Live From New York! It's John McCain!

Senator John McCain at the Alfred E. Smith dinner knockin' them dead. Hey, we could all use a little levity before the home stretch. And it couldn't hurt his likability factor (or my blood pressure). Could this be the beginning of a new strategy?

(h/t: Gateway Pundit)

Rev. Wright Is Tip Of The Iceberg...

In great detail and from much dogged research, Stanley Kurtz of NRO has pieced together details of Obama's associations with people having extremist hate-filled Afrocentric views similar to those of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In fact common among them are the beliefs of Leonard Jeffries, who refers to white people as "ice people" (being oppressive and violent) and black people as "sun people" (peaceful and mutually supportive). It seems that not only did Obama share these beliefs, but also funded the spreading of such ideology through the Chicago Annenburg Foundation.

Here is an excerpt from Stanley Kurtz's column:

[It looks like Jeremiah Wright was just the tip of the iceberg. Not only did Barack Obama savor Wright’s sermons, Obama gave legitimacy — and a whole lot of money — to education programs built around the same extremist anti-American ideology preached by Reverend Wright. And guess what? Bill Ayers is still palling around with the same bitterly anti-American Afrocentric ideologues that he and Obama were promoting a decade ago. All this is revealed by a bit of digging, combined with a careful study of documents from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the education foundation Obama and Ayers jointly led in the late 1990s.

John McCain, take note. Obama’s tie to Wright is no longer a purely personal question (if it ever was one) about one man’s choice of his pastor. The fact that Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Wright’s anti-Americanism means that this is now a matter of public policy, and therefore an entirely legitimate issue in this campaign.]

This explosive article is a bit lengthy but well worth the read. It will no doubt shock and horrify. Read it HERE. When you're done, send a link to everyone you know who might consider voting for Obama so they can see what they're getting themselves into.

(h/t Laura)

In a related item you might wish to revisit Sean Hannity's Obama & Friends--A History of Radicalism which appeared on Hannity's America recently. Ala has it all on You Tube HERE.

See McCain's ACORN Ad Here (no longer on You Tube)

Go directly to the source! McCain's website HERE. In fact whenever You Tube declares a McCain ad no longer available, just head over to johnmccain.com.

What Historical Figure Does Obama Bring To Mind?

That is quite a loaded question. I'm sure some of you will say Che Guevara, while others dare compare him to Lincoln or JFK. But when I think of Barack Hussein Obama I think of a man who is very gifted, yet horribly flawed. I see a man who is articulate, charismatic, handsome, and who appeals to a mass audience. But I also see a man who has associated with and surrounded himself with several hate-filled extremists in an effort to advance questionable ideologies, but most of all to advance his own ambitions. Now when I put all that together I come up with no name on anyone else's list. The name that comes to mind is none other than the late, Albert Speer.

Now please don't email me with complaints about me calling Obama a Nazi, because I don't actually believe he is. Obama is much more likely a Marxist, anyway. The comparison between Obama and Speer has less to do with the choices in ideology these two men made, but more to do with their mindsets and how their respective goals were reached.

They have both been opportunists to the utmost degree. Like Obama, Speer was a gifted, articulate, and handsome man who also allowed himself to be used by hate-filled, twisted men to advance extremist causes, while using them in return to climb up the ladder of power. And both Speer and Obama tossed their associates under the bus when they were no longer of use. Speer may have been on board to assist in Hitler's assassination plot, while not actually taking part in the attempt itself, while Obama disowns people from his past who embarrass him or are no longer of use in his election prospects. Both men also have attempted to be all things to all people. Like Speer, Obama thinks he can be of one extreme ideology one moment and then mainstream the next. It all depends upon who he's with and what prize he's aiming for.

But the main comparison has to do with each man's ability to be comfortable with the systematic, mass slaughter of millions of human beings. Albert Speer turned a blind eye to the mass extermination of the European Jewish population, while Obama seems comfortable today with our government allowing mass killings of millions of unborn babies every year. In fact he consistently voted against even allowing babies who survived abortion attempts a chance at life. He chose instead to allow these newborns to be disposed of after forced strangulation, mutilation, or abandonment. And if Obama is elected President, the first thing he plans to do is sign the Freedom Of Choice Act which would strip every restriction on abortion from all levels of government. Read more about that HERE.

Speer, along with the other Nazis, advanced to a position of power due mainly to fallout from The Great Depression. Today's rough economic times seem to be propelling Obama, along with many Democrats responsible for our current mess, into power. A drowning man will reach for even the tip of a sword if he thinks it will save him. God help us all.

Obama Fundraising Suggests Massive Foreign Participation

In an October 7th editorial, IBD asks some very interesting questions about Obama's enormous haul of campaign donations received from sources unknown. And the MSM seems uninterested in investigating this matter.

An excerpt from IBD:

[Newsmax reported last week that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has collected "the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002."

Federal Election Commission data show that some $222 million of the cash Obama has collected came in the form of contributions of $200 or less, with the Democratic nominee's campaign identifying the donors of less than $40 million of that sum.

Campaigns may accept donations of less than $200 without providing the donors' names and addresses in campaign finance reports, but Sen. John McCain's camp has made its full donor database available on the Internet. Independent campaign finance watchdog organizations have asked the Obama campaign to list all its donors, as well, but it's refused. What is Obama hiding?]

Read the rest of this juicy story HERE.

It feels rather frustrating to be so powerless in stopping someone from blatantly breaking rules, and watching them steal an election by seducing a sycophantic media and literally buying a victory. It seems that all we can do is sit back and watch it unfold until the election is swiped, because no one will be prosecuted before election day. And what happens after? What happens if these funds are proven to have been collected illegally? What if we find that Speaker Pelosi and former President Jimmy Carter traveled to the Middle East to, among other mischief, solicit donations from wealthy foreigners who hate America just to get Obama in power? Probably not much. The people who got elected will not ruin the lives of those who illegally supported them.

Is the story too enticing for the MSM to ignore? Most likely only to a point. According to IBD the main stream media is actually taking notice, but I doubt they will sacrifice their messiah anytime soon.

Latest McCain Ad Linking Obama and Ayers

None of this would be necessary if only the MSM had done its job in vetting Obama properly during the primary.

Thomas Sowell: "Do Facts Matter?"

Thomas Sowell has a new column out challenging the MSM to lay aside their Obama-worship (my words) and report the actual facts about the mortgage crisis, many of which indict both Obama and the Congressional Democrats.

Here is an excerpt:

[Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.

Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.

The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?]

The rest of this very insightful column can be found HERE. In it Mr. Sowell lists the names of the real culprits, several of whom you can see in action HERE in a You Tube video. Quite damning if only the sycophantic main stream media would shine the spot light in the right direction. But then their darling Obama might lose the election.

(photo borrowed from Real Clear Politics)

A Word From The Judicial Confirmation Network...

(h/t: Up North Mommy)

Birth Of A Nation (Fourth Reich)

Where is the same kind of outrage the MSM shows for Christian church camps, The Boy Scouts, or even Indian Guides? None of which indoctrinate children to worship mere mortals to this degree. And what of these children should, Obamamessiah forbid, the Anointed One be defeated in November? At best they will be traumatized, feeling that their own country committed a kind of Diecide.

Should we expect to see videos in the future of Obama-radicalized children wearing suicide belts of TNT wrapped around their little waists, vowing to avenge their God for the shame of losing an election? Sound ridiculous? The Islamofascists, Nazis, and Communists proved you can brainwash children into doing just about anything.

In choosing a video I found it hard to pick just one. All three are well worth viewing, but if your time is limited, pick the middle one.

The Devil Looks After His Own

Enron, Worldcom, and Tyco bankruptcies combined are all much smaller than the mess brought down upon us by Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, both of whom should be stripped of their fortunes and forced to do the perp walk. But if Obama is elected we should assume that will not happen. For they are both Obama advisers and will be rewarded for their loyalty to their master.

It is past time to sound the bell and spread the word. Shift into high gear and don't stop moving forward. It is safe to say at this point that the very existence of our country and way of life depends upon it.

(h/t: The Anchoress)

Palin Wins! Biden And MSM Looking Tired

Tonight's Vice-Presidential debate was anything but a snoozer, with both candidates performing quite ably throughout. Though the only thing close to a zinger was Sarah Palin's comment that no one got Biden's joke when he announced earlier in the campaign he would never consider accepting the VP nod.

Even more interesting (to me, at least) was after the debate when two cable news channels, Fox and CNN, asked their respective samples of voters (equal number of Democrats and Republicans) who the victor was. As you would expect after becoming jaded about the MSM, the Fox sample almost unanimously declared Palin the victor while the CNN sample resoundingly claimed that Biden won. Now how can this be...unless CNN and/or Fox pre-screened their samples to include opposite party members who were closer to sitting on the fence than their preferred counterparts? In other words CNN must have rigged their sample with Republicans who weren't too enthusiastic about McCain-Palin, and/or Fox rigged theirs with less enthusiastic Democrats for Obama-Biden. My guess is that the Fox sample was probably more genuine because they consisted entirely of Anheuser-Busch employees in St. Louis. How are they more genuine? Consider that McCain's wife owns Coors, a direct competitor of Budweiser, and the object of ire in a competitive beer market. That and the fact that CNN once avoided reporting atrocities by Saddam Hussein so they could continue having access there. They've never had credibility in my book.

The debate itself settled the Palin issue. She proved she is an asset to the ticket, not a liability. It may have also worked the same for Biden, in that the rumors of Hillary replacing him will die out soon, if not abruptly tonight.

Palin looked energetic, sounded good, and hopefully restored confidence in her ability to step in for McCain from day one. Biden looked tired but attacked his friend, McCain, often. He also had many facts at his disposal, though some will be called into question.

Laura Ingraham's Eight Bailout Questions

Just received this E-Blast from Laura a few minutes ago and thought enough of it to rush it to print (so to speak). In it she asks some very poignant questions we should all be asking our legislators before they spend nearly a trillion of our and our children's tax dollars for something they HOPE will repair the current financial catastrophe. Here they are:


1) Since the White House introduced the bailout last week, a number of alternative ideas have been proposed. For one, Michigan Republican Thaddeus McCotter wrote a 10-point plan that carries no cost to taxpayers. Others, like George Soros', are significantly less expensive and, in his estimation, likelier to be effective. Can you explain why this bill is the best option, despite being the most expensive?

2) We're told the bailout could actually turn a profit for taxpayers. Assuming that's true, how can we be sure the money actually ends up back in taxpayers' hands? For years the Social Security system took in more money than it paid out, yet instead of putting the surplus revenue toward future benefits, Congress snatched that extra cash for general expenditures. Likewise, Fannie and Freddie's "profits," were used for congressional pet projects. With this track record, how can we trust that this program will be any different?

3) The McCain campaign yesterday pointed out that the most recent housing bill gave the government nearly $1 trillion to purchase mortgages. If this is true, why exactly does Congress need to pass this monstrous legislation?

4) Does the latest version of this bill still "allow the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families"? Americans are having a hard enough time swallowing the idea of a bailout for irresponsible home, car, and student lending. The notion that we'll be on the hook for insolvent pension plans administered by awful, union-controlled lawmakers in cities like Detroit and New York is simply insane.

5) Does the bill's preamble still proclaim that the law "provides authority to the treasury secretary to ... ensure the economic well-being of Americans?" Does anyone know if there are limitations to this seemingly unbridled authority? Otherwise, what prevents the Treasury secretary from becoming a de-facto dictator? This strikes me as especially worth discussion.

6) Are there still no meaningful curtailments of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Does the bill contain anything even hinting at accountability?

7) What concrete assurances do taxpayers have that the turmoil's provenance - Carter and Clinton-era social-engineering dictums that upended safe-lending practices in favor of higher minority home ownership - will forever be outlawed? How do we know taxpayers won't be asked to finance another $700 billion bailout in 10 years? What has Congress learned from its past mistakes?

8) After Enron's collapse, former CEO Jeffrey Skilling, then-CEO Ken Lay, and then-CFO Andrew Fastow, were called to testify before Congress. According to the Business and Media Institute, Fannie's and Freddie's overstated earnings were 19 times larger than Enron's fake numbers. So when can we expect Congress to call Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the rest of Fannie's and Freddie's enablers to testify before Congress?