WSJ: Fear the coming liberal revolution

Read the entire WSJ editorial.  They note that in 1933 and 1965, liberal Democrats fundamentally abused the nature of government and its relationship to the economy in ways we still have not corrected.  What changes can we expect in an Obama administration?

• Nationalized health care
• Union supremacy and a boost of cash to the Democratic Party
• Massive tax increases and redistributionism
• Curtailed free-speech protections

It’s not a pretty picture.

NRSC ad: Who’s to blame?

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has an ad out explaining what happened, who kept blowing sunshine up our collective skirt, and who tried to stop the trainwreck from happening:

I’d say that’s an effective ad, especially since it uses the actual clips of leading Democrats to demonstrate their attempts to keep Fannie/Freddie’s market distortions operational. Too bad it runs over 2 minutes; I would like to see this get played on television stations nationwide in the last two weeks of the election.

Shock: People take advantage of free government health care

Hawaii has ended an experiment with universal health care for children because it proved a little too successful.  Seven months after launching Keiki Care, a flood of enrollments caused it to run over budget.  The social engineers in Hawaiian government just learned a lesson about free-market economics and the effect of government distortion (via The Corner):

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.”

Fink gets this entirely wrong.  Taxpayers didn’t get this for free.  They paid for it with their taxes.  Keiki Care took taxes and directed it into creating a universal health-insurance program for children, and apparently didn’t set any income requirements for entry.  Why wouldn’t the taxpayers whose money funded the risk pool take advantage of it?

Guess who else has tax liens?

In their haste to pillory Joe for the audacity of asking a tough question of Obama, the Tanning Bed Media missed a couple of other interesting tax liens.  Patterico does the work of the TBM:

Oh — I almost forgot to mention: Martin Nesbitt, the treasurer of Obama’s campaign, has tax liens. So do his companies.

You’d think that matters more than the tax liens of Joe the Plumber, wouldn’t you? But good luck finding a Big Media story about Nesbitt’s liens.

If tax liens are such an indicator of character and trustworthiness, wouldn’t it have more significance for the treasurer of a presidential campaign than for a man who just asked a question of the candidate?  If the national media has such an interest in investigating a plumber who made a couple of national appearances, why wouldn’t they have at least the same interest in the people running a major party presidential campaign?  Of course not.  The same people who instruct us that Barack Obama’s 20-year membership in Jeremiah Wright’s church while Wright called 9/11 “chickens coming home to roost” now interrogate Joe the Plumber on national TV about his brief flirtation with the Natural Law Party.

Because, you know, associations matter when choosing a plumber, but apparently not when choosing a President.

Read Full Article

Read Full Article

Read Full Article

Part of the Communist Party USA's glee can be attributed to the current economic turmoil. The radicals who make up its membership have long rooted for capitalism to fail.

But it can't be denied that the popularity of Barack Obama, the most far-left candidate to run for president as the nominee of a major party, is a big part of the Communist Party resurgence.

Read Full Article

First, a great deal of the global financial crisis can be blamed not on Bush but on Democrats, ranging from former President Bill Clinton to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., to the Congressional Black Caucus, who used banks to further a social justice agenda.

During his first term, Bush tried to establish a new regulatory agency to rein in the irresponsibility practiced by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but Democrats in Congress derailed it.

Moreover, it's well worth noting that Sen. McCain reversed his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, conceding their efficacy in generating millions of jobs — and that Sen. Obama announced he might have to keep those tax cuts in effect to prevent a worsening of the economy. (If they've been so devastating to the country, as Obama has repeated for so long, why not get rid of them as soon as possible?)

Finally, there is President Bush's success in the global war on terror.

We have won a war Democrats declared unwinnable — that is, unless a President Obama reverses the gains of Gen. Petraeus and our troops.

Equally important in the war against terrorism is the Bush Administration's perfect record in protecting the homeland in the seven years since 9/11.

This was not luck. Both the National Security Agency's (NSA) terrorist surveillance program and the CIA's detainee interrogation program foiled planned operations to kill hundreds, perhaps far more.

Both candidates should realize that, in spite of today's low presidential approval surveys (and remembering that Congress's are far worse), history will judge this president very well — better than whichever one of the candidates that succeeds him, we'll bet.

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama promises to "cut taxes for 95% of American workers." That's not possible. Why? More than...

Read Full Article

Why? More than 30% pay nothing in federal income taxes. Obama comes up with this number by calling tax credits "tax cuts." One can debate whether these things are good or bad, but they are not tax cuts.

McCain offers refundable tax credits for health care, as well as other credits, but he doesn't insult the intelligence of the American people by calling them "tax cuts."

When Obama's credits go to people who pay no federal income taxes or who pay less than the value of the credit, they are not "tax cuts." They are transfers of money from one pocket to another, or redistributions of wealth, but they are not tax cuts.

Video: Obama hits McCain over Joe the Plumber

But judge for yourself. Whatever Obama meant, the AP’s seen to it that the dirt on JTP’s tax lien problem will be beamed out to wire services and reported around the world tomorrow. Note to self: Make sure you’re capable of passing the equivalent of a federal background check before challenging The One on his polices. Click the image to watch.

Update: Team Maverick seizes the moment:

“It’s an outrage that the Obama campaign and the media are attacking Joe the Plumber for asking a legitimate question of a presidential candidate. This is why voters still have so many questions about Barack Obama. Instead of answering tough questions, his campaign attacks average Americans for daring to look at the reality behind his words, said Tucker Bounds, spokesman the McCain-Palin campaign. “John McCain will continue to fight on behalf of all hardworking Americans like Joe for policies geared toward increasing prosperity and reducing the burden on taxpayers — not ’spreading the wealth around’ for Senator Government to distribute as he sees fit.”

Big Lies: Obama on Ayers, born-alive bill

The first was subtle, and unless you paid attention to the split screen, you may have missed it.  John McCain, after being asked about William Ayers, noted that Obama had launched his campaign in Ayers’ living room:

MCCAIN: Well, again, while you were on the board of the Woods Foundation, you and Mr. Ayers, together, you sent $230,000 to ACORN. So — and you launched your political campaign in Mr. Ayers’ living room.

OBAMA: That’s absolutely not true.

MCCAIN: And the facts are facts and records are records.

OBAMA: And that’s not the facts.

Unfortunately for Obama, those are the facts, both about Ayers and ACORN.  Obama paid ACORN over $800,000 this summer for GOTV efforts, which Obama now denies, although he did finally admit that he represented ACORN as an attorney in a lending-practices case.  Obama did launch his career at a party hosted by Ayers, which is such a matter of public record that I’m frankly surprised he bothered to deny it.

The next big lie came during the debate on abortion.  McCain pointed out Obama’s radical positions on the issue, including his repeated opposition to the Illinois version of the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act.  Obama responded with a series of lies:

There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.

During that period, the Attorney General reported that the practice of abandoning infants born alive during late-term abortions was not covered by the law.  Jill Stanek and others testified to the practice, and the Illinois Senate heard testimony that suggested that as many as 20% of all late-term abortions resulted in a live birth.  Obama lied about the circumstances of the bill; the reason it was being proposed was because existing law was ineffective at protecting infants born alive.

And the Illinois Medical Society, the organization of doctors in Illinois, voted against it. Their Hippocratic Oath would have required them to provide care, and there was already a law in the books.

There wasn’t a law on the books, and who would be surprised that the people performing the abortions and leaving the children to die wouldn’t want more oversight to prevent that practice?

You can read my previous posts on the subject:

• Infanticide, revisited
• Yes, we can … elect a guy who votes for infanticide
• There are a lot of things above Obama’s “pay grade”
• Team Obama acknowledges infanticide lie
• Obama camp: He only voted against that born-alive abortion bill because it might actually have an effect
• Obama’s support for infanticide breaks into mainstream media
• Obama: Bill unnecessarily burdened doctors with … babies; Update: AOL Hot Seat poll added
• McCarthy: Obama’s moral failing on infanticide
• Obama’s ad lies about infanticide vote

Obama voted against the bill that would have protected infants born alive even after the “neutrality clause” he demanded was added to protect abortion in Illinois.  That is the truth in this case, and Obama lied last night to the American people in an attempt to hide his radical position on abortion.