A crisis by any other name...

This from James Simspon @ American Thinker...

It's a loooong read, but it is soooo worth it. I guarantee you won't see any of this on the evening news. Are all his stated facts and assumptions accurate? You be the judge.

Here's a key excerpt:

As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In addition to making it easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans, this also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite them. These changes created the conditions that ultimately lead to the current financial crisis.

[snip]

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth.

The piece introduces the theory that the current financial crisis we're facing has all been done intentionally in an effort to force the collapse of our capitalistic system, pushing us over the edge into socialism.

Take the time and read the entire article. It'll send shivers up your spine.

Anatomy of a Crisis

How did this economic crisis happen? And could it have been avoided? You be the judge.

Moooooooo

We've stooped to a new low here, people.

VERMONT -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent a letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, cofounders of Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc., urging them to replace cow's milk they use in their ice cream products with human breast milk, according to a statement recently released by a PETA spokeswoman.

PETA's request comes in the wake of news reports that a Swiss restaurant owner will begin purchasing breast milk from nursing mothers and substituting breast milk for 75 percent of the cow's milk in the food he serves," the statement says.

PETA officials say a move to human breast milk would lessen the suffering of dairy cows and their babies on factory farms and benefit human health.

Like all mammals, cows only produce milk during and after pregnancy, so to be able to constantly milk them, cows are forcefully impregnated every nine months. After several years of living in filthy conditions and being forced to produce 10 times more milk than they would naturally, their exhausted bodies are turned into hamburgers or ground up for soup.

PETA, where do you think human breast milk comes from? Pregnant human women. So, to lessen then suffering of cows, we should start forcefully impregnating human women every nine months to keep them "milkable"?

And just what do you propose we do with all the human babies created by this practice? That's a rhetorical question...no need to answer it. We all know what your answer is.

You do the math

I stumbled across this site the other day. Seems quite a people have spent quite a lot of time and effort to dig up some dirt and drag Sarah Palin into a scandal.

The most intriguing pseudo-scandal I find interesting is the idea that she's really the grandmother of baby Trig, and Bristol is really the mother. This scandal claims that the Palins concocted a cover-up story claiming the child was Sarah's son a effort to save face with the conservative base.

THE DAY SARAH GAVE BIRTH TO TRIG THEY STATE IN THIS ARTICLE THAT Palin’s labor began while in Texas, but she was able to board an Alaska Airlines flight and return to her home state before giving BIRTH.

Ok seriously, does this make any sense? who in their right mind would board a plane in Texas bound for Alaska knowing they had gone into labor? Lets say it is her baby,knowing she was carrying a baby with downs syndrome this would have been one of the dumbest decisions someone could ever make, what if she had the baby on the plane? This is just one of many events in this story that make no sense. We at palininvestigation.com dont buy her story but you be the judge.

Did Sarah use poor judgment by waiting until she got back to Alaska before she went to the hospital? If the details are actually true, perhaps. Who knows?

However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to be able to count. Trig was born in April of 2008. That would make the little guy almost 5 months old. Bristol, as reported, is 6 months pregnant. Do you see the problem here? Bristol's current pregnancy would had to have started before Trig was even born.

Come on people. Really. You want to dig up some dirt on an elected official, fine. But if you're going to fabricate a scandal to try and discredit her, at least make it make some sense. But then again, these people aren't really known for their intelligence, and they assume the general public is as bright as they are.

Pictures can be easily altered, and also mis-dated. Facts can be stretched and framed to fit almost any point of view. But mathmatics and science doesn't lie. A woman cannot get pregnant while she is still pregnant with another child.

Obama's new campaign strategy

Why not? It seems to be working for her, right?

Simply Irristable!

Now I'm gonna have this song in my head for a week!



Cheers to Ushanka.

The Return of Nine Percent Nancy

According to an article posted on National Review :

...the House is expected to vote as soon as tomorrow on Democratic legislation that would “allow drilling more than 100 miles from the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and as close to 50 miles from the shore if coastal states agree to it.”

According to the Institute for Energy Research (IER,) the Pelosi Plan will:

• Permanently ban access to about 97 percent of the undersea oil lying within 50 miles of the California coast.
• Continue the ban on energy production in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
• Impose a brand-new ban on oil and gas leases in Alaska’s coastal waters out to 50 miles.
• Not allow states that approve new leases beyond 50 miles to share royalties with the federal government, thus stripping any financial incentive for states to stand up to environmental pressure groups, who will continue to agitate against any new oil and gas operations offshore.

The Democrat's plan will PERMANENTLY ban all the blue and green, leaving only the red available for drilling and exploration.

Original chart can be found here.

How does taking 97% of the off-shore oil reserves "off the table" break our reliance on foreign-sourced oil? Once the Republican side of the House votes against this ridiculous piece of garbage, the Democrats will use it to deflect criticism away from themselves.

Politics as usual. All the more reason to make sure the Dems lose in November.

Don't rain on my parade

Barack Obama's worst nightmare...the war in Iraq starts winding down and troops start coming home before he ascends into heaven...er, the White House. This rather unfortunate scenario would undercut one of his campaign's main talking points...the illegal war in Iraq, which he didn't vote for, but has continually voted to keep funding. If the sheep...er, the common people start seeing progress in Iraq, they might start thinking that Bush's "Surge" was successful. And if the military signals that they are ready to start sending troops home sooner than later, that would diminish his anti-war campaign platform by highlighting the success of the current administration's management of the war. It would also highlight McCain's insight on how to manage the war.

So, what's a community organzier-turned Junior Senator to do? This can't be allowed to happen. So, this should come as no surprise to most people:

While campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

Wow. So rather than putting his country and the soldiers first, Obama tried to pressure the Iraqi government into postponing any troop-level agreement until after the U.S. elections, so they could deal with the next administration. Presumably his.

Mr. Obama, who the hell do you think you are? Criticize the war in Iraq all you want. But don't you dare stick your elitist head into vital national security issues that you have no business being part of, nor have any jurisdiction over. The media hasn't appointed you the Supreme Being quite yet, you jackass.

Spread the Lies!

Wow.

A Modern Day Robin Hood

Steal, er..Take from the rich and give to the poor. While certainly a noble and kind-hearted cause, I don't particularly appreciate my government FORCING me to do this. Ensuring that everybody gets the same-sized slice of the Prosperity Pie is nothing short of socialism. And socialism breeds complacency. Why should anyone want to better themselves and succeed in life when the government will just take it and give it do those who don't want to better themselves or succeed?

Pretty in Pink

Cheers to Sticky Notes

Birds of a feather

Did he sleep his way through Protocol 101 class?

As posted on the Associated Press:

LONDON (AP) — Britain's Gordon Brown has praised Sen. Barack Obama in a commentary published Wednesday, seemingly breaching protocols that prevent world leaders from endorsing candidates in foreign elections.

Brown hailed Obama's proposals for a mortgage foreclosure prevention fund and said he believed the Democratic Party is the organization offering policies to help people through the current economic woes.

"In the electrifying U.S. presidential campaign, it is the Democrats who are generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times," Brown wrote in Parliamentary Monitor magazine.

"To help prevent people from losing their home, Barack Obama has proposed a foreclosure prevention fund to increase emergency pre-foreclosure counseling, and help families facing repossession."

Why is this guy sticking his nose into something that doesn't concern him? Doesn't the prime minister of Great Britain have more pressing matters at home that should concern him?

Brown's Labour Party is traditionally allied to Obama's Democrats...

Oh, that's why...

...but under international conventions, foreign leaders refrain from intervening in ballots overseas.

Then shut the hell up, Mr. Prime Minister.

"A responsible British prime minister needs to be ready to work with either presidential candidate after the U.S. election, and should neither take sides nor be seen to be taking sides," said Conservative lawmaker William Hague.

A few words of advice, Mr. Brown. Stay the hell out of the ballot box of other countries. Telling other countries what they should do is OUR job, so we Yanks certainly don't take kindly when it gets done to us.

Inquiring minds want to know

Can someone explain to me why the liberal left supports abortion, yet is against capital punishment? I never quite understood stood this. Why is it OK to kill an innocent human life, but yet not OK to kill a guilty human life?

A baby, at one point in time, whether at the exact point of conception or at a later point in its development, becomes a human life...a completely innocent human life. The liberal left supports the woman's right to abort...a.k.a kill, this innocent human life. Even if this human life somehow manages to survive this procedure, their book says it's OK to leave the baby alone in a room to die. This human life is guilty of absolutely nothing, other than being in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

Contrast this with a convicted murderer...someone who has made the conscious decision to take the lives of others. Why should this human life be spared and allowed to live? Why isn't it OK to kill this human life? Why should everybody else have to pay for food, clothing, housing, medicine, etc. to keep this human life alive in prison for the rest of it's natural life? If any life deserves to be killed, it would be this one, right?

This just never made sense to me. And is a big reason why I have a difficult time understanding and supporting any liberal agenda.

Lipstick Jungle

In a campaign speech in Lebanon, VA, today, Mr. Hope-n-Change took quite a swipe at the Republican VP nominee, Sara Palin.

“You can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.”

I know this saying is a common slang phrase, and is used to describe what happens when you take something negative (a pig) and try to dress it up (add lipstick). According to the Urban Dictionary:

slang for when someone tries to dress something up, but is still that something. usually used on ugly broads, when they put on a skirt and some lipstick and well, they still look like the same disgusting pig.

WOW. Did he really just do what I think he did?? Perhaps. Where was the last time we heard the term "lipstick" during this 2008 campaign? Ah. I remember. It was the punchline to a joke Sarah Palin made about herself at the RNC last week.

What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick.

Hmmm...did Barack really just imply that Ms. Palin as a "pig"??? Naaaaah. I'll give the guy a break. That is a phrase that has been used by countless politicians in the past, so I'm sure the Obama campaign didn't use the "lipstck" comment as a direct referral to Ms. Palin. Or did they?

The Democratic Congressman from Missuori, Russ Carnahan, also used the term "lipstick" in a direct swipe at Sarah Palin.

“For all his tough talk [McCain] buckled to the right wing of his party in his choice. Picked someone with zero experience in national government, zero experience in foreign affairs. There’s no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick."

So, within 24 hours, we have the Democratic nominee for president "possibly" refer to Sarah Palin as a pig with lipstick, and another Democratic Congressman, when introducing Senator Joe Biden at a campaign stop, also play the "lipstick" card.

Way to go, Mr. Hope-n-Change. You are worried about losing a large share of female voters, and you and your campaign pull the gender-card. And if that wasn't bad enough, you yourself use a slang phrase that brings her physical looks into play. In what alternate-reality do you live in where a woman enjoys being called a pig? That's almost as bad as invoking the c-word.

I guess you feel you haven't alienated enough of the female voters, huh?

The best defense is a great offense

When praise comes from the San Francisco Gate, you know it has been earned... especially when that praise is levied on the "right" side of the aisle... According to Willie Brown from the SF Gate:

The Democrats are in trouble. Sarah Palin has totally changed the dynamics of this campaign.

Period.

Palin's speech to the GOP National Convention on Wednesday has set it up so that the Republicans are now on offense and Democrats are on defense. And we don't do well on defense.

Just ask John "Swiftboat" Kerry...

Suddenly, Palin and John McCain are the mavericks and Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the status quo, in a year when you don't want to be seen as defending the status quo.

From taxes to oil drilling, Democrats are now going to have to start explaining their positions.

You mean the Dems might now actually have to explain some of their positions? I'd love to hear some of the actual substance behind their mantra of change. How does a ticket with 2 of the 3 most liberal senators signify change? Senator Biden has even been in Congress longer than Senator McCain.

Her timing was exquisite. She didn't linger with applause, but instead launched into line after line of attack, slipping the knives in with every smile and joke.

And she delivered it like she was just BS-ing on the street with the meter maid.

She didn't have to prove she was "of the people." She really is the people.

She is certainly "of the people", while Obama is certainly "above the people."

It takes more than just a speech, but...

Now, I'm not ready to go all ga-ga over Sarah Palin quite yet, but I do think she gave one heck of a speech last night. Her points sat well with the audience, and I think she probably connected quite well with a lot of Americans. Of course, it doesn't hurt that she's a bit of a looker either, but this is not why I think she hit it out of the park last night. She has a story to tell, and she tells it very well. A lot of people see the GOP as the party of all the old people, while the democratic candidate is young and full of energy and idea about "change". Sarah represents this just as well, if not better, than the democratic ticket does.

Case in point - it's been reported that the teleprompter was broken during Sarah's speech. The text of the speech kept scrolling through the breaks for applause, putting Sarah quite a bit behind. However, it didn't phase her one bit. She relied on her memory and her notes and delivered the speech of her lifetime.

Feel free to contrast her performance to Obama's stuttering and stammering fiasco whenever his teleprompter breaks.

Certainly no media bias here

I wonder which lever US Magazine is going to pull in November...

Pics borrowed from The Drudge Report

Apples to apples

Huh?

Barack Obama contends that he is more experienced in executive matters than Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin because he has managed his presidential campaign for the past 18 months.

So, running for President makes you qualified to be President?

“Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years,” Obama said.

You've got to be kidding me. Mr. Obama, are you TRYING to lose this campaign that the media is sooo willing to win for you? Why are you comparing your current job...running for President...with her old job...being mayor of a small Alaskan town. Are you afraid to compare apples to apples? Your current job...running for President...employs 2500 people and has a $432 million budget. Sarah Palin's current job...running the State of Alaska...employs 77,000 people and has a budget of $6.6 billion dollars..

So, by your standards, how does this make you more qualified than her to be in the White House? No wonder you don't want to compare apples to apples.