Bailout

According to Blackhedd, the TARP plan being pushed by Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke is, in fact, a bailout. He goes into the details here, but the gist of it, as I understand it, is as follows:

The government will set up a new entity (the First National "Bad Bank") that will purchase all of Wall Street's investments in bad loans. This will allow the banks to get their bad debts off of their balance sheets, and hopefully let them start pumping money back into our economy through making loans, etc. The word is that if this doesn't happen, many banks will fail, and others will stop making loans altogether, shaking the foundations of our economy, leading to deflation, loss of jobs, bad things in general...

The problem, and where this plan becomes either a bailout of Wall Street, or a necessary intervention by the government for stability, is in the actual valuation of the mortgage-based assets being purchased. According to Blackhedd, if the government purchases these assets at too low a price, the banks (at least those who made bad loans) will lose too much money, and collapse anyway. If the valuation is too high, the banks make out like bandits, basically being rewarded for bad behavior, and inflation will occur in the general economy.

From the testimony to congress yesterday, it sounds like the current plan is to err on the side of inflation, and overvalue the assets. This is not sitting well with conservatives (myself included) as it is basically proof that the administration wants to "bail out" the Wall Street executives. I don't think that's their underlying motive - as Blackhedd points out, Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression, and knows all about the dangers of deflation - they are most likely ensuring that the economy stays strong overall. But this looks very bad in the eyes of the general public. The Republicans are helping out their rich, evil CEO buddies on Wall Street, at the expense of us poor folks.

Politically, this is very bad for the GOP. If we oppose the plan on principle, we risk a serious depression in the economy, for which Republicans will take the blame. If we support it, we play in to the left's stereotypes of handouts for the rich. Overall, I think this dangerous step towards socialism is going to be a necessary evil. The capitalist in me wants the government to take a hands-off approach to this - allowing those who take foolish risks to reap their just rewards. But the father/husband/employee in me doesn't want to see the overall economy spiral into a depression, with banks unable to make loans, companies unable to expand and grow, and people losing their jobs left and right.

The scariest part of this is that we are delving into the world of socialism, while teetering dangerously close to electing a socialist in Obama, who will have to deal with this in the immediate future. A government with this much influence in the "free market" needs a leader who will work to get us back to where we started before all this happened, not someone whose instincts are to take us further down the road to socialism.

Pointing the Finger

Well, everyone's doing it these days, so I thought I'd dig into some facts and see who really is to blame for this mess in the financial world. CNN is out with a poll showing that most people (a 2-to-1 margin) are blaming Republicans for the current crisis. That doesn't surprise me in the least, as most people don't bother to look for facts when it comes to this kind of thing. It's much easier to look at who's been in charge over the last few years, and lazily assume it's their fault.

And to a certain degree, a great deal of blame can be laid at the feet of the GOP for not working harder to make changes to a system that was sending out clear signs of warning for quite some time. But what exactly is at the heart of this current crisis? What is the underlying cause for so much bloodshed on Wall Street?

Blackhedd, at Redstate, has been a source of reliable inside information on this issue for the last few weeks, and thanks to him I think I've gotten a pretty good idea of what's happened. I'm no financial wizard by any means, but I do know that most people will agree that mortgage back securities are at the root of the current mess. When lots of people default on their mortgages, the companies who have invested in the associated securities lose their arses. So who's fault is it that these mortgage companies gave loans to people who couldn't afford them?

It was Democrat policy that started pressuring banks into "providing affordable housing" to any and everyone. It was Democrat policy that implemented Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the CRA. It was left-wing special interest groups like ACORN who threatened mortgage companies and banks with shutting down their operations if they refused to give risky loans. And it was Democrats in congress who blocked a bill, sponsored by John McCain, that would have reformed Fannie and Freddie back in 2005.

So, considering that the average person is either too apathetic or dimwitted to understand these facts, and the news media is all too willing to ignore them in pursuit of their own agenda, I suppose it makes perfect sense that the GOP is getting the blame. After all, we are all evil rich white guys who care about nothing but making money at the expense of poor people, right?

Victory on Drilling

It looks like the Democrats may finally be caving in to the pressure from Republicans on offshore drilling. If this is true, and the ban is allowed to expire, then this is yet another victory for the GOP in this congress. It's also what the American people want, so I'm not really that surprised.

Pathetic.

That is the only word for Obama's sorry excuse for leadership during this financial crisis. If this is what we can expect from an Obama presidency - waiting for you opponents to come up with a solution, and then criticizing it while offering nothing in the way of a solution yourself - then God help us. Jeff Emanuel gives us the details:

"As always, Barack Obama takes the easiest (and lowest) road. From having his political opponents removed from the ballot so that he could run unopposed (or the next closest thing to it), to repeatedly voting "present" on legislation, to, in this race, waiting for John McCain to take a position on an issue before making up his own mind on it, then coming out firing at McCain (rather than actually talking about his own position on, and proposed solution to, the issues), Obama's career has been marked by cop-outs, relationships of convenience with very disreputable figures, and machine-politics-as-usual attacks.

"This situation is no different. Obama is allowing the President, the rest of the Congress, and his own opponent in the presidential race to take all of the risk and make all of the statements, while he sits up straight on his highest of horses and tells them all that they're going about fixing the problem the wrong way."

This guy is the worst kind of man, let alone politician. He must not be president.

Dirty Campaign Tricks

I learned a new term today - astroturfing - and apparently David Axelrod's name is synonymous with this lame tactic. Here we see yet another attempt by the Obama campaign to manufacture support from evangelical Christians. Conservative blogs across the net are experiencing an upswing in "Concerned Conservative Christians" who are suddenly spouting Obama campaign talking points.

Fortunately, it's easy to spot these morons. They almost always give themselves away by acting out the caricature of conservative Christians they have in their own mind.

And now, a PR firm with connections to the Obama campaign has been posting professionally made videos on YouTube, pretending that they're the result of a new "grassroots movement." They know they've been caught, and are already taking the videos down. Fortunately, the folks on our side made back-ups.

Seriously guys. This is pathetic.

Democrats Want High Gas Prices

The House passed a bill yesterday that is similar to legislation being proposed in the Senate by Saxby and Johnny. In othe words, it does nothing to increase oil exploration in any significant way, but raises taxes on energy companies in order to fund alternative fuel research. In the Post article, Nancy Pelosi admits that the intent of this bill is not to encourage more drilling, but to seek alternative energy sources. Energy technologies in which she and her husband have invested, and which would make them very wealthy should they be implemented. Energy technologies which are not ready for widespread use, and would take years to implement.

So, the Dems are in no way interested in providing immediate relief in the face of high gas prices. They want to tax the oil companies, while pretending to allow drilling in very limited areas. Not only will we not see any decrease in fuel prices as a result of this bill, increased taxes on energy companies will only be passed on to us in the form of increased energy prices, thereby increasing the cost of fuel. Do these people think we're stupid? And 15 Republicans voted for this bill! It's time we sent a message to these disconnected morons. The only acceptable solution is to allow the ban on offshore drilling to expire, thereby opening up ALL of these areas for exploration.

I'm all for alternative fuels, and some day we will have them. But the simple fact is that it won't be any time soon, no matter how much money the government throws in that general direction. We have to exhaust every option available to us, and that means drill. Now. Everywhere.

More Bad News

Well, so much for the Fed drawing a line. We, the taxpayers, are now on the hook for yet another company's poor judgement. And what message does this send to other similar institutions throughout our nation? The message is that, if you're a big enough corporation, the government will bail you out of whatever risks you take. So much for capitalism.

Many will argue that this was yet another necessary step to keep our economy stable, but I disagree. Capitalism is all about taking risks and reaping either the rewards or the consequences - take away one and the other will disappear as well. This is very bad news for our nation. The federal government now owns the largest insurance holding company in the country - that is a frightening reality. The U.S. government is not in the insurance, or any other business. Things are getting out of control, and those in charge have to be very careful, considering that this is completely uncharted territory. Read the link above in full for a very good analysis on what actually occured yesterday. As Blackhedd notes at the end of his post, some crucial decisions will have to be made in the coming months,

"There’s one more key thing I want to say, which reflects the fact that the AIG bailout is one of the most unprecedented things the government has ever done in peacetime.

The United States must not remain in the insurance business.

We’ve embarked, on one day’s notice, on precisely the path that free-market advocates consider a nightmare scenario. The largest insurance company in America is now owned and operated by the government, and has nearly unlimited access to cheap capital by virtue of the credit-quality enhancement provided by the Fed line of credit.

If you were one of AIG’s competitors, wouldn’t you be feeling a little bit like Tokyo when Godzilla is in town?

That’s the great hazard faced by the government now.

The only permissible course of action is for the feds to explicitly and openly put AIG on a path to liquidation."

This situation makes the upcoming election all the more important. What kind of president and congress do we want in Washington while the government is in such a dangerous position? Do we want a president who favors even more government involvement in every aspect of society making decisions like this?

What Were They Thinking?

I hate to say this, but our two senators fully deserve the criticism being thrown at them from conservatives over the Gang of 10 energy "compromise." Erick gives us a nice summary of the legislation over at Peach Pundit, and it's pretty much what you would expect from a compromise between Democrats and the GOP. The spineless Republicans cave in to 90% of everything the Dems want, and get a whole lot of nothing in return.

Every. Stinking. Time.

Here's the deal:

"If Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson have their way, most of the outer continental shelf (”OCS”) would be permanently off the table for expanded energy exploration. Right now, the ban on OCS exploration must be renewed annually.

10 billion barrels of oil and 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable off the Pacific Coast.

10 billion barrels of oil and 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable in ANWR.

2 billion barrels of oil and 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable in the Atlantic."

Oh, and the bill would also raise taxes on energy companies by $30 billion. Let me guess - Saxby and Johnny had to throw that little tidbit in to "sweeten the deal" for the populist Democrats who want to be able to say they stuck it to the big bad oil companies.

And what did they get in exchange?

Access to a small fraction of the resources we have available to us right now, and a PERMANENT ban on the rest. I'm sorry. I really do like Saxby, but this CANNOT happen. I really don't understand his, or any of the other Republicans' reasoning for this nonsense. The public has made it very clear that we want to drill everywhere, now. Just do it, already.

More on the Financial Crisis

I'm glad the Fed finally decided to draw the line yesterday, refusing to bail out another big time financial company. The fact that Lehman Bros. was actually larger than Bear Sterns at the time of its bailout shows me that they're serious about letting the system work itself out of this mess. As a believer in capitalism, I'm fully supportive of allowing companies who take foolish risks to reap their rewards. The government is responsible for keeping this economy afloat, but whenever possible it should take a hands-off approach to the "free" market. It's now looking like AIG and Wachovia are in serious trouble as well. I'm afraid we're in for some difficult times ahead.

That brings me to Obama's latest charge that this crisis is a result of Republican economic policies. Apparently, he is unaware of the fact that it was the Democrat's New Deal creation, Fannie Mae, which began the process of loaning money to people who couldn't afford it. It was Democrat policy that produced a sense of entitlement to home ownership (and everything else) among the American public. I realize that it's fashionable to blame George Bush for everything bad that happens these days, but he didn't force any of these banks into irresponsible lending practices.

I lay full blame at the feet of The New Deal, America's first step towards the kind of pseudo-socialism that is bankrupting not only our financial institutions, but our government. Maybe a real disaster is what is necessary to shake us out of our lazy, entitlement mentality. Either way, more government intervention, the very root of the problems we now face, is not the solution. Obama may find it easy to stand and point fingers, but his only "solution" is more of the problem.

Wishful Thinking

More proof that Obama is the political messiah that his worshippers think him to be:

He is apparently going to demonstrate that he is able to create, from nothing, a brand new species of supporter for his faltering campaign. How will he accomplish this unprecedented feat? Easy. By producing thousands of yard signs, bumper stickers, and buttons, appropriately labelled for said species of supporter. Think of it as a new take on "If you build it, they will come."

Get your "Believers for Barack" campaign paraphernalia, and become a part of Barry's newest experiment in wishful thinking. Check out the link to the campaign email, encouraging "people of all faith backgrounds" to become a Believer for Barack. In other words, it doesn't matter what you are a believer in, just that you believe something....which pretty much includes everyone on this planet. And now you know why he's the messiah.

Financial Woes

I'm admittedly pretty ignorant of the complex mechanisms within the financial system, but even I can see that something bad is happening on Wall Street. One of the front page posters over at Redstate, Blackhedd, has helped me to understand more about this crisis than anyone else over the last several months, and he has some excellent posts up today concerning the latest problems with Lehman Brothers.

You can get caught up on situation here.

Another Celebrity Genius

Lindsay Lohan has become the latest celebrity to help endear Sarah Palin to the general electorate. She put more than a few words together (all by herself, no doubt) on her MySpace page, slamming Palin's lack of experience and support for ideals that are not espoused by the hollywood elite. She also threw her considerable support (thousands of teeny-boppers and other well-informed political savants who will NOT forget about the election 3 days from now) behind the junior senator from Illinois - apparently totally oblivious to the irony of her charges concerning Palin's experience.

We shouldn't be too hard on poor Lindsay. She's just repeating what Matt Damon - who she probably thinks is the, "like, epitome of smartness, and stuff" - said a few days ago, and has now become the official hollywood talking point on the election. These are the kind of people who support Obama, and their disdain for an ordinary American woman (with more experience than their pick for president) is only helping to show the rest of this nation how Sarah Palin is one of us.

It's easy to see why liberals hate Sarah Palin. She is the perfect example of the successful practice of conservative principles, and she represents the majority of Americans. It's hard to see that from within the fantasy land of Hollywood, but it's true none the less.

LFC 2 - 1 Man. Utd.

I just need to take a moment to smile, and maybe gloat a little. The Mighty Reds have finally beaten Manchester United - and without Torres or Gerrard! Could this be the year for a genuine title challenge? This was a big step, but the real litmus test will come against Stoke - just days after an away trip in the Champion's League. On paper, this should be no problem, but past experience has shown this type of situation to be very tricky. If the Reds can take care of business against a limited but scrappy side, after playing in Europe, then I'll really be excited.

9/11 Anniversary Links

There are plenty of great articles to read on the 7th anniversary of September 11. I thought I'd just post a list of some of the better reads across the web:

First off, there is a wide variety of posts up at Redstate, all of which are excellent, but here's a taste:

Absentee has a great collection of 9/11 photos.

Jeff Emanuel gives us a great overview of the all-too-ironic New York Times article about William Ayers, unrepentant terrorist and Barack Obama booster, which was published on the day of the WTC attacks.

Dan MacLaughlin recounts his first hand experience of the attack on the World Trace Center.

Over at Townhall.com, Ann Coulter reminds us all of the score in Bush 7, Terrorists 0.

At National Review Online, Cliff May talks about the fact that Arab nations are helping to spread the belief abroad that the U.S. government either planned or directly implemented the attacks as an excuse to wage a new crusade. Victor Davis Hanson and James Robbins both discuss the unfortunate but inevitable consequence of our success in preventing further attacks: complacency.

Michelle Malkin has several incredible posts concerning the 9/11 attacks up on her blog - all worth reading.

7 years

We all remember where we were when the news first broke. Today we remember what evil looks like, and thank God for those who refused to back down in fear or sorrow. We are thankful for the 7 years of peace on our own soil since that dark day, and we gather our strength for more years of diligence in our continued fight. We remind our politicians and leaders that this fight is far from over, and we expect our next president to remember that.

We cannot afford to forget this day, or that radical Islam is our enemy. We will NEVER forget.

A Guide to Celebrity Strays

Thank goodness for Matt Damon. If he hadn't had the courage to go on national television and talk about things that he is completely unqualified to discuss, some of us might have made the fatal mistake of actually voting for McCain-Palin. But now, thankfully, he has made it known that he "knows nothing about" Sarah Palin. What would we do without celebrities?

(By now you have probably sensed the sarcasm in my tone. I've often allowed these celebrity forays into politics to get under my skin. Screaming at the television or computer screen, and elevating my blood pressure to dangerous levels was the usual response. Fortunately, I have put my experience in this matter to good use, and will now suggest a method for dealing with the difficult issue of "celebrity strays.")

As consumers, we are responsible for the care and nurturing of our celebrities. Often times, we forget that those who are blessed with true artistic talent are often, shall we say, lacking, in the capacity for rational thought. The typical celebrity lifestyle often compounds the effects of this condition. Very few of them live in anything that remotely resembles what most of us know as the "real world", so our approach to the care and nurture of the celebrity must be carefully considered in light of these factors.

When a celebrity strays into the world of politics, we often simply roll our eyes and go about our day. However, we must realize that it is a serious condition, almost certainly brought about by our own actions. Our elevation of entertainers to the status of demi-gods is the most common cause of celebrity strays. Unfortunately, this trend is unlikely to be reversed in the immediate future, so it's important to know how to deal with this phenomenon whenever it occurs. The first step is to remember that the celebrity exists, first and foremost, for your entertainment.

It's actually quite entertaining to watch celebrities, with such serious looks on their faces, talking about politics and policy like they have the slightest clue about life outside of Hollywood. It really is amusing to realize that they honestly think we would value their opinions on anything other than, well, entertainment. It's OK, though - in most cases one is best served by just letting them go on thinking that we do care, so they keep making entertaining movies and don't go stomping off to Canada once they realize we only pay attention to them when they're saying what the script tells them to say.

In other words, one must recognize that the life experience of the average celebrity has given them the real-world judgement and understanding of a 5-year-old. Nod in approval and say things like, "That's very good, Matthew!", and, "Such big words you're using, and all by yourself!"

Of course, there are times when this approach does nothing but inflate the celebrity's sense of self importance, and such circumstances call for a firm, but loving hand. If the celebrity continues to abuse his position in society, he must lovingly be reminded of his status as mere entertainment. As Leo DiCaprio, as Howard Hughes, says to Cate Blanchet, as Katherine Hepburn, in one of my favorite movies, The Aviator, "You are a movie star - nothing more!" It's important to be forceful, so the celeb knows you mean business, but with compassion and a sincere since of responsibility for having contributed to their condition.

The problem of stray celebrities is more than likely only going to get worse in the coming weeks and months leading up to a very important election. Some, like Susan Sarandon and Oprah, are more irritating than others, but all have the potential to cause indigestion and hypertension in the average individual. Please, remember that you are responsible for your celebrities, and only you have the ability to bring them back home. The power lies with you (use the remote, stupid).

Church & Statism

R.C. Sproul, one of my favorite modern theologians, has an excellent article in his latest version of Tabletalk Magazine about why Christians should be opposed to the ever growing size and supremacy of government. It's long been clear that this nation has moved beyond mere "separation of church and state", into a complete separation of government from God. Most today would probably argue that this is as it should be, but it certainly is not what was intended by the founding fathers.

"...initially both the church and the state were seen as entities ordained by God and subject to His governance. In that sense, the state was considered to be an entity that was “under God.” What has happened in the past few decades is the obfuscation of this original distinction between church and state, so that today the language we hear of separation of church and state, when carefully exegeted, communicates the idea of the separation of the state from God. In this sense, it’s not merely that the state declares independence from the church, it also declares independence from God and presumes itself to rule with autonomy.

The whole idea of a nation under God has been challenged again and again, and we have seen the exponential growth of government in our land, particularly the federal government, so that the government now virtually engulfs all of life...Where we have seen the largest measure of the loss of liberty is with respect to the function of the church. Though the church is still somewhat tolerated in America (in a way it was not tolerated in Mao’s Red China and under Stalin), it is tolerated only when it remains outside of the public square. In other words, the church has been relegated to a status not unlike that given to the native Americans, where the tribes were allowed to continue to exist as long as they functioned safely on a reservation, outside of any significant influence on the government. So although the church has not been banished completely by the statism that has emerged in America, it has been effectively banished from the public square.

Throughout the history of the Christian church, Christianity has always stood over against all forms of statism. Statism is the natural and ultimate enemy to Christianity because it involves a usurpation of the reign of God."

Nanny-Statism has become the norm in America, and liberals would have it become all-encompassing. Let the government take care of your every need. Who needs freedom anyway? It's time we put a stop to this nonsense, and start taking care of ourselves and our neighbors. If Christians will stand up and do a better job of taking care of each other and those in need, we wouldn't have any reason to let the government do it (or try to do it...badly). God is our provider - not government.

They Really Are Pathetic

One more reason why I will not be surprised when Obama supporters begin insisting that their messiah's speeches be printed only in red ink - From Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN):

"I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, um, that the parties have differences, but if you want Change, but if you want change, you want the Democratic party, uh, Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus who our, uh, minister prayed about, uh, Pontius Pilate was a governor."

Ohhhhhhhhhh. So, that's what community organizers do...walking on water, turning water into wine, healing sick people, being raised from the dead. I'm so glad congressman Cohen cleared that up for us! Who knew we had a Jewish expert on New Testament theology in the House?

The Highest Form of Flattery

Obama has given more evidence that Sarah Palin's jabs in her incredible convention speech hit a nerve. Apparently, after seeing how successful and popular Palin's clever comments were, Obama thought he'd give it a try.

"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said as the crowd cheered. "It's still a pig."

What a classy guy. Please keep this up, Barry - and let me know how this new strategy of name-calling works out for ya. It's gotta help win over those disaffected Clinton supporters. You are either incredibly stupid (we know you went to Harvard, so probably not the case), or remarkable arrogant. Given your record to date, I'd go with the latter.

Now It's Personal

Barack Obama:

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

Such calculation. Note the extremely vague, but obligatory reference to "values and morals", which is supposed to convince us that he is in a terrible, but necessary moral conundrum.

I would, however, like to state that my own particular "punishment" turned 10 years old 2 weeks ago. If Obama understood the sovereignty of God, then he might realize that sometimes what seems like the worst possible circumstance can be turned into the greatest event of your life. ALL THINGS work together for the good of those who love the Lord. If what resulted from our making the difficult choice of life, after a lapse in judgement at the age of 18, was indeed a punishment...well then, "Thank you, sir, may I have another."

I suppose this explains my hostility towards the establishment of abortion on demand, but hindsight is a frightening thing when I realize how easy it would've been to make the wrong choice. The bottom line is that it shouldn't even be a choice. I now have proof that life is too precious to be treated with such disdain.

I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way. I'm not trying to boast about the fact that we were able to make the right choice in a difficult situation, and I would never condemn anyone who has been down the other road. It was only by God's grace that we were able to do what we did. I will, however, condemn those who have worked to make abortion the form of birth control that it has become, creating a so-called easy way out for people in desperate situations.

This also ties in to my previous post concerning evangelicals and the situation with Bristol Palin. My own similar experience with fellow believers gave me confidence that the base would stand by the Palins during this difficult time, despite the naive and ignorant hopes of the liberal media.

Palin and The Media

As issues at the office have kept me away from the blogosphere for the last week or so, I've been literally itching to get back to the keyboard and talk about what's going on in the presidential race. The treatment of Governor Palin by the mainstream press has been nothing short of dispicable, to say nothing of the treatment she's getting from our illustrious opponents on the left side of the web. It really is quite remarkable to see the hypocrisy in action as these luminaries of liberal thought quake in the shadow of a woman who is more man than any of them will ever be.

Liberals, and lefty feminists in particular, are rightly terrified of Sarah Palin and what she represents. A conservative woman who is a natural leader, an excellent speaker, a successful and popular executive in state government, and she's *gasp* attractive! And let's not forget that she has more experience running a government than their pathetic would-be messiah. But the most threatening thing of all for those on the left, who have supposedly been the champions of women's issues for so long, is that she does all of this while successfully raising a large family. She didn't let her career determine how many children she should have, and didn't exercise her "right" to end any of those pregnancies which might have hampered her career. She even chose to give birth to a child she knew would have Down Sydrome - a choice that completely baffles, and no doubt angers those who fight so hard for the ability to murder unborn children.

It really is quite amusing to see the press and everyone else on the left suggesting that Sarah Palin should stay home and tend to her family. After all, we all know that a woman's place is in the kitchen...are we in some kind of political bizzaro world? I really see this backfiring on the media and their client, the Obama campaign. Sarah Palin represents the best side of American politics: ordinary men and women, who have families and struggle with the same problems that every other American faces, going to Washington to represent their peers. This is what our government was supposed to be. Instead, we have a capital full of lawyers and career politicians who don't live in everyday America, and represent only themselves. Barack Obama is a prime example.

This "scandal" concerning Bristol Palin has revealed a good deal about the media, and the left in general. Apart from their obvious bias towards Obama, and any Democrat candidate, it has revealed a lot about how liberals in the media view evangelicals. There is a very good reason that this story has been plastered on every newspaper, magazine, and television screen ever since it was revealed that Bristol was pregnant. You see, liberals tend to see conservative evangelicals as Bible-thumping agents of condemnation and judgement. They reveal their complete lack of knowledge concerning true Christianity when they push this story in the hopes that we prudish, holier-than-thou Jesus freaks will turn on Palin. They honestly believe that we will do just that, simply because Palin has a daughter that hasn't lived up to the standards of the Bible. Don't get me wrong, I realize that there are many so-called Christians who act in this way, but no true believer can do anything but sympathize with the Palins in this situation.

So, here's a little lesson for those in the media and on the left, trying to figure out why this scandal has done nothing but solidify Palin's support among evangelicals. True Christians realize that every man and woman since Adam and Eve, save One, have fallen short of God's standards. The fact that we still try to live up to the law of God is a result of our relationship with Christ, not the means to such a relationship. No true Christian would ever do anything but pray for this family in a very difficult situation, and admire their courage and effectiveness as parents in raising a daughter who made the choice to give life to her child.

But please, by all means, continue spewing this garbage at the Palins. You are doing nothing more than rallying the average American to their cause. If this is what happens when ordinary, outside-the-beltway people try to do what the founding fathers intended, then you do us all a service by awakening the public to the brokenness of our system.

Weekend Round-up

After a nice, quiet Labor Day weekend, I thought I'd take a look at the state of affairs within the political realm:

What a surprise. John McCain's sordid love affair with the mainstream press is on the rocks. We all knew this was coming when he took the nomination. The media, whom McCain once referred to as his 'base', where only enamored with the Arizona Senator as long as he was undermining his own party, or criticising the conservative base. This is what turned so many of the conservative faithful away from McCain's candidacy. What's so surprising is how shocked the McCain camp seems to be at this startlingly predictable turn of events.

Lefty bloggers are having such fun over at the Daily Kos over revelations that Governor Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. Before Gov. Palin revealed this information about her daughter, however, they stooped about as low as I've ever seen anyone go. Rumors have been flying around the left side of the internet, accusing Gov. Palin of faking her last pregnancy - you know, the one where she baffled the liberal establishment by actually choosing to have her baby with Down Syndrome, rather than euthanize it. These geniuses would have us believe that the baby actually belongs to Palin's daughter. That's right: they're using a baby with Down Syndrome to score political points. The Obama campaign has been quick to disavow such dispicable slime in public, while campaign staffers delightedly forward the story to anyone they can. The biggest crime of all, is that many in the mainstream press are giving this story attention, despite the lack of credible evidence. The McCain camp did well to release the info about Bristol's pregnancy immediately, and as the Politico points out, this may end up helping people identify with Palin as the only one in this race who is in touch with real, everyday Americans and their problems.

While the Kos-Kids continue to prove my theory about the make-up of the American Left, we have more proof that those peace-loving champions of free speech and harmony are nothing more than immature hypocrites. The Connecticut delegation to the Republican National Convention was attacked by a group of liberal protestors while trying to enter the Xcel Center. The delegates were spat upon, and had clorox thrown on them, by these luminaries of the American Left. Funny, I don't remember ever hearing about conservatives doing things like this over a difference of political opinion.