The Senate passed the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008," and now it's going to the House for a vote tomorrow. It's been a wild ride this week, and many are screaming something that must be done, but that this isn't it. I am not an economist, so I would be remiss to say that I understand all the ramifications of the bill, and I really can't offer an educated opinion on whether it is a good or bad thing to do. On one hand, it could be an enormous power grab for the government in a time of economic crisis; on the other, it could provide a necessary short-term stabilization of the credit markets untl things settle down a bit.

I do agree that it's not just a bailout for Wall Street, but actually a bail-out for all of us. It may not be the right thing to do in the long run, but in the short term, none of us are going to benefit if there are more bank failings. The "silent run" on Wachivia over the weekend and the failing of WaMu last week, are stark indicators of what the future may portend if something isn't done. In 1929 and 1930, Hoover did nothing when the economy was failing, and we all know what happened then.

It is interesting to note that only 133 pages of the 450+ page bill actually deal with the bail-out. The rest are tax incentives and renewals of previously existing provisions. There is an argument about whether these are actually ear-marks, or whether they are going to be helpful, along with the bail-out, to help boost the economy in addition to the bail-out. But when a bill starts out at 3 pages and balloons to over 400, you've got to suspect some sausage is being made.

Update - October 3 The bill has now passed the House and is on its way to President Bush, who will no doubt sign it. The Sausage McMuffin will soon be law...

The debate is in the history books, and who exactly was the winner is being debated. All the liberals resoundingly give victory to Joe Biden, while conservatives are applauding Sarah Palin as the clear winner. Of course, it depends on how you judge the performances.

Biden was projected to trounce Palin, and many were holding their breath and waiting to see Palin fail. Instead, she exhibited a composed demeanor, and on many occasions she seemed to have Biden against the ropes. Biden exhibited a masterful command of facts and figures and showed himself to be a skillful, and somewhat typical, politician. A few times he looked clearly flustered as Palin scored with lines that echoed the populism of Ronald Reagan, such as "there you go again, Joe."

Biden probably came in higher in points, but came in lower than expected in performance. Palin scored higher in likability, and exceeded expectations and beat her point spread by a mile, making her the winner in my book.

More interesting than last night's VP debate was the exchange between Barney Frank and Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly, in an even more blustery than usual fashion, called Barney Frank out and called him a coward for not admitting fault in the recent near collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

O'Reilly once again did himself no favors by confirming what liberals already think about him: that he is shouts people down, calls them names, and refuses to let them make their points. But Frank was behaving despicably, denying any responsibility for the losses of many Americans after he claimed that Fannie and Freddy were sound, and the future for the companies was favorable.

If you look at the history of connections between Barney Frank and Fannie and Freddy, you see a troubling pattern of obsfucation. In 2003, the Bush administration raised concerns that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac needed more regulation and proposed a new agency to oversee the housing finance industry. Barney Frank responded with the following:

"These two entities--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

"I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddy are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investment these days from the long term standpoint...going back, I think they will do okay going forward... from what's happened to the housing market... I do think their prospects going forward are very solid, and in fact we're going to do some things that are going to improve them."

I saw An American Carol yesterday, on its opening day, and it did not disappoint. It was refreshing to finally see a movie that criticizes the American left the way they have been criticizing conservatives for years. The movie is a parody of the liberal left, featuring Kevin Farley as film-maker Michael Mallone, an obvious send-up of left-leaning film-maker Michael Moore.

I especially enjoyed the college classroom musical scene, where Kelsey Grammer, as General George S. Patton, proclaims "Education? You mean indoctrination!" Truer words have never been uttered. The movie attacks a number of liberal ideas, such as the fact that liberals believe that our enemies are justified in their hate of us because of our actions, that the current war in Iraq is just like Vietnam in 1968, and that we should negotiate and appease our enemies rather than confronting them with force. One particularly funny scene takes place in 1938, showing then British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin signing away half of Europe to the Axis powers and proclaiming "this will achieve peace," then being forced to shine the shoes of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito.

The movie is not all negative attacks, though, by any means. Sincere patriotic references are shown throughout, and the heroism of soldiers past and present, fighting for freedom, are highlighted at various points in the movie. When a soldier tells Michael Mallone he can't visit with him next week because he has to ship out to the Middle East, Mallone responds "can't you get out of it?" The soldier then proclaims that he volunteered to go and it was his duty. The liberals may think that such movie scenes are mere jingoism, but it rings true to me and makes me proud of those who fight and die for all of us.

Overall, the movie is funny and entertaining throughout. I was surprised at how scathing it was regarding liberals, and was pleased to finally see something in mainstream media that treats them as they have treated conservatives for many years. The liberal reaction I have seen to the movie of course, is utter indifference, and an attempt to bury it. Many liberal papers are not bothering to review it, nor even mention it. On movie roundups I have seen on TV, many critics do not even mention the movie in their lists of movies opening this weekend. Their bias is palpable, and their hypocrisy is clearly to be seen.

So, I urge you, if you are planning to see a movie this weekend or even this week, go see An American Carol. You will not be disappointed. I will go even further and say that it is a patriotic thing to do. The liberal left are trying to silence conservatives, and are trying to bury this movie and would no doubt like to see it fail, so that only movies they agree with are made. The only freedom of speech they believe in is speech they agree with. It took courage to make this movie, courage from David Zucker, courage from the many stars who "came out of the closet" of liberal Hollywood and stepped up to make a movie that may well keep them from being able to work in Hollywood in the future. They are taking incredible risk to make a statement that more than one kind of political ideolgy can exist in Hollywood movies. Support them in that cause and go see An American Carol.

"Never let them know your true strengths." We've all heard that before, and my theory is that that is exactly how Sarah Palin went into the VP debate this week. Before that debate, she was considered an underdog and was expected to perform poorly. Joe Biden was worried about looking too tough on her, and was advised to focus on the top of the ticket and not appear "mean." The consensus was that she was in over her head, and had little chance of performing well.

I believe that this was all a calculated effort by the McCain campaign. Now that the debate is behind her, Sarah Palin will now take off the kid gloves and bring back the pitbull behind the lipstick. By her appearing in over her head before the debate, the Obama campaign was caught off guard in the debate. And now that she doesn't have to worry about another face off with Joe Biden, she can start doing what a VP candidate should be doing: attacking the top of the opposing ticket. And Obama has plenty of dirty laundry for her to focus on.

I expect her to stop talking about John McCain as much as she did before the debate, and start talking more about Barack Obama and his associations with Ayers, Wright and Pfleger, as well as Obama's own questionable actions and statements. indeed, she already has; in her interview with Carl Cameron, the first post-debate interview, she brought up Obama's comments about our soldiers "raiding villages," and "killing people." In another post-debate statement she accused him of "palling around with terrorists." By avoiding this topic of conversation before the debate, she has cleverly avoided a tough grilling by Joe Biden. Now that any opportunity for Biden to be directly tough on her is past, expect her to start baring her teeth.

Democrats, you've been Punk'd.

John McCain wasn't kidding when he said he was taking the gloves off, and it's about time. There are so many dubious associations and facts about Obama that are fair game and ripe for the plucking, one almost doesn't know where to begin. Associations include (left to right in accompanying image): Rabidly anti-Israel Columbia University professor Rahid Khalidi, domestic terrorist William Ayers, convicted felon Tony Rezko, and the Anti-American racist Reverend Wright, as well as (not pictured) terrorist sympathizer Ali Abunimah, Hatem El-Hady, a former official of the Hamas-linked charity Kindhearts, and others. In addition he has ties with Acorn, the lobbying group which has been accused but not convicted of voter fraud, and has taken several thousands of dollars of illegal campaign contributions that he has had to return, as well as being one of the leading recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. We could go on, but you get the point.

The Obama campaign has tried to intimidate McCain by threatening to call attention to McCain as one of the "Keating 5," the group of senators who aided and abbetted the Savings and Loan scandal in the 1980s. McCain was one of the five, but was not convicted of any wrong-doing. The official ethics committee report stated that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate." John McCain himslef has stated frankly, "the appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."

Contrast that frank and earnest evaluation of his own behavior with that of Barack Obama's. Throughout the Keating 5 scandal, John McCain was open about his involvement and was honest about his role, and tried to cover up nothing. When Obama is questioned about any of his questionable associations, he deflects responsibility, calls it a non-issue and tells us the American people are not concerned about such "distractions."

These are not "distractions." To put it bluntly, Barack Obama has too many nefarious connections for me to be comfortable with him as President of the United States. Obama can try to counter Ayers with Keating. When that is done, McCain still has dozens of other questionable issues in relation to Obama to bring up. It is time for Mccain to put these questions to the American people, and today in New Mexico he has begun to do so:

Whatever the question, whatever the issue, there's always a back story with Senator Obama. All people want to know is: What has this man ever actually accomplished in government? What does he plan for America? In short: Who is the real Barack Obama? But ask such questions and all you get in response is another barrage of angry insults. Is he the candidate who promises to cut middle class taxes, or the politician who voted to raise middle class taxes? Is he the candidate who talks about regulation or the politician who took money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and turned a blind eye as they ran our economy into a ditch? Is he the candidate who promises change, or is he the politician who has bought into everything that is wrong with Washington? We can't change the system with someone who's never fought the system.

Barack Obama's effort to keep the argument focused on the economy is just another example of the Democrats using a crisis to keep the focus off of the damning arguments of Barack Obama's associations with William Ayers and Reverend Wright, as well as others like Rahid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, and Acorn. Of course, the economy is an important issue, but it is not the only one. We should not vote purely on this issue, as Obama would like us to, to the exclusion of all else.

There once was a man named T.E. Lawrence, who was known as Lawrence of Arabia. In World War 1, he fought in the Middle East during the Arab revolt of 1916-1918. One particular battle of note was the battle for the town of Aqaba. Aqaba was a seaport, with an expansive desert on the other side. To protect from invasion, the residents of Aqaba pointed their defensive forces towards the sea, as they believed that was the only place an invasion force would come from. Surely, no one could cross the expansive desert on the other side. Lawrence of Arabia and his forces did just that - they crossed the desert, and when they attacked Aqaba, all of Aqaba's defenses were pointed in the wrong direction.

Like Lawrence of Arabia, Obama wants to keep you focused on the Aqaba of the economy, while all these nefarious ties slip by unnoticed on the other side.

Last night's debate was not the knockout punch from McCain that conservatives were hoping for. Liberals/Democrats think Obama won, conservatives/Republicans think McCain won.

I thought McCain made some good points against Obama. There were a couple of times where it looked like Obama was against the ropes, and I did not see McCain ever backed into a corner or on the defense. It actually reminded me of the boxing match in 1986 when Sugar Ray Leonard beat Marvin Hagler. To anyone watching, it seemed that Hagler had Leonard against the ropes several times, and throughout the match controlled the ring and had Leonard backing up and looking for an escape. But it was ruled Leonard won the match, to the amazement of those who thought Hagler won hands down.

So, in the end, the debate changed little for either side. McCain needed to land a knockout and he did not. Those of us rooting for McCain are disappointed that there was no mention of the dubious past history of Obama, but there was little opportunity to bring it up. Here's hoping that McCain keeps pressing the association and judgment issue on the campaign trail. I would like to see Obama actually answer the accusations made against him instead of deflecting them.

Conservatives are lambasting McCain for not calling out Barack Obama in the last debate over his association with William Ayers, Reverend Wright, Acorn, and the numerous other nefarious ties Obama has. Michelle Malkin has stated "McCain has always had much more of a stomach for taking on his own base than he has had for taking on the radical Left." On the other side, the liberals think McCain is being a wimp, with the Daily Kos stating "he's afraid to confront Obama directly."

I believe both are wrong, and as this election plays out, I think McCain will confront Obama directly, and he will do it at just the right moment. If he were to lay all his cards out now, Obama would have plenty of time to counter the argument, and any gains McCain might incur could disappear if he tips his hand too early.

Think back to how the McCain camp handled Sarah Palin's debate appearance. Going into the debate, no one was prepared for the pitbull attack she engaged in, and many think she won the debate by managing expectations before the debate. If you think that was an accident, I've got some acorns to sell you. And now, the chance for Biden to counter her face to face is gone.

The same goes for McCain. Why on earth would he engage Obama on these issues in the second debate when Obama would be able to forge a counter-attack in the third? Remember, McCain is a soldier and is familiar with the art of war. He knows when the right time to push your forces is, and he is not going to give Obama a chance to counter-attack. By waiting until it is closer to election day, he stands a good chance to have Obama reeling on the defense as voters go to the polls. By not waiting and attacking him in the second debate, Obama would have had 4 weeks and an opportunity in the third debate to counter the argument and persuade voters that McCain was wrong.

Remember the battle of Bunker Hill, and its most famous quote: "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes."

Don't fire yet, John.

At about 6:35 tonight I made a comment to a friend that I think the market thinks Obama is going to win, and that's why people are pulling their money. Shortly afterword, Bill O'Reilly suggested the same thing on his program. On Michelle Malkin's website, a commenter called mdt suggested the same:

Could it not be that the stock market meltdown drop of 30%+ in last 2 weeks is the market realizing that Obama is really winning along with an all democratic congress - with all that means for a complete socialist makeover of the US, the last standing capitalist nation?

Wake Up America. Vote McCain.

"Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future."

Sound familiar? That passage is from the prologue of Saul Alinsky's book Rules For Radicals. Saul Alinsky has been cited as an influence on our current candidate for change, Barack Obama, and darned if the approach Obama is taking doesn't exactly reflect Alinsky's method. The current economic crisis couldn't have come at a better time for Obama, and he is sure to be hoping to ride the current wave of frustration right into the White House.

But the current economic situation is somewhat of a fortuitous coincidence for Obama; he has been beating the frustration drum through his whole campaign, and now he has real frustration to use instead of the made-up outrage he was previously peddling. Even when the economy wasn't tanking he was speaking about how bad it was, trying to foster the frustration that is now becoming very real. And the "Hate Bush" crowd has beaten an endless drum for years, trying to make us dissatisfied with a president who has kept us safe from terrorist attack since 9-11, and kept the economy relatively prosperous for most of his presidency.

Of course, we know it wasn't just the Bush Administration's policies that have led to the current crisis. It was the Democrats and people like Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank who worked to maintain the perception that there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddy, and who have been forcing banks to loan money to people who couldn't pay it back. It was community organizing groups like Acorn that have been intimidating bankers and trying to embarrass them or harass them into making bad loans. It was the Bush administration that tried to warn the people five years ago and were stopped by Democrats in Congress. You know it. I know. John McCain knows it. Even Saturday Night Live knows it.

So now that the Democrats have wrecked the economy with their socialist policies, they are planning to use this to sweep in a candidate that has been groomed for the position and will institute the greatest social revolution this country has ever seen. The American people are lining up to be flim-flammed by a highly organized campaign that uses the current misfortune to take advantage of us and seize power. If Barack Obama becomes president with a Democratic Congress in both houses, we are heading down the road to less self-reliance, and more government control over every aspect of our lives. The "change" that Obama speaks of is a socialist revolution, the very type of revolution that Saul Alinksy spoke of.

Vote John McCain.

Barack Obama has accidentally let slip his socialist viewpoint of economics. When speaking to a plumber who was concerned about being punished through higher taxes for having a successful business, he said he wants to "spread the wealth around" to those with lesser incomes. He might as well have just come out and said that his economic plan is nothing more than pure redistribution of wealth, which is commonly associated with another form of government called "communism."

The audacity of Obama is apparent. He obviously does not see the wealth of a successful person or business as something that has been earned; conversely, he obviously does not believe that someone who is poor may be so not because of outside social forces, but because of their own laziness or unwillingness to work for a better life or more income.

I understand that many people may be poor because of outside social pressure or a lack of opportunity. But as someone who has grown up poor, and has lived in many poor neighborhoods, I have seen an abundance of poor people who just aren't willing to take the steps to move themselves out of that position. I'm not blaming all poor prople for being poor, mind you - I just don't like it when successful people are blamed for being not poor.

There is this myth that all low-income people are victims of an evil system that keeps them trapped in their income level. Therefore, we must increase the minimum wage, we must raise taxes on the haves to give to the have-nots, and we must give tax returns to those who pay no taxes. But I've worked a minimum wage job many times in my life, starting when the minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour, and within six months I was always given a raise. Within a year, my income level at the same company or store was further raised beyond minimum wage because of hard work, responsibility and punctuality, and I was also able to earn promotions and bonuses. These were not given to me - I earned them.

On the other hand, those that were stuck at their minimum wage positions remained there because they were lazy or worked just hard enough not to get fired. Then they complained that life is unfair as they tried to coast through it doing as little work as possible. Are these the people that Barrack Obama is going to spread some of the wealth to?

Don't get me wrong, there are many hard-working low income people in America, and they would like an opportunity to be able to earn more money. But I bet if you ask them, they want to earn it, not have it given to them. They should pay low taxes, but they shouldn't be given a hand-out from those who earn more. The conservative plan supported by McCain is a pro-growth plan, one that will keep taxes low for everybody, including both those who want to work to earn more income and raise themselves to a middle or high-income position, and those who are business owners and entrepreneurs who make more money and can provide the jobs and opportunity to those people who want to work. The Obama plan is an income redistribution plan that wants to punish success and take money directly from those who are successful and give it to those who are not. No matter how you look at it, Obama has a Robin Hood agenda that directly contrary to the American spirit of self-determination and self-reliance.

Last night's debate was better than the last, with both McCain and Obama, swinging a little harder and connecting with more blows. Of course, once again, both sides are claiming victory. I, as a McCain supporter, actually thought Obama may have won this one, but for the unexpected shadow of the newest political celebrity on the scene: Joe the Plumber.

Joe's question to Obama about taxes has scored a knockout punch against Obama that McCain has been needing, and may well have changed the dialogue of the election. So, here's to Joe! Victory is his...

We all know who Joe the plumber is, but does Barack Obama really know Joe? Now that the Obama campaign is suddenly on the defensive thanks to Joe's question, Obama has decided to show his elitist side and has began ridiculing the notion of a plumber actually earning $250,000.00 per year. At a campaign stop today, Obama sneered and said "how many plumbers do you know making a quarter million dollars per year?" and basically ridiculed the idea. What an insulting thing for Obama to say.

This just shows how clueless this guy really is. He has no idea how the real world works, and he has no idea the disastrous effect his economic policies are going to have on very real people. Barack Obama has based his economic policy on a class warfare ideology learned from books and in universities, not from the real world. And when cornered on the issue, he has now turned to Joe the plumber and ridicules the idea that Joe might actually make that much.

Way to insult the messenger, Obama.

In 2001, Barack Obama called it a tragedy that "redistribution of wealth" was not pursued by the Supreme Court. Hear it in his own words...

Barack Obama's half-hour infomercial appears to have been a flop. Reviews panning the promotional feature are in, and it appears that Obama came off as a gloomy, dour fear-caster rather than an optimistic would-be president.

Anthony Sullivan, one of the biggest names in infomercial production, had this to say: "I don't see enough smiling. Doom and gloom totally... I feel depressed right now... I was about to throw myself through a window because it was depressing."

Breitbart.com states that he "skips over budget realities." In an article on their website, they separate the spin from the fact.

Of course, many Democrats give the infomercial rave reviews, but they are going to vote for Obama anyway. The real test for success is how many undecideds were moved to vote for Obama? Judging by the reviews I have seen, it does not seem likely that such a presentation would help much in that area.

Michell Malkin has the blow-by-blow.