Presidential candidate Barack Obama has put free-market capitalism at the root of the current mortgage industry debacle, denying the real history of government interference in that market.

Read Full Article

"What we have seen in the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed."

According to Obama, capitalism has been "rendered . . . a colossal failure."

Contrary to the Obama narrative, however, free-market capitalism is not at the root of the current mortgage industry crisis, but rather the very socialism he hawks. The historical record makes this fact unmistakably clear.

The narrative is of another failed socialist experiment, this time a massive federal effort imperiling the whole U.S. banking industry.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Pity Obama doesn't get that. “Taxing Times”

It is not the money that is taxed away that is destroyed. What is destroyed is the wealth that does not get produced in the first place, because high taxes make its production not worthwhile.

Those who are receptive to Senator Barack Obama’s plan to increase taxes on “the rich” seem not to understand that the issue is the nation’s loss of wealth. Today, wealth can leave the country when heavy taxes threaten it — instantly, in an age of electronic financial transfers — and create jobs and economic growth overseas, instead of at home.

Much wealth from Third World countries flows out to richer countries like Switzerland or the United States, where it is safer from confiscation. Jack up the capital-gains tax rate in the U.S. and more Americans can be expected to send their capital elsewhere.

That means sending jobs elsewhere, so that even people with no capital to invest lose employment opportunities.

The economy is not a zero-sum game where someone gains what others lose. The whole economy can lose when ill-considered policies gain political popularity and stifle economic growth.

If Barack Obama is elected president, he will drive the Court further in the wrong direction, and the liberal judicial activists that he appoints will likely serve for two or three decades. “Obama and the Supreme Court”

If you’ve been paying attention to the media’s scant coverage of the impact of the presidential election on the Supreme Court, you’ve been hearing that we currently have either a “conservative” Court or a Court delicately balanced between its “liberal” and “conservative” wings. Electing Obama as president is unlikely to change anything, you’re told, because he’d probably just be replacing liberal justices. The real threat, Obama himself tells us, is that John McCain would appoint justices who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and thereby (supposedly) make abortion illegal.

Wrong on all counts.

For starters, if we are to use crude political terms, the current Supreme Court is markedly to the left of the American public. The Court has a working majority of five living-constitutionalists. Four of them — Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer — consistently engage in liberal judicial activism, and a fifth, Kennedy, frequently does.

If we look to the future and take seriously the positions and principles that the five living-constitutionalists have already adopted, the Court, as it is now composed, may very well have five votes for, say, the imposition of a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, five votes for stripping “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance and for complete secularization of the public square, five votes for continuing to abolish the death penalty on the installment plan, five votes for selectively importing into the Court’s interpretation of the American Constitution the favored policies of Europe’s leftist elites, five votes for further judicial micromanagement of the government’s war powers, and five votes for the invention of a constitutional right to human cloning.

There’s no solace in the prospect that Obama would likely be replacing only liberal justices during his first term. First, as the examples in the preceding paragraph show, the Court as currently composed threatens further incursions on the realm of representative government. The Court urgently needs to be improved. Second, it’s a foolish bet to rely on probabilities. One never knows when a good justice will step down or die.

. . . the Left sees even President Clinton’s appointees, Ginsburg and Breyer, as too mild and moderate. Obama’s supporters are clamoring for “liberal lions” who will redefine the Constitution as a left-wing goodies bag, . . .

. . . the next president will be the odds-on favorite to be re-elected in 2012. Over the next two presidential terms, a single president could well replace five or six justices. If a President Obama replaces Justice Scalia (who will be 80 in 2016), the resulting Court would have six votes for all sorts of constitutional mayhem. If he replaces Justice Kennedy (also 80 in 2016), the pivotal vote on the Court will move even further left.

With its five living-constitutionalists, the Supreme Court is well to the left of the American public and threatens to engage in yet more wild acts of liberal judicial activism. The Court urgently needs to be transformed into an institution that practices judicial restraint. If Barack Obama is elected president, he will drive the Court further in the wrong direction, and the liberal judicial activists that he appoints will likely serve for two or three decades. Our system of representative government, already under siege, would be lucky to survive an Obama presidency.

Scarborough to Obama supporter: Name one accomplishment

There was no good answer when Hannity asked this question months ago and there’s no good answer now.

There is an answer, though: He’s brought the country together, the professor assures us. How? Presumably by the fact that he’s reached 50 percent in the polls. Which would be one percentage point less than, er, Bush got in 2004.

Buzz up!

Found via Drudge, this recently created YouTube channel with a few doozie videos cutting the Obamachrist down a few levels is hilarious. I'll provide the sampler here.

Here is Michelle Obama saying that it is too soon for Obama to be running for President because he hasn't done anything yet. Tell us about it, honey.

We're still not quite sure what he's done since this interview that magically qualified him for the Presidency, but I guess that's all water under the bridge now, isn't it, Michelle?

Here's another of Obama himself saying that history is not made by giving a speech or getting elected. Really? Send the memo to your sycophants and disciples in the mainstream press and beyond, big guy. They're not getting the message.

One more - Obama admitting that eight years in the state legislature has allowed him to serve in complete obscurity.There aren't too many more, but these kinds of things would be played ENDLESSLY by both news organizations (which have ceased to be in this country for the most part) and in ads if a Republican had uttered them.

Eat those words, Hopey McChange.

Punk’d by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank

Guy who helped destroy the economy: You only pick on me because I’m gay

Obama wrote a letter

Before the debates, I advised the John McCain campaign that they needed to make an issue of Barack Obama’s repeated bragging about writing a letter as a response to the pending subprime market collapse.  “McCain sponsored legislation; Obama wrote a letter,” I wrote.  “McCain took action; Obama did nothing but talk, and far too late.  That has to be the message — and it’s a winner.”

The Wall Street Journal picks up the theme today

Democratic priorities in the coming one-party government

According to The Hill, Democrats have their post-election agenda all set if they manage to win the White House and extend their majorities in Congress.   Card Check?  You bet.  Expansion of S-CHIP to the middle class?  That will get revived, too.  Expect a flood of social-engineering policies in the Age of Obama — assuming it arrives:

A landslide victory next Tuesday would give Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape government policy dramatically.

By controlling the White House and expanding their Senate majority, Democrats would remove the most reliable weapons used by the GOP to block their agenda: the filibuster and the veto.

Those tools have thwarted Pelosi (Calif.) and Democrats since they won the majority in both chambers, leaving bills affecting labor law, healthcare and other issues to die in the Senate or on the president’s desk.

With those obstacles removed, Democrats could quickly push forward with legislation allowing labor unions to organize without secret-ballot elections and a bill expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Other possibilities include the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would overturn a Supreme Court decision restricting equal pay lawsuits; a measure that would narrow the role of a “supervisor” for collective bargaining purposes; and a mandate for paid sick leave for companies with 15 or more employees who work at least 30 hours a week — all left over from the last Congress.

The only restraint on Democrats after an Obama victory would be the blame they will get when everything goes wrong.  With large majorities in both chambers of Congress and a Democrat to the left of Congressional leadership, they will have no barriers to enacting sweeping changes to American domestic and foreign policy.  They will also have nowhere to hide when these tax-and-spend policies hobble the economy and weaken us internationally.

Will that give some Democrats pause?  It might, but probably not enough.  In an Age of Obama, Democrats will claim victory as a healthy mandate for leftward drift of American policy, and not without some justification.  We need only look as far back as the Jimmy Carter administration to see where Democrats will go with such a grip on power . . .

Campbell Brown: Just a reminder that Obama lied about accepting public funding

I was going to exile this to Headlines but CNN’s done its good journalistic deed for the day by rejecting Team Barry’s half-hour of propaganda power, so let’s give it a little extra play. It’s only because The One is, in fact, a liar and a hypocrite on this point (as duly noted by honest Democrat Bob Kerrey) that he can afford tonight’s extravaganza, a fact not lost on Brown, to her credit.

Have you noticed, by the way, that these commentary segments are now a recurring feature of her show? It’s no accident. With O’Reilly and Hannity killing CNN on the right and now Olby and Maddow beating them on the left, straight news reporting during primetime is as dead as, well, public finance is.

Credit-card experts explain the extent of Obama’s deception

Rasmussen: Race within margin of error

Rasmussen’s tracking poll shows a significant narrowing of the race with just six days to go before Election Day.  John McCain has closed to within three points of Barack Obama nationwide, within the tracking poll’s margin of error.  This comes as Gallup also shows it a margin-of-error race as of yesterday in its traditional turnout mode

We talked quite a bit about polling at last night’s Talk the Vote event.  All three hosts reminded people that Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan with eight days left in the race in 1980 outside the margin of error.  Furthermore, the rising number of refusals — those who refuse to participate in telephone polling — make the predictive value of electoral polling more questionable than ever before.  Michael Medved said that some pollsters report refusal levels as high as 80%.

I do not want my posts about Obama to be taken as a pro-McCain posture, it's not.
Anyone who has read this blog for any period of time, or has seen my comments at other blogs knows where I stand on McLiberal.  There is enough anti-McCain from the MSM, I just wanted to get information out that is not seen or reported in the MSM on Obama.

Team Obama deliberately avoided credit-card security checks

On Monday, I chided the Washington Post’s Matthew Mosk for missing a key point in the story of credit-card fraud in Barack Obama’s campaign.  Today he puts that point front and center in his follow-up report.  Team Obama deliberately turned off the systems that would have guarded against the kind of fraudulent donations that have accrued millions to their coffers

Biden's new Bishop blasts Biden on abortion...

Among all the people who are now scrambling to get on the Obama bandwagon, none is likely to impress more people than Colin Powell —...

Read Full Article

More recently, Powell sat silent while two lives were ruined in a special prosecutor's zeal to get a conviction in a case involving a noncrime: telling columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

The full story is told in Novak's book, "The Prince of Darkness." What is relevant here is that a New York Times reporter went to jail for refusing to tell who had revealed Ms. Plame's occupation to her, and White House aide Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury because his memory of what he said did not match the memories of some reporters — whose memories did not match each other's.

The idea that the United States must somehow rehabilitate itself in the eyes of the United Nations or NATO or "world opinion" is staggering, even though it is an idea very popular in the mainstream media.

The first duty of a president is to protect American interests — of which survival is No. 1 — regardless of what others may say.

Despite the media hype that we need to rehabilitate ourselves in the eyes of the world, the United States of America remains the number one destination of immigrants from around the world, some of whom take desperate chances with their lives to get here, whether across the waters of the Caribbean or by crossing our dangerous southwest desert.

The American nuclear umbrella has enabled Western European nations to escape responsibility for their own military survival for more than half a century.

Lack of responsibility has bred irresponsibility, one sign of which are unionized troops in NATO and NATO bomber pilots who have office hours when they will and will not fly, not to mention NATO troops letting American troops handle the really dangerous fighting in Afghanistan.

Maybe the time is overdue for NATO to try to rehabilitate itself and for Americans to stop trying to be "citizens of the world."