An acquaintance of mine is one of the "800 lawyers" working for the Obama campaign, monitoring polling places here in Florida - to assure "fairness".  They are to observe any instances of  voters (presumably those voting for Obama) being "intimidated" when trying to vote. What the lawyers are to do if they observe such intimidation is unclear - but I have a pretty good idea.

If anyone who wants to vote for Obama is challenged because of questionable registration, the "Obama lawyer" will intervene to threaten the poll-worker with a lawsuit, or some other form of coercion.  Thus the Obama campaign will facilitate voting by all those bogus registrations fabricated by ACORN - which has teamed up with MSNBC to make sure the election is "fair".  If, as ACORN does,  you define "fair" as allowing anyone who wants to vote for Obama do so regardless of qualification.

Anyone familiar with Tom Wolfe's essay Mau Mauing the Flak-catcher  will recognize the technique.  The "Obama lawyers" will do the mau mauing of the poll-workers who attempt to keep the ineligible from voting - all in view of the MSNBC cameras to heighten the coercion.

Picture the septugenarian polling volunteer who questions the homeless derelict attempting to vote with no ID.  An Obama lawyer, trailing an MSNBC camera crew, will confront the poll-worker. 

Sources tell me there is no way to detect, or prevent,  ACORN from driving busloads of people who have been registered under multiple fictitious names from county to county, where they will vote in each under a different name.  MSNBC, and the "Obama lawyers" will be there to  assure  no interference with the admonition of the late Chicago mayor 'Boss' Richard Daley to "vote early and vote often".

I questioned an Obama supporter about some of the chicanery employed by ACORN, and whether she was concerned the election might be stolen for Obama.  She had no concern if it was stolen - since the Republicans stole the 2000 election, this would just be the Democrats' chance to get even. That mentality permeates Obama supporters I've met.  Nor do they see anything wrong with intimidating poll workers who try to do their jobs.  

There never was a verified instance of anyone being "intimidated" out of voting in the 2000 election.  It's a Democrat urban myth they are now using to justify using lawyers and television cameras to mau-mau poll-workers who dare question the legitimacy of any Obama voter - however dubious their qualifications.
 

?The election of Barack Obama may prove history repeats itself.  Just as the alignment of the earth and moon can produce extreme tides, the repeat of two historic events, converging under an Obama administration, could trigger a political tsunami.

Consider two of the seminal events in our history.  The Civil War, and the “shot heard ‘round the world”.

The last time a tall lawyer from Illinois  was elected President  there was such dislike of his political beliefs  that fourteen States seceded before his inauguration.  All that was needed to incite the carnage (called the Civil War by the victors) was a catalyst - which Lincoln’s refusal to remove Federal troops from Fort Sumter provided.
 
Barack Obama’s political values are so alien to much of the populace, they will de facto secede from allegiance to a Federal government under his administration.  It will be the antithesis of the Bush Derangement Syndrome - with one critical difference.  These alienated won’t be unarmed liberals.  Many are well-armed, and dedicated to remaining that way!  Whether they erupt into open rebellion will depend on whether, as President, Obama provides a catalyst.  He almost certainly will - by repeating a historic miscalculation!

The debates on the ratification of our Federal Constitution are replete with references, by it’s advocates, to the role of an armed citizenry as a restraint on the national government - and enshrined that role in the Second Amendment. Obama, and the democratic leaders in Congress, prefer to ignore the Second Amendment. Gun control is one of their mantras - including confiscation.  Sooner or later an Obama administration will come for the citizens’ guns - and repeat the blunder of  British General Gage.

The political revolution, that culminated in our independence, began with the Writs of Assistance case in a Boston court in 1761.  Thereafter, the revolt was limited to political action, and acts of civil disobedience (such as the ‘Boston Tea Party’), until General Gage instigated armed rebellion on April 19, 1775.

Gage dispatched his soldiers to seize the colonists’ arms, stored in Concord.  At the Concord North Bridge, the colonists defied the legally constituted government - firing “the shot heard ‘round the world!”   The catalyst for the start of armed rebellion was the government's attempt to seize the citizens’ guns! 

When the gun-control zealots, who will inhabit an Obama administration, inevitably attempt to seize the guns of the citizens alienated by his election, it could be Obama’s  Ft Sumter.  “From my cold, dead hands...” will become the rallying cry -  and armed defiance will begin.  Then God help us all!

Am I the only one who isn't particularly shook by this economic "crisis"?  I see it as the inevitable consequence of an economy that has been surviving on credit for too long.  We will recover when the bad credit risks are purged, and we return to the fundamentals that have historically sustained our economy - living within our means, and not extending credit to those won't can't - or won't - pay their bills.

To get a mortgage you'll have to do it the old-fashioned way:  have a job, a history of paying your debts, and 20% down!  The down payment  is a natural brake on buying more house than you can afford.  If you can come up with $30K for a $150K home, but not $60K for a  $300K home,  that's  nature's way  of  saying you can't afford the more expensive house. Unlike the last few years where folks who couldn't afford the former, where getting 100% financing for the latter.   When enough of those folks couldn't pay their mortgages, and the financial system collapsed, why is anyone surprised.

In Wal-Mart recently, a man was overheard on his cell phone demanding that his credit card company increase his maxed-out limit by $1400, so he could buy the giant-screen TV he was admiring.   Explain to me again why  $700 billion of our taxes have to go to keep the credit markets available.  Without credit he'll have to either save up to buy that giant-screen, or do without -  the old-fashioned way!

If $700 billion, to keep the credit flowing, is needed to avoid the impact of reduced consumer spending, that's proof the economy is too dependent on borrowed money - and vulnerable to the problems we're now experiencing.   Our economy is as addicted to easy credit, as it is to OPEC oil -  both are recipes for disaster.  The answer to the adverse impact of dependence on foreign oil is to use less oil.  The answer to an economy  faltering from dependence on credit is to use less.  Spending $700 billion to make more credit available is like spending the same for more foreign oil - it will only aggravate the problem!

This bailout is counterintuitive to me. You don't put out a fire by throwing on more fuel.  Why not let this "crisis" work itself out by burning out the bad credit detritus.  Like a forest following a wild-fire, after it passes what's left is healthy and thrives.  

On top of the front page to today's Orlando Sentinel is a political cartoon. After the vice-presidential debate, both sides' handlers are each congratulating  their respective candidates for not saying anything dumb.  Hold that image ...

Among the incredulous statements Sen. Biden  spouted, during the debate, was a pronouncement that the job of the Vice-President is to preside over the Senate only when there is a tie vote in that body.  When I took civics, in the 8th grade (nearly 50 years ago), I learned that Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution specifies that the Vice-President "shall be President of the Senate", which makes him the presiding officer - all the time, not just when there is a tie vote (which is the only time the VP can actually vote). 

The cartoon in the Sentinel is typical of the MSM reporting on the vice-presidential debate - that Biden comported himself well, avoiding any gaffes.  Though the initial impression, by Republicans, of this media obliviousness  to  Biden's  buffoonery is to write it off as the same old bias, I'm not so sure.  Bias may be the symptom, not the malady.

I doubt the cartoonist, and most of the MSM, even know Biden was wrong about the job of the VP.  Not a single Obama supporter I've spoken to, since the VP debates,  knew Biden was wrong on that point.  But then all  those I talked to attended school since actual education was discarded in favor of promoting self-esteem, and politically correct indoctrination - in other words, typical Obama supporters. 

More disturbing than the fact most of Biden's supporters, and the MSM, don't know the Constitutional role of the Vice-President, is that  Biden himself doesn't know.   Other than waiting for the President to die, presiding over the Senate is the only job given to the Vice-President by the Constitution.  It would be bad enough that a man running for Vice-President doesn't even know that limited job-description, but when you factor in that Biden has been a member or the Senate for 36 years, his ignorance of the duties of the job he's seeking is breathtaking.  Forget whether Biden's qualified to be President - he's not even qualified to Vice-President!

I suspect many in the MSM, and most of Obama's supporters, don't know the Constitutional role of the Vice-President, any more than does Biden.  Therein lies the true danger in the MSM election coverage. Not so much bias, as that the blind are leading the blind.








 

So the purpose of the 'bailout' - though we're not officially calling it that - is to make credit available to consumers.  Isn't too much buying on credit at the root of our current economic "crisis"!  How is the bailout going to solve the problem?  Isn't that like giving  cocaine to a crackhead?

Many lending institutions are still open for business to lend money to those who will repay the loans.  The only consumers hurt by this "crisis" are those who aren't good risks.  Denying credit to these bad risks is what will get us out of this "crisis".  The question is whether we, as a society, have the fortitude to let the problem work itself out through responsible financial practices.

It may take a while, and there will be some economic pain for all of us in the process. But it will be a true solution, and not a $700 billion  white line to be tooted up by the same people who got us into this "crisis". 

I work with young professionals - some of whom think Barack Obama is the second coming.   They view those of us not equally enamored with their savior as lacking sufficient intellect.   They  share their savior's elitist arrogance - that they are simply smarter than anyone who disagrees with them.  So I was intrigued by how few of them understood the significance of  VP-candidate Biden's recent gaffe in his interview with Katie Couric.

You'll recall Biden answered one question by describing how, when the stock market crashed (in 1929), that "President Roosevelt" "went on television" to reassure the American people.  It wasn't that my young colleagues dismissed this gaffe' out of partisanship -  they  didn't even know it was a gaffe'.  They were unaware that a) Roosevelt was not President in 1929, and b) there was no TV then.  So much for getting a college education in contemporary America !

When advised of those facts, some responded with a classic 'deer in the headlights' stare.  Others challenged me to prove it.   I wonder if the lack of attention paid to Biden's gaffe' (by the mainstream media) is a result of bias in favor of Obama - or is that many in the MSM are as ignorant of history as some of my young colleagues.

-30-

screed