The Discerning Texan

Cartoon by Michael Ramirez (click to enlarge)

UPDATE: Jeffrey Goldberg asks in that "ultra-Conservative" rag The Atlantic, What is the LA Times Hiding? Good question:

I don't think it's entirely necessary for me to explain, once again, why I believe that Rashid Khalidi is not a danger to the Republic. I also don't think I have to rehearse the controversial idea that Barack Obama was not, in fact, the Hyde Park chapter president of the PFLP-GC. (That was Rahm Emanuel.) But there's a video out there of Obama saying kind things about Khalidi, and on the general principle that information in an open society shouldn't be kept secret and that the voters should make up their own minds about whether or not they trust certain candidates, this video should be set free. But a pro-censorship organization called the Los Angeles Times, which has the tape in its possession, is hiding it, for reasons it won't fully explain. And it's looking more and more ridiculous each passing day.

I understand that the tape was leaked to the Times by a source or sources unknown, and that an agreement was struck with that source to keep the tape hidden, but the tape has been described in a Times story already, and it quite obviously contains no state secrets. I also suspect that the tape could be posted in such a way as to obscure its origins. The Times, however, won't discuss in detail why it's keeping the tape from its readers, and the newspaper's "readers' representative," Jamie Gold, has lined up against the readers, and argued against the release of the tape.

It no longer IS an open society when newspapers determine what secrets can be kept (i.e. ANYTHING that casts dispersions on Barack Obama), and what secrets are things the public needs to know (e.g. how we are tracking terrorists phone calls and money...).

"All the animals are equal, but some are more equal than others..." never rang so true.

Whoa! From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

HARRISBURG -- A former staffer for an affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now testified today that the organization was provided a "donor list" from the presidential campaign of Barack Obama in late 2007 for fundraising efforts.

Anita Moncrief, a former Washington, D.C. staffer for Project Vote, which she described as a sister organization of ACORN, said her supervisor told her the list of campaign contributors came from the Obama campaign. Moncrief said she has a copy of a "development plan" that outlines how Obama contributors who had "maxed out" under federal contribution limits would be targeted to give to Project Vote, and that it was her job to identify such contributors.

So much for the "we had nothing to do with ACORN" lie....

Via Glenn Reynolds, the media finally gets a "conscience"? :

WASHINGTON POST: "Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed. Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited."

We've known about this for what, two weeks now??

The very notion of an "objective media" in the United States is a complete joke.

Ed Morrissey points out that, while at least CBS has removed the "transparency" veneer from the Obama campaign, there was not a peep in their story about Obama's massive credit card fraud.

Here is the CBS video from the Couric newscast:



Between $100-200 Million of the money Obama has received through these "unverified" small Credit Card donations is reported to be from foreign countries.

Via Glenn Reynolds:

HE WILL NOT BE MISSED: Sen. Stevens guilty on all counts, career in peril.

UPDATE: Well, Colin Powell may miss him:

One of the nation's best-known retired Army generals, Colin Powell, described Sen. Ted Stevens in court today as a "trusted individual" and a man with a "sterling" reputation.

"He was someone whose word you could rely on," said Powell, secretary of state in President Bush's first term, who self-deprecatingly described himself as someone who retired as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and then "dabbled a bit in diplomacy."

That Colin Powell. What a great judge of character.

Heh.

Is there anything worse than a corrupt pol who puts himself before his party and country? So can someone explain to me why Obama is leading?

Bill Whittle is radioactive:

The Drudge Report this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack Obama on WBEZ, a Chicago public radio station. And this time, Barack Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off.

Speaking on a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama say things that should profoundly shock any American — or at least those who have not taken the time to dig deeply enough into this man’s beliefs and affiliations.

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

Barack Obama, in 2001:

You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

A caller then helpfully asks: “The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn’t terribly radical. My question is (with economic changes)… my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place?”

Obama replies:

You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.

So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”

THE FIRST CIRCLE OF SHAME
There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing.

From the top: “…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama’s defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of “political and economic justice.” We all know what political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second earlier: It means redistribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides “deserve” it.

This redistribution of wealth, he states, “essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.” It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.

Now that’s just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal to may voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: “And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

The United States of America — five percent of the world’s population — leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally — and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent. That we have achieved so much in so many areas is due — due entirely — to the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.

Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw: “…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”

There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.

We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.

If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”

That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful enough.

We’re just getting started.

THE SECOND CIRCLE OF SHAME
Mercifully shorter than the first, and simply this: I happen to know the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.

I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information … who possesses no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.

I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That’s his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current one. He’s at the end of the line now.

I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.

We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.

Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.

There is a special hell for you “journalists” out there, a hell made specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the right to determine which information is passed on to the electorate and which is not.

There is a bit more, but you get the idea. And speaking of the death of journalism,

Especially pay attention to this Andrew McCarthy story of an LA Times refusing to release (before the election, anyway) a tape it has of Obama sharing a toast with PLO Supporters.

McCarthy asks a question that clearly shows Whittle's scathing assessment of the media is spot on:

Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor ... who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.

Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.

Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat? Is there any chance, if the Times was the least bit reluctant about publishing (remember, we’re pretending here), that the rest of the mainstream media (y’know, the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday-party toast) would not be screaming for the release of the tape?

Do we really have to ask?

Read the whole thing.

ps: if you are not already a subscriber to National Review--why not??

UPDATE: More from Jim Hoft on the LA Times cover-up:

The LA Times is holding a video that shows Barack Obama celebrating with a group of Palestinians who are openly hostile towards Israel. Barack Obama even gives a toast to a former PLO operative at this celebration. If the American public saw this radical side of Barack Obama it is unlikely he would ever be elected president.
But, the media refuses to release this video.


Terrorist Bill Ayers--- Barack Obama--- Jew-hater Rashid Khalidi
There are also reports that terrorists Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn were at the Jew-bash.

Tonight, The O'Reilly Factor talked about this LA Times article and the party tape:

Bill O'Reilly announced tonight that his staff has been in contact with the LA Times and that the newspaper says it will not release the tape of Obama toasting radical Rashid Khalidi at a Jew-bash in Chicago. The O'Reilly Factor will report more on the story tomorrow.

Although the Washington Post is now reporting about the Obama Campaign's unbridled, unchecked credit card donations from "all of the above", it still is obviously missing the whole point: this not only invites fraud, it IS fraud.

Ed Morrissey comments:

Mosk never thinks to ask the one question that has already occurred to conservative bloggers. What makes the Obama campaign different from online retail operations? After all, we have spent almost 15 years buying and selling products and services on the Internet, and retailers know how to protect themselves and their customers. They employ a system that compares the billing information on the order to the information in the credit-card system — and when they don’t match, the sale gets denied. Credit-card companies have gone an extra step in recent years by adding a security code to protect against fraudulent use.

The McCain campaign apparently uses these systems to prevent fraud. Why doesn’t Team Obama? That’s the pertinent question. Systems have existed for years to prevent exactly the kind of fraud that has occurred in Obama’s fundraising. Why did Team Obama deliberately avoid using them?

Perhaps the FEC could discover the answer to that question, if they were inclined to do their jobs. It seems very clear that someone at Team Obama didn’t want to stop credit-card fraud as long as it helped them raise funds. That’s a story that the Tanning Bed Media ought to cover … and probably won’t.

Glenn Reynolds crafts a similie (emphasis mine):

SIX ALABAMA COUNTIES have more registered voters than voting-age people. Plus this: "Well, considering a dog here in Pike County received a personally addressed voter registration form this month from the Alabama Democratic Party, we’d have to say there’s legitimate cause for concern."

What's the big deal? We've had "yellow dog Democrats" in the South for years. But I wonder if the voting system is like the credit system, with same-day registration and limited ID requirements kind of like those "no doc" loans, and questionable voting machines being like the dubious credit-rating schemes. As with the credit system, lots of insiders are making out too well from the current system to want to fix it, but when the inevitable crash comes the rest of us will pay the price . . . . Or is that analogy too much of a stretch?

And then there is the reality of the Obama vs. McCain Tax Plan--using math that even a third grader can grok (emphasis again mine):

GREG MANKIW FOCUSES ON WHAT'S IMPORTANT: "Here is a question that you may have been thinking about: How do the different candidates' tax plans affect Greg Mankiw's incentive to work?"

If there were no taxes, so t1=t2=t3=t4=0, then $1 earned today would yield my kids $28. That is simply the miracle of compounding.

Under the McCain plan, t1=.35, t2=.25, t3=.15, and t4=.15. In this case, a dollar earned today yields my kids $4.81. That is, even under the low-tax McCain plan, my incentive to work is cut by 83 percent compared to the situation without taxes.

Under the Obama plan, t1=.43, t2=.35, t3=.2, and t4=.45. In this case, a dollar earned today yields my kids $1.85. That is, Obama's proposed tax hikes reduce my incentive to work by 62 percent compared to the McCain plan and by 93 percent compared to the no-tax scenario. In a sense, putting the various pieces of the tax system together, I would be facing a marginal tax rate of 93 percent. The bottom line: If you are one of those people out there trying to induce me to do some work for you, there is a good chance I will turn you down. And the likelihood will go up after President Obama puts his tax plan in place.

Perhaps this will lead a lot of people to "go John Galt."

(What can I say? He's Glenn... With all the rocks, shoals, and nooks out there in the wild wild web, who after all is better and finding the real gems?

UPDATE: I bumped this above the Ashley Todd story because the information about Ayers is something that everyone should read. Read the entire report: it is chilling, and a reminder that sociopaths don't change their stripes as they get older. Ayers/Dohrn stating in 2001 that "they would do it again and didn't do enough"... These people have not changed their beliefs--and they were Obama's mentors...

Mark Levin also began his show with this yesterday...

As a side item, here is a video of Obama talking about "redistributing wealth", although this vid not exactly breaking news; it in 1995: watch here...

Note that this video was filmed in the same timeframe when Obama was actively collaborating with Ayers and Dohrn in "distributing" over $50 million in Annenberg dollars to "friends" in the Chicago area; it also should be noted that Obama announced his initial political campaign from the living room of Ayers and Dohrn.

While we are on the subject of the Weather Underground: This is the man who took Barack Obama personally under his (left) wing (emphasis mine, via Bob Owens):

Just a Little Genocide

I asked, "well what is going to happen to those people we can't reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?" and the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say "eliminate," I mean "kill."

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

This was the testimony of FBI informant Larry Grathwohl in the 1982 documentary No Place to Hide.

The 25 people plotting the extermination of the 25 million Americans who would bitterly cling to the American way of life?

The Weather Underground, led by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

The genocide of 25 million Americans for daring to cling to the American way of life was just part of their reeducation plan for a communist America.

I do not expect you to take my word for it. Watch the documentary clip above. And if there are those of you who don't trust Grathwohl despite the lives he's saved foiling at least two Weathermen attempts at mass murder, you can simply see what Ayers and Dohrn wrote, in their own words.

Zombie has found an extremely rare, out of print edition of Prairie Fire, the communist manifesto authored by Ayers and Dohrn as they bombed their way across America.

Read the report for yourself.

You will want to take Bob's advice, trust me. And then you will want to consider: THESE are the people who took Barack Obama under their wing and who launched his first political campaign from their LIVING ROOM. The question should not only be: what did Barack Obama know about Ayers--it should also be: why did Ayers and Dohrn take such a personal interest in Barack Obama??

Barack Obama, in my opinion, really IS a Communist. No, Obama has not openly advocated genocide--but his political mentors did. Does this not at the very least call for a SERIOUS examination of the judgment of this man? Not to mention his 20-year association with the Rev. Wright, his associations with Farrakhan's Million Man March, and his dealings with the corrupt Rezko?

Read that report. Read it all. It is shocking. It is stunning.

Day by Day by Chris Muir (click to enlarge)

Virginia counties are throwing out military ballots. Nice.

With Acorn signing up Mickey Mouses, Adolf Hitler and the Dallas Cowboys in virtually every battleground state.

I must say, I've never heard Gingrich come out so forcefully against Big Media. This is so true and so spot on; but I admit that I was surprised at the forcefulness of his argument. Via Jim Hoft over at Gateway Pundit:



Hoft also has a transcript.

Newt Gingrich would make one hell of a President. I visit his site quite often, and I highly recommend it.

Whoa! Obama is redistributing wealth already--to himself. No wonder he's raised so much money despite the polls have being so tight. THIS IS CRIMINAL, PROSECUTABLE.

The Media's reaction? (crickets....)

(Hopefully Ace will forgive me for reproducing here his entire "burning skull" post, but this is big and it needs to go viral--it will have to go viral on the web if there is even a tiny bit of hope for the in-the-tank media to report it to the perpetually clueless...):

Obama Campaign Finance Fraud Gains Traction
UPDATE: MEDIA REFUSING TO REPORT, INSISTS CONTRIBUTIONS ARE REAL-- DESPITE OCT. 9 NYT REPORT NOTING FICTITIOUS CONTRIBUTORS

This story is getting some notice.

Mark Steyn cautions, though: Stop donating just to test it out. It's clear it's deliberately set up to facilitate campaign donation fraud, from both people going over the limit and of course Saudis, Pakistanis, and Gazans donating illegally.

"Testing it" at this point just puts more money in this cocksucker's pocket.

Hot Air too.

Draw up the impeachment papers. If Obama wins, we should be ready.

This is the deliberate evasion of campaign finance rules. It's shocking the media never checked before -- and apparently isn't even checking now.

Note: This is quite deliberate. The Address Verification System has to be specifically disabled to allow this fraud:

Having worked for companies that process credit cards online, it is necessary to go through and manually disable the safeguards that they put in place to verify a person's address and zip code with the cardholder's bank. But international banks don't currently have the same safeguards that banks in the US have, which also works in the One's favor.

So most likely they've disabled the necessary safeguards for US cards which their merchant bank would be angry about if they found out since it exposes them to risk, as well as international cards which is an even greater risk because there's no way to verify the information electronically for most countries, so they could just say they're in the US with phony info and the card will still process online. The One could then just claim that they said they were from America.

Senator Clinton's website worked with a reputable company that had the same safeguards in place for her online donations, seems like someone just doesn't like to play by the rules that credit card companies have put in place.

What if, for some kooky reason, their off the rack software didn't have this most basic check available?

They could easily do that through the coding on their website, and an organization like a campaign would have the resources to do it. If I had to guess, it would probably cost 200-400 dollars to get a programmer to add that functionality to a payment gateway if their system didn't have that in place already. But then you can't have someone donating millions of dollars in 100 dollar increments under different names, and we can't have that now can we?

Huusker explains the system that Obama disabled. Intentionally.

It's called the Address Verification System (AVS). When you submit a credit card to the processor for authorization you get back one of four responses: zipcode match, address match, both match, or neither match.

AVS is automatic and can't be turned off. You can, however, override it in special circumstances. It looks like Obama's web site has the AVS-override turned on permanently.

Is there any legitimate reason to do this? No.

Visa/MC banks hate it when merchants blow off AVS, as it increases the risk of chargebacks (which are a hassle/expense for the bank to handle). Consequently they demand a much higher discount rate to take cards with AVS-overrides.

If a merchant's chargeback rate goes above 1% the banks will wallop the merchant with research fees. Merchants with high chargeback rates (like porn sites) can end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra monthly fees in order to be able to continue to accept cards, on top of huge discounts on each transaction.

But Obama isn't getting many complaints -- because those donating illegally are of course winking coconspirators in the scam. They're certainly not demanding the banks reimburse them -- so no one is the wiser.

Oldowan tests:

I was just sitting here reading ace after dinner when I came across this article. I kinda got ticked-off and related the contents to Mrs.Oldowan (Dem, MA). Politics are a touchy issue here on the border, but this was just the end after a day hearing about our dear governor's gift of $35K of tax money to ACORN and the justice dept leaning on our sec'y of state for not sending ballots to our soldiers abroad since 2002. [Good luck finding THOSE stories in the Boston Globe tomorrow...]. Anyway, I'd had enough and read the article to my better half.

She, rather wisely, replied : "According to whom? How do you know that's actually true?"

"Excellent question." I said, "Let's find out."

$50 bucks later (to obama [and I only meant to risk $25 {I figure, the rhetorical worth of the fact is worth the fraction of the $$$ this guy is going to cost me in the long run}], and $0 TO McCain, who refused to process this bogus contribution), Mr. Henry Reardon of 7 Wyatt Drive, Galts Gulch, CO, 88888 has learned who he can and cannot contribute to, as long as he insists on using oldowan's credit card to pay for it.

I got screen shots of the whole set of transactions. Full descriptions with pics go to every news organ tomorrow. Mrs. Oldowan (IND, MA [soon?]) and I will be wathching for a response.

I cannot BELIEVE that nobody cares about this bull-bleep. The Mencken quote at the top of the banner is making my blood pump. It's time to do something.

I hope it's not too late....

Another test:

Frankly, its easier than I'd believe to do this. Courtesy of my (real) CC number and expiration date, the Obama campaign has just received a $19.45 donation from mister Adolf Hitler, whose occupation is "Dictator" at the company "National Socialist Party of Ger" (I got cut off). I captured screenshots to prove this.

No verification required. The listed address wasn't even close to my real address.

While I hate to think I'm giving any money at all to these bastards, its worth it to prove once and for all that they are engaged in fraud. I will verify whether my card gets charged and report back.

moleman

I say again: Try entering false addresses when ordering a $10 DVD from Amazon. You will get rejected.

And yet Barack Obama has overridden this basic security feature in order to allow the world to donate to him, and to rack up millions and millions in illegal over-the-limit donations.

Where.

Is.

The Fucking.

Cocksucking.

Media.

The hell with the media -- Where is the fucking Attorney General?

More: Who is John Galt? Screenshots of the crime in progress.

Plus, the RNC files a fresh FEC complaint.

Did Obama turn the security measures back on? Some say yes, but Flip Pidot says no.

Violation of Law: Until recently, The Criminal One didn't bother asking for proof of US citizenship (or even a swearing of US citizenship) from overseas donors.

Hillary and McCain did, of course. Because they were interested in following the law.

Obama wasn't. He didn't even bother alerting foreign nationals that it was illegal for them to contribute.

Wink.

TIP: From an anonymous source with very good access to what's going on --

The media refuses to do anything with this, because, despite all the reports of "Good Will" and "asdf" and other clearly fake names such previously donating tens of thousands of dollars to the campaign, they refuse to acknowledge that any of these donations are fraudulent in the first place.

So getting to the second point -- that Obama's site has been deliberately crippled to switch off the most basic address verification check -- is impossible.

They insist this is all on the level and each and every one of Obama's donors is real.

Including Good Will (occupation: Loving You), asdf, Mickey Mouse, and now John Galt, Hank Rearden, Nodda Realperson, and Adolf Hitler.

Despite the fact that this has all already been exposed -- by no lesser Obama Campaign Organ than the New York Times.

Thanks to Dan Riehl for that.

Overseas Donations Go Through Without a Glitch, But For the Love of Mary Stop Giving This Criminal Money:

At Hot Air:

I have a credit card issued by a bank in Hong Kong.

I’ve just made 5 donations of $5 each using the card. I listed fake addresses in North Korea, Iran, Gaza, Venezuela and Kenya. The names and addresses were made up, each was different, I listed real Yahoo email addresses that forward to me.

Fake Name
Not A. Realperson
Finance Violation
Fraudulent Charge
Over Donation Limit

All 5 went through without a problem. I’m already being solicited for more money.

Thanks to TopSecretK9.

Cartoon by Michael Ramirez (click to enlarge)

And...just in the last MONTH:


Source: Pew Research Center - October 22, 2008

Gee, I wonder why everyone is so "convinced" that a single-digit race is "all over":

The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one, according to a new study of the media since the two national political conventions ended.

Press treatment of Obama has been somewhat more positive than negative, but not markedly so.

But coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable -- and has become more so over time. In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three-to-one -- the most unfavorable of all four candidates -- according to the study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Who knew???

Not only that, but for all of the ridiculous (yes, I said ridiculous...and I mean ri-diculous) speculation that Sarah Palin is actually a drag on the McCain ticket, Glenn Reynolds demonstrates that Joe Biden is not exactly "feeling the love" from the top of his ticket:

WHO'S HIDING NOW? "It might be surprising to some to learn that Sarah Palin is now talking to her national press corps more often than Joe Biden. While the once silent Palin has taken questions from reporters that travel with her three times in the last week, Biden has not offered the same type of access to reporters who cover his every move on the campaign trail in almost two months."

Plus this: "Biden has also not taken questions from voters in a town hall style setting since Sept. 10 in Nashua, New Hampshire, when he told a supporter that Hillary Clinton might have been a better pick for vice president."

UPDATE: ABC NEWS: "Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., today again avoided mentioning his guarantee that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., would be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in office, focusing instead on criticizing Sen. John McCain." It sounds like the press is getting a bit testy about the cocooning here. . . .

Listen, folks, it is pretty damn simple: they are trying to convince you that it is over. It isn't. They are lying, they are trying to keep you home if you intend to vote for McCain. They are working with the Democrats to FIX this election, as they have been doing all year.

It is FAR from over. Don't wait for election day when all the thugs will be out: go do your duty to save OUR country from ruin this week. And quit watching those idiots on MSNBC, NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC... and yes, even Fox (I am talking to you Bill Kristol...); all who are trying their damdest to mail this thing in for Obama.

Remember Dewey Defeats Truman? Remember when they told you Bush was behind 5 points on Election Day?? Why are you still listening to them? This is YOUR election, not theirs. This is OUR country not theirs. Are you really going to surrender your right to have a say because of what the in the TANK media is saying??

Now get out there to your nearest polling place and act accordingly.

Glenn found this today. Probably very good advice:

Would you want to be a blogger, much less a — how shall I put it? — right-wing blogger, after the revolution?

Of course you would. There would be nothing cooler, funner or, for most of us, nothing that would be a better way to participate in the marketplace of ideas and perhaps make a difference in opposition to what could be the most left-wing administration in history. The frisson of “danger” only makes it ginchier, because in fact as conservatives we have confidence in our Constitution and fundamentally the institutions that make it work and survive, notwithstanding our frequent disappointments. Unlike left-wing crybabies who threaten (always with no intention to follow through) to run for friendlier peoples’ paradises if this or that Republican is elected, we are here, we aren’t going anywhere, and we aren’t trading in our bloggin’ pajamas until they blade it off our cold, green corpses.

Good.

Now what are you going to do make sure it never comes to that? Now, given your faith in the Constitution, how are you going to act, to advocate, to engage — if I may use the word? — collectively to make sure alternative media, a concept once considered the sole property of lefty S&M and “escort service” shopper newspapers like the Village Voice and the Chicago Reader, remain vibrant, fearless and online 24/7?

Well, I am biased, but in view of the horizon before us… I would recommend membership in the Media Bloggers Association.

The MBA is non-partisan - its members, board and history are ample proof of this. The MBA is, to some extent, the institutionalization of a dynamic that is anathema to many bloggers: Joining organizations, agreeing to standards (not standardization), bestowing a limited quantum of representative proxy, and interacting cooperatively with people like the MSM, the courts and others whom many bloggers consider sacred cows.

There will always be the ACLU, the EFF and many fine organizations — not all of which are conservatives’ first choice of whom they’d want to call in an emergency — and individuals who are out there fighting the good fight. But right now the MBA is the only grouping of bloggers across the spectrum that is in a position, and is formed for the sole purpose, of protecting the rights bloggers have, to the full extent of the law, to express themselves in their chosen medium to the full extent of their constitutional rights to do so.

If you’re as afraid of an Obama Administration and how it might go for bloggers as some of you say you are (which is a lot more afraid than I am, notwithstanding the scare links in my first paragraph), you’ll consider joining the MBA or perhaps replicating what it has done in a manner consistent with your own tastes — “while you can”!

If you’re not afraid but, like me, you have your concerns… there’s no rush. But you should check us out. Just in case.

My fears about all this are not completely mollified; I think a Pelosi led supermajority will try to muzzle every single bit of dissent that it can get its tyrannical hands on. Still, I probably will take a bit of a break after the election anyway, especially if Obam-munism wins... not out of fear, but out of sheer frustration and a need to recharge the batteries.

But I am sure I won't be able to stay away for too long...

Cartoon by Gary Varvel (click to enlarge)

UPDATE: Based on a user comment, I updated the Whittle link below. It has a different video ID than the one for subscribers, so hopefully this one may just work... (first time viewers will need to register).

UPDATE: Bill Whittle on the impact of Joe the Plumber. Registration required (but worth it...)

Allah was kind enough to share the events described in yesterday's post with us:

Via the Standard, you read the Byron York article. Now see the movie! Featuring an introduction by Mother Jones lefty David Corn, lamenting the sad, sad state of American politics in which irresponsible leaders scapegoat media outlets and incite an angry rabble.

UPDATE: Edited for clarity and grammar...

OK, for whatever reason I feel another "vent" coming on, so buckle your belts, I am going to let it fly.

Mary Katherine Ham and Guy Benson (with help from Ed Morrissey) have assembled a spectacular montage of videos, mostly of Obama's own words, broken down by category and issues. This is one of the most impressive comprehensive arguments I have ever seen in any campaign, ever. And it is DEVASTATING.

They have obviously spent a lot of time putting all this together and it is quite extensive; I agree with Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive when he suggests that if Big media had done the job it is supposed to do and had actually tried to remain objective for American elections; had it done a thorough job in vetting BOTH candidates, then Obama would be likely be facing a landslide loss. And is objectivity not, after all, what we have always been told was the legitimate role of the "free press" in a "free" democracy?

Here is a Cynical Lesson: if you can just appear cool, calm and collected--no matter how radical, totalitarian, despotic, Marxist, and sociopathic your actual words and beliefs may be--many Americans can be tricked, hypnotized, bamboozled to cast their vote for you. Glibness trumps Intelligence every time.

Obviously (as even Sarah Palin has proven by her astounding SNL numbers) being telegenic has become a more important factor for an American election than what candidates actually stand for; certainly it is the prime factor to many otherwise intelligent and good-natured people. Of course the media counts on this inability to discern truth. As I have thought from the beginning of this long campaign, this tendency argumes that Republicans would have been far better off with a Romney, a Gingrich, a Thompson, even a Giulianni--than with the less telegenic McCain, despite his many years of dedication and service. Because--you see--things like character and honesty no longer matter to most Americans. These days, it's just about whether you look good on The View or Oprah.

But even given this tragic fact of life in our culture, I remain convinced that if these two candidates had been truly vetted by its own media mouthpieces, we would not have reached the stage of "crisis" where we are today--poised to elect a telegenic, smooth-talking Marxist nightmare.

Even posts like this--assuming people would actually follow the clips and links above and view this compilation of OBAMA'S OWN VIDEO CLIPS--could help. I am convinced the polls would be vastly different than we are seeing--even given that the current polls are heavily weighted to a Democrat bias--if only the people knew what Obama was really about.

If the seditious news media actually cared more about its role in ensuring the proper function of American democracy; if the media had not so disastrously dropped the ball; if it had provided to the electorate all the information it needed, rather than to decide that IT (not the American people) should influence and determine the results of elections--well then, even a telegenic and "cool" character like Obama would not stand a snowball's chance in hell, given his predisposition to lie on demand.

In my view, Barack Obama is a greater danger to America and to what made us great--to what made us the most wealthy, generous, self-sacrificing and egalitarian society in human history; to the Constitution that men died for that gave us the freedoms we take for granted; to the jobs we take for granted; to the LIFE we take for granted--than Al Qaeda ever will be. If we elect this man, I am convinced that history will bear me out on this.

But here is the good news: It is not too late to prevent an unimaginable catastrophe, not only for Americans, but for the hopes of freedom, the poor, and the oppressed throughout the world.

Here is my plea--If you are even thinking about voting for Obama, first do just this:

Read the whole thing, watch every video. Then go read this and this again. Go read THIS--all of it--BOTH parts. And then sit there and try and tell me with a straight face why anyone who is not insane should cast a vote for this man.

And yes: I am saying exactly what I think and exactly how I feel about this man and how dangerous a Democrat sweep would be to everything we care about. Because if I don't say it now, I may very well lose the right to even speak up at all after the election.

I truly do not believe this to be hyperbole or an exaggeration; you need only look at the lengths Obama's campaign and his willing sycophants in Big Media have gone to in order to smear and destroy the lives of decent average Americans like Joe the Plumber to get a clear and disturbing preminition of at what Obama and the hard-Lefites in Congress might try actually try to do to dissent with the full powers of the Presidency. Hell, I think Stalin probably took criticism better than this guy does.

The thought of this man as Commander and Chief is more horrifying to me than was watching those planes hit the WTC. We are under attack. Only it is the worst kind of attack, it is like HIV: a hidden, virulent, insidious betrayal of our core principles from within. The previously healthy "white blood cells" of our society have been tricked by a corrupt, decrepit, monstrous philosophy--disguised as an easy way out for the terminally lazy.

We might as well be living Christmas Eve, 1776. And like Washington's Army, camped across the Delaware River in the cold and fog, about to embark on a raid that would change history--we still have a glimmer of hope today.

But hope is not enough. It is time to ACT.

No matter how hard it is to do, no matter how it may turn your stomach, go cast your vote TODAY for John McCain, Sarah Palin, and every Republican Senator, Congressman, Judge, and City Council member on your ballot. It is time for those who love this country to again cross the Delaware. Otherwise the very idea of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution the United States of America could all be gone, poof, just like that. And the sequence of events that initiated the downfall of this magnificent country will have reached critical mass on YOUR watch. The shame will not be mine--it will be YOURS, and it will be triggered by the blind "obedience" to the suggestions of the self-important, corrupted media you so foolishly followed off the cliff like sheep.

If you vote for Barack Obama; if you actually took the trouble read and view all this information, followed all the links and watched all the videos and yet can still somehow in your twisted mind justify voting for this man, then you will have to live for the rest of your life with the consequences of your choice. If you have any conscience at all, if there is such a thing as Justice or Karma: the decision to help this man to steal our country out from under us will haunt you for the rest of your natural lives. And it will be punishment well deserved.

It doesn't have to be this way. Please don't kill our country. There is still time.

Last week it was the very large and influential Tribune Company (including the Chicago Tribune). Today it is the Columbus Dispatch.

Heh. Has the failure of this latter-day "Titanic" to provide objective reporting caused it to (finally) hit the Big Berg?

I hope that Doug Ross will forgive me for posting his absolutely brilliant list of points here in their entireity. Personally I think this thing needs to go viral as soon as possible:

The Manifesto of the Silenced Majority

We believe that Barack Obama is a brilliant orator and a man possessed of more charisma than any politician since JFK.

• But we also believe that his philosophy of "spreading the wealth around" is an ill-disguised form of socialism that undermines everything America holds dear.

• We believe that a "tax cut on 95% of working Americans" when only 63% of Americans pay taxes is nonsensical.

• We believe that the Obama campaign's obfuscated funding for ACORN (originally described as "event planning") undermines the integrity of our elections and calls into question the legality of his tactics.

• We believe that Barack Obama's plan to form a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military is ill-considered at best.

• We believe that the Obama campaign's efforts to intimidate WGN (on two separate occasions) when it interviewed his political foes endangers free speech.

• We believe that Obama's choice of Joe Biden as VP runs counter to his twin aspirations of "hope" and "change".

• We believe that a man who could not otherwise receive a security clearance should not serve as Commander-in-Chief.

• We believe that Obama's 20-year relationship with his pastor, who he once described as his "spiritual adviser", displays a basic affinity for a racist ideology that runs counter to everything his candidacy should stand for.

• We believe that most of Obama's senate experience has been spent running for office; from the time he was sworn in as a U.S. senator to the time he formed a presidential exploratory committee, he logged only 143 days in the senate.

• We believe that Obama does voters a disservice by hiding his chairmanship of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (a $165 million dollar effort to improve Chicago's schools) when he used that service as his central experience in 2000 during his first run for Congress.

• We believe that Obama made a series of very poor choices by serving on boards and sharing an office with Bill Ayers (for three years); Ayers' organization killed three police officers, bombed numerous government facilities and nearly detonated a nail bomb at a Fort Dix Officer's Dance.

• We believe that, no matter Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, his evasive and ever-morphing answers about their work together smack of a coverup.

• We believe that anyone -- no matter their position on abortion -- who supports killing an infant that survived a botched abortion is on the wrong side of any moral code.

• We believe that Obama's advisers and contributors -- from Tony Rezko to Valerie Jarrett to Allison Davis -- cost taxpayers millions in development fees for failed (and often uninhabitable) apartment complexes.

• We believe that Obama's Illinois state senate experience was insubstantial: it was, by his own description, a "part-time position" and he maintained two offices (one at the state senate and one at his law firm).

• We believe that Obama's state senatorial experience was further diluted by his 129 "present" votes, which, as NPR observes , "There's a saying in Springfield that there's a reason why the present button is yellow... [but] I don't think that Barack Obama was necessarily a coward for voting present on those bills..."

• We also believe that Obama's experience as a community organizer and as a trainer for ACORN are not qualifications for the presidency.

• We believe that the candidate has not been forthcoming with his background and the key influencing forces during his formative years.

We therefore believe that Barack Obama is ill-prepared and ill-suited for the Presidency.

The pen may indeed be mightier than the sword, but Byron York's laptop is dripping pure gold tonight. However the gold mine is a man named Tito Munoz, a (legal) immigrant construction worker attending a Woodbridge, Virginia McCain rally.

If you read anything today, read this one; because it provides a pulse--a steady beat of something that is only now bubbling to the surface, thanks to a plumber named Joe, thanks to a Presidential candidate who can't hide his Marxist tendencies, and thanks to "journalists" like David Corn who just can't help themselves from stepping in it.

Only this time it's like adding gasoline to a flame:

... As the people here in Woodbridge saw it, Joe was a guy who asked Barack Obama an inconvenient question — and for his troubles suddenly found himself under investigation by the media.

In the audience Saturday, there were plenty of people who were mad about it. There was real anger at this rally, but it wasn’t, as some erroneous press reports from other McCain rallies have suggested, aimed at Obama. It was aimed at the press. And that’s where Tito Munoz came in.

After McCain left, as the crowd filed out, Munoz made his way to an area near some loudspeakers. He attracted a few reporters when he started talking loudly, in heavily-accented English, about media mistreatment of Wurzelbacher. (It was clear that Spanish was Munoz’s native language, and he later told me he was born in Colombia.) When I first made my way over to him, Munoz thought I was there to give him the third degree.

“Are you going to check my license, too?” he asked me. “Are you going to check my immigration status? I’m ready, I have everything here. Whatever you want, I have it. I have my green card, I have my passport — “

I was a little surprised. Did Munoz really bring his papers with him to a McCain rally? I asked.

“Yeah, I have my papers right here,” he said. “I’m an American citizen. Right here, right here.” With that, he produced a U.S. passport, turned it to the page with his picture on it, and thrust it about an inch from my nose. “Right here,” he said. “In your face.”

Munoz said he owned a small construction business. “I have a license, if you guys want to check,” he said.

Someone asked why Munoz had come to the rally. “I support McCain, but I’ve come to face you guys because I’m disgusted with you guys,” he said. “Why the hell are you going after Joe the Plumber? Joe the Plumber has an idea. He has a future. He wants to be something else. Why is that wrong? Everything is possible in America. I made it. Joe the Plumber could make it even better than me. . . . I was born in Colombia, but I was made in the U.S.A.”

The scene turned into a mini-fracas when David Corn, of Mother Jones, defended press coverage. Munoz was having none of it. Why, he asked, would the press whack Joe the Plumber when it didn’t want to report on Obama’s relationship with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber? “How come that’s not in the news all the time?” Munoz said. “How come Joe the Plumber is every second? I’m talking about NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN.”A black woman with a strong Caribbean accent jumped in the fray. “Tell me,” she said to Corn, “why is it you can go and find out about Joe the Plumber’s tax lien and when he divorced his wife and you can’t tell me when Barack Obama met with William Ayers? Why? Why could you not tell us that? Joe the Plumber is me!”

“I am Joe the Plumber!” Munoz chimed in. “You’re attacking me.”

“Wait a second,” Corn said. “Do you pay your taxes?”

“Yes, I pay my taxes,” the woman said.

“Then you’re better than Joe the Plumber,” Corn said.

That set off a general free-for-all. “I’m going to tell you something,” Munoz yelled at Corn. “I’m better than Obama. Why? Because I’m not associated with terrorists!”

And so it went. I walked away for a few minutes to strike up a conversation with the woman who had jumped into the debate. Her name was Connie, and she said she had been born and raised in Antigua, in the West Indies. “I immigrated to the United States over 20 years ago,” she told me. “It’s my home. America has become my home. I came here freely of my own free will because I loved it, and I loved what it had to offer, and I don’t want to see it ruined.”

I asked her whether it was difficult, as a black person, to support McCain at a time when probably 90 to 95 percent of black voters support Obama. “I have always been a conservative,” she told me. “I’m mad. I was extremely upset to see the way the media went after Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. . . . To see the drive-by media and the Obama campaign attack two ordinary Americans simply because one of them managed to get Barack Obama to tell the truth, it was shameful and disgraceful.”

Meanwhile, the great debate was continuing, with Tito the Construction Worker and David the Journalist trading points. Much of it wasn’t terribly informative, but there was one lovely moment when a shouting match turned into a lesson on the fundamental meaning of American constitutional rights — and the immigrant was the teacher.

“Let me talk,” Munoz said to Corn. “I know the Constitution, and I know my First Amendment — ”

“I’m not the state,” Corn said. “I can’t take that right away from you.”

“No, no,” Munoz shot back. “Even the state, the state cannot take that right away.”

“Right, right,” Corn quickly agreed.

“Nobody can take that away,” Munoz said.

And indeed they can’t.

I've got news: Joe the Plumber has hit a nerve and geiger counters are going off all over. This thing isn't over. By a long shot.

Read the whole thing (check out the color photos too...) Then send the link to your friends.

Related: I am Joe, perfectly summed up by Iowahawk. And a full sized graphic for your trouble (courtesy of GM). But I really liked this one, and there is I Am Joe merchandise here (profit goes to Joe's back taxes):



UPDATE: If you think that the average patriotic American isn't ANGRY about this. You are WRONG:



Hell, that made ME feel better.

I am absolutely loving this: 5 minutes with Bill Whittle every single weekday! And even the non-paying public can register and watch for free. What's not to like?

Anyway tonight you will want to watch as Whittle weighs in on the financial crisis, armed with CSPAN videos of Freddie/Fannie hearings several years back. Amazing stuff. And it even comes with a built-in a theme song!

Next great idea: Steyn and Whittle on a two-hour talk show; just the two of them. Maybe 1 guest every night. Bring in Gingrich, Evan Sayet, VDH for starters.... (PS -- MY idea, Roger... But don't worry, I don't want money--I just want a lifetime subscription...)

If this is the "transformation" we are going to get with Obama, ah... no thank you (via Roger Kimball):

I agree with Gen. Powell that Obama would be a “transformational figure.” But what sort of transformation are we talking about? The United States is the richest, freest, most powerful nation in history. What would it look like after Obama, abetted by a Pelosi-Reid Congress, got done with their transformation?

Yes, that’s right, Virginia, it would be poorer, markedly less free, and less powerful.

How exactly?

In a recent editorial, The Wall Street Journal toted up some of the ways the country would be likely to change were Obama elected with the expected left-wing filibuster-proof super-majority. Caveat emptor: this election is no ordinary choice-among-basically-similar political moderates. It is a choice between a liberal, idiosyncratic Republican and an activist left-wing crusader. As the Journal noted,

“this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven’t since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s.”

Some particulars:

* On health care: you could look forward to HillaryCare with a vengeance. Think socialized medicine. Worse care for a higher price. Think Canada: 6 months to schedule an operation, more bureaucracy, worse nursing, more incompetent doctors.

* On the economy: Say hello to more, and more onerous, regulation. “The danger,” the Journal noted, “is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.”

* Unions: Look for a big resurgence in economy-blighting unions.

* Taxes. Say hello to taxes, taxes, and more taxes. “Taxes,” according to the Journal, “will rise substantially, the only question being how high.” We know for starters that Obama wants to raise:

–The top income tax rate
–Dividend taxes
–Capital gains taxes

And he wants to abolish the cap on the money the government takes from you for Medicare and Social Security

All of this would not only drastically increase the cost of new business initiatives in the United States, it would also put a huge burden on millions of ordinary taxpayers.

* Free speech. Remember that? We’ve already had a taste of how Obama deals with speech he doesn’t like: he tries to shut it down. When Stanley Kurtz went on Milt Rosenberg’s Extension 720 radio show in Chicago, Obama’s minions followed Obama’s order to “get in [the] face” of opponents and flooded the phone lines with protests.

There have been a lot of disgusting things about this campaign. The hysterical attack on Sarah Palin and her family was a new low. But for my money the very worst episode (so far) has been the attack on Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher. Joe asked Obama an embarrassing question. More to the point, he elicited a momentary lapse into candor from Obama, a moment, moreover, that was caught on tape, broadcast and rebroadcast, and that John McCain seized (or at least maneuvered with rhetorical paws) in his last debate with Obama: It’s not that I want to punish you for your success, Obama said, it’s just that I want to spread the wealth around. Joe the Plumber assumed that the money he made was his money. That was hist first mistake. Obama-Pelosi-Reid do not like private property (except their own): they think the government should take more and more of it and spread it around.

Poor Joe. Talk about “the politics of personal destruction”! Turns out the Clintons were rank amateurs at that game. The roof fell in on Joe. The Obama smear machine went to work. Did you know that when he lived in Arizona in 2000, his driver’s license was suspended? Did you know that he isn’t a licensed plumber? (What? He works for a licensed plumber and doesn’t need a license for the sort of residential work he does? Don’t confuse the story!) Did you know that he owes back taxes (OK, it’s a pittance, but, hey, we’re trying to assassinate someone’s character here). Joe isn’t running for anything. He is an ordinary working stiff. He was throwing a football around in his yard with his son when Obama walked by and he took the opportunity to ask a sharp question. The candidate gave an answer that was just a little too candid. Result: Joe must be publicly pilloried and the focus must be moved firmly from Obama’s answer to Joe’s alleged misdemeanors. A few days ago, Joe spoke to Mike Huckabee on Fox TV. “I asked a question. When you can’t ask a question to your leaders anymore, that gets scary. That bothers me.” As well it should. It should bother you, Dear Reader, too.

* Voting Rights. See Acorn. Think same-day, ID-free voter registration. “Can you make an X? Terrific: here’s a ballot.” In essence, an Obama administration would do for voter registration what Barney Frank and Fannie Mae did for the housing market. Gall alert: if there were a geiger counter for chutzpah, Obama’s reading would be off the chart. There has been a lot of damaging news about Acorn’s activities recently–damaging, I mean, to Obama, since the organization is essentially a shill for the left-flank of the Democratic party. Obama’s response? Ask that a special prosecutor investigate the McCain campaign and the Bush administration to discovery where these “smears” are coming from! Andrew McCarthy has the whole sorry story here.

All of this should make me unhappy, and it does. But I have not yet despaired. For one thing, as James Piereson put it in the current Weekly Standard, “It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over.” If you trust the celebrity buzz, Michelle should be over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue right now measuring the curtains and talking to the chef about stocking up on lobster and caviar. But the President of the United States is not–not yet–appointed by acclamation. Even now, he is elected by (more or less) democratic franchise. And therein glows the proverbial silver lining. As Piereson points out, while the buzz is Obama-philic, the polls tells a different story, and so does history. Yes, Obama is ahead in the polls–but modestly so: 4-7 points. Piereson reminds us of how Humphrey and Ford fought against much larger leads in 1968 and 1976 and came within an ace of winning the White House. And even more telling was the 1948 election in which Thomas Dewey was the sure thing and Harry S Truman came from behind and cinched the race.

Will McCain pull off a Truman surprise? I hope so. As I say, I think Colin Powell was right to call Obama a “transformational figure.” He, together with a large left-wing majority in Congress, would transform America from the land of the free and the home of the brave into another socialist swamp: the land of the taxed and the home of regulated.

With a filibuster-proof Senate and House supermajority led by Pelosi, Reid and the other Lefitst Oligarchs pulling his strings (Soros, Big Labor and the Green wackos), Barack Obama would make Jimmy Carter seem like Ronald Reagan in comparison. There is still time to prevent a real-life catastrophe (if not an existential crisis) for the US--but not much.

P.S. - Joe Biden may have been STUPID today, but I think he was absolutely right about how the rest of the world will view an Obama Presidency. Question: would Hamas, Ahmadinejad, Hamas, Putin, Khadaffi, Kim Jong Il and Farrakhan have endorsed Obama if he were truly viewed by them as the "Strong Horse"? You know the answer: they all believe he is weak, naive; and they know he is the most inexperienced Presidential candidate in US history.

Seriously, maybe we should start a "Lie of the Day" segment. Ed Morrissey has today's proof:

It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up. In the midst of Barack Obama’s continuing insistence that William Ayers was just some guy in the neighborhood (and just some guy on two non-profit boards with whom Obama worked for almost a decade), people asked why Obama then gave Ayers a promotional blurb for his book, A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court. Team Obama spokesmen Bill Burton and Robert Gibbs categorically denied it.

Oops:

Maybe it’s another State Senator Barack Obama. You know, another one who would have worked closely enough with an unrepentant terrorist to get an advance look at his new book, and to write promotional material for its sales. One who partnered with Ayers on a multimillion-dollar school reform project that ended up a failure. One who owed Ayers after the unrepentant terrorist help launch his career in a fundraiser in the Ayers/Dohrn household. You know, there has to be at least a dozen Barack Obamas who fit that description!

On a more serious note, this wouldn’t be an issue if the Obama campaign would stop lying about the nature of his relationship with Ayers. They’ve continually fibbed about it when the public record is pretty clear that they formed a political alliance meant to boost Obama’s electoral career. Their inability to be honest about this relationship is what makes these lesser revelations more significant than they should be. A modest blurb on an obscure book would have no meaning at all absent the fact that Team Obama lied about it on two separate occasions.

The good Captain is right: there are lots of Obamas. Which one is the real one? My personal guarantee: it is not the one you are seeing in the American media.

Buyer's remorse? Stay tuned...

Meanwhile, the Angry Left continues its Thuggish ways (Sacramento Union post):

(Sunday, October 19 - Filed by Mark Williams in Raton, New Mexico with the Stop Obama Tour) We learned at this morning’s Stop Obama Rally here that the McCain/Palin Straight Talk Express came through town yesterday. It arrived with a window shattered by a .22 caliber weapon. It had also been hit by an unknown number of paint balls from a paint ball gun or guns. There were reportedly no injuries and neither candidate was on board.

One local man who saw the damage and spoke with the McCain/Palin staffers said the attack(s) had occured in southern New Mexico that same day. The Express is traveling the country independent of the candidates, handing out campaign materials.

Sarah Palin is stumping in of all places Roswell, New Mexico today and then roughly back the way we came with an event at the Henderson, Nevada Pavilion tomorrow and a stop in Elko, Nevada.

AND...LAST BUT NOT LEAST (drum roll): we have Joe Biden stating the obvious (my paraphrase): ...'not only do Republicans see Obama as a weak-kneed wimp on Foreign Policy--so would our enemies--AND SOON...' (Biden's actual quote in red):

Jennifer, the presumptive vice-messiah’s comments at a Seattle fundraiser — he apparently didn’t realize that journalists were present — are very, very interesting. I think that Biden actually said more than a lot of people think he said:

It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking…Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

It is rather unwise to air such predictions about your running mate’s presidency two weeks before the election, but that’s what you get when you bring Joe Biden onto the campaign. Lawyers call this “assuming the risk.” The really interesting part is what followed:

I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate… And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.

Oh well THAT's a relief... Pollack continues:

Biden is saying two things about an Obama presidency: first, that Obama will be tested by America’s rivals; and second, that Obama’s response to such a test will likely be unpopular with the American people. Presumably Biden does not believe that the reason for that unpopularity will be because Obama is too decisive or too tough with our enemies — it will be because Obama is perceived as too soft and indecisive in a crisis.

This is the moment when Biden is asking Obama supporters to “stand with him,” even if he appears to be channeling Jimmy Carter. Biden says that it will not be “apparent initially that we’re right.” But does he think that the passage of time has vindicated Jimmy Carter?

This guy is a Gaffe GOD. With Biden providing at least 2-3 of these per week, who needs campaign cash? No wonder they are putting the "Cone of Silence" increasingly around both Obama and Biden.

Is NO ONE paying attention???

UPDATE: Based on user comments, I have added a link to this update BY Williams of his OWN story which I did accurately quote (see previous link, emphasis below is mine):

I spoke with the Secret Service agent in charge of the investigation. They cannot confirm the citizen report of gunfire hitting the McCain bus (McCain was not on board) although I seriously doubt that they would advertise it if true. Given the current volatile atmosphere of hate and division being stirred and exploited by the unholy Left I would expect that such an incident would not exactly be reported in a press release.

That said, we have a good relationship with the Men in Black, including an off the record relationship with some and I am not inclined to question their word.

Since first reporting the citizen account I (and others) have been busy chasing the story down and so far have not been able to debunk or confirm the story. Several bloggers and one traditional media have also been chasing the story down and have come up empty.

The real story emerging here is in the comment sections following the orginial story and follow ups, both on this site and at MarkTalk. Some of the comments that make it through moderation are bad enough but those that do not make it are terrifying.

My original report has brought out the Radical Left Thugs and exposed the domestic insurgency for what it is. While there have been some vile and racist comments directed at Obama, they are out numbered 5-1 by bile spewing Leftists vomiting hate for America and her people. Denigration of John McCain and his service are the least of the offensive posts and the Obamaites are doing their best to live up to Obama’s religious mentor, Rev. Wright, and damning America.

Thank you to all of the concerned true Americans who have taken it upon themselves to follow up on this story and who have tired to ferret out more. As I say on the radio when stories are breaking, you are our best eyes and ears. The Mainstream Media have proven themselves an adjunct to the Obama campaign and cannot be trusted.

Any questions?