E!! The True Conservative Story™

Apparently some of my readers, including The Venerable Mr. Crum, are often pressed for time and do not always have time to scroll through all of LadyBlog just to find my posts. 

It’s sweet that they care only about me, though I must say in all fairness that the other BlogLadies are nearly as bright and funny as I.  (ha ha!)

Following are a few of my most recent LadyBlog posts.  Forward the links and/or leave comments if you wish; it earns us points with the editors.

Planetary First:  Rwanda’s Parliament Has Female Majority:  http://culture11.com/blogs/ladyblog/2008/10/30/planetary-first-rwanda%e2%80%99s-parliament-has-female-majority/

Well Done, Laura Bush:  http://culture11.com/blogs/ladyblog/2008/10/29/well-done-laura-bush/

Next Season’s Dancing With the Stars:  http://culture11.com/blogs/ladyblog/2008/10/24/next-seasons-dancing-with-the-stars/

Sarah Palin’s Shoes:  http://culture11.com/blogs/ladyblog/2008/10/22/sarah-palins-shoes/

Ledeen on Noonan:  Singling Out Palin (lots of comments on this one; good discussion):  http://culture11.com/blogs/ladyblog/2008/10/17/ledeen-on-noonan-singling-out-palin/

Women and the Commentariat:  http://culture11.com/blogs/ladyblog/2008/10/16/women-and-the-commentariat/

Mr. Nintendo, Meet Ms. Couture:  http://culture11.com/blogs/ladyblog/2008/10/08/mr-nintendo-meet-ms-couture/

A Shoe by the Side of the Road:  http://culture11.com/blogs/ladyblog/2008/10/01/a-shoe-by-the-side-of-the-road/

Patrick Gibbons of the Nevada Policy Research Institute has an excellent education blog post up.  It addresses the disproportionately high cost of new school construction in Nevada compared to other states.  Re-stated:  we are great at being inefficient.

Apparently, Nevada ranks third in the nation in construction costs per student.  Gibbons reminds us of the billions voters recently approved for new Clark County schools and then does the math.  It comes out to roughly $130M per school (though, to be fair, Gibbons says the school district will use some portion of the funds to refurbish old buildings).

There are quite a few things Nevada could do to shore up efficiency and reduce spending.  Including making it easier to form charter schools and create and use school vouchers, so financing for at least some new school construction can move to the private sector.  

Pushing the risk of building the schools onto the private sector naturally creates incentives to keep construction costs low – because their costs have to be recouped by attracting students – but even if they should spend an excess, it wouldn’t be the taxpayers’ problem.

This article on the problems with the Canadian public health care system is worth reading. The opener:

TORONTO, ON – Provincial spending on health care is growing faster than revenues with six of 10 provinces projected to be spending more than 50 per cent of all available revenue on health care by 2036, says a new report released today by independent research organization the Fraser Institute.

The Fraser Institute’s piece quotes Director Brett Skinner:

“Over the past ten years, health care spending in nine out of 10 provinces has grown at an unsustainable rate. Unless governments find a better way to finance health care, then provincial governments will likely be looking at tax hikes, further rationing of medical goods and services, or ugly trade-offs with other important spending areas.”

Apparently Alberta is the only Canadian province that’s managed to keep its revenues apace with health care expenditures. How? Energy-driven revenue increases.

But in provinces without large energy resources, revenue has been increased through – what else? – increased taxes. Skinner points to Ontario’s “health premium” income surtax as an example of a provincial government trying to create new taxes to cover health care costs. Says Skinner:

“The tax burden cannot continue to rise over the long-term unless people are willing to accept declining rates of economic growth and lower standards of living. Trying to drive long-term revenue growth through tax increases is futile.”

The report concludes that Canada’s public health insurance system is not financially sustainable through public means and recommends several changes. You can read about them at the end of the piece.

All suggested changes have one thing in common: they are private sector solutions. I say we learn from our neighbors to the north and seek private sector solutions now.

During the course of his campaign, Obama has often said that differing judicial philosophies among Supreme Court justices don’t matter in “ninety-nine percent of cases” because the “the Constitution…a statute…or congressional intent is…clear.”  Conversely, he says it is only in about 1% of cases that differences in judicial bent really count.

What a giant crock of intergalactic BS.

As Obama very well knows – Harvard educated constitutional attorney that he is – and as Ed Whelan points out here (and I quote below), the ratio of unanimous decisions on the Supreme Court is nowhere near 95%:

According to the Harvard Law Review’s statistics for the past three terms, cases with dissents accounted for 64.4% (2006 term), 45.7% (2005 term), and 62.0% (2004 term) of all cases.  Indeed, last term, cases dividing 5-4 accounted for over a third of all cases, and the three justices that Obama cited as justices he likes—Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter—agreed in the disposition of non-unanimous cases only 61%, 60%, and 63% of the time, respectively.

Yes, fellow citizens of the Republic:  Obama-Wan Kinobi knows his claims are false.  He knows the appointment of Supreme Court justices is crucial; he knows the fundamental changes he wishes to see in the Constitution and the court; and he knows that if elected he will probably have the opportunity to appoint at least two justices to the federal bench.

So, he passes his hand before our eyes and utters his lie with a smile.  

Will his attempt at a Jedi mind trick lull Americans into thinking the appointment of Supreme Court justices is not really important, and they can therefore let him pass, unquestioned and unhindered?

We will know in four days’ time.

May the Force be with US.

From William Katz:

Here’s Obama in his own words to the Chicago Sun-Times on November 4, 2004: “I was elected yesterday. . . . I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I’ve never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I’m immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn’t make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I’m the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois. . . . I am not running for president in 2008.”

Four years later, we may be on the verge of electing this man POTUS.  Unbelieveable.

I just love Mark Steyn.  Here he is on a reference to Charlie Gibson’s query re: Obama’s questionable online donations:

Re: Charlie Gibson Hits Obama On His Donors   [Mark Steyn]

Oh, please, Greg. That’s not a “hit”, that’s a Swedish massage by Princess Fluffy Bunny. That’s Charlie Gibson appearing to cover himself while letting Obama get away with mush. A (Palin-style?) hit would have taken the conversation on a quite different tack:

OBAMA: What I would simply point to is that the way we have raised this money has been by expanding the pool of small donors in this country in an unprecedented way.

INFORMED GIBSON QUESTION: What’s unprecedented is that, unlike John McCain, your website disabled the standard credit-card security system used by almost all reputable online retailers. Why did you do that? And, given that of the record $150 million you raised in September two-thirds was raised under this systemically corrupted Internet operation, isn’t it likely that a significant proportion of your half-hour infomercial was paid for by fraudulent donors? And, as to “expanding the pool of small donors in this country”, what about the way you’ve expanded the pool of donors in other countries who’ve been able to make illegal contributions to your campaign because you switched off the AVS security checks?

OBAMA: I mean, you’re looking the people who are giving $5, 10, 25. Ordinary folks who have gotten impassioned about this campaign in a way that is unprecedented. And that, really, is…

INFORMED GIBSON QUESTION: Also a lot of extraordinary folks have gotten impassioned about your campaign. You’ve received contributions from, among others, a Mr Saddam Hussein, Mr A Hitler and Mr K Marx? How do you propose to return those contributions given that all three “donors” are deceased?

OBAMA: Look, you know, 3.1 million donors would be a pretty hard thing for us to be able to process…

INFORMED GIBSON QUESTION:  Why? I mean, you’ve had no problem “processing” the money, have you? And, if you hadn’t monkeyed with the standard online retail data system, all you have to do is press a button and 3.1 million names and addresses pop right up. Ask Amazon. So why did you switch it off? And, if you yourself did not make that decision, who did?

The Senator terminates the interview to instruct an aide to have state and local officials look into this guy Gibson’s child-support payments, tax liens, etc. Later, it emerges that Charlie the Anchor is not even a state-licensed interviewer.

This morning I heard someone - I think it may be have been Megyn Kelly on Fox News – talking about people buying prepaid credit or debit cards (which have no name or address associated with them) and using those to donate as much as they wish, since Obama’s campaign turned off the credit card security measures on their website.

Who knows how many millions have been collected illegally and/or improperly?  The whole thing stinks, and even though Obama will not agree to release a list of his donors, or turn the online security stop gaps back on, not one mainstream/network media outlet (other than Fox) seems to give a damn. 

Here.

Over the past few weeks, the dissenting views of conservatives Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, and Christopher Buckley et al have stirred up quite a storm.  All have disavowed Palin, McCain, or both, to some degree or another.  Liberals are gleeful that the conservative movement is “falling apart” and many heretofore like-minded and friendly conservatives are thoroughly irritated with one another.

For the record, unlike Jonah Goldberg (with whom I usually agree), I have no problem with these debates, whenever they may occur.  People are free to vent their emotions, push their agendas, explain their motivations, and air their grievances anytime they like.  I do think we should keep cool heads and let pragmatism rule when possible, but those who find they cannot are free to do what punditry permits.  Should they later feel some regret, they can retract and re-state as needed.

I do agree with Jonah on this point, though: 

We’ll all know what we need to know after the election and if McCain and the GOP come out the losers we’ll have a luxurious amount of time to argue amongst ourselves about which way forward and which wrong turns we may or may not have taken. If David Brooks wants to be oncologist in chief of the GOP and tell us where the cancers are, he’ll be free to do so. If some of my colleagues want to crack the whip on the ideological slackers in our midst, they’ll have plenty of elbow room. 

But it’s worth pointing out that if McCain loses and the Democrats surge in the Congress, we’ll also have some greater reminders of what we agree on to help us keep our disagreements in perspective.

Don’t miss this story by John Fund in the WSJ. 

Former ACORN employee Anita MonCrief says ACORN has long been aware of the issues with bogus registration cards.  This morning on Lauara Ingraham she said ACORN considers a 40% validity rate acceptable.  So much for the claims that ACORN’s upper management team was/is either unaware of the quality control problems or that problems occur only rarely and locally.

“There’s no quality control on purpose, no checks and balances,” says Nate Toler, who worked until 2006 as the head organizer of an Acorn campaign against Wal-Mart in California. And Ms. MonCrief says it is longstanding practice to blame bogus registrations on lower-level employees who then often face criminal charges, a practice she says Acorn internally calls “throwing folks under the bus.”

This post from John Hood is a winner:

A Joke And What It Reveals   [John Hood]

Speaking in front of a huge audience at downtown Raleigh rally yesterday, Barack Obama threw off a humorous line about John McCain’s accusation that the Obama tax plan is redistributionist:

McCain has “called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class,” Obama said. “I don’t know what’s next. By the end of the week he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.”

Ha ha.

Only, in this passage Obama revealed precisely why he is vulnerable to such charges: he can’t seem to tell the difference between a gift and a theft. There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither.

Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner. It won’t even be someone you could ever know, in most cases. That’s what makes the political philosophy unjust (by stripping you of control over yourself and the fruits of your labor) as well as counterproductive (by failing to give the recipient sufficient incentive to learn and work hard so he can earn his own toys in the future).

Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn’t understand this, or doesn’t want voters to understand it.

Nevada state senator Bob Beer’s campaign office has been located at 6822 W. Cheyenne Ave., Las Vegas, NV for the last six months or so.  He says that a couple of weeks ago, two doors down, an Obama campaign office opened.  Beers’ staffers thought maybe Obama had adopted a new slogan, but it turns out the previous tenant prepared tax returns and the Obama people neglected to take down the old sign:

IowaHawk brings the funny yet again.  Read the whole thing.  (Parental Guidance suggested.)

UPDATE:  My stomach still hurts from laughing at this other IowaHawk post.  Sheer genius.

I’d like to say a few things about the 2001 Obama interview controversy.  First, here’s a key portion of the transcript, followed by a caller question and Obama’s answer:

One of the…tragedies of the civil rights movement was …the civil rights movement became so court focused, 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.

Later in the show, a caller asked, “is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?”  Obama answered, “You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.”

So those who are saying that Obama endorsed redistribution of wealth through the courts are wrong.  Clearly, Obama thought the means to his desired Ends were social and/or political, not judicial.

And this bears out in his life.  He turned down a job as a constitutional attorney and professor in order to become a politician.  He is running on a platform of social and economic change, one that is – why are we so Surprised? – completely consistent with political progressive/liberal ideology:  the government-mandated needs of the many outweigh an individual’s right to spend and distribute the money he earns as he personally sees fit.  Especially if he earns more than $250,000 annually. 

In progressive ideology, a person’s needs and rights extend beyond mere liberty and security and into quality of life issues.  For Progressives, it is no longer just “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that are your rights as an American.  You and your children are also entitled to other so-called essentials:  a certain level of income, a certain type of home, a certain type of health care, a certain type of education.

What is so amazing is that many people who say they object to “socialism” or “redistribution of wealth” – and become defensive and angry if you dare suggest otherwise - simultaenously say they believe in every American’s “right to health care,” “right to higher education,” and “right to work.”  The cognitive disconnect is disturbing.  Mandating minimum incomes, health insurance and college educations for all Americans at government (read:  taxpayer) expense IS advocating the redistribution of wealth. 

You cannot say you support taxpayer funding for a brand new set of benefits for the general good of the population and then say you do not believe in ”socialism.”  They are one and the same. 

In closing, let us agree that most people are political socialists to some degree.  We long ago left behind the idea that the government should provide for the common defense and otherwise leave people alone, to succeed or fail, live or die, as they may.

We believe there is good to be done.  We believe we should do more for the very poorest of our neighbors, and we have, and we do:  less and less through local, voluntary charitable giving, and more and more through a centralized government that acts as our designated conscience, collection agent, and community organizer.

The question is, where does it end, and what will America look like when all the social engineering is done?  If Obama and a Democrat majority in Congress are elected next Tuesday, I suspect we will be on the fast track to finding out.

 If you are a District 6 voter, or just interested in looking in on one of Nevada’s hotly contested state senate races, be sure to see this E!! exclusive “mock debate” featuring a Q & A with incumbent Senator Bob Beers and Democrat candidate Allison Copening.

Copening has been widely criticized for refusing to debate Senator Beers after an initial appearance on Face to Face early in the political season.  Producer Dana Gentry made no bones about her views on the matter, snarking about ”political candidates who are woefully unprepared for the office to which they aspire” and “even worse…who put their name on the ballot and then disappear, refusing to address the very citizens they hope to represent. 

E!! is therefore delighted to be able to present a “mock debate” in which Senator Beers and Ms. Copening will be answering a series of questions pertaining to public policy in Nevada.  Both candidates were given identical sets of questions, and both returned their answers to me without seeing their opponent’s responses.

Enjoy ~ and please feel free to contact me with questions or leave your comments below.

Hat Tip:  my good friend Shane Markuson, via an email forward

With just 8 days left until the polls close for the 2008 presidential election, the Las Vegas Review Journal is reporting that nearly 190,000 voters had turned out through Saturday in early voting in Nevada’s largest county (Clark).  Of the 186,849 voters to show up at the polls, 103,719 were Democrats and 52,850 were Republicans.  Of mail ballots received so far, there have been about 14,000 Republicans ballots vs. 12,500 Democrat ballots.  Combining both mail ballots and early voting, Dems represented 54 percent of all Clark County voters while Republicans represented 31 percent.

What remains to be seen is how the rest of Nevada’s counties - many of which lean Republican – turn out.  Washoe County, which contains Reno-Sparks, is particularly of interest.  According to the Washoe County website, 51,209 voters have turned out to the polls as of yesterday.  26,214 of those were Democrats, compared to 16,838 Republicans.  The final count will likely be a lot closer, though.  A late September Reno Gazette Journal piece said that total Washoe County registration stood at 87,971 registered Republicans and 84,705 registered Democrats, with a backlog of about 5,000 registration applications still awaiting processing at that point.  If we assume that most of that backlog were Democrats, Washoe may be ”a wash” because the numbers will be nearly even.

For the break down of voter rolls of Nevada’s 15 remaining counties, see the Sec. of State’s website.  The sum up is this:  when the numbers from Clark and Washoe counties are set aside, the rest of Nevada leans Republican.  September stats showed Republican registrations at 75,402 vs. Democrat registrations at 49,687 in these counties.  The GOP to Dem ratio used to be a lot bigger in northern Nevada, but the large influx of liberal leaning California residents has chipped away at it over the last decade.

According to this RJ piece last week, Nevada Democrats increased their total voter registration edge over Republicans to 111,559 this year – huge in comparison to the edge of about 4,100 voters a year ago.  The RJ says the total of all registered voters in Nevada stands at nearly 1.5 million, including 625,333 Democrats and 513,774 Republicans.  For Democrats, that’s 43 percent of the voters; and for Republicans it’s about 36 percent.

Note:  The numbers of active voters on the Sec. of State’s webpage are a lot lower than the RJ is reporting so I called Matt Griffin, our state Elections Deputy, to verify.  I’m waiting on a call back and will report.*  The SOS website says that as of September 2008 there are 498,143 registered Democrats; 417,477 registered Republicans; 168,606 Non-partisans; 44,481 Independents; 6,388 Libertarians; 3,699 Others; 3,282 Greens; and 200 Natural Laws (what the heck is a “Natural Law” voter?)

Assuming these numbers are correct, those identifying with parties other than the Big Two total 226,656 with the Independent/Non-partisan voters totaling 213,087.  That being the case, it looks like it’s the Independent/Non-partisan votes that will make the difference in Nevada.

I know a lot of in-state folks have called Nevada for Obama already.  This little blogger ain’t so sure.  Nevada’s independent voters tend to lean conservative and residents of all political stripes favor low taxes, small government and generally being left alone. 

The more Obama talks about government programs, the less likely he is to please the Silver State’s electorate.  Las Vegas also has hundreds of small businesses whose owners (and nervous employees) may well have been swayed by McCain’s Joe-the-Plumber-esque pitch this past week.  And let’s not forget:  we are very much a war-hawk/pro-military state, with Nellis AFB just a few miles east of Vegas.

Election Fact:  Since 1912, Nevada has voted for the winner of every presidential election, except 1976, when the state chose Republican Gerald Ford rather than Democrat Jimmy Carter. 

*Elections Deputy Matt Griffin called me back re: the discrepancy on voter registration rolls.  He said the RJ is likely basing their numbers on registered but-not-yet-validated voters, whereas the Sec. of State’s website is citing verified, eligible voters.

Charles Krauthammer explains why he’s voting for McCain.

My favorite parts:

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe — neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) — yelling “Stop!” I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I’d rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

And:

I’ll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The “erratic” temperament issue, for example. As if McCain’s risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the “erratic” is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

And

McCain’s critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What’s astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

And

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic, soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.?

Duane Lester has a well-researched post on the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” up at All American Blogger.

Here’s an excerpt from his opening:

The Fairness Doctrine was enacted in 1949 and lasted until the Reagan Administration. In 1985, the FCC issued a report. According to the Museum of Broadcast Communication, the report said the Doctrine was stifling debate:

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a “chilling effect” and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

The Democrat Congress, in the face of a report saying they might be violating the First Amendment, voted the Fairness Doctrine into law in 1987. Reagan squashed it with a veto. Thus, Rush Limbaugh and talk radio was born.

[end excerpt]

Thank God for Reagan, ay?  Wtih NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, the NYT et al in the tank for the Dems and the hard left – 90% of the staff at these “mainstream” media orgs are registered Democrats and many are clearly unable or unwilling to hide their bias – conservative talk radio (and FNC) is really all we conservatives have for the airing of conservative/Republican platforms and ideas.

It is truly amazing that even with a multitude of network media and AM and FM radio channels, the Democratic leadership wants to force conservative talk radio to give equal airtime to liberal/left views.  Apparently they really cannot stand to let conservative broadcasters and citizens talk freely.

On a personal note, I listen to Laura Ingraham every morning on my drive to work.  If half her show had to be devoted to the voicing of liberal, leftist, George Soros and Bill Moyers type ranting, I wouldn’t listen.

For your information, here are the names of people who have either come out in favor of The Fairness Doctrone or have said they think conservative talk radio needs to be shut down:  John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM).

I’ve got two new posts up @ Vote Fraud Squad:

Judges to rule on Georgia citizenship case

and

GOP hired hand arrested in Cali on suspicion of voter registration fraud

E!! is a Proud Supporter of the VIP

Cliff May had a goodie the other day.  And it’s been nagging at me ever since.  The gist is this:

We all know that taxation without representation is a form of tyranny. But as so many have been saying lately, roughly 40% of Americans today don’t pay income taxes.

So, what if in the next administration that number rises to 51% or more?

At that point, the majority of Americans - who would not be paying any taxes – could and would elect leaders who could and would decide how much the tax paying minority would have to remit to the government.

That money could and would then be redistributed to the non-taxpaying majority through government programs and services.

A majority of Americans would then enjoy representation without taxation, and Voila, we have The Tyranny of the Non Taxayers.

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul. – George Bernard Shaw

Note:  Look closely at ALL the faces.  LOL

Source:  This photo was forwarded to me via email.  I have no idea who originally photoshopped and sent it.  If that person wanders by E!!, drop me a note and I’ll be glad to give you credit.

Like Andrew McCarthy, I’ve largely been ignoring the allegations and rumors about the possibility that Obama’s birth certificate was faked or forged (and related questions of citizenship).  I figured if there was any truth to it, someone would have routed it out and proved it by now.

Pamela Gellers at Atlas Shrugs has raised the issue multiple times (interesting stuff if you choose to click through) and then more recently Philip J. Berg, a former Deputy AG of Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit claiming Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president.

Oddly, Obama’s lawyers moved to dismiss the suit and also failed to file a timely answer.  (How hard would it have been to just quickly produce the needed docs?)

Berg claims Obama wasn’t really born in Hawaii, but others say he was. 

Then apparently there’s also a question as to whether he was also a citizen of one or more other countries (Kenya, Indonesia) and whether that means that he could not be a “natural born” citizen as required by the Constitution.

I’m still waiting to see what comes of it.

An open letter to the newspapers of America by Orson Scott Card.  A little long but full of facts and well worth the read.

Here’s the opening:

I remember reading All the President’s Men and thinking: That’s journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

Read the rest when you have the time.

Hat Tip:  The Venerable Mr. Crum (thanks, honey!)

Blood Pressure Threat Level:  Extreme

On the heels of the financial and credit market bailout and the approval of federally backed loans for U.S. auto makers, the already heavily subsidized ethanol industry – yes, I said ETHANOL – may soon be receiving a bailout as well.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said the feds are considering payouts of as much as $25M to help ethanol plants.  Seems they are struggling since the price of corn has spiked

I agree with NM Congressman J. Flake:  Not only should we not give them money, all tax breaks and credits for ethanol producers should be repealed.

Using crops for fuel on any sort of large scale is a bad, BAD idea.

H/T:  Iain Murray on The Corner

Election Journal has a vote fraud map tracker thingie up on their site.

See my post over at Voter Fraud Squad.

Today I am very glad to have the help of a concerned reader/friend with making a call to the Nevada Secretary of State’s office to get some ACORN answers. 

We agreed that the amount and quality of information she/we will get will depend on who answers the phone – and that it would be helpful if other people could also call to see if they get the same or different answers. 

If you want to Do Something, call the Sec. of State’s office at 775-684-5705, tell then you are a Nevada citizen, and ask one or more of the following questions:

How did the election board discover the allegedly invalid and/or fraudulent ACORN voter registration cards that are now in question?

Did ACORN bring the questionable voter registration cards to your attention? If not, who did?

What percentage of voter registration cards received from ACORN are invalid so far?

Are you aware of any one ACORN worker whose voter registration cards were at least 90% legitimate?

How much time has been spent so far weeding through every voter registration card? Is this normal? If not, how much more time was spent than usual?

Did this extra time cost your election board extra money? If so, how much more?

ACORN claims that they have to turn all voter registration cards over, even if they know they are not legitimate. Is this true? Is this requirement a state directive, a county directive, or an election board policy?

If you are able to get some answers, please email me ASAP (address on my Contact page).

For ongoing updates about election fraud in all 50 states, go to:  http://www.voterfraudsquad.com

For text alerts about election fraud, text “voterfraud” to 69302

For Twitter alerts/threads about election fraud, use hash tag #voterfraud

To join the Voter Fraud Squad Facebook group, go to http://www.facebook.group.php?gid=43934732704

From last week’s Derb Radio on NRO:

Association of Committed Obama Radical Nuisances

Anarchists for Corrupting and Overthrowing Republican Nationhood

Alliance of Community Organizers for Registering the Non-Existent

Don’t miss this Steyn piece on Joe the Plumber.  LOL

I am really busy with a few projects – researching voter registration fraud here in Nevada, researching a corruption story, writing a business plan - so I’m lifting good blogostuff for your enjoyment:

I Thought That Made Him Rich?    Jonah Goldberg [The Corner]

Ryan Lizza has a profile of Joe Biden in the New Yorker. Frankly, I barely  finished it. Normally, I think Lizza’s worth reading, but everything Biden tells Lizza in the one-on-one interview seemed like things I’d heard him say on C-Span a million times. I did, however find this bit amusing:

Biden happens to be one of the least wealthy members of the Senate, although his family’s joint income was more than three hundred thousand dollars last year. (His wife, Jill, has a Ph.D. in education and teaches at Delaware Technical & Community College.) His relatively straightforward tax returns and uncomplicated financial situation made the process easier. “All these years and you still have no money,” Obama said to Biden, teasingly.

I thought Barack Obama considers people who make more than $250,000 to be rich? I guess that only applies to normal people like plumbers and the like. Senators who only make a third of a million a year have “no money.”

posted on the Corner:  10/20 08:32 AM

From Ken Timmerman at Newsmax:

As Barack Obama reaped a stunning $150 million in campaign donations in September, bringing his total to more than $600 million, new questions have arisen about the source of his amazing funding.

By Obama’s own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain’s campaign, Obama won’t release the names of these donors.

A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws. For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit. Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.

And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.

According to a Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more….

Hat Tip:  Andy McCarthy @ The Corner

Dear Citizens:

If in your daily travels you see something funny, interesting, questionable, maddening, or just plain bizarre, please do the following:

Snap a picture or record some video  (whether with an old school, digital or phone camera).

Jot down some notes re: what you observe  (our memories are not as great as we like to think).

If possible, ask a few questions  (and then jot some more notes).

email E!!  (address on my Contact page)

If the picture and information you gather is worthy of note, I’ll post it on E!! with full credit – assuming, of course, that you WANT to be famous.  If not, I’ll protect your anonymity.

Example:  A Las Vegas reader recently emailed me about seeing someone registering voters at the West Flamingo DMV while sporting all kinds of Obama buttons/stickers.  This is a no-no.  If we had gotten a photo, and found out who this girl worked for, we could have done something about it.

As reported by the Reno Gazette-Journal. 

Here’s the Sun editorial.  And here’s the RJ piece.

When you have a little time to spare, treat yourself to the video from the Al Smith Dinner, a Catholic charitable event at which Sen.s McCain and Obama spoke.  (Link goes to a Kuo & Joe blog post at Culture11 which contains 4 clips from the dinner.) 

I agree with David Kuo:

“Watch these videos. They are extraordinary, truly extraordinary. We are ridiculously blessed to live in a country where two men who are fiercely opposed to one another are nevertheless able to set it aside for a night and laugh. It isn’t quite a miracle, but it is certainly a marvel. And if you have had to see countless political ads and three presidential debates, you owe it to yourself to watch these videos.”

McCain’s cracks about the Clintons are priceless (and hilarious), and Obama’s speech was funny from begining to end.  Bravo to the very gifted writers who put both presentations together.

Kathleen Parker chimed in on the Christopher Buckley thing.  A very well written piece, and I agree with much (though not all) of it.

Let me be clear that I have no issue with Buckley’s complaints against and dissatisfaction with the Republican party.  In these things I agree with him and am similarly disgruntled.

My criticism was not of the fact that Buckley left National Review; it was the way he left.

And, though his vote is his own, I don’t think it makes sense to show your disgust for the lack of conservatism in the GOP by voting for the candidate/party who has even less of it.

UPDATE:  As for the “shunning” of conservatives like Buckley, I have to agree with what Rich Lowry said just a bit ago, mentioning both Kathleen and Peggy Noonan:

In her Palin-centered column, Peggy says those “whose thoughts lead them to criticism in this area are to be shunned, and accused of the lowest motives,” and then cites Christopher’s resignation from his NR column as an example. Peggy is a busy person, so I suppose she hasn’t had time to notice that Kathleen Parker’s columns ripping Sarah Palin have appeared on NRO. That David Frum has aired his discontent with the Palin pick on NRO. That others of us—Ramesh and even me (between my occasional bouts of rhapsodic gushing!)—have criticized aspects of her performance. And that other writers on NRO have stuck up for Palin and pushed back against the critics. It’s called debate.

Now, I regret how some conservatives immediately question the motives of the critics of Palin, but it’s equally regrettable that Noonan, Parker et al are portraying most conservatives as irrational thugs. It makes you wonder: Who is really being overly emotional and deeply unfair in this intra-mural conservative debate? Which brings us naturally to Kathleen Parker’s column today. Read and judge for yourself. Is this calm, cool deliberation? Or hyperbole worthy of a peeved e-mailer? (By the way, I hate that Kathleen got any abusive e-mails at all; it’s a very unfortunate part of the world of the web. But hate e-mail goes both ways. I wouldn’t want to live for a minute with, say, Kathryn Lopez’s or Jonah Goldberg’s in-box on any given day.)

Finally, on Christopher, I already addressed it here. But he proffered a “sincere offer” of resignation of his column that he had taken up temporarily while Mark Steyn was on hiatus. It struck us as a win-win: Chris would get out of a column we thought he wanted out of; we’d get Mark Steyn, who had recently returned to writing, back on our back page. We never imagined Chris would feel he’d been “fatwa-ed.” In any case, Chris is still on NR’s board, and is welcome to write pieces for us going forward, which I’m hoping he’ll do after everyone, very much including the Noonans and Parkers of the world, takes a deep breath.

And BTW, I posted on what Peggy Noonan said earlier over at Culture11’s LadyBlog.

NPRI has posted an easy to look at historical graphic of the housing crisis here in Vegas, complete with circles and arrows (ok, just arrows).

.

From Americans for Tax Reform

Five Things You Might Not Know About Obama’s Small Business Tax Hikes

WASHINGTON, DC— Americans for Tax Reform today released the following “top five” facts related to the Obama tax hike on small businesses:

1.        Two-thirds of small business profits are earned in households making more than $250,000 per year—the very households Obama is shouting from the rooftops that he will raise taxes on (Source: IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin*).  Small business profits are used to create jobs and invest in America .  This is the answer to the Obama campaign’s irrelevant claim that the number of small businesses affected will be small—the fact is that the bulk of profits will face a tax hike. 

2.      Small businesses pay income taxes at the household level.  This means that the Obama plan to raise tax rates is a direct tax hike on small businesses—sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-corporations, and family farms.

3.       The tax rate on the lion’s share of small business income could reach 54.9 percent under a President Obama (the individual top rate will climb from 35 percent to 39.6 percent and the Social Security/Medicare tax rate could climb from 2.9 percent to 15.3 percent.  Put those together, and you get 54.9 percent) (Source: www.barackobama.com)

4.      This 54.9 percent tax rate would be the highest since the Carter Administration, when America suffered through double-digit inflation and unemployment (Source: Congressional Budget Office)

5.       America’s 26 million small businesses employers give a paycheck to 116 million employees (Source: Census Bureau).  When small business taxes go up, millions of these employees will be at risk of being laid off.

“Obama’s tax increases will only affect you if you have a 401(k), have any savings, buy things from small businesses or are looking for a job,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.  “If you fall into one of these categories, his policies will screw you.  Otherwise, you’re fine.”

* “Small business profits” is equal to the net profits less net losses of sole proprietors, S-corporation shareholders, and partners.  According to the IRS, two-thirds of these small business profits are earned in households with adjusted gross income (AGI) equal to or greater than $200,000.  In 2006, $473 billion of the $706 billion (two-thirds) of small business profits was earned in households Obama has said he would raise tax rates on.

This post on the values of capitalism over on Overcoming Bias is just excellent.

It starts with this quote:

“The financial crisis is not the crisis of capitalism.  It is the crisis of a system that has distanced itself from the most fundamental values of capitalism, which betrayed the spirit of capitalism.”
        — Nicolas Sarkozy

and includes gems like:

The fundamental morality of capitalism lies in the voluntary nature of its trades, consented to by all parties, and therefore providing a gain to all.

and

Vigorous work is praiseworthy but should be accompanied by equally vigorous results.

and

No one has a right to their job.  Not the janitor, not the CEO, no one.  It would be like a rationalist having a right to their own opinion.  At some point you’ve got to fire the saddle-makers and close down the industry. 

and

No company has a right to its continued existence.  Change happens.

and

A high standard of living is the just reward of hard work and intelligence.  If other people or other places have lower standards of living, then the problem is the lower standard, not the higher one.  Raise others up, don’t lower yourself.  A high standard of living is a good thing, not a bad one – a universal moral generalization that includes you in particular.  If you’ve earned your wealth honestly, enjoy it without regrets.

and

People safeguard, nourish, and improve that which they know will not be taken away from them.  Tax a little if you must, but at some point you must let people own what they buy.

and

In countries that are lawful and just, the government is the referee, not a player.  If the referee runs onto the field and kicks the football, things are starting to get scary.

and

Making money is a virtuous endeavor, despite all the lies that have been told about it, and should properly be found in the company of other virtues.  Those who set out to make money should not think of themselves as fallen, but should rather conduct themselves with honor, pride, and self-respect, as part of the grand pageantry of human civilization rising up from the dirt, and continuing forward into the future.

Amen!