The crawl underneath a speaking Obama on Fox News right now:"Obama: Propose a 3-month moratorium on foreclosures."

Why stop there?

Apparently it would only apply to banks that are part of the $850 billion rescue/bailout package. Of course, foreclosures, unpleasant as they can be, are part of the process of taking a house away from someone who won't or can't pay for it and putting in someone who can and will. They're one of the ways that banks that loan money for mortgages can fix the problem of someone not meeting their contract, their promise, to pay what they owe. And if somebody can't pay a reset adjustable-rate-mortgage or what have you, I don't know what a three month extension is really going to do, particularly if the economy is heading into a recession. You either foreclose now, or you foreclose three months from now.

Of course, once you enact that moratorium, you'll hear people insisting it needs to be extended...

Video: Obama’s redistributionism

Plumber to Obama: “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more. Isn’t it?”

Obama: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

It really doesn’t get any clearer than this, although a close look at Obama’s tax policy makes it almost as obvious. He doesn’t want to penalize your success! He just wants to take a big chunk of it and give it away to people he likes better.

Barack Obama's tax "cuts" and "credits" are just a disguise for the New Deal Three.

McCain surged before, when he picked Sarah Palin (meaning when he went conservative) and he can surge again if he fights.

Liberals, who have spent eight years stoking hate for Bush and Republicans, wring their hands about one or two unidentified people (who could be Obama plants!) shouting at McCain rallies.

Democrats used Mark Foley's page chats to claim a "culture of corruption" and win the House in 2006. Now it's been exposed that the Democrat who replaced Foley, Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-FL) paid $121,000 in hush money to his mistress, and gave her a sweetheart job for two years to keep her quiet.

ABC: Democrat Congressman's $121,000 Payoff to Alleged Mistress

Bull run: Dow up 936 points

Hit and run: Suspected illegals plow into car, leave victims without help

Video: Voters testify before Ohio elections board that ACORN registered them multiple times

CNN to black McCain supporter: Um, why aren’t you backing Obama?

Specifically, why isn’t he backing him “in light of what’s happened” to the campaign’s tone? Is he really going to tolerate McCain reminding America that The One had no moral objection to associating with domestic terrorists? According to the media, that’s practically race treason.

In case you don’t know who Harris is, you’ll find an explanation below the clip. Exit question: Did CNN pause, even for a moment, while sifting those e-mails Lemon reads at the beginning to savor the irony of complaining about conservatives’ tone here?

Buzz up!

The Obamedia is attempting to set yet another false narrative: The narrative of the McCain “mob.” McCain-Palin rallies are out of control, they wheedle. Conservatives are mad! They’re yelling mean things about Obama and calling him names! It’ scaaaaary!

Paul Krugman is trembling: “Something very ugly is taking shape on the political scene: as McCain’s chances fade, the crowds at his rallies are, by all accounts, increasingly gripped by insane rage…What happens when Obama is elected? It will be even worse than it was in the Clinton years. For sure there will be crazy accusations, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see some violence.”

Frank Rich decries “Weimar-like rage” and the “violent escalation of rhetoric.”

Please.

Let’s talk about “insane rage” and “violent escalation.”

This is insane rage — Madonna bashing Sarah Palin and shrieking “I will kick her [behind]”

This is insane rage — Sandra Bernhard bashing Sarah Palin and cursing her head off with hate warping her crazed face:

The Obamedia diaper-wetters are gripped with fear over a few over-the-line catcalls at McCain-Palin rallies. Ana Marie Cox is even making things up to advance the narrative.

Fresh headlines ignored by the MSM:

Pair arrested after large McCain sign torched in Sellwood

Video: Michelle on lefty rage and taking off the gloves

Audio: The Dial Tone of Deep Concern

Cleveland’s Bob Frantz of WTAM 1100 wanted to ask Brian Clark, communications director for Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, about the court battles she has waged to keep from having to address allegations of voter fraud in early voting. Frantz tries to get Clark to discuss why Brunner blocked independent observers from the process, and disagrees with Clark when he tries to lay blame off on the Ohio legislature. When he confronts Clark with actual evidence of ACORN’s registration fraud in Cleveland, Clark responds with The Dial Tone of Deep Concern:

The point about election observers seems especially absurd. I’m sure the Ohio legislature didn’t prohibit observers for early voting efforts.  If evidence arises that outside groups have tampered or will tamper with an election, the Secretary of State has a duty to act to prevent it, and Brunner has all the authority she needs to protect the process.

Obviously, she and her team are not interested in protecting the voting process, the primary task of her office.  Why not?  You can draw your own conclusions, but I don’t think ACORN is agitating to get more people to vote Republican.

Barone: The thugocracy cometh

Obama plan: tax cuts or Demogrants?

Given Barack Obama’s relentless populism this cycle, the Wall Street Journal analysis of his tax cuts should surprise no one.  They find that Obama relies less on actual cuts in tax rates and more in specific “refundables”, grants that filers receive whether they have a tax liability or not.  Instead of reducing taxes, Obama makes his redistributionism explicit:

One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.” He’s even promising to cut taxes enough that the government’s tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% — which is lower than it is today.

It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.” Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals[.]

Six of the seven listed in the Obama plan are these “refundables”, money people get from the federal government even if they pay no taxes at all.  These are not “tax cuts” but instead welfare grants based on specific social policy.  It’s blatant redistributionism, as the money comes from tax increases on the wealthy.

Real tax cutters use that policy as a way to restrain growth in federal government, although the Republicans certainly forgot the other part of that equation for six years — cut spending.  Obama’s plan actually makes people more dependent on federal government, and expands it significantly.  It adds to the entitlement mentality while doing nothing about rewarding risk.  This plan will penalize risk and encourage the wealthy to find even more shelters for their income and capital, more likely outside the US, which will mean fewer jobs and fewer opportunities.

The last thing this economy needs is a flight of capital.  We need that money invested in America to create jobs, not hidden away from an aggressively redistributionist federal government.  We should be reducing taxes, but not giving more money to people who don’t pay any at all.