So What is the Relationship of Obama And the Kenyan Thug, Odinga?

Obama and Odinga

.

Sen. Barack Obama designated a personal aide as his direct contact for the 2007 Kenyan presidential campaign of Raila Odinga, who later was appointed prime minister after his election loss was followed by widespread, deadly violence that destroyed or damaged 800 Christian churches, according to e-mails obtained by WND senior staff writer Jerry Corsi during a trip to Kenya.

That’s only the beginning of a startling report from World Net Daily, and it’s the very beginning of the tale of why Jerome Corsi was arrested and deported by Kenyan officials. It amounts to the idea that Corsi was uncovering rather a lot of facts taht will expose Obama, just before the election.

As WND has reported, Obama openly campaigned for Odinga during the Illinois Democrat’s 2006 Senate “fact-finding visit” to Kenya.

Hmmm. Now, if I recall, Odinga once told the BBC that he is Obama’s cousin by blood. (Shuffle papers) Ah, yes, here it is, from January of this year.

Odinga called for protests over alleged voter fraud after losing the December 2007 general election. The resulting protest violence left an estimated 1,000 members of the dominant Kikuyu tribe in Kenya dead and an estimated 500,000 displaced from their homes.

Gee… sounds like a stretegy we know about already… rather like what we’ve seen the Democrat party do in recent campaigns, doesn’t it?   Charging vote fraud while your hired help (Acorn, democrat elections boards etc) creates it, and then calling down violence on those who resist. (Wasn’t it just this week I related James Carville talking about race riots if Obama loses?  Well, watch:

The document at one point suggests: “It is possible to trigger a class war by painting the Kibaki Government as an insensitive, uncaring group of Muthaiga Golf clubbers. Available research also suggests that this strategy could also resonate with poor kikuyu youth who feel economically marginalized by their own government. As part of this strategy the party should seek to elevate the emotions within all youth constituents who may it successful, be willing to vote for us in the protest. Visible signs of class disparity will provide important fodder for this theme.”

So, top the vote fraud off with class warfare and violence or at least threats of it.  Not unlike Obama’s campaign here in the states. Interestingly, Odinga ran on a platform of… wait for it… “Hope” and “Change”.

Given the demonstrated connection between Odinga and anti-Christian violence there… (As many as 1000 people are reportedly dead, most machete-hacked to death, some burned alive in their churches, incuding women and children, set afire by Ondinga thugs)… isn’t it about time this relationship between Obama and Odinga was fully investigated?

Thursday. 26 days to the election. Welcome, one and all to the most intense nightly read on the ‘sphere… Bit’s Blog’s Nightly Ramble

• So, the press has been doing it’s leftist duty, in promoting into the White House, Barry O. What’s the first thing the mainstream press can say taht’s negative about the guy? “He treats us badly, and the plane smells bad.”     Look, guys, it’s not the plane you’re smelling. It’s just that you’ve had your noses firmly attached to Obama’s backside for so long you don’t know the difference.
• Oil’s still going down.  Below $88 this morning. I’ve not checked it since. Does anyone doubt the trend will continue? I’m seeing prices of $2.80 currently around here. When I come back from camping, I’ll bring price reports from Ohio.
• So, Obama got $3mUSD in donations from overseas? And where is the FEC on this?  They’re apparently in exactly the opposite place from where they’d be if McCain had gotten that kinda jack from foreign sources.
• A cat eating festival? And a special appearance by Alf, no doubt.
• Brilliant, Michelle. Keep it up. Keep in mind, kids, these are Obama people we’re talking about.
• And yet more about Acorn
• and more
• And more
• And more
• And more yet
• And now that Acorn is being exposed, they go under Obama’s bus too. he’s trying to deny he was involved with them. Yeah, right, Barry. Sure.
• Another myth busted. Gallup says the resistance to Obama isn’t about race.
• Fact checking Obama’s spending proposals, and his tax plan. Even NBC is starting to raise questions. Timidly, of course. But that they get raised at all means there’s something huge hiding behind that brick wall. I’ll tell you this, gang… if he manages to get elected, the authors on BitsBlog will ahve no shortage of fodder for our writings. That is, assuming we’re not outlawed… and no, I’d not put it past him.
• I’ve been saying all year if Obama loses we’ll have race riots. Here comes Carville, apparently threatening such.  Nice to have the head snake (or is that snake head?) confirm my writing.
• I saw the ad Mickey’s talking about last night.  I honestly wasn’t sure I heard him right. Seems rather late in life to finally gather functional brain cells, George, but congrants. You finally got one right.
• No, Billy, we have decidedly NOT been electing the lesser of two evils, as your own reference to Clinton demonstrates.   That, Billy has been EXACTLY my point for as long as I’ve been online, from the GT and Fido days forward… that  we need to more carefully consider those we elect. That in fact has been a large part of the focus of this blog since it started. Remember the very first post on this blog, please. What did I say, then?  Witness;
  

  But my personal resolve is to work hard toward making sure we have Presidents who actually respect and want a strong Israel. As a start, that means making sure we never again have a president of the lowly in-the-gutter presence of a Bill Clinton.Yours should be as well.

  I said, on 9/11 this year, in a repost of that first article:

  Still, that old post still reflects my hope that we are not too late to prevent such slime from entering the White House again. But in looking at the statements and the track history of Barack Ovama, I am again reminded that the chances are always high that we’ll fall under the spell of such people again.
  That can only happen, however, when we forget the lessons of that terrible day. Which is why Obama and his supporters invest so much time and effort into separating that day from the people who gave it to us, and their at best misguided, pacifist policies.

  I can only urge us to Never Forget, knowing that all too many have..

   We’re not remembering, of course… we are not teaching that important lesson nearly enough. Of course I’m talking about far more than simply physical attacks. Certainly, Democrat policy had much to do with the 9/11 attacks, but so too did it have everything to do with our current financial problems, as we are learning more and more daily.    Obama being on the Democrat ticket and leading in the race and it’s attendant totally negative consequences all comes back to that lack of an educational process, teaching the importance of not putting someone like that in office.  And by the way, let me make this very very clear; It is Clinton, Obama and their like, that are directly responsible for the situation we’re in just now. To the degree you can point to such as Bush and McCain, as sharing that responsibility, I suggest to you that the election of these centrists, also, are the direct result of such nonsense as got Clinton in power.  The whole situation has been pushed left because we’ve not stepped up to educate, and keep the vision of the founders going. As Goldstien says today;

  “This race would be far more interesting with a conservative on the ticket.”

   Is there anyone left on the planet who doesn’t understand that the elections tilting ever father left with the Democrats offering socialist moral midgets such as Bill Clinton and Barry O, and the Republicans offering mere centrists is the result of a decades long educational process? What have we offered to counter it? Clearly… Not enough.

• To those who consider that ‘world government’ would be a help to our current situation, I offer the following thought:As a computer tech, I am reminded constantly that computers make mistakes more efficiently than man of his own power could ever accomplish. I view world government in much the same way; Given that our recent debacle is a failure of government, (And of that, most of it by people who wouldn’t mind seeing world government enacted) and managed to screw things up worldwide in spite of the lack of streamlined governmental efficiency that such government would supposedly bring, one wonders if we’d not be TOTALLY screwed today under a world government, instead of just MOSTLY screwed.
• Yeah, well, at least he didn’t ask him to stand up.
• Oh, and this from a pollster?
  

  “I don’t think Obama has closed the deal yet,” pollster John Zogby told the Herald yesterday.

  Ya know…. somehow, I always figured it’d come down to that phrase, again.

Reader John Rylanders points Cornerites to this very interesting October 2006 interview of Bill Ayers in Revolution (the self-styled “Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA”).

Some context: Ayers explains that he returned from summer vacation to his post as a professor of education at the University of Illinois only to find an apologetic letter from colleagues with whom he had been working for decades. The colleagues were writing to explain why they were not inviting Ayers to a conference on “progressive education” being planned for the following spring. Ayers tells Revolution:

The people who wrote the letter were an administrator at a university, a dean, and then a couple of people I knew pretty well, actually. I think I was stunned to get it because what it said in effect was we’re having an important progressive education conference, we count you as one of the important progressive educators in our era. Therefore we feel we owe you an explanation of why you’re not invited…. [A]s I thought about it I thought … here’s one of the dismal signs of the times. These guys aren’t just progressive, they’re socialists, and they think of themselves as activists. And yet they feel that in order to have a meeting that will be legitimate, they have to make a decision who to exclude, and they excluded me. And I decided it wasn’t an issue about me in particular…. But I did feel increasingly agitated about the thinking that went into it….

They said in the body of the letter: we want to position progressive education not as radical, but as familiar and good. Now that just steamed up my ears because if you’re saying you’re a progressive educator… That’s one of the things that’s actually annoyed me for about 40 years of being a progressive educator: the separation of the concept of progressive education from the concept of politics and political change. You can’t separate them…and this is a contradiction, incidentally, that goes all the way back to the beginning of progressive education and really the beginning of the conversations about the relationship between school and society. But John Dewey was one of the brilliant, brilliant writers about what democratic education would look like and was himself an independent socialist. But he never resolved a central contradiction in our work, the contradiction between trying to change the school and being embedded in society that has the exact opposite values culturally and politically and socially from the values you’re trying to build in a classroom. This contradiction is something progressive educators should address, not dodge. So this is what got me going. That’s a short version.

There’s much more of this at Andy’s post and I’d suggest you go read. But the reason I blocked as much as I did, here is I want you to get the context of the plan. Read the passage again:

These guys aren’t just progressive, they’re socialists, and they think of themselves as activists. And yet they feel that in order to have a meeting that will be legitimate, they have to make a decision who to exclude, and they excluded me. And I decided it wasn’t an issue about me in particular…. But I did feel increasingly agitated about the thinking that went into it….

They said in the body of the letter: we want to position progressive education not as radical, but as familiar and good.

OK, that’s the first part I want you to focus on…and leave aside Ayers for the moment. They’re trying to mainstream socialism. They’re trying to take all the sharp edges off of it. Trying to hide it’s true nature. Now, really think about this… What has Obama been doing all along in this cycle? Every time a sharp edge comes up, it ends up under the bus. Ayers, Dorn, his wife, etc… and now the “New Party”… every one. (Pardon the mixed metephor, but given the context I’m sure you understand what I mean)

Now, let’s look at a second point;

That’s one of the things that’s actually annoyed me for about 40 years of being a progressive educator: the separation of the concept of progressive education from the concept of politics and political change. You can’t separate them…and this is a contradiction, incidentally, that goes all the way back to the beginning of progressive education and really the beginning of the conversations about the relationship between school and society.

So much for the warm, cozy, and non-threatening description of Ayers as an ‘educational reformer’. His version of ‘reform’ clearly, and in his own words, is pushing socialism.

This is the guy whose living room is the place of the starting of Obama’s political career. As McCarthy says:

Again, this is from only two years ago.  Ayers does not try to hide who he is or where he is coming from.  He is a proud leftist revolutionary.  His driving idea, in this phase of his career, is that the classroom is the frontline of the revolution.  And when he was given the opportunity of a lifetime, a $150 million fund to be doled out as seed money for the kind of programs he thought would advance the cause, the guy brought in to run it was Barack Obama — with whom he worked closely on “change” in the schools for five years.

Now, if we were talking abotu a Republican with that kind of connections, there’d be gallows and ropes being employed before the echo died.  But I’ll bet you want more. OK, let’s dig deeper into Obama himself.

 Politically Drunk On Power has a post up containing a report that says… well, check it for yourself:

In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago “New Party”. The ‘New Party’ was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist ‘New Party’ was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations “fusion” reform platform as unconstitutional.

There is lots more, including updates. But as PDOP says themselves:

Obama’s membership within the ‘New Party’ is disturbing as even Green Party members attacked the DSA and New Party as nothing more than a fringe group. The New Party had hoped to implement Socialist Rule in the United States and was established to counteract the influence of a Democratic Party that they viewed as too moderate and too centered. Now it seems that nearly 10 years after the socialist party fell apart, their strategy of upward growth has reached the White House. Obama’s ties to the DSA’s New Party is beyond just an association it is outright membership, as clearly defined by the parties August 1996 newsletter, in an outright Socialist organization.

Are you shocked by this revelation? Me, neither. It fits exactly with all the rest of what’s been revealed about the man. Ayers, Wright, his wife’s publicly stated positions, the whole shebang. Isn’t it about time we started questioning this stuff? As Powerline’s Hindrocket says:

It strikes me that Obama has some explaining to do.

You know, there was a time in this country when this stuff would mean a serious outcry.

Look at it this way; Let’s say John McCain was shown to have serious and substantial connection with someone who had bombed abortion clinics. What do you suppsoe the response would be from the democrats and their wholley owned mouthpeices in the press?

Doesn’t it kinda make you wonder why we’re not seeing that kind of reaction with the Lightworker?

How smart does a chick have to be to blog for the Los Angelos Times?   Not very,  Elizabeth Snead, Los Angelos Times:

Hey, is that even the right way to hold a rifle? Can’t you shoot your foot off like that?

No Sweetie.   The gun Sarah is holding is one,  a double barrelled shotgun, not a rifle; two, the breech is open, i.e, it can’t fire;  three, Sarah’s hand is not on the trigger, that is the little lever which makes the gun go bang, and lastly, the gun is more than likely unloaded.  Unloaded shotguns don’t go bang.

Gotta admit Sarah is cuter than Chuck.

John M. Murtagh doesn’t like Bill Ayers or those who coddle him, like Barack Obama.    You can hardly blame Murtagh.    Ayers’ friends tried to murder Murtagh, City-Journal.

[George] Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama’s answer: “The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.” Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me. 

The way Ayers likes to tell his story, the Weather Underground only bombed empty buildings.   Murtagh provides graphic evidence that the Weather Underground was little different than al Qaida.   There is place for people who intentional try to kill children, and it ain’t ever cold.

Welcome, dear reader, to the most intense nightly read in the ‘sphere… The Nightly Ramble….

• The Fed cut interest rates early this morning, to 1.5%. I’m not sure if that’s going to have the desired effect, but what else can the fed do, at this point?
• I do note the markets seemed to take off this morning, almost 500 points in the first hour, looks like.. on insane volumes… and then lost most of that again before noon. then back up by the bell, closing within shouting distance of where it started. Wild ride, that…. though as I’ve been saying to Bruce of late, don’t be too quick to attrubute one factor alone, to what the market does on any given day.
• They’re going to hold hearings on Fannie and Freddie in the House. You have to wonder, though, given who’s in charge, how deeply they’re going to dig.
• Speaking of that, Stan Kurtz is still out there  doing what reporters are supposed to do. Dig. Subject: ACORN, the Democrats, and yes, corruption. Will the house members call him to testify? The Republicans should, and will if they’ve got a brain about them. And before the election.
• Interesting… Headlines and the leftie blogs to one side, I’m interested to see a large number of people and more informal polling suggesting that McCain won last night’s debate, by wide margins. Drudge ran one as did Glenn and a few others. Each one shows McCain by a wide margin. Even accounting for ‘non-scientific polling methods’ the disparity between those polls and others, sich as Rasmissen, Zogby, etc, is not usually so wide as I’m seeing. I doubt all of it can be written off as poll stuffing by McCain supporters.
• Well, exactly, Billy… which is why I mentioned it recently, and I forget where… and why I have been saying forever that Bush is not a conservative, but at best a centrist. But here’s the thing; He was the better of the two chocies.   That’s also one of the reasons why, while I’ve decided McCain to be the lesser of two evils, I’ve never been overly excited about him, either. But, I said at Q&O this morning;
  

  if we regard government as a nessesary evil, and I think we should, then election have always come down to which of the chocies is the least evil.Such was the driver, for example of my choice to support W for POTUS.
  He’s at best a centrist, as I have been saying forever… but his is a far less evil choice than Kerry or Gore.

  By the same token, McCain, while I’m not overly happy about it, is a far less evil choice than is Obama.

  Let’s just say my level of ‘acceptable’ is a bit different than is yours. But don’t think for a moment I’m excited about the choice to be made.

• And as to why I’m not, it’s an issue I’ve addressed before. I’ll let Andy McCarthy speak to it now, within the framework of the debate last night:
  

  Now, as the night went along, did you get the impression that Obama comes from the radical Left? Did you sense that he funded Leftist causes to the tune of tens of millions of dollars? Would you have guessed that he’s pals with a guy who brags about bombing the Pentagon? Would you have guessed that he helped underwrite raging anti-Semites? Would you come away thinking, “Gee, he’s proposing to transfer nearly a trillion dollars of wealth to third-world dictators through the UN”?Nope. McCain didn’t want to go there. So Obama comes off as just your average Center-Left politician. Gonna raise your taxes a little, gonna negotiate reasonably with America’s enemies; gonna rely on our very talented federal courts to fight terrorists and solve most of America’s problems; gonna legalize millions of hard-working illegal immigrants.

  McCain? He comes off as Center-Right .. or maybe Center-Left … but, either way, deeply respectful of Obama despite their policy quibbles.

  Great. Memo to McCain Campaign: Someone is either a terrorist sympathizer or he isn’t; someone is either disqualified as a terrorist sympathizer or he’s qualified for public office. You helped portray Obama as a clealy qualified presidential candidate who would fight terrorists.

  If that’s what the public thinks, good luck trying to win this thing.

  Exactly so. Damn it, McCain, why are you not fighting this guy, instead of making nice-nice noises?  I’m telling you, people… If McCain loses this thing, it’ll be because he lacked the globes to take on Obama properly. Peter Kirsanow agrees:

  Andy McCarthy’s right that it’s imperative to attack the premise that Obama’s a plausible president. Obama consorted with a terrorist who brags about planting bombs and whose organization planted hundreds of bombs. Some were meant to kill cops. Some were meant to kill soldiers. Some were meant to kill civilians.

  Let’s put this quite simply: This is an abomination. This alone disqualifies Obama from being president. Even if he can heal the planet. Even if the Dow tanks to 5000. Even if he puts a unicorn in every garage. A majority of Americans will not vote for a candidate who they know has had a working relationship with a terrorist — foreign or domestic. But they must know it.

  (Emph is mine)   Also, I note Mark Levine saying:

• With all respect, I don’t think this — “Obama is not some wild-eyed radical. He’s a normal Chicago politician. That’s the problem.” — is a fair take at all. How can anyone who actually follows this stuff, who reads Freddoso, Kurtz, and scores of other reliable sources of information, conclude that Obama is not some wild-eyed radical?

  You’re quite right Mark, if they’d been folowing any of it, they couldn’t help but come to the correct conclusion. Thing is, that’s exactly the point… they have NOT been following it, for the most part. At least they’re not admitting to following it. Call it a failure of our leftist press, call it a devition to the image of Obama that precludes even exposing one’s self to anything that casts any doubts on the man, call it a combo of these factors, you call it whetever you like. Whatever, it still botom lines at they’ve not been exposed to it and that debate last night, with Neilsen reporting a 42 share for the debate, was the place to get it done. McCain was too busy being nice to get it done in anything but a half-hearted manner.

• Jeff Jacoby notes Obama has done a 180 on geneocide. Too bad McCain didn’t notice. Too bad also, that Jacoby didn’t comment on Obama’s suppsoedly humanitarian positions. Obama said last night he thinks we diminish ourselves when we don’t respond to humanitarian issues such as in Darfur where he’d like to see our military… but  has all kinds of problems with the equally humanitarian effort in Iraq.
•  Britt Hume, last night:
  

  An analysis of the presidential candidates’ tax and spending proposals shows Barack Obama would create a larger deficit than John McCain by the end of his first term.

  Gee, Britt, no kidding? You woulcn’t know that, either, by McCain’s words last night.

• David Kernell….That punk brat of a Democrat state senator who hacked Sarah Palin’s E-mail has been indicted. Good.
• I have a suggestion for Ahhnold, and his budget woes: Allow offshore drilling. Consider the added tax income to the state. Of course those isiots will ignore it, mostly because it makes sense.
• Kenya finally deported Corsi. Go ahead, tell me how this arrest and deportation is not political in motivation.
• So Chuckles Schumer is annoyed with the US Chamber of Commerce? That’s OK, Chuckles, they don’t much like you, either. You score about what, 38% on their scale of Busienss Policy?
  

  Schumer distributed a chart showing the Chamber has donated $16.28 million to Republican candidates this election cycle, and only $329,000 to Democrats

  Well, let’s examine this. Shall we look at political contributions from the newsrooms you’ve got so well-trained, Chuckles, you snake in the grass? I guess by your lights, then, the Dinosaur Media is a “Wing of the Democrat party”?  Yeah, I guess I can accept that.

• There are tourist planes for Mount Everest? Apparently so. I didn’t know that. Anyway, one of ’em crashed last night.
• There seems little justice in the world. That boyfreind of the woman who was on the toilet for a couple years? He just won the lottery. $20 large. Don’t it figure?

Bill Shannon at Fox writes this morning:

WASHINGTON — Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.

So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.

Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank’s relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie.

Heh. Welcome to the party, boys, you’re a little late. This stuff has been out here in the sphere for weeks. Still, nice to see this stuff finally being questioned. I suspect and hope Frank and the other Democrats at the root of this are set for a smackdown of epic proportions.

I am fustrated.   The media has set the bar so low that even Barack Obama can clear it.    Take the debate’s first quesation, on the state of the economy, via CNN:

I think everybody knows now we are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And a lot of you I think are worried about your jobs, your pensions, your retirement accounts, your ability to send your child or your grandchild to college.

And I believe this is a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years, strongly promoted by President Bush and supported by Sen. McCain, that essentially said that we should strip away regulations, consumer protections, let the market run wild, and prosperity would rain down on all of us.

It hasn’t worked out that way. And so now we’ve got to take some decisive action

BO is completely obvious to true cause of the credit melt down, Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac.   Yet the man so stupid as to unable to recognize the B.J  clinton, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank elephant in the room want to blame the credit crisis on “tax cuts for the rich.”    Evidently BO’s concept of economic leadership does not include standing up to the Congressional Black Caucus.

While BO was not willing to  offend the Congressional Black Caucus, nor to defend the State of Israel without the blessing of the United Nations, Obama was more than ready to attack a nuclear armed Pakistan:

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority

This is stupid.   Usama bin Laden a security threat to our nation per se   His army is.   In an army, everybody, even its leader is both expendable and replaceable.   BO man is a moron.   Feel free try to demonstrate otherwise.

So question, are you willing to trust your economic futures to man who would solve the credit crisis by repealing the Forty-Three’s “tax cuts for the rich?”

Addendum I:(Bit)

I’m going to have to differ with David somewhat on this. Is Obama oblivious to the real cause of the meltdown?  I don’t think so. I think Obama knows full well what the causes of thi meltdown are. How do I know this? Well, you tell ME. How does one so exactly avoid an elephant in the room when said elephant takes up 95% of the room, save he knows it’s there, and how to get around it without touching it?

As to blaming it all on the rich, that’s simply knee-jerk Democrat. The one thing Democrats are consistant on is trying to win Marx’s political battles for him. That’s all this has ever come down to.

Other matters; I tend to agree with Michelle’s distatse for McCain’s proposal to buy up bad mortgages. 

As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes — at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those — be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.

 That kind of thinking is exactly why I did not support McCain in the early going; He’s far too prone to the socialist. That said, it should be noted it was the one solid proposal of the night, the one solid answer to the question of  ‘what are you going to do?” and it left Obama flat-footed. 

It also has the advantage, in my view, of being offered by someone who clearly understands that even limitless government has limited positive effects. I see that as a decided advantage for McCain. I expect most Americans will, as well.

The leftie sites, and yes, I would include CNN in this, are of course screaming Obama won the debate. I’m not so sure. McCain was as good as I’ve seen him, informed, passionate, decisive, and more than a little snarky at times… that last point being sorely lacking in the previous debate, I thought. The question of course is, is it enough?  In answer, not tonight, not of itself. I will say, however that there’s a lot of hours and a lot of events between now and November. It’s my thought that McCain has to amplify these qualities to make those events turn his way. If he does, last night will be seen as the pivot point. If not, last night will still be seen as the pivot point… Only, in the other direction.

Addendum II:  (David L)

Bit sez:

I’m going to have to differ with David somewhat on this. Is Obama oblivious to the real cause of the meltdown?  I don’t think so. I think Obama knows full well what the causes of thi meltdown are. How do I know this? Well, you tell ME. How does one so exactly avoid an elephant in the room when said elephant takes up 95% of the room, save he knows it’s there, and how to get around it without touching it?

I reserve the right to take BO’s assertions at face value, if it so suits my purposes.   Then what difference does it make whether BO is too stupid to see the donkey in the room (metaphor change) or too afraid to speak to it?   One way,  BO is too  stupid to lead, the other too timid to lead.   How is BO supposed to stand up to the al Qaeda in Pook-I-stan, if isn’t man enough to stand up to Maxine Waters?

As to the Old Fart and the Economy, I am less than thrilled by McCain’s proposed  bail-out mortage for  speculators.   However McCain was the only person on the stage last night who seemed to understand the nature of the economic crisis, the fact that it could get worse and the need to manage it.   I realize that libtards, like BO, hate CEO’s who make more than they do, but what the hay does CEO compensation have to do with the credit crisis?   If slashing compensation is the key to better economic outcome, I suggest we start by slashing the salaries of all Congresscritters.

And we want a man that is that oblivious to the world around him – to have access to our national security secrets?
In charge of our military?

Reader Linda, comment from “CNN: Obama Lied.”

How sweet it is, from Steve Gilbert, Sweetness &  Light, the Saturday Night Live skit that George Soros wants taken down, video:

Too close for comfort George?

Welcome, dear reader, to the most intense nightly read in the ‘sphere… The Nightly Ramble….

Tuesday. 28 days until the election.4 days until my vacation, and about 5 hours to the second debate. And if you don’t understand the joke in the sign, you’re obviously 21 or under.

• In response to a couple E-mails, yes, I know my commenting can be a little sparse on some topics, in these things. The idea is to get you thinking about the topic, and researching it starting at the link provided. Trust me, because my commentsa re short, does not of itself suggest I’m not being serious about a topic.  Part of keeping the intensity level up where I want it for the Ramble is forcing you to look stuff up for yourselves. Time was, that’s what blogging was all about.
• Bruce gets this one right. Again, this is exactly the argument I’ve been making for weeks.
• YetAnotherJohn and I both get Honorable Mentions at OTB’s Caption Contest.
• Zing!
• Boortz makes an important point, this morning:
  

  

  Boortz

  A lot of yammering over jobs yesterday on the campaign trail. Obama likes to talk about the American people seeing “their jobs” sent overseas.First of all, let’s get this out of the way. American workers are not seeing “their jobs” go overseas. They are seeing their former employer’s jobs going away. The jobs belong to the employers, not to the workers. Workers don’t create jobs, businessmen and women do.

  Now we have Barack Obama telling us that Obama is oh so very concerned about jobs. Well, if that’s so, they why is he talking so proudly about his plans to raise taxes on the very people who create and provide those jobs?

  Obviously, part of the point being made here is “government is not the answer”. That’s the one point Obama dares not address. McCain had better start banging on that point… loudly. Tonight.  Boortz goes on to list a few other things that McCain should address tonight.

  1. Barack Obama says that he wants to lower capital gains taxes for small businesses in America. Does anyone see anything wrong with Barack Obama’s plan? How about the fact that small businesses in this country don’t pay capital gains taxes, they pay income taxes. And guess what? Barack Obama wants to raise income taxes on anyone making over $250,000 a year, and that includes you small business owners or the person you work for.
  2. Do you realize that under a Barack Obama administration, his tax policies will be dictated by what the government deems to be fair or neighborly? They will decide how much of your money you actually “need,” and the rest is subject to seizure. Oh, that paying higher  taxes is “patriotic.” Since when is it the government’s job to decide how much of your money you should be allowed to keep?
  3. 
     Just yesterday I made a speechoutlining how Democrat policies,supported by Barack Obama led to the mortgage meltdown in this country. It was the Democrats who, for years, opposed any type of reform. I called for this reform back in 2006. President Bush asked for this reform. But the Democrats didn’t want it. They wanted to continue funding subprime mortgages because that was the American dream.
  4. And speaking of these subprime mortgages … have any of you ever heard of a little organization called ACORN? I bet you Barack Obama has heard of it. Because he worked with ACORN as a community organizer. (Oh wait, I’m not supposed to say that. Now I am racist … ) But it was organizations like ACORN that would bully and coerce banks into making subprime mortgages to people who should be renters.
  5. My opponent has proposed nearly one million dollars in pork spending – we call them earmarks now – for every day he’s served in the U.S. Congress. I’ve been here for decades, and haven’t asked for one dollar of pork.
  6. My running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, resigned a government position so that she could go after a member of her own party engaged in corrupt activities in Alaska. Barack Obama has a history of supporting the corrupt political machine that helped him rise to prominence
     in Chicago.

  And that’s just for starters ………

  True. I would add the questionable reletionships… Ayers, Wright, etc, to the questions that need to be pounded on tonight. Jen Ruben adds that given Palin was asked about creationism, Obama should be asked about Marxism.  I agree. Obama also needs to be asked about The Joyce Foundation, which Blue Crab Blvd reports he’s involved with up to his eyebrows… his denials not withstanding… and who, apparently have been working against the Second amendment. Others to ask about:Jeremiah Wright
  Father Fleger, Jodi Evans,Mike Klonsly,Several ACORM operative, etc etc etc. Obama is what we used to call a ‘target rich environment’. McCain should start taking advantage of those targets.
  Endorsement by the New Party three times McCain’s degree of success in this election depends on this stuff, in my view.

• Oh… and the questionable donors, too.
•  False but Justified? The integrity of the liberal movement today.
• I said yesterday that going forward, any objection to leftist policy would now have the race card played. Barney Frank essentially confirms this today. Is this the correlary to Godwin, I wonder? When a leftist finds his argument exposed, the race card comes out? Certainly, it’s started to look that way. Even Jon Henke, who I have never held great love for, it must be said, gets this one exactly right, Not that it’s all that hard to do, IF you have an ounce of integrity.   The AP story I mentioned yesterday (And Hume mentions that last night) wasn’t the start of it, but it’s when people  really began to notice the trend. And they’re starting to cry ‘foul’… even the Democrats. Combine that with the ‘False but Justified’ story, and figure out for yourself which way this thing’s headed, gang. Like I say, it doesn’t take much, just an ounce or so of integrity.
• Speaking of which. Surber comes close to ‘Snark of the Day’ territory when he says:
  

  

  Surber

  I fully expect Democrat Barack Obama to protest the Kenyan government’s jailing of his critic Jerome Corsi.

• This is a test of Obama’s integrity. Another test. The guy has a grade point average of 1.9 so far.

  It’s like I said at OTB earlier today: Obama’s character, or rather his lack of it, IS the issue, since all the rest of his choices, and positions, spring from that lack. His biggest fear, I think is having that lack exposed, which explains all the diversions being tossed by Obama and his people every time the subject comes up.

• Speaking of such things, I note through HotAirthat Tony Rezko’s sentencing has been postponed.. until after the election, presumably. It’ll get interesting, I think, because as Ed points out, this is a good sign that Rezko has turned States’ evidence. Which in turn will lead directly to Daily, and as I’ve suggested previously, Obama. Kaus thinks so, as well. Alas, however, that the stuff will come to light too late to sway people from voting for him.
• Thinking aloud: Oil’s going to around 90 bucks/BBL at this writing.  We’re being told that oil’s going down at the rate is is, largely on the strength of the dollar which is stronger than it’s been for years. Given interenational investments,paid for in foriegn currencies but measured in dollars, would this deflation cycle, not also account for some of the fall-off in reported numbers on the stock market? Is this helping feed the market fears? Something to consider.
• And from the UK, comes word of a culinary event the likes of which we’ve seen too often previously:
  

  A gay chef murdered his lover, cut out part of his leg, seasoned it with herbs and fried it, a court has heard.

  Kinda makes you wonder what the resturant he worked for was, now doesn’t it? And of course the all-important question of who he’d be voting for, assuming he wasn’t in jail, and not an American citizen. (Though granted that part doesn’t seem to matter much to at least one party). Seriously, what the hell is it with homosexuals and this kind of behavior? Hardly a month goes by anymore you don’t hear about such a happening.

• Well, we know of 300 votes Obama won’t be getting.
• Well, SNL fans, here’s a quandry for ya… They can make fun of Sarah Palin, but not the Bailout Bill. Is it because it’s got connections to George Soros?

Let me talk about “justice” for a moment. Is there any question around here but that this is, at root, an ethical concept? It’s about values and their disposition. Political questions (what specific acts to take in a social context in order to resolve the disposition) are consequential to that. (This is elementary logical hierarchy. It should not be strange around here.)

When we talk about “injustice”, we’re talking about the willful destruction of values by an entity that should know better. (For instance: nobody in their right mind would ever consider indicting a tiger for murder.)

Now; in a forum ostensibly and to some degree or other devoted to Objectivism, I should think that most people would understand the nature and source of values, and their original location in the individual human being. Given that, it never makes any sense to me to see people of this way of thinking making that “No Man Can Judge His Own Case” argument, which I say is just a threadbare habit come down from a time before people actually thought about this stuff (rather in the same way that, say, feudalism was, intellectually, just a habit until reason put it in its grave).

If the point of “justice” is not to address a matter of destroyed values, then this whole discussion is moot and all bets are off. But if it is, then the whole context of that subject (values) must be taken up with it. And I say that whether you like it or not, there is no one better morally qualified than the victim to judge the claim of lost value that constitutes action against any criminal. To dispute this is to arbitrarily substitute someone else’s values as a standard of judgment, and this I submit, ladies and gentlemen, is the very essence of socialism.

Perhaps, Billy Beck. But I don’t know.

Look, man, I understand where you’re going here, but the discomfort I personally have with this, and perhaps you might address it, is the issue of passion as applied to the situation by the wronged party.      You’re trusting the guy whose just been wronged, to make a calm, cool, reasoned and dispassionate … in short… objective… jugement, and at exactly time when he is bound by nature to be the least dispassionate.  In many ways, you run as much risk of such judgement being too violent, as you run a risk of being too easy on the perp, when going through ‘the system’.

Now granted, I’ve often said in my more Menken-black-flag like moods, that a bit stiffer punishments would result in less crime, and certainly allowing the victim’s passion into that mix would accomplish that end. But I’m not convinced that’s always a good thing either.

I’m not seeing a clear way out of that one. What am I missing, here?

Update: Billy Responds:

A proper integration of all the principles and elements.  That’s what.

Right off the bat, you’re conflating passions and reason in all kinds of ways, as if the two are necessarily mutually exclusive and the presence of one necessarily precludes the other. This is just nonsense. A person outwardly cool as a cucumber can reason like an idiot just as plainly as the passionate can reason.

Can? Certainly! Do they as a rule? Another matter altogether, in my experience.

And if you read the whole discussion, it will become clear that “trust” has nothing to do with any of this.

Well, I didn’t note a link to the discussion in your original post, but I suspected then and still do, and will suppose for the moment, you’re talking about application of law, in which case, it fairly certainly does not. It’s my observation that laws very seldom are about trust, but rather the lack of it. OTOH, and by logical reversal, an absence of law in a given area does to my mind suggest trust of the individual at least in that area, and it was with that in mind I made my comment.

Nothing that you’ve noted argues for for attempting to compel my participation in any of it.

True. Then again, that’s mostly because imposing requirements on you, or anyone else wasn’t the thrust of my comment; since my argument hadn’t gone quite so far. I’m merely looking at all this from the side of consequences, at the moment. Seems a reasonable place to start.

WorldNetDaily is reporting:

NAIROBI, Kenya – The government of Kenya is holding WND senior staff reporter Jerome Corsi in custody at immigration headquarters after police picked him up at his hotel just prior to a scheduled news conference in which he planned to announce the findings of his investigation into Barack Obama’s connections in the country.

Corsi, the author of the No. 1 best-selling book “The Obama Nation,” was picked up by authorities at his hotel at 9:45 a.m. and is being detained at Nyayo House, the provincial headquarters for Nairobi.

Well, now why would they detain him, I wonder? He might miss the debate, tonight!
(Sound of tounge popping from cheek)
Anyone who thinks this isn’t to protect Obama, particularly now, had better check for a pulse.

A little noted…. at least in the Dinosaur media… event took place on Saturday. The local Fox channel in LA noted it as a part of this article:

Palin was introduced by Shelly Mandell, president of the Los Angeles Chapter of the National Organization for Women, who described herself as a lifelong Democrat.

One can understand how Ms Madell came to this conclusion and action; The cognative dissonence of supporting the Democrat ticket over a true feminist got to be a bit much for her. But that’s two rather earthshaking events in two days… CNN forced to report the lies of Obama as such, instead of simply parroting them… and then this.

And by the way… there’s another part of this I’d like you to notice… from the same article:

A enthusiastic crowd estimated by Home Depot Center officials to be between 15,000 and 20,000 jammed the Carson facility’s tennis stadium — whose capacity is around 8,000 — and an overflow area for a rare general election public appearance in Southern California

A Republican? Drawing that kind of crowd in the People’s Republic of California? It’s for sure smething major is going on here. Perhaps even the usual leftists are starting to see something rancid in the Democrat ticket?

Not that the MSM isn’t trying to bury these stories. Do a quick search in Google’s News filter against the search term “Shelly Mandell” and you’ll find only six references. Apparently someone’s figured out the trheat these stories represent. The Blogs know it too. Do the same search in that filter and you’ll come up with over 300 links, a few of which are lefty blogs raising hell about Mandell:

it looks like CA NOW (California National Organization for Women) recognizes the impact of Los Angeles chapter president Shelly Mandell making a mockery of feminism and dragging the NOW name through the mud by cozying up to anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-everything-NOW-stands-for VP candidate Sarah Palin — and they’re not exactly thrilled by Mandell’s actions, nor the reaction to it.

I guess I really didn’t expect them to not be foaming about this…and I have no doubt there’s a push to have her removed from NOW… but the fact is NOW’s poisonous agenda is being exposed as being, not feminist, but leftist in the guise of feminism.

CNN investigative reporter: “But the relationship between Obama and Ayers went much deeper, ran much longer, and was much more political than Obama said.”

OK. I’ve now seen it all. CNN exposes the lies of a Democrat. They even interviewed Stanley Kurtz. And Anderson Cooper doesn’t look overly happy, either, did you notice? Looks like he’s just been introduced to Limberger Cheese for the first time.

Well, OK, granted, they were kinda forced into it by the tide. But if THAT’S true, then there must be a whole bunch more tide about to be moving between now and November.

Addendum:  (David L)

File under, Man bites Dog.   I still sorting this one out.   Brother Cash err felllow Swamp Stomper, Sister Toldjah, writes:

Obama can run from it but he cannot hide … not even from, of all places, a network that has been super-friendly to Democrats for well over a decade

Anderson Cooper can’t quite seem to bring himslf to call this a lie.  Neither does CNN apparently feel that lying and palling around with terrorists is all that big of a deal.

Remembrr this, the only thing BO has to offer is his vaunted and much self-proclaimed judgement, a judgement which is not very impressive.   The BO campaign is now defending BO’s relationship with the admitted celebrity terrorist Ayers on sheer ignorance, Geoff Earle, New York Post:

Barack Obama’s top political adviser said today Obama “didn’t know the history” of unrepentant bomber William Ayers’ activities in the violent Weather Underground movement when the candidate attended a political event at Ayers’ home in 1995.

Ayers was a local celebrity in Chicago.   Yet the BO campaign is claiming to be ignorant of Ayers’s much publicized history.  Yeah sure.  How many other of BO’s self-proclaimed great judgements are also based on sheer ignorance?