie that each abortion is not an intentional killing of one of our kind by one of our kind.

“Settled doctrine” is a rule-of-the-thumb judicial maxim, like “Odiosa sunt restringenda” or “In dubiis libertas." These latter are legal customs designed to protect the one who must obey from unclear, though generally just laws. Can we have “settled doctrine” over unjust laws? This is the claim we are confronted with.

The “settled doctrine” of slavery was challenged on grounds of its moral rightness. From whence could such grounds arise? Surely not from “settled doctrine” itself. “Settled customs” in the ancient world maintained that, given a choice between death and slavery after defeat in battle, most men would choose slavery. Therefore, slavery was tolerated. Those who chose death over slavery were always more admired.

The same people who oppose the “settled doctrine” of slavery on moral grounds reject these same grounds when it comes to aborted human beings. This obtuseness can only be explained as a willful blindness justified as a conflict of “rights.” The shifting reasons given for abortion have come to be simply, “We will it.” All arguments for it are at bottom based on lies. But “rights,” we are told, do not apply to human beings at every stage in their growth. We used to say that if children managed successfully to be born, they were human. But now we also eliminate the born. The so-called “right to a dead fetus” or to a “perfect child” is claimed to be a higher obligation.

“Settled doctrine?” It is settled only if we will it to be settled. It is “settled” if we lie to ourselves about what it is we kill. It is “settled” if we reverse the Socratic principle that founded our civilization, namely, “It is, after all, right to do wrong.” Why? Because we will it. “Quod placuit principi, legis habet vigorem” (I-II, 90, 1, ob. 3).

In the end, “No evil can come to an unjust man.” This too is “settled doctrine” among those who deny what Benedict XVI called, in Spe Salvi, the “Final Judgment.”

Indeed, slavery was enshrined within the Constitution itself and yet we turned away from that horror and injustice which itself is less horrible and less unjust than infanticide.

Abortion advocates invoke "settled doctrine" because they have lost the moral argument and so resort to the legal one.

Follow the Money

2008-10-22T08:25:00.001-05:00

Surprise---Lefty billionaire George Soros is funding the "Catholic" groups supporting Obama.

Where's Doug Kmiec's money coming from?

30 pieces of silver have to come from somewhere.

Cozying Up To Cop-Killers

2008-10-22T08:22:00.002-05:00

Colin Powell enables cop-killers by proxy.

But he didn't care when Saddam Hussein slaughtered the Shi'ites in 1991 either, so don't expect such calls to conscience to afflict the conscienceless.

More Moral Clarity on Abortion

2008-10-22T08:19:00.002-05:00

George Weigel:

Is John McCain—for whom, I might add, I have never served as an adviser, formally or informally—a perfect pro-life candidate? Of course not. But Barack Obama is a perfect pro-life nightmare. President McCain would not work to repeal the pro-life legislative advances of the past 35 years; knowledgeable and sober-minded Catholic legal and political observers who have worked on these issues for decades are convinced that an Obama administration and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress would eviscerate those modest advances within a year. As for the Supreme Court, the hard facts of our national history teach us that, while the country can survive the court's getting it wrong on some things, we are in very deep trouble when the court gets it wrong on the big human rights questions. That was true when Scot v. Sanford declared an entire class of human beings outside the protection of the laws. That was true when Plessyv.Ferguson upheld legal segregation. And that has been true with Roev.Wade. Professors Cafardi, Kaveny, and Kmiec say they have "no objections" to pursuing legal redress to Roe; yet they support a candidate who, given the opportunity, would certainly do everything in his power to make any revision of Roe, or return of the issue to the states, impossible for the foreseeable future. Once again, we're through the looking glass and into a wilderness of impossibilities.

As a former Democrat who left the party after it left former Pennsylvania governor Robert Casey out in the cold at the 1992 convention, I deeply regret the fact that the once-traditional political home of U.S. Catholics has embraced policy positions on the life issues that offend both Catholic faith and everyone's reason. I would welcome a new openness to pro-life argumentation and policy in the Democratic Party. But it is not at all clear how that revolution, will be advanced by Catholic intellectuals and lawyers who imagine that the party leader's record on core life issues can be, somehow, bracketed, and that reinventing the New Deal or the Great Society will turn the Democratic Party into a political force committed to the culture of life. Should Senator Obama be elected president, Professors Cafardi, Kaveny, and Kmiec will enjoy a brief moment of satisfaction. That moment will likely be followed by the discovery that they have far less credit in the new administration's bank than NARAL and other longtime Obama supporters.

As his biographer, I think it likely that I knew the late John Paul II rather better than Professors Cafardi, Kaveny, and Kmiec. John Paul II was an adult, with whom one could disagree on matters of prudential judgment without his becoming disagreeable. It was an admirable trait. In reflecting on it, my interlocutors might also reflect on the relationship of the candidacy they support to John Paul's description of America's moral history, eloquently expressed when the pope accepted the credentials of the last Democratic ambassador to the Holy See, Lindy Boggs, in 1997:

"No expression of today's [American] commitment to liberty and justice for all can be more basic than the protection offered to those in society who are most vulnerable. The United States of America was founded on the conviction that an inalienable right to life was a self-evident moral truth, fidelity to which was a primary criterion of social justice. The moral history of your country is the story of your people's efforts to widen the circle of inclusion in society, so that all Americans might enjoy the protection of law, participate in the responsibilities of citizenship, and have the opportunity to make a contribution to the common good. Whenever a certain category of people—the unborn or the sick and old—are excluded from that protection, a deadly anarchy subverts the original understanding of justice. The credibility of the United States will depend more and more on its promotion of a genuine culture of life, and on a renewed commitment to building a world in which the weakest and most vulnerable are welcomed and protected."

Abortion is our slavery---a monumental injustice which will color perception of our society by our descendants forever. Nothing else we accomplish will matter to posterity so long as we cruelly exterminate our own children.

Why the Polls Are Wrong

2008-10-22T08:13:00.001-05:00

And why the only poll that matters involves actually casting ballots.

"Judgment Day Is On Its Way"

2008-10-21T20:02:00.003-05:00

...and Pope Pelosi I and Joseph Cardinal Biden along with the Obamessiah they serve had better be wary---the grilling they will face then will be far worse than the softball interviews with which the Left Wing Media favors them.

These self-righteous and morally corrupt Democrats are a living example of the proslavery Democrats of a prior age---they have no consciences and yet endeavor to moralize to those who do.

Full Of S----

2008-10-21T12:26:00.003-05:00

British government greenies suppress the truth about the environmental advantages of disposable diapers:

Restricted Whitehall documents, seen by The Sunday Times, show that the government is so concerned by the “negative laundry options” outlined in the report, it has told its media managers not to give its conclusions any publicity.

The report found that while disposable nappies used over 2½ years would have a global warming , impact of 550kg of CO2 reusable nappies produced 570kg of CO2 on average. But if parents used tumble dryers and washed the reusable nappies at 90C, the impact could spiral to . 993kg of CO2 A Defra spokesman said the government was shelving plans for future research on nappies.

And that's before considering the benefits of not catching cholera.

The Fix Is In Part II

2008-10-21T11:27:00.003-05:00

How much is the election fixed for Obama?

The LWM lies about McCain withdrawing from battleground Colorado.

A debate moderator gushes about the "giant steps" forward electing Obama would represent.

A New York Times writer gets busted intentionally lying in a piece geared to amp up economic anxiety, a key enabler for Obama.

LWM-enabled GOP turncoat Colin Powell waits 8 MONTHS to make big waves with his endorsement.

Obama denies writing blurb for terrorist Bill Ayers' book; LWM ignores easy research which proves he lied.

Neocons, ever sensitive to LWM and elite opinion, are already heading for the exits.

Meanwhile, the people who take taxpayer dollars to ensure fair and legal elections are filling Obama's cash coffers at a record rate.

How much is the election fixed for Obama?

Enough to disgust even Democrats.

Something Pope Nancy I and Joe Cardinal Biden Ought To See

2008-10-21T09:20:00.001-05:00

This is what Catholic faith IS.

Don't claim to be a devout Catholic if you'd argue with this.

Not Buying What Colin Powell's Selling

2008-10-21T09:17:00.002-05:00

Predictable and self-serving---the hallmarks of Powell's career.

Why Democrats Don't Want Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines To Vote

2008-10-21T08:18:00.001-05:00

And like Algore, they'll disenfranchise them by closing down voting booths at military installations overseas, then challenge their absentee ballots.

All because they overwhelmingly support John McCain.

Unless they're African-American. Wonder why that would be the case?

Obama's Big Lies

2008-10-21T08:03:00.002-05:00

"Look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years." (said in 2004) and "I will accept public funds for my campaign if my opponent does."

Since he flagrantly lied both times, why would anyone believe him now?

Who Said That?

2008-10-20T15:42:00.003-05:00

Success is the result of perfection, hard work, learning from failure, loyalty, and persistence.

and

When we are debating an issue, loyalty means giving me your honest opinion, whether you think I'll like it or not. Disagreement, at this stage, stimulates me. But once a decision has been made, the debate ends. From that point on, loyalty means executing the decision as if it were your own.

The same guy who said this:

You don't know what you can get away with until you try.

Colin Powell.

Joe Cardinal Biden Theologizes Again

2008-10-20T10:08:00.002-05:00

And with the usual misleading incoherence.

Let's see what the Catechism of the Catholic Church---available to everyone, not just Catholics, but which any "devout Catholic" should have memorized---has to say on this vexing issue:

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

Sure doesn't sound like the Church is in a quandary over the evil of abortion, does it?

Somebody send Joe Biden, Doug Kmiec, and Nancy Pelosi a copy of the Catechism---please!

Obama the Socialist

2008-10-20T10:02:00.001-05:00

Card-carrying Socialist, no less.

One of the few times he hasn't lied during this campaign has been when he told Joe the Plumber he wanted to redistribute his wealth.

Obama the Unethical

2008-10-20T10:01:00.000-05:00

The Left Wing Media the Disinterested.

The Last Honest Lefty Journalist

2008-10-20T10:00:00.002-05:00

Mark Halperin sees the writing on the wall.

Conservatives Are Smarter

2008-10-20T09:58:00.000-05:00

More evidence of the obvious.

Cindy Spanks The Times

2008-10-20T09:57:00.001-05:00

And reveals Bill Keller for the lying jerk he is in the process.

Powell Sold Out

2008-10-20T09:55:00.002-05:00

The man who never does something for nothing (unless it's vindictively screwing his political enemies) endorsed Obama for a job.

My guess would be the SecDef gig he wanted in the Bush Administration.

It certainly won't be Secretary of Honor and Integrity.

Obama Runs from Debate

2008-10-20T09:53:00.001-05:00

The Obamessiah won't debate Jews who disagree with him, quite unlike the real Messiah.

A Reminder of Obama's Dirty Politics

2008-10-20T08:25:00.001-05:00

Selected, not elected, is the phrase.

And here's a good roundup of precisely how Obama is stealing this election.

The Disgrace of Colin Powell

2008-10-19T19:03:00.002-05:00

This is right on the money:

However you feel about Bush, the President deserved loyalty from the two people he appointed to high government positions. Or, more importantly, the Nation and the Military deserved their resignations the moment they opposed the war.

Instead, both men stayed in the administration, dragging their sea anchors all the way. This reflects honorably on neither man.

Now Powell steps outside the Republican tent and pisses in. He was inclined there a long time ago, and waited until now to open fire so as to do maximum damage to a man whose service to the country is at least as laudable as is Powell’s.

Powell was always more politician than soldier. That's the only way one can explain favoring a know-nothing, do-nothing empty suit like Barack Obama over a man who gave the formative years of his adult life and his health to the service of his country in the Hanoi Hilton.

Powell is a disgrace.

"Just A Guy In My Neighborhood"

2008-10-19T12:55:00.001-05:00

"...who got me a gig on a major education reform initiative, who launched my political career, whom I shared an office with for 3 years, who ghostwrote my first book."

RINOs Set Up Palin As Fall Girl

2008-10-19T12:50:00.001-05:00

Since their plan to back McCain hasn't worked out so well.

More Voter Fraud in Illinois

2008-10-19T12:48:00.000-05:00

This time, ACORN doesn't appear to be involved.

If Obama's so appealing, why do Democrats continue to risk everything by trying to steal the election?

Race Trumps Loyalty, Ideology, and Patriotism

2008-10-19T12:44:00.003-05:00

Perhaps more people will now understand my distaste for Colin Powell.

Joe Lieberman could trump the oily timing of Powell's announcement by switching parties this week. He had better; the Democrats will likely not need his vote come January and won't honor his seniority with chairmanships.

The Surest Sign You're Not A Real Conservative

2008-10-18T13:42:00.003-05:00

Well, aside from considering a job offer from The New York Times, that is:

Being far more interested in investigating Joe the Plumber than Bill the Bomber.

I've been a conservative all my life, and have subscribed to National Review & The American Spectator and listened to conservative talk radio since 1992.

I had never heard of David Brooks until he assumed the "token conservative" gig at The New York Times.

Why the "Conservative" Elite Hate Palin

2008-10-18T13:13:00.005-05:00

Because they're more interested in the "elite" than in the "conservative":

We need to know the precise reasons why too many of the core commentators of our movement turned on Sarah Palin. That is the only way that we can discover if the situation can be salvaged. What we've heard so far is only part of the truth, at best. The response to Palin by such figures as Brooks, Frum, Brookhiser, Buckley, Parker, and Noonan (Krauthammer and Will have been considerably more rational, if still mistaken) has been the farthest thing in the world from reasoned. It has been vicious and feral. People do not react to a merely disagreeable political figure in this manner. All the individuals I mentioned, including Krauthammer and Will in this case, have attacked the McCain/Palin ticket with more ferocity than they have Barack Obama, the most socialist presidential candidate since Henry Wallace. This requires an explanation.

People react that way only to threats. We have to know precisely why the conservative elite is threatened by a successful conservative governor to the point that they have completely lost their bearings. The reasons we've heard so far are nonsense -- you don't call a woman a "cancer" because she says "like" too much or wears flashy shoes. If these questions are not answered, then we will be obliged to formulate our own.

My opinion is no mystery to readers of this site -- that the urban conservative crowd is frightened of Palin because she represents a threat to the standard model of conservatism constructed since the wilderness years of the 1930s, in which a highly-educated and well-connected East Coast coterie led a much larger, less-informed heartland contingent. This, like it or not, is elitism. By their very nature, elites tend to corrode over time. And Sarah Palin, through the very fact of her showing up, has revealed this to be the case in our circle. She upset the enclave conservative applecart, and now they are angry -- a lot angrier than they have been at any lefties in recent memory.

Well, applecarts are made for upsetting -- they must be knocked over from time to time, to assure against smugness, arrogance, and decay. You can't simply decry events like this -- you have to learn from them. That is what our little elite is refusing to do. And that tells us all we need to know.

Indeed it does.

Conservatism will only be strengthened when Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, David Frum et al finish their inevitable journey to the respectability they crave.

Were they fully honest, they'd acknowledge that their affiliation with conservatism has much more to do with William F. Buckley, Jr's style than his ideology.

As True Now As It Was Then

2008-10-18T13:13:00.001-05:00

On plumbers.

Oh, This Is Rich

2008-10-18T13:10:00.002-05:00

3 weeks out from the election, Obama calls for a "special prosecutor" to investigate the group he gave $800,000 to and represented as a lawyer.

He undoubtedly would recommend Patrick Fitzgerald for this task---he's proven very useful to the Democrats in spinning Plamegate.

The Difference Between Tim Mahoney and Mark Foley

2008-10-18T08:34:00.001-05:00

Hint: one's a Democrat and the other's a Republican, and that's all we need to know to explain why the latter was a major media story and campaign issue and the former is not.

More Campaign Thuggery

2008-10-18T08:32:00.001-05:00

Democrats assault Republicans---no film at 11.

Obama Cuts The Star Spangled Banner

2008-10-18T08:30:00.000-05:00

But don't call him unpatriotic.

Obama Will Be Judged on the Content of His Character

2008-10-17T15:59:00.001-05:00

Isn't that what MLK would have wanted?

Why the Deficit Went Up

2008-10-17T15:56:00.001-05:00

Democrat-controlled Congress.

Obama Would Sneer At This Guy Too

2008-10-17T15:51:00.002-05:00

Army Specialist Stephen Fortunato, who didn't have the benefit of a scholarship to Harvard Law or the political connections to become wealthy by leeching money from plumbers, but whose love of country took him to foreign fields and shortened his noble life.

I'd rather be governed by the Stephen Fortunatos of this country any day, despite his lack of a teleprompter, than a Harvard snob like Barack Hussein Obama.

I'd Rather See America Governed By A Plumber Than A Harvard Snob

2008-10-17T15:49:00.001-05:00

Snobama strikes again.

Anyone still think Democrats are for "the little guy"?

Murtha the Coward

2008-10-17T12:30:00.002-05:00

He follows up the disgrace of calling U.S. Marines murderers with the cowardice of calling his constituents racists then refusing to appear before them at a public debate.

Perhaps if his constituents show up at his office dressed as Arabs with briefcases full of bribery cash he'll be more amenable to their requests.

Why Public/Private Doesn't Work

2008-10-17T12:28:00.004-05:00

Wisdom for people who tend to believe socialists despite all experience.

Those who think it can't happen here don't know their history---FDR used to set the price of gold based on personal superstition. Read Amity Shlaes' "The Forgotten Man" for more on just how arbitrary and capricious government mismanagement of the economy can be.

The New York Times Endorses Voter Fraud---So Long As It Supports Democrats

2008-10-17T12:23:00.002-05:00

How else can one interpret their taking ACORN at its word?

Didn't The Times once pride itself on investigations?

Oh, that's right---investigations of REPUBLICANS.

Investigating Democrats "weakens faith in government."

Putting Phony Catholics In Perspective

2008-10-17T12:00:00.004-05:00

See if you can spot anything wrong with the following:

The way out is to remember that when there are differences among religious creeds, none is entitled to be given preference in law or policy.

Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on slavery, the common political ideal may consist only of that space. This does not, of course, leave the right to liberty undecided or unprotected. Nor for that matter does the reservation of space for individual determination usurp for Caesar the things that are God's, or vice versa. Rather, it allows this sensitive moral decision to depend on religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths.

Anything wrong with that statement?

How about this one:

The way out is to remember that when there are differences among religious creeds, none is entitled to be given preference in law or policy.

Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on abortion, the common political ideal may consist only of that space. This does not, of course, leave the right to life undecided or unprotected. Nor for that matter does the reservation of space for individual determination usurp for Caesar the things that are God's, or vice versa. Rather, it allows this sensitive moral decision to depend on religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths.

The latter is the actual quote from Doug Kmiec's op-ed urging pro-life Catholics to give up their principled stance and support the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in U.S. history.

The former is my slight rewording of that statement.

If the first strikes you as a shocking example of moral equivalence, relativism, and blindness, but the latter does not, you need to ask yourself this question:

"Is murdering a person worse than shackling him?"

The Bible is clear on this. Perhaps Kmiec ought to read it more, and write op eds less.

Putting Phony Catholics In Perspective.

2008-10-17T12:00:00.000-05:00

And While We're on the Topic of "Redistributing the Wealth"

2008-10-17T08:59:00.002-05:00

...somebody please tell me why Barack Obama doesn't walk the talk right now by redistributing some of his own considerable wealth to his brother in Kenya who's living in a shack on $1 a month?

No doubt Obama would prefer to take the money from Joe the Plumber and give it to him.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Obama.

More Evidence Bill Ayers Ghostwrote "Dreams of My Father" for Obama

2008-10-17T08:30:00.001-05:00

Obama just may be the biggest fraud since Clinton or perhaps Carter.

An Example of How Obama Will Kill Small Businesses

2008-10-17T08:22:00.001-05:00

Case in point:

Now Joe, as someone whose been there, let me tell you how this works, though I think you have a good idea. At the end of the year, as an LLC, I do file taxes with the business profit on my personal returns like many of others do as well. And yes, that figure is much bigger than 250 thousand. But that's not really MY MONEY to keep. It's how I underpin my business. When customers disappear or take their time paying bills, I still have to pay my employees, rent, suppliers, and countless other expenses. Every penny that the tax man takes out of that profit is less money that I have to carry forward to stay in business for the next year. And if Obama and Reid and Pelosi take more of this by "raising taxes on the rich" then of course my business will suffer. And so will all the employees.

This is exactly what almost none of those lawyers turned polticians understand.

But of course, you will have to send tax money into the government, Joe, because the man who is in charge of spending that money -- Charlie Rangel -- damned sure wasn't paying his fair share as we know now. Get out that checkbook.

Of course, all of this matters only if you can afford to fill your plumbing vans with gas at gosh knows what price. It could be that the recession will lower the gas price, but that's not terribly good news for you either, since customers don't spend as much money in a recession. I mean, I hate to burst your bubble, but small business owners are surrounded by a sea of challenges outside their control and almost all of them are caused by liberalism. Government has formed a business firing squad and it's a doggone circle!

I wish you well, guy. You might just have the genius and persistence to pull this off. I really do hope so. As for me, I have had enough. I have fought creeping liberalism and managed to eake out more wins than losses over 17 years. We have progressed to where our business, now a corporation, is big enough so that Obama and his ilk now have their own ideas about "what larger businesses can afford" and what "corporations can afford."

Well I've got news for him. I cannot afford what they think I can afford, so I am breaking her up and giving her away to some key employees. I wish them well too. They are like you, tough and smart. Perhaps if they stay small enough and never can carry forward more than 250 thou to the next year, they will be allowed to keep their businesses through a downturn.

As for me? I'm outta here.

But no worries---I'm sure the Democrats headed to the unemployment lines will get government jobs in return while "the rich" get soaked.

Universal Childcare? Ask Hawaii How That Works Out

2008-10-17T07:57:00.004-05:00

The great ship Hope runs aground on the rocky shores of Reality in the 1st state in the union to offer universal childcare:

Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.

Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.

"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."

State officials said Thursday they will stop giving health coverage to the 2,000 children enrolled by Nov. 1, but private partner Hawaii Medical Service Association will pay to extend their coverage through the end of the year without government support.

"We're very disappointed in the state's decision, and it came as a complete surprise to us," said Jennifer Diesman, a spokeswoman for HMSA, the state's largest health care provider. "We believe the program is working, and given Hawaii's economic uncertainty, we don't think now is the time to cut all funding for this kind of program."

Hawaii lawmakers approved the health plan in 2007 as a way to ensure every child can get basic medical help. The Keiki (child) Care program aimed to cover every child from birth to 18 years old who didn't already have health insurance — mostly immigrants and members of lower-income families.

It costs the state about $50,000 per month, or $25.50 per child — an amount that was more than matched by HMSA.

State health officials argued that most of the children enrolled in the universal child care program previously had private health insurance, indicating that it was helping those who didn't need it.

How shocking---"free" government services, lousy though they may be, actually crowd out private-sector services you have to pay for!

It's not as though we should have known this, given our experience with:

- Welfare vs. religious charities
- Welfare vs. fathers
- Welfare vs. employment
- Food aid vs. local farmers' crops
- Medicare vs. employment
- Medicaid vs. employment
- Social Security vs. employment
- Socialism vs. freedom

Who'da thunk it?

Robert Heinlein, of course, who summed it up, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Even in Hawaii.

24,000 Convicted Felons Illegally Given Write To Vote in Washington By Democrats

2008-10-16T21:04:00.001-05:00

Folks, they're trying to steal this election.

State after state, example after example.

The Nerve of Some People

2008-10-16T17:04:00.002-05:00

The Left once again displays the height of civility in dealing with the dire threat of....The Plumber!

I hope he tunes some of them up with effective deployment of the pipe wrench.

The Difference Between Tax Rates and Tax Revenues

2008-10-16T13:40:00.000-05:00

This should be obvious to all, but public education being what it is, will probably surprise most Americans.

Obama's Plan To Make It Rain 24k Gold

2008-10-16T13:38:00.002-05:00

Curiously dodgy on specifics, and with good reason---it's pure fantasy.

Joe the Plumber knows Obama's gonna shaft us---why does everyone else pretend to be stupid?

Catholics Cannot Vote for Obama

2008-10-16T13:35:00.002-05:00

And obey Church teaching on morality, that is.

The formulation is quite simple:

The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is evil.

Obama is pro-abortion.

Voting for Obama is supporting evil.

As the Good Book and "Pale Rider" note, "You cannot serve God and Mammon both."

So which will it be, Catholics?

Pakistan Headed for the Abyss

2008-10-15T20:02:00.001-05:00

This doesn't bode well:

Would we let this happen? Would we allow Pakistan with its nukes to fall into the hands of terrorists?

Bush, I am certain, would not. But Obama? Even he must see that danger to the region and to us if such an event were to occur. And unless he is so wedded to the idea that everyone in the world has got to like us, we will go in.

The problem is, what's next after that? Well, we can't just leave and hope that the Pakis do the right thing. There would be occupation. There would be nation building. There would be the drive for democracy.

Sound familiar? This is all stuff that Obama and his friends opposed in Iraq. But since it would be a Democrat doing the occupying, a Democrat doing the nation building, and a Democrat trying to bring democracy to Pakistan, things would be just peachy with the press, the left, and everyone else who thinks that going into Iraq in the first place was a mistake.

But think of all the new Medicare and welfare recipients once Al Qaeda nukes New York!

ACORN Thwarted in Ohio

2008-10-15T20:00:00.001-05:00

And the Democrat Secretary of State is being forced to do her job.

Obama, Abortionist

2008-10-14T19:54:00.002-05:00

The most extreme pro-abortion candidate in U.S. history, bar none. Robert P. George:

I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as ''pro-abortion'' rather than ''pro-choice.''

According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.

The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people - Thomas Jefferson was one - reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.

Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as ''pro-choice''? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were ''personally opposed'' to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were ''unnecessary,'' or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said ''Against slavery? Don't own one.'' We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being ''pro-abortion'' and being ''pro-choice.'' Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called ''pro-choice,'' then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.

The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, ''forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.'' In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.

But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that ''the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act'' (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed ''fundamental right'' to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, ''a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons.'' In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would ''sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.''

It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many ''pro-choice'' legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a ''punishment'' that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing ''pro-choice'' about that.

But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is ''pro-choice'' rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.

For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.

But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This ''clone and kill'' bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

Can it get still worse? Yes.

Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.

This ultimate manifestation of Obama's extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.

They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama's injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.

They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! ''pro-choice''-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.

This is delusional.

Delusional? It's not even unexpected.

William F. Buckley, Jr's son is voting for the guy because he likes his writing style.

What's a couple of million additional dead babies compared to THAT?

The Apple Sometimes Falls in Another Orchard Altogether

2008-10-14T19:45:00.003-05:00

Christopher Buckley, who can't tell the difference between a conservative, a Republican, and an abortion extremist:

So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.

Thanks, anyway, for the memories, and here’s to happier days and with any luck, a bit less fresh hell.

Umm, no, you left the Republican party. You left it when you endorsed Obama, the most left-wing major party candidate in U.S. history.

And then you whined about the inevitable blowback, which paled in comparison to that your father endured weekly on his PBS show.

One would think that growing up under William F. Buckley, Jr's constant tutelage one would be able to differentiate between conservative and Republican, but apparently you weren't a very good student.

I am reminded of the sad case of Randolph Churchill, who could never quite live up to the old man and allowed this knowledge to ruin his life. But then, even poor ol' Randolph didn't urinate on his father's legacy.

Kill Him, They Claimed

2008-10-14T12:54:00.002-05:00

So much for the claim that McCainiacs called for the death of the Obamessiah.

You can bet David Gergen and his ilk will be claiming this really happened anytime it's convenient to slag Republicans for "incivility" on TV, which means for decades to come.

How His Fraudulency Does It

2008-10-14T10:26:00.003-05:00

Credit card fraud to fill campaign coffers.

Voter fraud to cook the election books.

Is having a President with complete contempt for the law and democracy the change America is looking for?

Left Wing Media in the Tank for Obama Pt 2,314

2008-10-14T07:20:00.003-05:00

What a surprise---the Left Wing Media trumpets claims about the "angry mobs" at McCain/Palin rallies but somehow ignores actual violence and property damage from Obama supporters.

Because those "Sara Palin Is A C---" t-shirts are just the height of civil comity.

95% of What Obama Says Is Untrue

2008-10-14T07:11:00.002-05:00

From Obama's Bureau of Manufactured Statistics, here's TaxProf on Obama's bogus claim of a "tax cut" for 95% of Americans, when 40% don't pay federal income taxes at all.

There's innovation for you---just rebrand "welfare" as "tax cut" and there you go!

The Book on ACORN

2008-10-14T07:10:00.000-05:00

The Complete Guide To ACORN Voter Fraud.

Why They Support Obama

2008-10-14T07:09:00.000-05:00

This is breathtaking.

And completely unsurprising.

Bob Nardelli, Destroying Another Company

2008-10-13T13:31:00.002-05:00

Bob Nardelli is more than just a one-man wrecking machine for the reputation of GE business leaders---he's fast becoming today's living exemplar of The Peter Principle.

Last seen wrecking Home Depot by thinking the mountain of corporate culture could easily be moved to the Mohammad of celebrity CEO, Nardelli's now prepping the ground for Iacocca Bailout II.

If there's one thing the crop of ex-GE bigwigs' post-GE performance has demonstrated, it's that Jack Welch's genius was not contagious.

How To Make Friends and Influence People in the Left Wing Media

2008-10-13T11:01:00.002-05:00

Trash conservatives.

Why Ayers Matters, Pt II

2008-10-13T10:25:00.002-05:00

Deroy Murdock:

As a declassified FBI dossier observed in 1976, William Charles Ayers “was one of the authors of the ‘Weatherman Statement’ upon which the WUO [Weather Underground Organization] was founded in 1969 and has been considered to be one of the leaders of the organization since its founding.” Here is how Ayers has described himself: “I’m a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist.”

In 1970, Ayers encapsulated the Weathermen’s worldview: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents.”

In his 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days, Ayers brags that he helped blast NYPD headquarters in 1970, the U.S. Capitol in 1971, and the Defense Department in 1972. “Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,” Ayers writes. “The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.” Ayers also appreciates “a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance.” He called dynamite “That most romantic of nineteenth-century radical tools.”

For her part, Dohrn was an equally stalwart subversive.

“There’s no way to be committed to non-violence in the middle of the most violent society that history’s ever created. I am not committed to non-violence in any way,” Dohrn said in 1969.

That July, while John McCain languished in the Hanoi Hilton, Dohrn and five other Weathermen flew to Cuba to conspire with the National Liberation Front, America’s North Vietnamese enemies.

She later said this about the Charles Manson family’s August 9, 1969, murders of pregnant actress Sharon Tate and her friends in her Beverly Hills home: “Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach. Wild!”

Dohrn issued the Weather Underground’s “Declaration of a State of War” against America on May 21, 1970. “We are not just attacking targets, we are bringing a pitiful helpless giant to its knees,” Dohrn said in another 1970 communiqué. “Guard your planes. Guard your colleges. Guard your banks. Guard your children. Guard your doors.”

This is who Obama's mentors are.

How different will the pupil be?

Children and Illegals and Felons---Oh My!

2008-10-13T10:22:00.002-05:00

That's the Democrat coalition, if continuing pandemic voter fraud is any indication:

A newspaper investigation finds more than 30,000 felons who should have been stripped of their right to vote are still registered in Florida.

The Sun Sentinel discovered that at least 4,900 felons turned out in past elections and another 5,600 are still in prison.

Of the felons who are registered, Democrats outnumber Republicans more than two to one.

Secretary of State Kurt Browning tells the newspaper that his staff has failed to remove thousands of ineligible felons because of a shortage of workers and so many new voter registrations.

He says elections workers are now reviewing the voting records but would not say how long the investigation will take.

The answer to the last question is, "Until after the election", of course.

This is the Democrat playbook for stealing elections, and has been since it was pioneered in Chicago in 1960.

How ACORN Grew Nutty Financial Policies

2008-10-13T09:22:00.002-05:00

Stanley Kurtz digs deeply enough into the subprime mortgage crisis to find ACORN:

Yet ACORN had only just begun. Two days later, 50 to 100 of the same protesters hit their main target - a House Banking subcommittee considering changes to the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that allows groups like ACORN to force banks into making high-risk loans to low-credit customers.

The CRA's ostensible purpose is to prevent banks from discriminating against minorities. But Rep. Marge Roukema (R-NJ), who chaired the subcommittee, was worried that charges of discrimination had become an excuse for lowering credit standards. She warned that new, Democrat-proposed CRA regulations could amount to an illegal quota system.

FOR years, ACORN had combined manipulation of the CRA with intimidation-protest tactics to force banks to lower credit standards. Its crusade, with help from Democrats in Congress, to push these high-risk "subprime" loans on banks is at the root of today's economic meltdown.

When the role of ACORN and congressional Democrats in the mortgage crisis is pointed out, Democrats reply that banks subject to the CRA represent only about a quarter of the loans that led to our current troubles. In fact, the problem goes way beyond the CRA.

As ACORN ran its campaigns against local banks, it quickly hit a roadblock. Banks would tell ACORN they could afford to reduce their credit standards by only a little - since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal mortgage giants, refused to buy up those risky loans for sale on the "secondary market."

That is, the CRA wasn't enough. Unless Fannie and Freddie were willing to relax their credit standards as well, local banks would never make home loans to customers with bad credit histories or with too little money for a downpayment.

So ACORN's Democratic friends in Congress moved to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to dispense with normal credit standards. Throughout the early '90s, they imposed ever-increasing subprime-lending quotas on Fannie and Freddie.

But then the Republicans won control of Congress - and Rep. Roukema scheduled her hearing. ACORN went into action to protect its golden goose.

IT struck as Roukema aired her concerns at that hearing. Pro testers, led by ACORN President Maud Hurd, stood up and began chanting, "CRA has got to stay!" and "Banks for greed, not for need!" The protesters then demanded the microphone.

With the hearing interrupted and the demonstrators refusing to leave, Roukema called the Capital Police, who arrested Hurd and four others for "disorderly conduct in a Capital building" - a charge carrying a penalty of a $500 fine, six months in prison or both. As the police arrived, two of the protesters menacingly approached Roukema's desk, still demanding the hearing microphone.

Requests to the Capital Police to release the activists from Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass,) failed. Then Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) showed up at the jail and refused to leave until the protesters were released; the Capital Police relented.

Meanwhile, instead of repudiating ACORN's intimidation tactics, Rep. Kennedy berated Roukema for arresting one of his constituents and accused the Republicans of preparing for "an all-out attack on CRA." He also promised to introduce legislation to expand the CRA's coverage to mortgage bankers and large credit unions.

THIS little slice of political life from 1995 had a variety of ripple effects. Above all, ACORN's intimidation tactics, and its alliance with Democrats in Congress, triumphed. Despite their 1994 takeover of Congress, Republicans' attempts to pare back the CRA were stymied.

Instead, Democrats like Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Reps. Kennedy and Waters allied with the Clinton administration to broaden the acceptability of risky subprime loans throughout the financial system, thus precipitating our current crisis.

If only John McCain were sharp enough to speak as clearly about the real causes of this mess. It is not complicated.

First Edwards, Now Obama?

2008-10-13T08:35:00.001-05:00

Rumors swirl of a very recent Obama affair.

Let's see how eager the Left Wing Media is to take a look. My prediction is they won't touch this with a ten foot pole, unlike their approach to Gingrich and Livingston's long ago affairs when the media was circling wagons around Bill Clinton during the impeachment saga.

Hope and change...hope and change...hope and change...

More Hate Mobs on the Left

2008-10-13T08:34:00.003-05:00

Completely ignored by the Left Wing Media, probably because it's a "dog bites man" story.

And still more here.

Obama's Hard Left Roots

2008-10-13T08:21:00.002-05:00

For someone who claims to be a moderate uniter, Obama's left wing sure is disproportionately gargantuan.

WordGirl and I engaged in a thought experiment this morning:

"How many people do we know who hate America and so profess?"

The answer was "None."

Obama knows at least two---Jeremiah "G-d damn America" Wright and Bill "Kill 'Em All" Ayers. Both men have gone considerably further than simply stating their own opinion---inciting others to anti-Americanism in Wright's case and terrorist bombing in Ayers'.

You would think that someone hoping to be President of the United States would have had enough concern for self-preservation as to be more averse to such associations than WordGirl and I might be---and yet this is not the case.

Obama must be radical indeed to not only embrace such lunatics, but to see them as utterly sane and completely conventional.

More On the Obama-Led ACORN Voter Fraud in Pennsylvania

2008-10-13T08:19:00.003-05:00

Here's a telling bit, emphasis mine:

Asked whether the Pennsylvania State Democratic Party had come forward to work with the GOP on the ACORN voter fraud issue, Gleason tersely shook his head. One source did say that much of the impetus for the fraud was "an Obama effort," as opposed to the Democratic Party as an institution.

All of this brings Pennsylvania into focus as yet another key battleground state where a serious effort is being made to, bluntly put, steal the presidency in a move reminiscent of the attempts made by the 2000 Gore campaign in Florida. Just as ACORN's efforts have been directed at key electoral states such as Florida, Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico Ohio, and Wisconsin, so within Pennsylvania have its efforts been targeted at key Pennsylvania counties. For decades the internal electoral math of the state for Republicans has been to overwhelm the heavy Democratic vote in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with strong showings in the Philadelphia suburbs, Central Pennsylvania, and western counties outside Pittsburgh.

Thus have ACORN's fraud efforts -- those at least that have been detected -- been directed at Philadelphia (where increasing the Obama total to counter less enthusiastic support from white ethnics becomes critical), Delaware County in the pro-GOP Philadelphia suburbs, Dauphin County (in the heart of Central Pennsylvania) and Erie in the Northwest.

Is it really possible that the presidency could be stolen for Obama by virtue of a massive voter fraud here in Pennsylvania? And elsewhere? ACORN seems to think so. One so-called "non-partisan" ACORN member, Gleason pointed out, has been captured on video tape saying the group's objective was to "beat McCain down." Not exactly "non-partisan" sounding, is it?

Newman, the retired Supreme Court Justice, was blunt on the evidence: "I don't want a president who does this."

ACORN clearly does. Makes you wonder: why?

Wouldn't it be fun if Obama were the Lefty second coming of Nixon?

And Now ACORN's Registering 7-yr-olds

2008-10-12T20:15:00.003-05:00

This is indefensible.

The story misses two key points:

1. By skewing voter registration to Democrats, ACORN creates a false perception of momentum which impacts polling (pollsters tend to watch voter registration as a leading indicator and weight party representation accordingly, despite DJ Drummond's sound efforts to convince them to use prior election historical data instead). McCain's "desperation" is poll-driven, probably thanks to ACORN. This can suppress turnout for the GOP.

2. Since ID checks are not done in most states, ACORN is essentially creating a database of registered voters which will allow ineligible voters to commit voter fraud, such as those in past elections who voted in multiple locations. This allows ACORN to manufacture as many votes as needed in battleground states to put their candidate over the top. They will do this in urban areas because it's more efficient to have one fraudulent voter pop around to voting precincts within a mile of each other than to have to drive miles and miles to do so. Look for returns from urban precincts to show ridiculously high voter turnout.

Obama is out to steal this election, with ACORN as his stormtroopers.

So How's That Bailout Working Out?

2008-10-12T11:59:00.003-05:00

World markets down 20% in the week after it was announced.

Perhaps the fact that it created a bureaucratic potentate rather than addressing either the bogus underwriting undertaken by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to help line Democrat pockets and buy Democrat votes or the "mark-to-market" accounting nonsense insisted upon by "populist" Democrats may have had something to do with the stinging rejection of the free market.

How's This for Greed?

2008-10-12T10:30:00.001-05:00

5 million (!) illegal aliens have mortgages in the U.S.

A significant proportion of the bad mortgages fueling this credit crunch, I would say.

The Fix Is In

2008-10-12T10:26:00.003-05:00

ACORN voter fraud efforts have been exposed in Pennsylvania as well as in Nevada, Wisconsin, and Ohio.

Barack Obama, having given ACORN $800,000 as the get-out-the-vote arm of his campaign, is captured here promising ACORN a place at the policy table of an Obama administration.

Obama intends to steal this election.

And no wonder---he is as amoral and corrupt a politician as his abortion record and constant lies about it would indicate.

I Knew There Was A Reason I Loved Her

2008-10-10T17:52:00.000-05:00

Janine Turner, Hollywood conservative.

Obama, Stuck On Stupid

2008-10-10T17:49:00.001-05:00

Obama wants to replace the current grid with "Green Power" in 10 years.

Where, pray tell, are companies supposed to get the money to do this?

Perhaps Obama's well-heeled socialist pals can put up the billions required. Start with Soros.

Chris Dodd, "Friend of Angelo", Enemy of the People

2008-10-10T10:28:00.003-05:00

Dodd's sweetheart mortgage needs intense public scrutiny, as does any other pol who benefitted from such corruption:

Former Countrywide Financial loan officer Robert Feinberg says Mr. Dodd knowingly saved thousands of dollars on his refinancing of two properties in 2003 as part of a special program the California mortgage company had for the influential. He also says he has internal company documents that prove Mr. Dodd knew he was getting preferential treatment as a friend of Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide's then-CEO.

That a "Friends of Angelo" program existed is not in dispute. It was crucial to the boom that Countrywide enjoyed before its fortunes turned. While most of the company was aggressively lending to risky borrowers and off-loading those mortgages in bulk to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Mr. Feinberg's department was charged with making sure those who could influence Fannie and Freddie's appetite for risk were sufficiently buttered up. As a Banking Committee bigshot, Mr. Dodd was perfectly placed to be buttered.

A Friend Indeed
Mortgage VIPs 06/25/2008 – Sweetheart deals are just a phone call away.Angelo's Angel 06/19/2008 – The senate bailout for Countrywide needs more scrutiny.Congress and the Countrywide Scandal 06/18/2008 – Some senators want a bailout for big political donors. What a surprise.Beltwaywide Financial 06/16/2008 – The new ARMs: Angelo-rated mortgages for senators.In response to the charge that he knew he was getting favors, Mr. Dodd at first issued a strong denial: "This suggestion is outrageous and contrary to my entire career in public service. When my wife and I refinanced our loans in 2003, we did not seek or expect any favorable treatment. Just like millions of other Americans, we shopped around and received competitive rates." Less than a week later he acknowledged he was part of Countrywide's VIP program but claimed he thought it was "more of a courtesy."

Mr. Feinberg, who oversaw "Friends of Angelo" from 2000 to 2004, begs to differ. He told us that as the loan officer in charge he was supposed to make sure that the "VIP" clients knew at every step of the process that they were getting a special deal because they were "Friends of Angelo."

"People are referred into that department as 'very important people.' You're told that your loan is priced from Angelo. As the 'Friends of Angelo department,' [the department] has to give them a sense of importance and explain the reduction of fees and the rate as a result of being a 'Friend of Angelo,'" he says. According to a report by Dan Golden in Condé Nast Portfolio in August, other VIPs included Senator Kent Conrad. Mr. Golden reported that "Countrywide also offered special discounts to congressional staffers involved in housing issues."

As to Mr. Dodd, Mr. Feinberg says he spoke to the Senator once or twice and mostly to his wife and that like other FOAs Mr. Dodd got "a float down," which means that even after he had a preferred rate, when the prevailing rate dropped just before the closing, his rate was reduced again. Regular borrowers would pay extra for a last-minute adjustment, but not FOAs. "They were aware of it because they were notified and when they went to the closing they would see it," Mr. Feinberg says, adding that he "always let people in the program know that they were getting a very good deal because they were 'Friends of Angelo.'" All of this matters because Mr. Dodd was one of those encouraging Fan and Fred to plunge into "affordable housing" loans made by companies like Countrywide.

One indicator of his influence is the $165,400 in campaign contributions -- more than to any other politician -- that Fan and Fred have given him since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. These contributions are legal. But favors like those Mr. Dodd is alleged to have received may not be. Mr. Feinberg says he went public with his story because when he heard Senator Dodd on TV talking about predatory lending, he felt it was "hypocritical" and he says, "I just thought, 'This is wrong.'"

Mr. Dodd hasn't yet released his copies of the mortgage documents, though he promised to do so more than two months ago. His office told us this week they'd get back to us on that. Meanwhile, presumably the Justice Department can have Mr. Feinberg's Countrywide documents, if it's interested.

Typical Democrat---claiming to be for "the little guy" while taking all the freebies "the big guy" gets.

How U.S. Bishops Got Serious about Abortion and Scandal

2008-10-10T10:22:00.002-05:00

This is interesting:

Some reports at the time said the task force was a response to the Vatican’s doctrinal note on Catholics in political life a year before. But this now appears naïve. The reality seems to be that it was established to address the looming question of how the bishops would deal with a Kerry candidacy. Or rather, not deal with it.

The task force came into being at the request of Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, then Archbishop of Washington, DC, and was approved by the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Having initiated the idea, McCarrick was the obvious person to run it.

The first observable effect of the task force was to silence the staff of the USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat. My wife was the principal public spokesman for that office at the time. She was told not to answer any questions about Kerry and abortion in light of the task force.

Less easy to gauge was the effect of the task force on bishops’ willingness to speak out. Were they also made to understand that they should hold their tongues in deference to the official group and the guidelines they produced?

And when would the task force issue its guidelines? It became clear that the guidelines would not be issued until after the election – long after they could have any bearing on the candidacy of the first pro-abortion Catholic in American history to run for president.

Was it Cardinal McCarrick’s purpose to establish a study group in order to bury the problem until after the election? It’s impossible to know, but we can consider the effects of his actions: the task force was established at his request, the Pro-Life Secretariat was silenced on the most pressing pro-life issue of the time, the bishops in large part stayed mum likely in deference to the ongoing study, a study which was timed not to end until well past the election.

We know now that things spun out of control. While Cardinal McCarrick’s final report was scheduled for after the election, the bishops held one of their twice-annual meetings in Colorado that June and two unusual things happened: the mostly liberal lay staff was booted out of the meeting so that the bishops could talk without their influence, and Cardinal McCarrick delivered “interim reflections” of the task force.

He warned against denying anyone the Eucharist, and he claimed that “Vatican officials” also “advised caution,” and concluded that, “The task force does not advocate the denial of Communion to Catholic politicians.”

Yet several days later the actual memorandum from Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick was leaked to the press, showing that Ratzinger had said, in fact, that pro-abortion Catholic politicians “must” be refused Communion after proper counseling and obstinate persistence in defying Church teaching. Ultimately, the bishops as a body produced a document leaving the matter to the discretion of each bishop in his own diocese.

This is old news, but sheds new light on the current debate. This year there is no McCarrick Committee keeping the conversation sotto voce among an elite few. And this year the bishops are thundering. It is not just the heroic few – Chaput, Burke, and a few others – who were willing to suffer criticism in 2004. Now it is a whole bunch of them, more than thirty at this point. Moreover, the list includes those – like Edward Cardinal Egan of New York and McCarrick's successor Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington DC – who have tended to work quietly behind the scenes in the past.

While it is sad that McCarrick was more concerned about slightly embarrassed Democrat politicians than dead babies, it is good to see the bishops eventually came around to the most essential moral teaching of the Church: that we are children of God, and that God has not granted us the power of life and death over His children.

So Much for Obama's Tax Plan

2008-10-10T10:20:00.002-05:00

Marginal tax rates of 50% on the middle class, a full 25% higher than McCain's plan's 40% marginal tax rates.

Why We're About To Elect A Communist

2008-10-10T06:45:00.003-05:00

It is why I will never let up on the educrats who continue to do such disservice to history and truth in support of their slavish devotion to ideology:

Of all the lectures that I do around the country, none seem to rivet the audience as much as my discourse on the horrors of communism. In these lectures, which are usually connected to my books on Ronald Reagan, I do a 10-15 minute backgrounder on the crimes of communists-from their militant attacks on private property, on members of all religious faiths, and on basic civil liberties, to their total death toll of over 100 million bloodied, emaciated corpses in the 20th century.

As I do these presentations, the young people, especially on college campuses, are locked in, amazed at what they are hearing. I think they are especially struck that I always ground every fact and figure in reliable research and authorities -- books published by Harvard University Press and Yale University Press, quotes from the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev and Vaclav Havel and Alexander Yakovlev, anti-Soviet appraisals from certain Cold War Democrats like Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy and even early liberals like Woodrow Wilson. I rarely use right-wing sources because I don't want the professors of these students to be able to later shoot a single hole in my presentation -- a potential tactic to undermine the overall thesis.

And speaking of those professors, that gets to my point here: As the young people in my audience are fully engaged, hands in the air with question after question -- obviously hearing all of these things for the first time in their lives, from K-12 to college, as they are eager to inform me after my talk -- the professors often stare at me with contempt. In one case, a British professor, who could not step sighing, squirming, and rolling her eyes as I quoted the most heinous assessments of religion by Marx and Lenin, got up and stormed out of the room.

These professors glare at me as if the ghost of Joe McCarthy has flown into the room and leapt inside of my body. In fact, that's the essence of their criticism: It is not so much that these professors approve of communism as much as they disapprove of -- actually, utterly despise -- anti-communism. They are anti-anti-communist more so than pro-communist. Conservatives need to understand this, so as to avoid broad-brushing and losing credibility. Sure, a lot of professors are Marxists, and many more share the utopian goals of Marxism, but the vast majority are simply leftists.

Being on the left entails many strange contradictions and political pathologies, one of which is this bizarre revulsion toward anti-communists. These leftists -- to their credit -- despise fascism, and will preach anti-fascism until their blue in the face. They are as appalled by fascism as conservatives are by communism. But while conservatives detest both communism and fascism, liberals only detest one of the two.

For instance, I recently saw that Human Events created a list of the top 10 worst books ever written, which included, as the top two, Marx's Communist Manifesto (#1), followed by Hitler's Mein Kampf (#2). That ranking is easily defended solely on numbers: Hitler killed at least 10 million; communism killed at least 100 million. Either way, kudos to Human Events, a conservative newspaper, for putting both communism and fascism in its top two. Yet, conversely, any liberal version of such a list would not even place the Communist Manifesto in the top 10. I guarantee that liberals who read the Human Events list will snicker at its alleged Neanderthal anti-communism.

The leftist intelligentsia that dominates higher education, and which writes the civics texts used in high schools -- I've read and studied these texts -- and which trains the teachers who teach in high schools, is not in the slightest bit notably anti-communist. These liberals do not teach the lessons of communism.

I pray that there are enough true Americans out their who will look into Obama's radical past and present and avoid placing an unreconstructed Marxist in the White House. The Left Wing Media will not cover this. McCain will not push the issue.

And so it will be left to each of us to continue to expose the would-be Emperor's nakedness.

Why Ayers Matters

2008-10-10T06:37:00.001-05:00

An Investor's Business Daily editorial has it right:

Ayers' Miranda biography calls him "leader of the revolutionary and anti-imperialist group The Weather Underground which initiated armed struggle against the government of the USA for more than 10 years from the heart of the empire."

It continues: "Now, he's a professor of education and executive researcher of the University of Illinois in Chicago. He's developed courses around urban reform of schools, problems of capitalist education, and research. He is the author or editor of more than 11 books, including a memoir titled Fugitive Days on the struggle against the government of the United States."

In other words, education isn't the best credential for this supposedly distinguished professor — his terrorist past is.

The point is simple:

We cannot have the War Against Terror led by a man who associates with terrorists. It is a moral blindspot which makes Barack Obama utterly unfit for leadership of our nation.

We need a Churchill, not a Charles Lindbergh.

Democrat Secretary of State Found To Be Illegally Boosting Obama Votes

2008-10-10T06:35:00.001-05:00

...in support of Obama's effort to steal this election through voter fraud.

That Master of Foreign Policy, Lunchpail Joe

2008-10-09T13:56:00.001-05:00

36 years of idiocy, on the record.

Steal This Election

2008-10-09T13:55:00.000-05:00

That's Obama's aim.

Did Terrorist Bill Ayers Ghostwrite Obama's "Dreams of My Father"?

2008-10-09T07:05:00.001-05:00

Based on this fine investigative article, I'd say, "Yes".

No Cold War with Iran

2008-10-09T07:02:00.001-05:00

They've been at war with us since 1979, as Cliff May recounts in detail.

Maybe someday we'll have a President with the stones to take the war to them.

One Educrat Who's Sick of Lousy Teachers

2008-10-09T06:54:00.000-05:00

One hopes others will follow her lead.

Why the Left Wing Media Won't Report Obama's Lies

2008-10-09T06:46:00.001-05:00

Roger Simon:

And now we learn of yet another strange obfuscation or omission. In 1996, Obama was apparently a member of the Chicago “New Party,” a now defunct socialist political party of some stripe or other.

There’s nothing wrong with being a socialist. I called myself one for the better part of twenty years. Millions of people have and many still do. But there is something very wrong with hiding who you are or who you were from the electorate—especially if you want to be President of the United States. Yet that seems to be a habit of Mr. Obama’s, with the collusion of the press. To my knowledge, no one in the mainstream media has begun to inquire into the details of Obama’s curiously unreported years at Columbia and Harvard, although much could be relatively easily ascertained. Obama himself has not been remotely forthcoming about them.

The inescapable conclusion is that Barack Obama is a highly deceptive, often dishonest individual. Again, many would say this is standard operating procedure for politicians in our culture (and most others too). But Obama presents himself as something different, a new kind of post-modern politician above the conventional dirty dealings of backroom politics.

Of course, by now that is something of a joke—yet the press is loath to admit it or to do much to balance the investigative reporting equation. They don’t even begin. What is the explanation for this? The most obvious reasons are bias and the desire to defeat the opposing candidate. But beneath these obvious explanations, I sense something more complex and pathological. Deeper fears are perhaps at play - the loss of self-image and personality disintegration, also a desperate need to conform to a fragile peer group. And in these times more than ever, a yet more potent terror – job loss.

I vote for sheer tribalism. Obama's one of them. They protect their own.

The Left, Unpatriotic?

2008-10-08T17:27:00.003-05:00

Heaven forfend! They merely define "patriotism" as paying higher taxes.

Tom Friedman had better take Joe Biden to task for his lack of patriotism, given that his tax returns reveal a suspiciously-low 21% income tax rate on total income which ought to place him at 28% or 31%. And as we all know, a couple of hundred lousy bucks "Lunchbucket Joe" tossed to charity isn't enough to cut his tax bracket that much.

Obama, Socialist

2008-10-08T17:21:00.002-05:00

About as "moderate" as Vladimir Ilyich, this guy.

Guess that explains why the Left Wing Media loves him so much.

It also explains why he is so hostile to freedom of speech.

How Left Wing Media Pollsters Cook the Books

2008-10-07T14:19:00.001-05:00

Keep an eye on their weighting, and where they poll.

The Hearings Congress WON'T Hold

2008-10-07T12:46:00.001-05:00

No inquiry into how Democrat-run Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got us into this mess.

How ACORN Got Funded Through the Bailout Bill

2008-10-07T12:45:00.000-05:00

Corruption.

Bang the Drum Slowly

2008-10-07T08:23:00.001-05:00

Rezko's talking---but look for what he says to emerge only after the election, when the damage to Obama will be minimal.

Last of A Dying Breed Spotted

2008-10-07T08:22:00.000-05:00

Artur Davis, honorable man and Democrat.

Crafting An Alternate Reality Is Easy

2008-10-07T07:44:00.001-05:00

At the L.A. Times, that is.

How The New York Times Cooks the Books To Get Democrats Elected

2008-10-07T07:22:00.002-05:00

Jeffrey Lord investigates.

Thanks to the structure of the Left Wing Media, no vast conspiracy is necessary---only 2 originating propaganda organs: The New York Times and the Associated Press---and a bunch of lazy lefties who regurgitate whatever these two say.