If you're voting for Obama you're a racist.

So a liberal buddy of mine sent me a well-traveled email – one that argues that if Barack Obama had the same flaws as John McCain, he would be crucified. Meaning: the only reason McCain receives any support is because he's not black.

Which is intriguing – but asinine.

First of all, I always love how I`m told my judgment is inherently clouded by racism, according to people who don`t even know me. Fact is, I left the Aryan Brotherhood years ago. Even more, these jerks don`t realize I can use the very same argument on them. I mean, could it be their own innate and unconscious racism that`s causing them to believe I'm racist? I think shrinks call this "transference." These dopes are actually voting for Obama because THEY are racist - willing to overlook his inexperience and questionable judgment- in order to feel good about their own white liberal, pant-wetting guilt. Hence, their racism prevents them from comprehending anyone making a logical decision NOT to vote for Obama.

So this argument cuts both ways. I am not voting for him, because he's black. And you're voting for him - because he's black. But both cases are completely wrong. The fact is, if you're a liberal Democrat, you'd vote for Obama whether he was black or white (and, get this: he's both). But if you`re a conservative or a right-leaning libertarian, you wouldn`t vote for Obama whether he was black, white, or chartreuse. So when the left says the reasons behind your choice are racial instead of intellectual, it's way beyond arrogant, and bordering on an opinion that deserves a punch in the kisser. But that`s the beauty of stupidity – it knows no color.

And if you disagree with me, you`re probably a racist, xenophobic pig!

I wonder how many TV's and computers these poor dupes have?

So I watched Obama's infomercial, and forgive me if, unlike Chris Mathews, I didn't soak my Depends.

As I watched, all I could be was...confused. Obama produced what can only be described as bizarro-propaganda - a dour documentary designed to undermine an eastern bloc country, circa 1974. Ten minutes into the thing, I was expecting a bunch of fat babushkas in headscarves fighting over the last loaf of stale bread. By the time it was over, I had boiled and ate a neighbor's dog.

This was a view of our country seen, grimly, from the outside looking in: a place where everyone is sick, poor, or sickly poor. I call it Hugo porn - the kind of stuff that gives Chavez a chubby.

It's as if the most successful and selfless country in the history of the world never existed. Instead, we have east Germany without the lederhosen or the sausage. But I guess, in order to sell himself, Barack has to sell the rest of the country short.

When it was over however, I felt like I always do after ingesting a hard sell: convinced I was being sold something I didn't need. To me - Obama's gleaming valentine to himself succeeded in only reminding me of the Soloflex in the garage. Once shiny and new, it's now covered in soiled shorts.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

The Chosen One is really a "Hot Chick".

So yesterday a friend of mine who is one of those star struck, Marxist, liberal, asshole asked me about Sarah Palin, focusing on how little we know about her time in college. My blood pressure spiked, because naturally her history – or lack thereof – is far less murkier than Barack Obama's. But it didn't seem to matter, because no matter what you have against the man, it just doesn't stick.

Seriously, the man isn't a presidential candidate – he's a really hot chick.

You know what I mean, right?

You know how when a friend starts dating some girl – let's say a stripper with top of the line implants and a truly remarkable skill involving the projection of ping pong balls – he overlooks everything else. She could be spreading chlamydia like a Jehovah Witness unloading a case of Watchtowers, and it won't matter. Blinded by her beauty, he lets her get away with everything, until your buddy is left broken and broke – riddled with disease, sleeping in your garage and convinced a mob boyfriend wants him dead.

I'm not saying Barack is anywhere near that bad. I'm just saying that when it comes to the media, he possesses that impenetrable force field that every hot chick has – and no matter what you say or do to convince obsessed fans otherwise – it won't work. Face it: if you found out that your new girlfriend, who happened to be Megan Fox - worked with Acorn, hung around with Ayers, and used to do coke back in college – would you care?

Of course you wouldn't! It's Megan Fox!!!

Congratulations: you're now the New York Times.

Who do you belong to???

Sounds like an odd question, doesn't it? But have you ever actually thought for a moment about who has ownership rights to you? This is no silly or meaningless exercise here. You exist. You have value. That value belongs to someone. The question is who? This is an important question in this election because there are quite a lot of people out there who earnestly believe that you belong not to yourself, but to the government. For the first time in my memory we have a presidential candidate who wants to raise taxes on a few not so much to cover the costs of the essential functions of government, but to bring about some sense of what he calls "fairness" in the distribution of wealth. This would mean that in the eyes of this particular presidential candidate (I would mention his name, but that would be racist.) the government owns a portion of you; a portion to be used by the government to enrich the lives of others in the quest for economic "fairness."

Let me know how this works out for you.

A Must Read

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina,

Just for you Loretta

Colin Powell - A House Negro no more:

Former Uncle Tom, House Negro, and unrepentant war criminal, Colin Powell, gave his coveted endorsement to Barack Obama last weekend, hailing our future President as a "transformational figure".

Transformational, indeed! Saturday night, Powell was a still just a lapdog of the Bush Junta, a lying liar who lied about WMD's in Iraq, and had blood on his hands for the millions of innocent Iraqis that Bush murdered so he could steal their oil. But on Monday morning, Powell crawled out of his bed a "man of courage", a "true patriot", and a "great American". That's quite a transformation. And all he had to do to cleanse himself of his past sins was declare his unconditional love for Obama.

When it comes right down to it, blind devotion is all Obama really asks of any of us. In return, he annointest us with hope, change, and free health care until our cup runneth over. Even DicKKK Halliburton Cheney, Rummy RumselKKKd, and KKKarl Rove can be absolved of their crimes - and cured of various maladies ranging from male-pattern baldness to racism - if they simply drop to their knees and declare fealty to our future President, Barack Obama. And he will be our president, as long as the superstitious, bible-clinging evangelical nutjobs of the GOP don't get in his way.

New Rules

As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama officially becomes president-elect, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:

1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are under-achieving a "fair shake".

2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst you. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.

3. All top management will now be referred to as "the government." We will not participate in this "pooling" experience because the law doesn't apply to us.

4. The "government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all".

5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth around". Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic".

6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?)!!!

If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th.

FACTOID

Barack Obama has received more money from Fannie Mae since 1989 than any other politician in Washington except one ... and that would be Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. This Obama has accomplished in only four years.

Know the truth about taxes

So now the media wants to get technical on taxes. Ok, fine. Bring it on. A reporter for Good Morning America did a report on the falsehood of McCain's argument that Obama "gives away your tax dollars to those who don't pay taxes." The reporter says that McCain is wrong because Obama's tax cuts only go to people who work, therefore, by definition, Obama's plan "is not welfare." He says that "some working people eligible for Obama's tax cut make so little, they do not pay income taxes. But they do pay payroll taxes and other taxes." So now, the media is demanding that John McCain get specific ... what he should have said is Obama "gives an income tax cut to those who don't pay income taxes — and pays for it by raising income taxes on those who are already shouldering more than half of the nation's income tax burden."

Let's address this idea that all of these people who get the Obama welfare checks pay Social Security and Medicare Taxes. These are really not so much taxes as they are mandated premiums for a specific defined benefit. The idea here is that you pay for your Social Security and your Medicare while you are working, and receive the benefits when you retire. If Obama wants to eliminate these tax burden with his "refundable tax credits" then he is turning both of these programs into pure income redistribution efforts.

However you say it, folks, the fact of the matter is that Barack Obama's tax plan is welfare – he takes money from the high achievers and spreads it around to those with lower incomes.

For those of you who really want to understand Barack Obama's "tax cuts" (which are not really tax cuts but welfare checks), I suggest you read this article again from the Wall Street Journal. To Barack Obama, "tax cuts" is the new way to say government handout. Why doesn't the mainstream media cover that side of the tax argument?

If you want to see this in visual terms, the Washington Post created a chart comparing Barack Obama's tax cuts to John McCain. Big difference, wouldn't you say?

Is it fair to censor

So if the Democrats win it all this year, you can bet one of the first things they`re going to do is gloat. Then, of course, they`re going to pick out some new window treatments for the White House. Then, finally, they will try to resuscitate the corpse that is the Fairness Doctrine. If you don`t know what this is, it`s basically a creepy ploy to "balance" talk radio – meaning imposing government regulation to offset Rush Limbaugh with an opposing idealogy. Think Jeanine Garafalo (without throwing up).

The Fairness Doctrine illustrates a key truth about liberal thinking: no one actually likes it. The fact that you`d need government regulation to force radio stations to broadcast this crap is proof that society has no need for it. Without forced indoctrination of liberal thought – there would be no liberal thought. If you want an example of how successful liberal talk radio is on its own, consider Air America. It was to radio broadcasting what crabs are to Spring Break.

Even more, the Fairness Doctrine reveals a scurvy of insecurity that riddles the left. They are so unsure of their own beliefs, that it`s not enough for them to control nearly every media entity on the planet (including movies, television, magazine publishing, off-Broadway one woman shows). They feel they must regulate talk radio, as a means to destroy talk radio – only because it`s not like them.

If the Fairness Doctrine comes to pass, most likely talk radio would cut back on their successful shows, because they`d lose money supporting liberal shows they`d be forced to run. And that`s the left`s real strategy all along: it`s not about giving Paul Begala another outlet to babble. It`s about eliminating dissent from the people they hate.

It's sleazy and wrong, but hardly surprising.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

Ask a good question---become a target.

Don't you find it just a bit odd that the mainstream New York and DC media has spent more time investigating Joe the Plumber than they have William Ayers? Why attack Joe? It's very simple. Because his question hurt. His question led to another wonderful unscripted moment from Barack Obama .. that being his comment about spreading the wealth. Will this be our future in the ObamaNation? Become a critic of The Messiah and the investigations begin. Can't you see the big screen televisions in public places with the featureless face telling you "Do not question the Dear Leader." Didn't they write a book about that?

Joe the Plumber

Two days after the debate and we are still talking about Joe the Plumber. Could this one guy be the turning point for the entire McCain campaign? Don't count on it. But I do get the sneaking suspicion that at least a few people out there are catching on to what Barack Obama really stands for. Don't get me wrong ... they are going to vote for Obama anyway because they "just like the guy" or he "seems more presidential" or he's "like, so much cooler." But at least now you can't say you didn't see it coming.

Enter the unions ...

Now comes a plumbers union, the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry, saying that John McCain "manufactured outrage" over Barack Obama's tax plan by talking about Joe the Plumber. A spokesperson for the union said, "John McCain made Joe the Plumber a household name. His manufactured outrage on behalf of Joe would be a lot more believable if his economic plan had anything to do with helping working people deal with the economic crisis." Apparently this union, which has endorsed Barack Obama (go figure), doesn't understand what tax cuts will do for our economy, or even worse, what Obama's tax increases will do. And I wouldn't consider the idea of putting a Marxist in the White House "manufactured outrage." It should scare the living dog shit out of you ... or at least, out of anyone who wants to make something of themselves and be successful.

So what is really going on here? We've got Joe Biden saying that Joe isn't a real plumber because he makes too much money. We've got nit-wits like the women on "The View" calling Joe's plan to own his own business a "fantasy." Don't you love that? Liberals view the dream of owning your own business a "fantasy!" We've got the plumbers union saying that John McCain is using Joe for "manufactured outrage." We've got the mainstream media reporting on Joe's tax returns. We've got rumors that Joe was a plant by the Republican Party. We've got liberals bloggers saying that Joe is really related to Charles Keating. Notice that none of these people are actually talking about what Obama actually SAID to Joe the Plumber – the fact that he wants to "spread the wealth around" in a redistribution welfare scheme. People are clamoring because, for the first time, John McCain has actually found a way to explain the asinine tax plans of the Chosen One. Look, folks. It's not like this is a new concept for politicians. Remember in the last debate, Obama and McCain both talked about the bracelets they wore from soldiers. In stump speeches, candidates refer to the waitress at the restaurant or that family in North Dakota that can't afford healthcare. Using real people has always been a way for politicians to "connect" to the voters ... but the difference is that this one has stuck. Here, finally, is a real "real people." And this "real people" wants to work hard and own his own business. This guy is nothing like the hopeless "real people" the Democrats like to parade around ... but he's very much like the average American with dreams and the determination to make them come true. A plumber gets Obama away from his speech writers and teleprompter ... and look what we have.

As expected, the McCain campaign has produced a Joe the Plumber commercial exposing Obama's Marxist tax policies.

Oh and in case you didn't know ... Joe the plumber is racist because he compared Barack Obama to Sammy Davis Jr. Who didn't see that coming.

Debate tonight

The day has come. Tonight is the last debate ... well, that's what they like to call it ... between Barack Obama and John McCain. It's really a joint press conference. Wouldn't it be great just to give them both microphones and say "You have 90 minutes. Hash this thing out." Tom Brokaw virtually destroyed the last "debate" with his boring demeanor and pitiful choice of questions. So, tonight I'm not expecting much. John McCain hasn't taken off the boxing gloves yet, and my bet is that the 24 oz. gloves are waiting for him in his dressing room.

Time to set the rules for the drinking games.

For Barack: For every time he says "middle class" you take a shot. For every time he says "but what the American people really want to talk about" or some derivate thereof "is the economy" you eat a jalapeno. By the end of the session any continence or bowel problems you might have should be taken care of.

For McCain: Not so easy, this is going to be a little subjective. Let's just say that ever time The Chosen One tees it up for McCain, and McCain wiffs, you hit the bottle. You'll pass out before this mess is over.

Now McCain did say yesterday that Barack Obama's association with Bill Ayers will probably come up in the debate tonight. If it does, which Obama excuse would you like to choose from?

• "He just a guy who lives in my neighborhood."
  
  
• "Bombs? You're not serious! I thought he was just an English professor. English professors throw bombs? Surely you're talking about metaphorical bombs."
  
• "I was only 8-years-old when he threw bombs at the Pentagon."
  
• "I thought he had been rehabilitated."
  
• "Oh yeah? Well you knew Charles Keating!"
  
  
• "It all depends on what your definition of 'terrorist' is."
  
• "Hey, I didn't know anything about his past when he nurtured my political career."
  
• "Did he help me write my book? Look, let's talk about issues that matter to the American middle class."

I'm going to go with, "Let's focus on the economy" option.

I guess there is the possibility that McCain will hit Obama with something about his long-term association with ACORN. Here are some possible responses,

• "Everybody knows that from little acorns mighty oak trees grow. That has to mean something. I don't really know what ... but something."
  
• "All they're trying to do is to get more Americans to exercise their right to vote."
  
• "This stuff would really be bad if they were working for Republicans. But with Democrats, the rule is 'whatever's necessary'."
  
• I don't really know who put that thing on my website listing as a "fact" that I never worked with or for ACORN. It's gone now though. So all is forgiven, right?"

OBAMA A JOB KILLING MACHINE

One of the amazing things about this election is that there are so many people out there who are eager to vote for Obama are people who are very concerned about their jobs ... and yet Obama is by far the greater threat to their job security of the two. Just two examples:

1. Obama wants to raise taxes on the very people who we depend on for 70% of existing jobs and 80% of new jobs. Obama hides these tax increases behind his class warfare rhetoric saying that he is only going to raise taxes on people who make over $250,000 a year. The problem here is most of America's small businessmen and women fall smack dab into this territory. They run a small business, they employ several people, and they report all of their business income on their personal tax returns. Just what do you think happens when their taxes go up? Do they take the hit themselves? Not if they can help it, they don't. They look for ways to cut businesses expenses to compensate for the tax increase. Well, guess what? You're a business expense. Good luck with that.
   
2. Obama wants to eliminate secret ballots in union elections, and he has the full Democrat congress ready to go along. This will mean that the Democrat's precious unions will be able to organize a workplace simply by intimidating a majority of the workers to sign a petition saying they want to unionize? Secret ballot? No way! Now when this so-called "Card Check" bill passes businesses are going to be looking for an escape valve ... a way to avoid having to deal with a union workplace. After all, we see how it worked out for the American auto industry. How do you escape? You pack up and move to a more business-friendly location. Millions of jobs have already fled our shores to escape our punishing tax system. Now will millions more run for the hills to escape forced-unionization? Businesses that can't flee? They'll be looking for ways to increase automation and reduce the number of employees. Count on it.

But that's OK. Obama has the rhetoric. He has the narrative. He has celebrity worship and mass hysteria behind him. It's going to be an interesting four (or two) years.

You want hate speech--I'll give you hate speech!

Right now, in the press, "rage" is all the rage.

At the New York Times, Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich - who may be the same person since they both wear dresses - have columns on the rising tide of anger in McCain's campaign. Dowd is calling the whole thing "seamy," and whenever someone brings up Bill Ayers, Rich sees a "violent escalation" in rhetoric. He links addressing real issues to an increased risk of Obama's assassination – meaning if you think voter fraud is important, you probably also want to kill black people.

True, a few nutbags in the GOP crowd shouted "terrorist" at the mention of Obama's name. But how does that compare to the insane froth found among the left? Christ: How many times have you heard President Bush called a "terrorist"? The Angry Left calls Bush a "war criminal," a "chimp," and have referred to him as a Nazi so many times he now goose-steps instead of jogs.

You want to talk about hate speech? Go to any Lefty protest. You'll see Old Glory remade with swastikas replacing stars. And what of those ironic hipsters wearing "Saran Palin is a C__t" t-shirts in Philadelphia the other day? I suppose when the media sees that, it's just edgy. However, I just see assholes destined for a lifetime manning the counter at Kinko's.

Nope, when the Left calls people horrible names, it's just politics -- a few fringe loonies, not be taken seriously. When that same anger comes from the Right, though, it reflects a larger philosophy of hate – one that labels anyone who doesn't want to spoon Noam Chomsky an Aryan Brother.

Look: the right knows Obama isn't a terrorist. He never tried to bomb the Pentagon and Capital Building. That was only a friend of his. Obama never said 9/11 happened because America's "chickens are coming home to roost" or screamed "G-d Damn America!" from the pulpit. That was just his pastor. We get it.

But the left realizes that if you want to kill a legitimate line of questioning, simply call something racist or hateful - and the media nods. It's the best way to make sure McCain loses gracefully – and it's working.

Frankly, I'd say it makes them all worse than Hitler.

It's the Jews--no-no-wait--It's the WASPs

RACISM, RACISM, RACISM!

Throughout this campaign, we have heard the steady cries of racism ... people say that the only reason the most liberal Senator ever to run for president – a leftist Senator with a penchant for Marxist ideology – could possibly lose this election is because he is black and people are racist. As we get closer to the election, these stories have exploded into the media.

Let's go down the list of the few we got just over the weekend!

We have foreign leaders (technically a former leader) like Fidel Castro saying that the only reason million of people will not vote for Barack Obama is because of "profound racism in the United States."

In South Carolina, we have vandals spray painting "Republican means slavery" on the door of the GOP campaign headquarters. Because, to the mind of an ignorant voter with a racial chip on his shoulder, being a Republican automatically makes you a racist because you don't want Barack Obama to be president. Please remember the idiot Whoppi Goldberg when McCain appeared on The View. She asked McCain if he were elected would she become a slave again.

Here's Time Magazine proclaiming that the John McCain and Sarah Palin are using Obama's race to make him appear "anti-American." It couldn't possibly have anything to do with his view of this country, could it?

Then we have Frank Rich in the New York Times over the weekend. Frank Rich says, "From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes." So there you have it. Not surprising that The New York Times publishes a column proclaiming that it is the Republicans who are playing the race card, and if Obama loses, it is because Republicans have stirred the racist pot.

Remember also other charges of racism in this campaign:

• The use of the word "skinny" in referring to Obama is racist.
• Using the words "community organizer" is racist.
• Saying Obama – an ultra-leftist – doesn't see America the same way a conservative would is racist.
• Using his middle name is racist.

Just remember my friends: This is only the beginning. When Obama becomes our (czar) President any utterance of disapproval with any proposal he floats before the congress will, of course, be racist. It is going to be a fun four years.

MCCAIN FINALLY HITS ON OBAMA AND ACORN

Too little too late? You betcha. But the McCain campaign is finally trying to hit on Barack Obama's relationship with this corrupt, voter fraud organization ACORN. On Friday, McCain's campaign released a memo saying that Obama's affiliations with ACORN "raise serious questions about his judgment and ability to lead this nation." We know, we know ... this is a racist statement because Republicans are referring to Obama's days as community organizer. The McCain campaign has also posted a video which points to the connections between ACORN and the current mortgage crisis – the fact that ACORN, with the blessing of our own government, bullied banks into giving loans to people who they know could not pay for them. Question ... where was all of this information in the last debate? Why has John McCain waited until now to make these connections?

Naturally, the Obama campaign responds with my favorite line ... these attacks from the McCain campaign attempt to "'turn the page from the issues that matter to American families." So there you go. The people don't want to talk about this, they want to talk about the economy! Hey, Barack, how about explaining the fact that an organization you worked for and have hired to get out the vote for your campaign is partly responsible for the current economy, thanks to the mortgage meltdown. Here's a picture of Our Savior at an ACORN meeting! Look at the picture and remember that some Obama mouthpieces say that he wasn't involved with ACORN. Yeah ... we're buying that.

Oh and the other response from Democrats ... the only reason the McCain campaign is hitting on ACORN is because McCain and Republicans are "hostile to the group's political agenda." Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. says, "They're scared of too many poor people preparing to vote this year." So now the McCain campaign is engaged in class warfare and the only reason they are attacking ACORN is because they don't want poor people to vote. That is the logic of a Democrat.

Donkeys planning on a win

And who can blame them, considering the intelligence of the American voter.

As soon as the Move-On Democrat Party gets their Democrat president-elect they'll be off to the races ... first up, a new wealth redistribution bill, sometimes called a stimulus bill. It's a very simple plan. They take money away from people who don't support them and give it to people who do.

You did hear The Chosen One over the weekend ... I hope. Some plumber caught him in public without his teleprompter and started asking him some pointed questions about his tax plans. The Democrat/Socialist candidate told the plumber dude that he wanted to "spread the wealth around." Well excuse the ever-loving crap out of me, but that wealth isn't the government's to "spread around" as Barack puts it. The wealth belongs to the people who earned it, and the government can't spread it around without first seizing it. Of course seizing that wealth from the evil high-achievers is something that appeals to a huge number of voters in this country.

You've heard people say that politicians derive power through the current tax code by creating winners and losers. This is what Obama has been proposing all along with his "reduce taxes on 95% of Americans" lie. What Obama really proposes to do is to create winners of the middle class by making losers of the high-achievers ... taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

If Pelosi calls the congress back into session after an Obama win it's BOHICA time. Pelosi says that the special session would require what she says "harsh measures." Harsh for whom? For people who didn't vote for Obama, I suspect.

Here's something else you need to know. Remember the "drill here, drill now" bit? Democrats got worried. They thought that their refusal to exploit our own domestic oil reserves might cost them votes, so they rushed through a bill to open up some of our offshore sites and other federal lands to drilling. Now Pelosi's dog-washer Steny Hoyer is saying that as soon as Obama is elected they're going to re-institute the drilling ban. And just what is the message here? We'll promise you anything to get your vote, and then as soon as the election is over we'll go right back to doing what we were doing. In other words ... screw you suckers!

Jesus H. Christ....

Articles in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times today about The Chosen One's phony promise to deliver a tax cut to 95% of Americans. Thinking voters thought that something may be a bit weird when you consider the fact that over 40% of Americans don't pay income taxes. If you weren't educated in a government school you might wonder "Well, that's all good Senator Obama, but how do you give a tax cut to someone who does not pay taxes?" Good question; and Barack the Magnificent has an answer for you. It's simple, really. You just change the definition of "tax cut." On Planet Reality a tax cut is when the amount of taxes you have to pay is reduced. On Planet Obama, which pretty much occupies the same orbit as Uranus, a tax cut is when you don't owe any taxes so the government writes you a check. After considerable thought I think that I prefer the old definition. What Obama the Incredible is proposing is nothing less than a massive welfare program. Let me know if you're surprised.

Borrrrrrrrrrring

The questions from the audience were, for the most part, unimaginative. Obama was the more boring of the two, but only by a narrow margin. That would be because he is leading in the polls and his job last night was to avoid mistakes. McCain, on the other hand, had to push harder to make some headway. I just don't see that he did it.

Every time I watch one of these debates I find myself inwardly screaming "Why didn't you say such-and-such? Finally I've come to realize a basic truth. These people – these politicians – spend most of their political lives trying to avoid telling people what they really think. Then, once every two, four or six years, they find themselves having to communicate with the people. A talk show host, on the other hand, is in the business of communicating ideas to people from 15 hours a week in most cases to my 22.5 hours a week. This is why you'll almost never hear a candidate come up with a line like this:

"Do you want a job? Are you looking for work? Tell me, are you going to go try to find a job from a member of the middle class? Probably not. Perhaps you think your chances of finding a job might be better if you go to a small business owners and large corporations. So .. while you're out there looking for jobs from these people, do you want us to be back in Washington raising their taxes? Do you want us to be plotting ways to relive them of the very money they need to hire you?"

Americans would get that.

Jobs are a big issue .. and an issue that is so easily addressed. Here's another line that you won't hear from a candidate:

"Do you know what has happened to so many of your jobs? The corporations who own those jobs sent them overseas to escape our punishing corporate tax rates. If you want to bring some of those jobs back, lower corporate taxes. What do you want corporations to do with that money? Pay it to the government in taxes, or use it to expand and provide new jobs. If we lower our corporate tax rate those companies who have been fleeing from our tax system may come back, and perhaps they'll bring some of their corporate friends with them. Now I'm suggesting a cut in corporate tax rates ... a cut that will create more jobs. When I make that suggestion my opponent counters with "John McCain wants to give big oil a huge tax cut." Instead of worrying about increasing job opportunities in this country, Barack Obama would rather demagogue oil companies."

Then Obama comes up with this "I'm going to cut taxes for 95% of the American public." Would someone please explain to me why McCain has never directly responded to this absurd line? Here's some more help from a small business guy:

"You're going to lower taxes for 95% of the people? Perhaps you don't know this, but 45% of American wage earners don't pay any federal income taxes. That places the entire federal income tax burden on just 55% of income earners. Please ... we're waiting ... tells us how you lower taxes on 95% of the people when only 55% are paying those taxes in the first place. I suspect that when you start explaining your plan we're going to learn that what you're really proposing is not tax cuts, but income redistribution."

So many lost opportunities last night ... how in the world does someone light a fire under this guy? There's not all that much time left.

Sheesh!