The Nigh Seen Creeder

Since it's Halloween, and since I'm too old to go out smashing pumpkins ce soir, how 'bout I give you a list of my favorite terror-filled films?! Here 'tis:

1. Psycho. What can I say about Psycho that's not already been said? From its unique-to-this-day opening title sequence until Anthony Hopkins' Kubrick-esque head down, eyes up look at the camera, Psycho is not only a fine horror film ... it's just a fine film, period. Next time you watch it, pay particular attention to the scene in which Norman (Hopkins) bites his fingernail as he watches his "mother's" victim's car, which also contains his mother's victim, slowly sink into a pond or lake or swamp. You'll want to start biting your fingernails along with him.

2. The Exorcist. I was ten-years-old when I first watched the Exorcist. My next-door neighbor rented it and insisted that I watch it. It so scared the bejesus out of me, I remember saying short prayers for weeks thereafter imploring God to save me from being possessed. As for the movie itself, everyone remembers Linda Blair's spewing pea soup and defiling herself with a crucifix. What most people don't remember about the Exorcist - and what makes it one of my favorite horror movies - is its deeply engaging back-story of Father Karras' questioning his faith, and regaining it as he takes an oh-so-memorable sacrificial tumble down a flight of stairs.

3. Suspiria. This Dario Argento gem puts the gore in "gorgeous." The cinematography in Suspiria is just as impressive as the story it tells -- girl enrolls in an exclusive German ballet school and quickly learns that it's run by a coven of witches. One of the last movies to be filmed in Technicolor, the smashing stained glass and vivid rose-colored blood featured in the first 20 minutes of Suspiria will surely stick in your mind for days after you've watched the film.

4. The Shining. Steven King geeks have long criticized Stanley Kubrick's interpretation of what is arguably King's best novel. The idea that Kubrick was unfaithful to the book, in my view, is immaterial. The Shining is a truly great horror movie. Its lasting impact can be gauged by how often it has been, and continues to be, parodied. Perfectly cast and photographed in such a way that the Overlook Hotel shines (!) through as the true protagonist of the film, the Shining remains, as the Nashville Scene recently intoned, the most "chilling tale of cabin fever" in the history of cinema.

5. One Dark Night. This underrated film was the first horror movie I ever saw in a theater (I think I was in 6th grade). Since it was a PG-rated horror flick, my friends and I made a bee-line to our local theatre on the day it was released. Meg Tilly stars as a high schooler who must spend the night in a mausoleum as part of a club initiation. She quickly learns that a recent internee, if you will, who dabbled in the occult is still causing loads of trouble from beyond. The slow-motion introduction in which police and paramedics enter an apartment to find a closet full o' dead young women, as well as various kitchen bric-a-brac embedded in the walls, is one of my favorite all-time movie scenes.

6. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I didn't see the Texas Chainsaw Massacre until I was in college. Prior to seeing it, I had labored under the illusion that it was an über-gory flick. Wrong. If you've never seen the Texas Chainsaw Massacre before, don't expect a lot of blood. What you can expect is a creepy tale of a group of kids who find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time ... and it all seems so real. Spoiler alert: the scene in which the one-foot-in-the-grave grandfather futilely tries to kill a girl with a hammer is still a funny, if cringe-inducing, scene.

7. Bad Ronald. This movie was a staple on Saturday afternoon television until the late 1980s. Then it just disappeared. You can find VHS copies of Bad Ronald on eBay, but they'll cost you a pretty penny -- to which I can attest. Bad Ronald is a movie about a nerdy high schooler who accidentally kills a neighbor's young daughter. His mother, fearing no one will believe that it was an accident, moves her son into a bathroom that she's turned into a secret hiding place. When she dies, a new family moves in ... and that's when the fun starts. Ronald lurks about while peeping at his new "family" (who hear strange sounds that can never be explained); and he and his world-under-the-stairs is finally discovered in a climax that still makes me want to cover my eyes whenever I watch it.

8. Don't Look Now. You know you've watched a great horror flick when, at the conclusion, you can say, "I didn't see that coming!" That's what you'll say after watching Don't Look Now, which features one truly great climactic twist. Here's the story: John Baxter and his wife are living in Venice following the death of their daughter. He has psychic flashes of his daughter walking the streets in her red cloak, at the same time that dead bodies are turning up in Venice's canals. If you've never seen it before, just remember to watch for the red coat ... and pay particular attention to who is standing on the "funeral boat." 'Nough said.

9. Alien. "One more meal before bedtime. I'm buying." We all know what happens after that. I can remember the first time I saw Alien as if it happened yesterday. I was 9-years-old and I was at my grandparents' house. They didn't have cable, but their living room TV could inexplicably pick up HBO. I stayed up late one night and watched Alien ... and I don't think I slept a wink after I and my skinny ass finally got in the bed. There's one particular scene in Alien that sticks in my mind to this day, and it ain't the "face-hugger" or "white T-shirt" scenes. It's the scene in which Dallas "happens" upon the open-armed Alien in the bowels of his spacecraft. Scare-E!

10. The Haunting. This black and white gem is based on Shirley Jackson's novel, The Haunting of Hill House. Led by Dr. Markway, who's doing research to prove that ghosts exist, a group of wayward souls enters Hill House -- a large, eerie mansion with a history of death and insanity. They soon learn that they've gotten more than they bargained for when a ghostly presence manifests itself in terrifying ways. The scene in which assorted bumps and knocks and noises precede doors bending inward sends a chill up my spine to this very day.

Prophet Yahweh's got one big strike against him at this point. To wit:

"Some time before Nov. 11, 2008, more than likely before the presidential elections, and possibly on October 31, 2008, at approximately 12 noon, spaceships will start appearing, on my summons request, and hover over my school for all Las Vegans and media to see and film. ...

"One of the many reasons why they will do this is to show support for Presidential candidate Barack Obama. This will be done so people will know that Obama is the best choice to lead America through the troublesome times to come."

Here's the video:




Barry's sycophants have got to be all proud knowing that their candidate has celestial appeal ... indeed!

If I had to compile a list of my Most Admired Americans, Thomas Sowell would be near the top of the list. Visit my home library and dog-eared copies of Sowell's Basic Economics and Applied Economics may very well be the first two books you see.

There is no greater contemporary defender of human liberty - political, religious, economic - than Thomas Sowell. The ideas he's presented in his books and essays are logical extensions of ideas first put forth by Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, Jean-Baptiste Say, Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Russell Kirk, and others. Unlike those folks, however, Sowell has never shied away from cogitating upon the give-and-take of partisan politics.

Remember when B. Hussein Obama's Ivy League/6-figure-earning wife said she'd never in her adult life been proud of her country until her husband became a viable candidate for president? Well, for the first time in my adult - nay, entire - life, I actually fear what's gonna happen to my country if Mr. Obama is elected.

If you strip away the leaves and look at the core of Obama's "Change" campaign, you see that he hopes to mold the United States into a European-style welfare state - Europe's 10 percent annual unemployment rates and bi-weekly public-sector union agitation be damned - that'll make Otto von Bismark look like a fiscal conservative. The fact that there are millions and millions of unlearned shipdits and emotionalist lemmings who are ready, willing, able, and enthusiastic to give him the green light to do such, again, frightens the absolute you-know-what outta me.

Now, back to Sowell. I want you to read and think about, and re-read and think about some more, this -- and woe unto any poor bastard who comments on this post without a ****-load of facts and figures to buttress his claim(s):

Some elections are routine, some are important and some are historic. If Senator John McCain wins this election, it will probably go down in history as routine. But if Senator Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic-- and catastrophic.

Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign.

Performance is where Barack Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.

Policies that he proposes under the banner of "change" are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries-- and failed repeatedly in other countries.

Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.

The economies of China and India began their take-off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of "change."

Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.

Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down, and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.

Higher taxes to "spread the well around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.

Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran being "a small country," as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counter-attack.

Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy-- and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that is a situation which cannot be reversed, either in this generation or in generations to come.

Read the rest here.

If you don't have Cracked.com in you're favorite places, you need to link it now. Every freakin' thing the guys - and gals - at Cracked post is hee-larry-us. Like the 20 Halloween costumes that will get your ass beat if you were 'em.

You know, I imagine some of the anonymous corksockers who regularly post comments here will be going out tomorrow dressed like this (and returning home with an ass that was thoroughly beat):

Moments from now, B. Hussein Obama will appear on several televison networks talkin' 'bout "change" and "change" and, well, "change." He'll promise this and promise that; he'll promise to fight them and oppose those; and he'll do George C. Scott proud as he stands tall as the Chief General in the upcoming Class War.

As Obama resurrects the spirit of H. Ross Perot's 1992 half-hour appeals to our nation's nitwits, I want you to think about this: The only reason Obama has the money to buy a half-hour block on national TV tonight is because he's a fuckin' liar. He once promised to live within the constrictures of federally-financed presidential campaigns, and then, we he started getting mo' money, he "opted" out.

"Obama's not a liar" you say? Oh, really?

"Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.

I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system.

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election.

My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.

My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election.

The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

If you have to watch the boob tube tonight, and if you want to learn something, watch T. Boone Pickens' live energy-independence Q & A session on the RFD Network. As for me ... I'm on my way to see Yngwie Malmsteen. Gotta love them free tix!

There are a great many Ordinary Joes in this world who have great things to say. Some of 'em are bankers, and some of 'em are small business owners. Some of drive a truck or a forklift, and some of 'em -- believe it or not -- are plumbers.

Mr. Peter G. Coffey, an ordinary feller from Madison, Conn., writes to the Wall Street Journal and, in less than 200 words, tells us that a President Obama will discard "No Taxation Without Representation" as quickly as he discarded Jeremiah Wright when he was no longer politically useful. To wit:

Adam Lerrick's "Obama and The Tax Tipping Point" (op-ed, Oct. 22) notes that we are fast approaching the point at which those who don't pay any federal income tax will be a majority of the electorate and have the electoral muscle to affect programs paid for by taxes from the other half of the society.

A rallying cry in the founding of our nation was "no taxation without representation." But when the tax structure is so progressive that half the population can create programs that are paid for by taxing the other half, we have reached the point of "representation without taxation" and turned our founding principles on their head.

We are currently witnessing a polarizing presidential campaign that promises to confiscate the earnings of 5% of the population to buy the votes of the other 95%. Am I the only member of the 95% who is offended by the idea that it is acceptable in America to confiscate another's earnings for my own comfort?

What irony to criticize the "greed" of Wall Street bankers while voting for easy money taken from others.

Whilst reading Mr. Coffey's letter, I couldn't help but think about something British historian Alexander Tytler once said:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through his sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again into bondage.

If B. Hussein Obama is elected next week, he's gonna put America on the fast-track to proving that Tytler was a prophet, indeed.

Remember the scene in Pulp Fiction in which Vincent and Jules show up at the back door of Marsalis Wallace's nightclub following the "Jimmy situation"? When the bartender opens the door, he finds Vincent and Jules bedecked in T-shirts and mid-1980s-style shorts. The bartender asks in an excited tone, "What's up with them clothes?" Remember?

When I turned on the Titans-Colts game last night to find the Titans clad from head-to-toe in powder blue uniforms, I asked myself, "What's up with them clothes? Okay, so I threw in an expletive as well. The underlying question remained the same. Then I asked myself another question, which I asked aloud this time to no one in particular: "Who in God's name decided that all-powder blue uniforms are a good idea?"

As last night's game unfolded, I kept waiting for a gaggle of men -- some sporting a Jeff Fisher fit-for-a-porn-star mustache -- to emerge wearing wigs and ill-fitting cheerleader outfits to cheer on the powderpuff, er, powder blue Titans from Tennessee. Again, who on earth decided that the Titans would take the field in such garishly ugly uniforms?!

Since the Titans kicked the crap out of the Colts, I fear the Titans players may develop a superstitious attachment to the, ahem, unique uniform combo in which they took the field last night. If that is indeed the case, I will be forced to dust off the Pittsburgh Steelers cap that's been languishing in my closet since immediately after the successful NFL Yes! campaign of a decade ago. (Black and gold is a manly color scheme, n'est-ce pas?!)

My ami and co-worker J.J. Starr has done something that many scholars and assorted "experts" said couldn't be done: He has successfully translated a 4,000-year-old Sumerian tablet, which he calls "The Great Fatted Bull." From his Web site:

This tablet is of great historical importance. It is the world’s first literary masterpiece. It is also the world’s first political satire.

The tablet is a literary tour-de-force, full of clever word-play and layered meanings, written by a Sumerian Shakespeare at the dawn of literature. Although seemingly a simple fable, and not very long (about 40 lines), it is a complicated saga, filled with sex, violence, comedy and adventure. Most Sumerian literature is a straightforward narration of a well-known story, such as a mythological tale or an historic event. This tablet is an original work of fiction, full of unexpected plot twists, hidden and double meanings, humor, symbolism, and sophisticated word-play. ... This kind of writing is familiar to modern readers in 2000 A.D., who see it every day in the media; but it was all brand new in 2000 B.C. On this clay tablet the scribe single-handedly "invents" modern literature, which is all the more impressive in a language as difficult as ancient Sumerian. These forty lines are the best ever written in the Sumerian language, and they can hold their own against any of the world’s great literature, ancient or modern.

All you gotta do is read through some of the comments on this Web site to see how lacking in class are a great many of Barack "Major Redistributive Change" Obama's supporters. In Northern Virginia, some of these class acts have been ... well, just see for yourself (HT: ewerickson):




Some more vandalism pics can be seen here.

Now, if "Fuck Obama" messages were being spraypainted on private properties in Virginia, or anywhere for that matter, how long do you think it would take before cries of "Hate Crime!" became defeaning? I say one hour and fifteen - nah, make it fourteen - minutes.

Last week, I talked about the utter contempt I have for nitwit celebrities who foist their political views upon the general public. Earlier tonight I spied a commercial in which pop music squealer Christina Aguilera implored her fellow citizens to vote. Wrapped in a flag and cradling a baby, Ms. Aguilera said, and I quote:

"If I were president, I would make sure that all children lived in a violence-free home."

So, in addition to serving as Commander in Chief and making treaties and appointing judges and giving Congress information on the State of the Union, Ms. Aguilera thinks the President of the U.S. is also a glorified social worker and a beat police officer. Sounds like someone needs to read her Constitution, n'est-ce pas?

I don't think there's a single soul who wouldn't enjoy living in a world in which young'uns spend their entire childhood never seeing their mother get smacked around or never witnessing a shooting on the nearest street corner. If such a world is ever going to exist, however, it ain't gonna be because of something that took place in the Oval Office (and that includes an Oval Office occupied by a dark-skinned deity). Local police, mayors and city council members, state legislators and officials in state agencies ... those are the people who can truly do something about making homes safe and free from violence.

The idea that it's the President's, or the federal government's, job to cure every ill and and solve every problem, real or imagined, is nothing new. Watch Oprah Winfrey for a week and you'll hear her talk to dozens of people who state for the record that the gov'ment has to "do something" to fix everything from bumpy roads to the ingrown toenail epidemic (and, of course, her overwhelmingly female audience nods in unison and cries on cue).

You may also recall that during the 2000 campaign, Al "Big Daddy" Gore tried to appeal to frazzled soccer moms by promising to institute a national 1-800 number that would've given up-to-the-minute traffic reports for each and every city in America. If B. Hussein Obama's elected (God help us), we can expect him and his nanny state cheerleaders in Congress to propose similar claptrap -- which will be paid for by taxing the bejesus out of everything that moves, or makes a profit.

Joltin' Django was out of town on Thursday and Friday. From where I was, I could publish posts but couldn't get comments to publish (say that ten times real fast). Tain't the first time such has happened to me. Don't ask me how the Interweb works.

I received comments and e-mails from several prized purveyors of generalized jabberwocky (apologies to Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS) who wanted to know what'd happened to their comments. Well, they're a comin'. But here's the deal:

I'm gonna start going through all the comments I've received over the last couple of days, and I'm gonna respond to each and every one that I think begs a response. I'm gonna do that until the Tenn. vs. Bama and Middle Tenn. vs. Miss. State games begin. If you don't see your comment(s) before then, you ain't gonna see 'em 'til tomorrow. So there.

Go Vols 'n' Raiders.

"Socialist" is the latest if-the-shoe-fits term that a conservative can't affix to B. Hussein Obama lest he or she wants to be called a racist. Others include "radical," "protectionist," "union stooge," "adherent of liberation theology," etc. Refer to Obama as anything but an "African-American agent o' change" and you're gonna get burned.

Leftists for years have been screaming racism whenever they're dealing with someone who does not share their political views. I have to give 'em credit, though, because it's been an effective rhetorical tool.

If a liberal's debating someone over the merits of, say, a flat-rate income tax, all he has to do is accuse his opponent of being a racist for supporting a flat tax. The debate immediately shifts from whether or not a flat tax makes good economic sense (which it does) to whether or not the accused is actually a racist. Caught flat-footed, the accused gets knocked off-message trying to explain that Bull Connor's not going to be revived to run the IRS if a flat tax is instituted.

That said, I and other conservatives have been calling Obama a socialist because, well, by his words and deeds he deserves to be called a ****in' socialist. First, here's just one of his deeds:

"Evidence has emerged that Sen. Barack Obama belonged to a socialist political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda."

(Pic from a New Party publication, courtesy of New Zeal blog.)

If Obama didn't agree with the New Party's dreams for building a socialist utopia in these United States, why did he join? For a free T-shirt?

As for Obama's words:

He wants higher marginal tax rates. He wants to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends. He wants to increase the payroll tax. He wants to keep the estate tax at 45 percent instead of allowing it to go to zero in 2010 (as it would under current law). He also wants to keep the corporate tax rate at 35 percent, which will ensure that the U.S. maintains one of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. In addition, Obama has proposed phasing out a whole host of deductions and exemptions, many of which are in place to lessen the tax burden on small businesses.

So, what does Obama propose to do with all the supposed additional revenues that'll come pouring in once he's raised taxes? Well, he's proposed over $4 trillion in new spending.

Included in Obama's bust-the-bank new spending is a proposal to turn Social Security - for the first time in its history - into an overt welfare program.

Also, Obama wants to give billions of dollars of "tax credits" to individuals who pay little or no income taxes. (In econ books Obama's tax credits are referred to as "transfer payments." That is, transferring money from one group of people to another.)

Obama has said he wants to double foreign aid, most of which will no doubt go to countries in which the United States has no strategic interest.

And finally, Obama is four-square in favor of another big "stimulus" pay-out. Right now, Congress' new stimulus package is geared only toward those who've lost their jobs. If the bill languishes until after Obama becomes president (God help us), he and his allies in Congress will lard the bill up with additional goodies for practically every man woman and child in America -- excepting those who actually pay the bills, of course.

What Obama has proposed is a massive wealth-spreading scheme. A better way to describe it would be to say that he wants to take from those according to their ability and give to those according to their need. If that ain't socialism, please tell me what is.

Many a truth is said in jest ...

"PETA sent a letter to Phillies outfielder Shane Victorino asking him to stop eating Spam." -- "Sign Of The Apocalypse," Sports Illustrated, October 27

You know, I don't think there's another group of people for whom I have more contempt than PETA. Sanctimonious, self-righteous, and hypocritical, the folks at PETA spend practically every waking moment telling people - in the most abrasive of ways - what they should eat, drink and wear.

I just wonder how many members of PETA consider themselves pro-abortion. An overwhelming majority, I'll bet. And I wonder how many of 'em have said, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one." Thankfully, I don't come into contact with PETA people very often. If'n I did, I'd say, "Don't like steak or leather belts? Well, then, don't eat steak or wear leather belts. But lemme tell you: point your finger in my general direction while I'm doing either and I'll snatch it off your hand and shove it up your arse."

Earlier this year, PETA's "HQ" sent a letter to Britney Spears' parents suggesting that their daughter's much-publicized mental breakdowns were a direct result of her consuming dairy products. Yes, according to PETA, Ms. Spears went batshit-crazy because she drinks milk. (I'm sure a lot of celebrities wish they were lucky enough to ascribe their bizarre behavior to too many glasses of milk.)

PETA's letter to Britney Spears' parents was incredibly tacky. It reminded me of Tom Cruise's unlearned Church of Scientology-approved rants against Brooke Shields' doctor-approved use of psychotropic drugs. What right did PETA have to think that they could cogently comment on any aspect of Ms. Spears' mental health treatment -- or anyone's mental health treatment, for that matter? I'm pretty sure PETA folks don't think. And that's their ****in' problem, ain't it?!

PETA's letter to Shane Victorino was also incredibly tacky. If I were him, I'd fire off a letter to the folks at PETA -- after I'd sent it to every media outlet I could think of -- and tell 'em to mind their own ****in' business. No, better yet ... I'd tell 'em to send a guy from their Philly office over to Citizens Bank Park. When the pasty-faced hairhead showed up, I'd take a cheesesteak sammich from Gino's or Pat's and shove it right down his throat. So there.

A new study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism finds the media's coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign has been decidedly biased for B. Hussein Obama.

The folks at the PEJ surveyed media coverage of Obama and McCain during a six week period beginning September 8. Here' what they found:

Coverage of Obama was 36 percent positive, 35 percent neutral or mixed and 29 percent negative. McCain's coverage was 57 percent negative and just 14 percent positive.

For those liberal ass-scratchers who're still not convinced that there is a discernable liberal bias in the mainstream media, the Campaign for Working Families gives us this explicit example of the media's blatant bias:

"Governor Sarah Palin recently did an interview with CNN's Drew Griffin. During the interview, Griffin noted that even conservatives have attacked her and proceeded to cite as an example a story from the conservative National Review, which, in Griffin’s words, said, 'I can’t tell if Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, or all of the above.'

"As it turns out, Griffin had lifted a quote from Byron York, who was describing how unfair the media's treatment of Sarah Palin has been. Here is the relevant section of York's article ...

"'Watching press coverage of the Republican candidate for vice president, it’s sometimes hard to decide whether Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, backward, or — or, well, all of the above. Palin, the governor of Alaska, has faced more criticism than any vice-presidential candidate since 1988, when Democrats and the press tore into Dan Quayle. In fact, Palin may have it even worse than Quayle.'

"York goes on to note, 'A look at Palin’s 20 months in power, along with interviews with people who worked with her, shows her to be a serious executive, a governor who picked important things to do and got them done — and who didn’t just stumble into an 80 percent job-approval rating.'"

Isn't it amazing what a difference a little context makes? It makes a supposedly non-biased reporter, who works for a supposedly non-biased cable news network, look like a liberal jackass. Indeed.

Starting in late 2003 until, well, now, we've every one of us been subjected to articles and stories and tales and speeches from liberals crowing how there weren't no WMDs in Iraq. Next time I'm in bitch-slapping distance from one of the aforementioned liberals ... well, I'm gonna sock 'em and tell 'em this:

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of 'yellowcake' — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy.

Wait. Didn't the "truth"-teller Ambassador Joe Wilson state - on each and every "Sunday show" that'd have him - that Saddam Hussein didn't have/need/want no yellowcake uranium; and didn't Wilson state that Hussein couldn't never make use of yellowcake ... no, wait, Wilson and his supposedly aggrieved wife stated time and time again that Hussein didn't have no yellowcake, period.

Now that it's fully documented that Saddam Hussein had TONS of shit from which he could make WMDs prior to the U.S. invasion in 2003 ... why hasn't it been Major News on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and your local news stations?

You know why, and anyone who has half a non-biased fucking brain knows why. God help me for saying that.

Yesterday, the Tennessean featured on the front page of its "Business" section a top-fold story 'bout declining gas prices. Naturally, a picture of an individual wearing an Obama button was included with the story.

The subliminal message, of course, from this story is: Obama's the New Messiah and Th' Man, so he's responsible for now-cheap gas.

B. Hussein Obama has about as much to do with the current price of gas - and oil - as he does for making sure the sun will come up in the west tomorrow.

Gas is now cheaper because (a) world-wide demand is down, and (b) the U.S. Dollar Index Future is up, up, up. To wit:



That said ... if the dumpy broad in the above picture had been wearing a "McCain-Palin" button when the Tennessean's photog seen her, do you think her visage would've been front-page-published in Nashville's paper of record?

You do?! Wanna buy my bag full o' rubber nickels?

I took some heat for suggesting that B. Hussein Obama is the "most ignorant" presidential candidate of all time when it comes to economic issues. I ain't backin' down from that comment. And here's why:

Obama's on the record saying that his tax-raising schemes won't harm small business. Yesterday's lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal calls him on his -- the only eloquent way I can say it is -- ignorant lie. To wit:

Mr. Obama's tax increase would hit the bottom line of small businesses in [a couple of] ways. First, because 85% of small business owners are taxed at the personal income tax rate, any moderately successful business with an income above as little as $165,000 a year could face a higher tax liability. That's the income level at which the 33% income tax bracket now phases in for individuals, and Mr. Obama would raise that tax rate for those businesses to 36%.

Second, the Obama plan phases out tax deductions (the so-called PEP and Pease provisions), thus raising tax rates imposed on this group by another 1.5 percentage points. Finally, Mr. Obama would require many small business owners to pay as much as a four-percentage-point payroll tax surcharge on net income above $250,000. All of this would bring the federal marginal small business tax rate up to nearly 45%, while big business would continue to pay the 35% corporate tax rate.

Wow.

Let's delve a little deeper into B. Hussein's changin' thangs vis-à-vis taxes for a moment, shall we? When confronted 'bout his scheme to give "tax credits," i.e., redistributive payments to folks who effectively pay no federal income taxes, Obama says all Americans subjected to federal payroll taxes will be gettin' a "tax cut" when they get his "tax credits."

Anyone who buys that horse-hooey will also swear that the Lone Ranger rode a horse named Trinity United Church of Christ. Payroll taxes are extracted from each and every American's payroll check to fund the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. So, when Obama talks about "tax-cutting" workers' payroll tax obligations, what he's really saying is that he's all for ensuring that the Social Security Administration has even fewer dollars to work with than it does now.

Jesus. Obama's not only in favor of running thousands and thousands of small businesses into the ground with his tax policies ... he's fully prepared to run Social Security (as if it needed more help) into the ground along with 'em.

To borrow a line from a famous mid-80s movie ... I weep for the future.

Joltin' Django is going to be out of town for a couple of days. The Nigh Seen Creeder will return Wednesday, October 22.

I hate to be blunt, but B. Hussein Obama may be the most economically ignorant major party presidential candidate to ever come down the pike.  I've had great fun comparing Mr. Obama to Jimmy Carter and George McGovern.  Now Obama's gone and made my makin'-fun job easier by resurrecting the ghost of Huey Long.  To wit:
 
"When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
 
Obama's indirect (intentional?) name-checking of a long-ago demagogic, socialist Southern governor is funny to those of us who know a thing or two 'bout basic economics; however, Obama's ignorant redistributionist prattling ain't so funny when one considers that the man is now pretty much on track to become the next American president.
 
Anyone who's ever read the Wealth of Nations, or Economics in One Lesson, or Basic Economics, or Applied Economics, or The Law, or Capitalism and Freedom, or The Road to Serfdom knows that wealth is neither fixed nor finite.  That is, wealth is not a pie over which different groups have to compete for ever-larger slices, or share slices. Wealth is only limited when politicians place barriers in front of those who dare to imagine, create, refine, and distribute goods and services for a profit.  And Obama and his cronies in Congress are all about barrier-placing.
 
Don't think for a minute that Obama's wealth-spreading comment was the work of a neophytic presidential candidate.  Earlier this year, Mrs. B. Hussein Obama let slip what her husband was feeling in his heart when she said, [S]omeone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." You know, that don't sound like the policy position of a post-partisan, über-moderate President for the Ages.  It sounds like something you'd find on the Communist Party-USA's Web site. 
 
What the U.S. economy needs right now - nay, what Americans need right now - is not wealth-spreading or pie-sharing or increased taxes on capital or doubling the size of the Federal Register or towing-kow for public and private-sector unions or any of the other piddling socialist crap the Ignoramus Formerly Known As Barry wants to do. 

What we need is a president and members of Congress who, whenever they start to write a bill or deliver a speech, ask themselves one simple question: "What would Adam Smith do?"  My, what an easier life we'd all be leading if each and every one of our policy-makers - from the USA Prez down to the school board prez - had to ponder that question before they did any-fuckin'-thing.  

My favorite female athlete is golfer Natalie Gulbis. Not only is Ms. Gulbis easy - nay, very easy - on the eyes, she can knock the piss out of a golf ball.

The Golf Channel has started re-running the Natalie Gulbis Show from a couple-years back, and I couldn't be happier. If you've never seen it, you need to put your boob tube on the GC and look for the NGS episode in which Ms. Gulbis struts around in an assortment of bikinis and short shorts whilst posing for her 2007 calendar. Believe me ... you'll be glad you did.

As for Ms. Gulbis' golf prowess, her swing off the tee is so smooth, so fluid, it reminds me of Wade Boggs or Tony Gwynn swinging a baseball bat. That is, there's not one identifiable hitch in her swing. And unlike Clark or Gwynn, Gulbis ain't no singles hitter ... she swings for the fences. Indeed, I wish I - with my upper body strength and my fancy Cleveland Hi-Bore driver - could hit a golf ball like she can.

Why am I mentioning this? Well, I just got the new Golf Digest and it features an in-depth interview -- half-print and half-online (for subscribers) -- with one Natalie Gulbis. Amid the talk of favorite courses and preferred drivers and practice schedules, Gulbis is asked if she would ever pose for Playboy magazine (not "Would you consider ...?", mind you, but "Would you ...?") and she indicates, quite emphatically, that she would not.

Damn. That's all I'm gonna say.

There's a new driving range in South Nashville, on Old Hickory Blvd. 'bout a quarter-mile south of the Barnes Road/OHB intersection. It's small-time and family-owned and fully worth your patronizing:




I took my Cleveland Hibore XL to the Huffman range today and I got a free bucket of balls after I emptied my paid-for bucket of balls. Tain't nothing like 65-degree weather and hitting free golf balls on a first-class driving range, I tell you what!

A few weeks back, I told you what I think 'bout McCain backers who support Democrats down-ballot. Now I'm gonna tell you about ... well, let's start with the pic:


Let's see ... Obama and Biden are typical union/trial lawyer-funded Democrat statists. Bob Tuke is a typical union/trial lawyer-funded statist, too, but he, as a U.S. Senator, would vote to sell out either the unions or the trial lawyers if that's what Harry Reid told him to do.

So, why in God's name would a green-leaning sort vote for a Democrat tool like Bob Tuke for Senate and an official Green like John Miglietta for Congress? That is, if the Green Party's congressional candidate is such a great, well, candidate, why not support the Green Party's senatorial candidate too?

I'm asking questions that I don't care to contemplate, let alone answer. I have better things to do, you see. What I will ask you to contemplate, however, is this:

Green Party 5th District congressional candidate John Miglietta needs to lose 30 lbs, find a better barber, and get him a copy of Charley Lau's The Art of Hitting .300, don't he? The Tennessee Green Party's candidate for U.S. Senate, Chris Lugo, needs to get serious about his first campaign pledge: Peace in Iraq. If Lugo and his out-of-Iraq-NOW pals have their way, tain't gonna be no peace in Iraq ... it's gonna be a bloodbath, indeed.

I can't help it but I've always stereotyped folks who vote Democrat or Green as idiots. There are exceptions to that rule, I know and I'm willing to admit. What I'm not willing to admit is the fact that someone who votes for John Miglietta and Obama/Biden, or Miglietta and Tuke ... I'm gonna have to stop before I absolutely prove my notion that folks who vote Democrat and/or Green are idiots. So there.

Indeed:

John McCain won. Period. Full stop.

I absolutely think that Barack Obama was not on his game. Obama's handler's told him not to say anything which might cause them a prob. McCain came out attacking.

Cases in point: ACORN

Obama pretended that he had only a passing knowledge of ACORN. McCain made the point that Obama and ACORN have been joined at the hip since Obama got out law school.

Notwithstanding the fact that Obama is ahead in the polls, I don't think he made his case. ...

McCain didn't have to deliver a "knock out punch." ... What he does have to do is to is to change the momentum of the campaign.

If McCain is behind by seven or eight percentage points - 20 days out - he doesn't have to e heven tomorrow morning. All he has to do is to change point and momentum and begin to gain a half a percentage point a day. ...

Final words. The popular press will tell you that McCain didn't score a knock out punch and, therefore, he lost.

Nonsense.

As I switched around the channels after the debate I was assaulted by announcements of people who had no idea what they had just seen telling me they - and their colleagues - were going to tell me what was correct and what was not.

Why does this matter? Because Americans don't vote for President based upon a candidates' position on H.R. 3725 or whatever. Voting for President is a very emotional experience.

McCain won this third-and-final debate.

Earlier this year, the Tennessean went ape-shit when it learned that U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Franklin) was employing her daughter to do fund-rasing stuff for the Blackburn '08 re-election campaign. The Tennessee Democrat Party immediately released a half-dozen j'accuse e-mails and press releases, and then the FEC investigated, and then the corruption-nepotism charge faded away like a sand-drawing at high tide.

Keep all that in mind when you read this:

Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. has paid more than $2 million in campaign cash to his family members, their businesses and employers over the years, a practice that watchdogs criticize as rife with potential conflicts of interest.

The money largely flowed from the coffers of Mr. Biden's failed presidential campaign during the past two years to a company that employs his sister and longtime campaign manager, Valerie Biden Owens, according to campaign disclosure filings.

The senator from Delaware also directed campaign legal work to a Washington lobbying and law firm founded by his son R. Hunter Biden, the disclosures show.

The Tennessean ain't said jack-squat about how Joe Biden's repeatedly opened his campaign checkbook(s) to line the pockets of immediate family members. Reckon how come?

I, for one, think it has something to do with hypocrisy and bias. I encourage Creeder Readers to try to prove me wrong.

What did we ever do to these guys
That made them so violent?

-- Weezer, "Buddy Holly"

Man, it's getting old 'n' ugly in Ohio! To wit:

Poll workers from opposing sides in the presidential race apparently clashed in a physical altercation Friday at a Cuyahoga Falls nursing home when one accused the other of improperly marking a ballot.

George Manos, the 75-year-old Republican, told police that Edith Walker, the 73-year-old Democrat, jumped on his back and struck him in the head three to four times with her fists. Manos said two other elections workers had to pull Walker off his back, according to a report filed with Cuyahoga Falls police.

Manos said it happened after he accused Walker of ballot tampering, and he wants to prosecute.

You know, someone who's lived to be 73 ... you'd think that he or she would've accumulated enough knowledge over the years to know that socialism and isolationism and protectionism are bad ideas.

I don't like to promote violence, but I sure hope Mr. Manos got in a few "enlightening" licks on Ms. Walker before police dragged her dumb ass away.

Tennessee Titans QB Vince Young lost his job earlier this year because (a) he got a little bit hurt, and (b) he had a well-publicized temper tantrum on the Titans' sideline during their first game. Young was replaced by veteran Kerry Collins, and now the Titans are the only undefeated team in the NFL.

So, how is Vince Young taking his second-string status? Well, here's how he was quoted in today's Tennessean:

"'It's a learning process for me, but I'm over that,' Young said Wednesday. 'It has made me a stronger black man.'"

What does Young's skin color have to do with his benching? Nothing. Furthermore, what did Young's skin color have to do with his being chosen as the third pick in the 2006 NFL draft, or his promotion to starting QB during his rookie season? Again, nothing.

What Young needs to remember is that he's not the first black guy to line up under center for the Titans/Oilers. Steve McNair was successfully running and slinging passes when Young was a skinny teen; and Warren Moon -- who torched the Canadian Football League before torching the NFL, thus earning my undying admiration -- was passing his way into the Hall of Fame before Young was even weaned. Young should pray, and keep his fingers crossed, that he even comes close to the records set, and reputations earned, by those two class-act quarterbacks.

So, why did Vince Young say that his current hardship(s) are making him a stronger "black man" instead of a stronger "man," period? And why didn't the Tennessean reporter who interviewed Vince Young ask him that very question?

You know and I know, and I know that you know, the answer to those questions. Answer 'em honestly and you'll no doubt be branded a latter-day Hester Primm with a big "R" on your chest.

That said, consider this: Mr. Kerry Collins has been traded some half-dozen times; he's suffered through bouts of alcoholism and depression; and he was the QB of record on Super Bowl-losing team. He's now guided the Tennessee Titans to five straight victories. If he were to tell the Tennessean tomorrow that he's now a "stronger white man," do you think anyone would have anything to say about it?

I know you know what some folks would say about it. And I know that you know what Al and Jesse would ... aw, forget about it.

Somebody needs to help Joe Biden with his spellin' and his cipherin' ...! To wit:



If Joe Biden becomes Vice President of the U.S. (God help us), he's gonna be worth more, comical-wise, than a barrel full o' monkeys (apologies to Andy Griffith).

Hayden Panetierre, whose main claim to fame is inspiring onanistic fantasies while strutting around in a cheerleader outfit on the NBC series Heroes, has made what may be the tackiest anti-McCain ad of the 2008 camapaign:



It seems like every person with an acting credit wishes to share his or her political beliefs with the world. These folks're certainly entitled to their opinions, and they all have the same right to free expression that all Americans enjoy. However, celebrities should not be insulated from tough follow-up questions when they enter the public arena.

If I asked Ms. Panetierre to define "marginal tax rate," or to name 10 nations on the continent of Africa, or to list 5 Articles in the Bill of Rights, or to congently explain how and why America's health-care system evolved into a patchwork scheme of government and/or third-party payment, or to tell me what an inverse yield curve predicts, do you think she could do it? Hell, if I picked the 150 most politically active celebrities and asked them the same questions, I'd be lucky to find five who could provide accurate answers.

I have no use for high-horse Hollywood nitwits. If we forced these fools - at gunpoint, if necessary - to explain their views beyond emotionalist rants, I'm quite certain that most Hollywood political commentary would end.

Have you ever noticed how many everyday events or situations can be related to an episode of Seinfeld?

Last night, I was watching "The Van Buren Boys" episode when this exchange took place:

Jerry: Why do so many presidents have bad names? Woodrow, Grover, Millard.

George: The presidency attracts the badly named. Their ambition is based on personal insecurity. It's classic male overcompensation.

I don't think I have to say anything else!

Thomas Frank is the token liberal in the Wall Street Journal's editorial/opinion pages. Frank's "Tilting Yard" columns are high comedy because practically everything he writes seems to be clipped from Democratic National Committee press releases. Put his musings side by side with the well reasoned and chock-full-of-facts-and-figures editorials for which the WSJ is famous, and you're not only guaranteed to chuckle for a bit, you almost want to send the man a check so he sign up for courses in basic economics and elementary logic.

In his column today, Frank offers his opinions 'bout B. Hussein Obama and William Ayers. Frank is friendly with Ayers, so he takes personal exception to Republican criticism of Obama and his radical friends. Frank writes:

"[T]he Republican presidential campaign has put nearly all its ... political capital on emphasizing Mr. Obama's time on various foundation boards with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weathermen, which planted bombs and issued preposterous statements in the Vietnam era. Some on the right seem to believe Mr. Ayers is Mr. Obama's puppet-master, while others are content merely to insist that the association proves Mr. Obama to be soft on terrorism. Maybe he's soft on anarchy and repudiation, too."

No one has suggested that Ayers is Obama's puppet-master. Furthermore, Obama has said enough dumb things over the years to suggest that, as a matter of policy, he'd be soft on terrorism; Ayers name doesn't need to be - and hasn't been - dragged into that debate. See what I mean about Thomas Frank?

Those liberals who get their panties in a twist every time someone mentions Obama and Ayers in the same sentence need to realize this: It's not just Ayers. Ayers gets the most-mentioned treatment because he (a) engaged in terroristic activities, (b) escaped prison on a technicality, and (c) refuses to apologize for his actions. (Ayers: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.") You can damn sure bet that if John McCain was chummy with, and attended a fundraiser at the home of, someone who bombed abortion clinics and refused to apologize for it, NOW and NARAL and the DNC and every other left-wing outfit you can think of would be raising holy hell.

But it's not just Ayers. Obama has a history of associating with radical left-wingers and corrupt pols, and these associations explain how he got to where he is today. Dan McLaughlin offers some insight:

"You will often hear Obama's defenders argue that his ties to this or that extremist or corrupt figure is an isolated aberration, an example of "guilt by association"; that the various favors he dispensed with public money and private charitable foundation funds are nothing unusual in politics. But when you look at Obama's record and biography taken together, what you see is that the favors, the extremists and the machine ties are all inextricably intertwined, and that far from being isolated incidents, Obama's modus operandi of mutual back-scratching with radicals and crooks extends to nearly every aspect of his life and career - his family, his faith, his home, his jobs and education, his significant election victories and legislative 'accomplishments,' his closest advisors and most important mentors, the money and organization that made up his campaigns."

If you haven't done so already, I encourage you read David Freddoso's The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate. Until then, these links'll keep you busy:

Obama's Rootless Ambition looks at the influences that shaped Obama before he ran for office.

Obama and the Extremists looks at his relationships with left-wing radicals and how they were an integral part of his rise in politics.

Obama and ACORN looks at his intimate relationship with a network of community organizers with a pervasive record of voter fraud and deep involvement in the subprime housing crisis.

Obama and the Machine looks at Obama's long, deep and multifacted partnership with machine politicians in Chicago and Springfield.

Obama and the Favor Factory looks at Obama's routine practice of trading favors with his political benefactors.

Obama, "New Politics" and Principles looks at the illusory nature of Obama's "new politics," his absence of a record of fighting tough battles on principle, and wraps up and concludes the series.

Over the weekend, U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) laughably compared John McCain to segregationist George Wallace. The McCain campaign fired back, and even B. Hussein Obama stated that Lewis' comment was over the top.

Just a few days before Lewis made his McCain-Wallace comparison, Jesse Jackson, reputed man of the cloth and noted shakedown artist, told the World Policy Forum in France that B. Hussein Obama, if elected, will reverse "decades" of U.S. foreign policy in which America has put "Israel's interests" first. Quoth Jackson:

"Zionists ... have controlled American policy for decades. ... They will lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House."

Let's be clear: When Jesse Jackson says "Zionists," what he really means is "Jews." Jackson has a history of making anti-Semitic comments (he once referred to New York City as "hymietown"), and he knew exactly what message his foreign listeners would hear when he said "Zionists."

Jackson's rhetoric is repulsive for sure. So B. Hussein should be asked to what degree Jackson speaks for his campaign. And, as the guys over at Red State ask, "Just how much does Obama stay up at nights worrying about the supposedly undue influence of 'Zionists'?" That would be a good question for tomorrow's debate ... but I ain't gonna hold my breath waiting for it to be asked.

Karl Marx once wrote, "A new revolution is possible only in consequence of a new crisis." I thought about that quote while reading the following post from the Campaign for Working Families PAC's Web site. This is good stuff:

I have a lot to say today, friends, so please bear with me. I’d like to begin by going back to a point in yesterday’s report, just in case you missed it, because it is a very significant point.

There is no question that our nation is grappling with a major economic crisis right now. As we have outlined in past reports, the roots of this crisis can be traced back to liberal policies enacted by Jimmy Carter, expanded by Bill Clinton, pushed by leftwing groups like ACORN and defended by liberal Democrats in Congress. The question before us in this election is: How do we respond to this crisis?

Will America embrace free market capitalism or will we abandon our traditions and take a radical lurch to the left with the socialist policies espoused by Barack Obama? Will this new economic crisis lead to a new revolution in America? That is the question we will face in 21 days.

In our report yesterday, we told you about a plumber who approached Barack Obama during a campaign event in Ohio over the weekend. As you know, Obama has repeatedly promised to raises taxes on successful entrepreneurs and families, and this plumber called him out on it. He asked Obama, “Do you believe in the American dream? I’m being taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”

Obama responded by saying, “It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Let me again quote the German philosopher and founder of the communist ideology, Karl Marx: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” In other words, you will produce what you can using your talents and then government will use its power to take your earnings and “spread” them to others who are unable or unwilling to do as well. “Spreading the wealth” may sound nice, but it has never worked. The “workers’ paradise” Marx dreamed of was tried in the Soviet Union with its mandated results and planned economies. The Soviet Union no longer exists.

But Obama wants to try it here. He constantly talks of tax policy in terms of “fairness” – whether or not it actually works. Consider this exchange with ABC’s Charlie Gibson during the April 16th Democrat primary debate on the subject of raising capital gains taxes:

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent. …

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

So, whether or not the policy is sound doesn’t matter. What matters is Barack Obama’s sense of “fairness.” Government will decide what’s “fair,” government will decide how much of your hard-earned income you get to keep, government will determine what your “needs” are.

The Ohio plumber who questioned Obama’s tax plan ought to be running for public office. He’s got it exactly right -- Obama’s tax policies will punish success and they will punish working families. John McCain is hammering this theme on the campaign trial in Pennsylvania today.

Every dollar the government takes is less money a business has to invest in expansion, less money to provide benefits to its employees, less money to provide pay raises. As Senator Fred Thompson explained in his speech to the Republican National Convention, Obama’s tax policy is like trying to take water out of only one side of a bucket:

“Now, our opponents tell us not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they’re not going to tax your family. No, they’re just going to tax businesses. So, unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline or unless you get a paycheck from a business, a big business or a small business, don’t worry, it’s not going to affect you! They say they’re not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the other side of the bucket! That’s their idea of tax reform.”

My friends, when Obama says he wants to bring “change” to America, I believe him. But I don’t believe it is the change we need. Barack Obama is the most leftwing candidate to win a major party nomination in modern history. He is radically pro-abortion. He has fully embraced the radical agenda of the militant homosexual movement, which in California now includes taking public school first graders on field trips to lesbian “weddings.” And his economic views are seemingly inspired by Karl Marx.

Hyperbole? Not really. In recent days, information has surfaced that Obama was a member of the socialist New Party in Illinois, which was started by political operatives from Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign. A November 1996 editorial in the leftwing Progressive Populist states, “New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.” (Obama ran as a Democrat, but sought support and endorsements from the leftwing fringe, like the New Party.) [Emphases mine]

An August 1996 article in New Ground, a publication of the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America, makes it clear that Obama was actively seeking the support of New Party radicals, who were joined at the hip with ACORN: “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”

This is more evidence of why Obama’s past relationships with radicals like William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright are relevant to today’s campaign for the White House. These relationships are a window into Obama’s worldview. They tell us everything we need to know about who he is, what he believes and how he will govern.

ABC News is reporting that U.S. Representative Tim Mahoney (D-FL), who replaced scandal-scarred former-Rep. Mark Foley, promised his former mistress a job at his campaign's media firm in return for her silence. That firm: Nashville's own Fletcher, Rowley, Chao & Riddle.

From ABC News:

"Mahoney, who is married, also promised the woman, Patricia Allen, a $50,000 a year job for two years at the agency that handles his campaign advertising, the staffers said.

"The agreement between the Congressman and Allen, reportedly promises her a job for two years at Fletcher, Rowley, Chao & Riddle ... beginning January 2009. Fletcher Rowley, a Nashville-based political consulting firm that offers 'crisis management and creative strategy,' lists Mahoney's 2006 election victory as one of its 'success stories,' according to its website."

First of all, I want to know this: What did the folks at Bill Fletcher's firm know about Mahoney's bimbo eruption, and when did they know it? Did Mahoney have an explicit guarantee from someone at Fletcher's firm that a job was waiting for his former mistress?

Also, I'd like to know when the mainstream media plans to go into 'round-the-clock hyperventilation-mode over l'affaire Mahoney like they did over l'affaire Mark Foley in 2006. I mean, they seem like equally salacious stories to me. So, why did one get full-court coverage from the national press and the other's ... well, you have to go looking for information about the other.

I ask that last question rhetorically because every individual imbued with the ability to critically examine facts and use reason already knows the answer. Hint: it has something to do with "bias." So there.

I was flying to Chicago a couple of years ago when I got into a discussion about taxes with the feller sitting next to me. (I'll call him "King" because he was carrying a Steven King paperback.) The reason our conversation steered to taxes is because the date was April 14th. King asked if I had my taxes done, and I told him that my taxes had been filed for weeks.

When I asked King if he'd filed his taxes, he not only replied in the affirmative, he got plum giddy telling me that he had qualified for an "earned income tax cut." I asked if he meant the Earned Income Tax Credit" and he said "yes." King then went on and on about how great it was that his unexpected tax cut meant that he'd be getting more money back from the government than he expected.

I tried to steer the conversation toward something other than taxes (I think I told him that I was going to go to my first Cubs game while in Chicago), but King wouldn't bite. He kept going on and on about his "tax cut." Since he was starting to get on my nerves, I decided to give him a short tutorial in tax policy.

Since King wasn't wearing a wedding ring, I asked if he had a wife. He said no. Then I said, and I just about word-for-word remember what I said to him, "You didn't get a tax cut. You didn't earn much money last year. Because your income is so low, you qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit. So, basically, what you're getting is a check from the government to supplement your income."

If I'd insulted King's mother I couldn't have gotten him more riled up. He let me know, in no uncertain terms, that he made "a lot" of money and had "a big house." I told him that he couldn't have made a lot of money because if he did, he would not have qualified for the EITC. Before he could say anything, a flight attendant came to ask if we'd like anything to drink. The older lady sitting next to King asked him a question (I think she was tired of listening to us) and our conversation came to a quick end. He didn't say **** to me the rest of the flight, or when we were leaving the plane in Chicago.

I mention that story because today's Wall Street Journal has a great editorial about B. Hussein Obama's so-called middle class tax cuts. There may be some people in this world who are dumb enough to believe that Obama's economic plans include millions and millions of dollars in "tax relief" for working families. The WSJ, and yours truly, ain't buying none of it. Check this out:

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

APIt's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

So there you have it. B. Hussein Obama aims to out-McGovern George McGovern.

Canada's voters are poised to give the Conservative Party of Canada, which is led by the tax-cutting, culturally conservative Stephen Harper, an outright majority in the Canadian Parliament (Canada's national election is tomorrow). American voters are poised to elect a feller who hopes to "change" the country by injecting it with a healthy dose of McGovernomics.

When did Canadians get so smart?!

I've had some big problems with Blogger.com over the past few days. Some of my posts didn't, well, post (here or at A Man's Gotta Eat), and I got an error message every time I attempted to approve comments. Since I was out of town Friday through last night, I didn't have a lot of time to dicker with either of my primary blogs.

If you left comments and haven't seen 'em yet, don't worry. They'll be posted up later today (after I get my real work done and after I've had time to fashion responses to the posts filled with numbnuttery).

Thanks for your patience and thanks for reading.

From Roseanne Barr's blog (HT: Celebslam):

"The fired intern ... has also stolen my private sex tape. I am offering $25,000 for it’s [sic] return (unless someone would like to distribute it - then I am willing to deal)."

I don't know what's more disturbing: the fact that someone wanted to have sex with Roseanne Barr and tape it for posterity, or the fact that Roseanne would allow her sex tape to be distributed for the right price.

If that sex tape ever gets released on the Internet and in your local "overcoat" store, start looking toward the horizon for four horses.

I don't usually do cross-posting between my political blog and my foodie blog. But since I mentioned a bit o' politics on my latest A Man's Gotta Eat post, I'm re-posting it here ... if only to drum up additional interest in what I have to say about food, drink, and assorted tobacco products.

Check this out (and be sure to check out A Man's Gotta Eat whenever you feel hungry, thirsty, or need a smoke):


During the 1988 presidential campaign, Vice President George H.W. Bush admitted in an interview that he loved to snack on fried pork skins. He immediately received criticism from two distinct groups of hand-wringers: those who said the patrician Bush was simply trying to appeal to rural and suburban rubes by pretending to like pork skins, and those who said a sitting Vice President shouldn't be encouraging anyone - rubes included - to eat anything as unhealthy as pork skins.

Since the mini-imbroglio over George H.W. Bush's eating habits is old, old news, I ain't gonna dwell on it. All I'll say is this:

Bush made his fortune in Texas' oilfields, so it's not inconceivable that he acquired a taste for something that's sold in practically every market in the south, not to mention in a lot of BBQ joints (more about that in a second). And, Bush didn't tell anyone to eat pork skins, he just said he liked 'em. Indeed, I don't recall any mass runs on pork skins after the Vice President of the U.S. supposedly inferred that everyone should go out and get some.

That said, I, too, like pork skins. Even though I was a young pup - young rube? - when Bush 41 stated his affinity for the tasty little things, I remember thinking, "This is my kind of guy!"

I'll be the first to admit that pork skins don't have a lot of nutritional value; but if you're not eating bags of 'em each day, while sitting on the couch, there ain't nothing wrong with enjoying the little salty, fatty buggers from time to time. I know it's hard concept for a lot of people to grasp, but if über-moderation is your guiding principle vis-à-vis putting things in your body, you can pretty much eat or drink anything.

[Sidebar: I'm reminded of a little episode from my high school days. I had a part-time job as a gopher at a truck, tractor and trailer dealership when I was in 11th and 12th grade. I worked my ass off in that job. One day, I delivered and fetched parts all over town, and I didn't stop for lunch. I stopped at a convenience store and picked up a bag of pork skins and a bottle of Gatorade. I was sitting in the break room enjoying my "lunch" when a co-worker came in, cigarette in hand. She bought a candy bar and a Coke or Pepsi or something. When she saw what I was eating, she exclaimed, "Ew! Those things are bad for you!" True story.]

You get the best pork skins in barbeque joints that fry their own. In fact, there are few treats in this world better than a freshly fried pork skin that still has some meat on it. (In Nashville, you can get some mighty fine pork skins at Neely's BBQ near MetroCenter.) As far as bagged pork skins are concerned, Papa Brim's are the best.

Now, I've never been too keen on the puffed-air pork skins that every potato chip manufacturer under the sun turns out, and which you can find at practically any grocery store in the U.S.A. Every time I've ever seen them things in a market or grocery store I've said under my breath, "Those aren't pork skins! They're just puffed pieced of pork-flavored who-knows-what!"

Today, however, I decided to take a chance on a package of Golden Flake's puffed-up pork skins because, well, the packaging featured a bottle of Bruce Food's Louisiana hot sauce. The texture didn't do much for me (they more air than skin), but damn did those pork skins taste good ... good and hot! They almost - almost - made me forget about how much I like honest-to-God pork skins. And I ain't just blowin' smoke by saying that, neither.

One of these times when I'm looking for a hot snack, I will be gettin' me another bag of Golden Flake pork skins. Try some sometime. You'll be glad you did!

This is good:

"Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he "cut" zero? Abracadabra! It's called a 'refundable tax credit.' It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as 'welfare,' but please try not to ruin the show.

"For his next trick, the Great Obama will jumpstart the economy, and he'll do it by raising taxes on the very businesses that are today adrift in a financial tsunami! That will include all those among the top 1% of taxpayers who are in fact small-business owners, and the nation's biggest employers who currently pay some of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. Mr. Obama will, with a flick of his fingers, show them how to create more jobs with less money. It's simple, really. He has a wand."

Over at Powerline, John Hinderaker says a President Obama might pull a Bill Clinton and renege on his campaign promise vis-à-vis taxes. But whereas Clinton broke a promise to cut taxes for the middle-class, Obama may have to break his promise to soak "the rich" with new taxes:

The current worldwide financial collapse has obviously benefited Barack Obama's Presidential campaign; in fact, it will probably impel him to victory in a few weeks. But the bottom dropping out of the stock market does create a problem for Obama in the realm of tax policy.

The Democratic Party still dominates among low-income voters, but it is now mostly the party of the rich and the professional classes. The Democrats' indifference to blue collar voters (except during even-numbered Novembers) is obvious from the party's policies on immigration and energy. Obama, in particular, is the candidate of well-off liberals.

But those Obama supporters aren't so well-off anymore. This inevitably will make them more sensitive to Obama's redistributionist tax policies.

The Tax Prof computes that the top marginal federal tax rate under Obama's tax plan will be 50%, and under McCain's, 40%. If you live in a state with an income tax and are a high income earner, most of your money will be going to taxes under an Obama administration.

My guess is that Obama supporters who have just seen their net worth decline by 30% or 40% won't be very interested in paying over half their incomes in taxes for the next four years. That would make it more difficult, and likely impossible, to rebuild the wealth that they have lost in the current collapse.

It's impossible to say how many Obama supporters will switch to McCain to avoid the tax burden that Obama promises, but one thing we can say for sure is that if Obama wins, there will be a lot of pressure on him from prosperous Democrats--his base--to renege on his promise to increase taxes on "the rich."