I was on the road for a while on Friday and heard occasional news reports that the stock market was down again, taking substantial losses.

But when I returned to my office and looked at the news, the market had turned dramatically and was nearly in positive territory. Within minutes, this dramatic turnaround had become an orgy of buying with the market shooting upwards like a rocket.

This recovery of the entire 700 points it had lost earlier in the day on massive selling, meant a total of 1400 points of movement in one day. But it wasn't over. The market continued upward, reaching 300 points above its starting average, for 1700 total points of movement.

Then as I watched in disbelief, in less than 15 minutes the market lost all 300 points it had just gained and another 128 on top of that. Sufficient sales had occurred in one-quarter of an hour to wipe out all the previous gains and the market ended up once again in the red. In all the market moved more than 2100 points in one session.

A colleague told me of reading reports that the 6,000 point drop the market has seen in recent weeks from its high point means a loss of some 8 trillion dollars in value. If that is true, and the combined value of all the stocks bought and sold Friday was on a par with the value of the stocks bought and sold since this slide began, then the New York Stock Exchange alone saw transactions amount to something in the neighborhood of 2 trillion dollars in one session!

Who could do that? Certainly not mom and pop investors. Most of the individuals in the market who thought they were on risky ground would have sold in the earlier sessions. Even institutionalized investments couldn't do that much that quickly.

We are talking the equivalent of about one-sixth of the United States' annual Gross Domestic Product, bought and sold in one day!

Did you see the news that the World Bank computers have been hacked, and very deeply, several times this year, going back to the spring? Did you see that the World Bank executives hid this from the public, supposedly to prevent a panic?

Does that look far more like a cover up than a security measure?

And don't forget, when our markets go down, Asian and European markets go down too. But interestingly, there also have been days when our markets were recovering, and the Asian and European markets saw massive losses regardless. What would trigger such uncertainty when the United States appeared to be stabilizing?

What we are talking about here appears to be a major coordinated assault on capitalism. It started out weeks ago, and every time it looks as though we have hit bottom and are about to start climbing out, whammo, another salvo is launched.

But from whom? The Internet is alive with buzz that socialist financier George Soros, still smarting from not being able to buy the election for Al Gore in 2000, or John Kerry in 2004 is behind it; has in fact threatened previously to join with others of like mind and intent to do exactly that.

But even Soros for all his billions couldn't do it alone. He couldn't even do it if he convinced Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and all of the late Sam Walton's family members to join him - not that any of them would.

No, this appears to be a coordinated assault on a level that requires entire nations, many of them, in concert with each other, to be participants. So who could it be?

Well, Europe is pretty much out of the loop since its countries' economies are based on capitalism too, and are suffering every bit as much as the United States. Even Russia took huge hits, and at first blush wouldn't appear to be in on it.

We can't completely discount Russia though, especially with all the posturing Vladimir Putin has been doing recently. First he poses with his shirt off, then he kills a tiger for sport, then he invades Georgia, then he gets another tiger - live this time - for a birthday present, obviously to make up for the outrage I'm sure he heard after hunting down the first tiger.

What is it with Putin? For my money, he is trying to display strength at a time when the world is in turmoil thus presenting a strong alternative to the west's candy-assed leaders. His invasion of Georgia got exactly the response he thought it would, lots of talk and blustering, but no action.

And since he started this little charade more than a year ago, I'd bet that he was aware of what was coming on the world financial markets even if he, or Russia, wasn't directly involved.

Others may have differing opinions on Putin's game, but I believe their opinions reflect their own personalities. The weak will see his posturing as a threat and will cower accordingly; the uncertain may well see him as a possible replacement for western leaders, so long as they don't get hurt in the process; and the strong will see it as a challenge to their leadership.

All that being said, I doubt that Russia has the capabilities to pull off Friday's chaos. And since he hasn't exactly been the Islamo-fascists' best friend, what with the unpleasantness in Chechnya for example, I doubt he would be all that likely to side with Al Qaeda.

But what about China? Did you notice that in all this uproar, we haven't heard much about China? The big news from that country was all about them successfully applying the technology they were allowed to acquire from us in the Clinton Administration to launch a manned spacecraft, send its astronauts out for a walk, and talk about building a space station!

On the world financial scene, they have been strangely quiet. Too quiet. And don't forget, the Chinese hold something in the neighborhood of $1 trillion in US securities.

Combine that with their laser shot at one of our defense satellites a while back, their submarine sneaking up on the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier out on the Pacific, using stolen American sonar technology, and all these poison products they have been sending to America and you have reasonable doubt - about China's intentions.

Why does China need to build its own space station when there already is an international space station well under construction? Doesn't it want to be part of the world of modern nations? Or would its space station employ weapons that could be used against earthbound targets, that China's leaders don't want us to know about?

Would China line up with extremist Muslims, using their oil gorged bank accounts to send the west into turmoil, and raise questions about the validity of capitalism as a world philosophy?

Remember, both the communists and the Islamo-fascists are intent on world domination, with their version of government the only form of government. Obviously there would come a time when the Islamo-fascists and the communists would fight each other, but think of the manpower each side would have available to them from conquered and enslaved countries.

Remember too, that neither communists nor Islamo-fascists care one whit about human life, albeit for different reasons, and will sacrifice untold millions as long as the few at the top get what they want. So, would China, which has been supporting Al Qaeda ever since we invaded Afghanistan, link up with Islamo-fascists if Chinese leaders thought they could emerge as a lone superpower in the end?

My vote is yes, unquestioningly.

It is easy, considering everything above, to see what happened Friday as an assault on our financial cornerstones, in an effort to weaken, demoralize and ultimately destroy our democratic form of government. What transpired on Wall Street Friday did more damage to the core of our government and freedoms than the attacks on 9-11, even though there was no immediate loss of life or property.

If it was a deliberate act of sabotage, the west must act strongly, quickly and decisively.

The Pentagon has super computers at its disposal, and one of the great things about the computer age is that even though billions of transactions took place Friday, they can all be traced to their origins. Relatively quickly too.

President George Bush is now facing the greatest challenge of his administration, and while meeting with other world leaders is a nice symbol, he might get far more done by ordering the Pentagon to turn its computers loose on tracking Friday's transactions on Wall Street, looking for patterns.

If he finds that Soros or any other individuals or institutions were involved, he should immediately freeze all their assets, not just here, but in conjunction with leaders worldwide too, and seek an international arrest warrant.

If he finds that China or any other countries that still have sympathies for Al Qaeda's Islamo-terrorists were involved, directly or indirectly, he should consider it an act of war and respond accordingly.

Barack Obama started off his part of the most recent presidential debate by lying.

John McCain started off his part of the most recent presidential debate by flubbing the return.

Obama blamed the current financial crisis one-hundred percent on "eight years of failed George Bush policies." (Gag me with a spoon will you please!)

McCain could have and should have nailed Obama right between the eyes by responding that the financial crisis is the direct result of Democratic meddling with safeguards that were put in place back in the 1930s to prevent just such a meltdown. He could have and should have noted that in 1999 Bill Clinton took off the brakes on what has become an out-of-control, headlong, downhill dash into financial oblivion.

He didn't. McCain could have and should have noted that even when the GOP tried to return the controls by initiating legislation in Congress in 2003 and other times, it was stymied by cries of "racism" from the very people who had a vested interest in seeing this situation develop.

McCain could have and should have noted that the real racists in Congress are those Democrats who gave false hope to poor people, many of them minorities. They, including hypocrites like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Henry Waxman and even Obama himself, did this by luring poor people, many of them minorities, into an impossible financial trap. They offered home ownership through mortgages that had no controls and a built in time-bomb detonator that would yank their dreams away in a heartbeat, and they knew exactly what they were doing.

Then, when it happened these Congressional hypocrites cried "Racist!" Right after that rallying cry comes "Failed George Bush policies."

Another note to McCain. Stop bashing Bush and Dick Cheney. That isn't your job. We understand your Maverick label so don't belabor the issue. Obama and his Democratic cronies are doing enough Bush bashing for everyone, you don't have to join in the chorus.

Obviously, McCain's handlers are telling him to avoid mentioning Bush at all cost, unless he is blaming something on the sitting president, which sounds petulant if not outright childish. "I didn't do it, he did it! I was just over here watching, but I didn't do it!" Enough already!

Some of us still like the president and vice president. If my history books are accurate, roughly the same number of us like George Bush and Dick Cheney as the number who liked George Washington! Do we agree with every single thing they do every single time? No. But we agree with a lot they did, and do, and McCain isn't making this any easier by offending one-third of the total electorate.

The biggest problem McCain has is that Obama may be blowing smoke up America's collective skirt, but he looks good doing it. McCain may have better ideas, and yes, certainly a better record, but he seems to be tiptoeing on eggshells, afraid to score points when he can and should.

He is trying to be everything to everyone and in the end he isn't satisfying anybody. Want to see how to win the last debate? Watch a video of Sarah Palin debating Joe Biden!

Sarah Unchained. Portrait of a Winner!

Gov. Sarah Palin went right to the heart of Barack Obama's character on Saturday when she linked him to radical anti-American Bill Ayers, who with his wife, was a founder of the Weather Underground.

That radical, domestic terrorist organization claimed opposition to the Vietnam War as its originating principle. But its terrorist activities that started in 1969, when Richard Nixon had already begun withdrawing troops from Vietnam, continued through the 70s and into the early 80s.

Ayers was quoted in the New York Times in 2001 saying the Weather Underground didn't do enough, even though they bombed police stations, the Pentagon and the US Capitol. Ayers lately has been saying that the quote means they didn't do enough to end the Vietnam War.

But actions speak louder than words, and although the United States military had left Vietnam by 1972 the Weather Underground did nothing to stop the slaughter of millions in Southeast Asia, especially after the communists took over in 1975. So let's not get caught in the anti-war propaganda. The Vietnam War was just a convenient excuse to launch attacks on the core of America.

In addition members of the Weather Underground continued their attacks on the United States itself for nearly another decade after 1972.

The last act of defiance by a member of the group was the attempted robbery of a Brinks armored truck in 1981 in which three people were murdered. Kathy Boudin, the Weather Underground member who was captured in that shootout, was released from prison in Sept. 2003.

The New York times, writing of her release, called the botched armed robbery that claimed the lives of two police officers and a Brink's guard, "a last gasp of Vietnam-era radicalism."

By pleading guilty in 1984, Ms. Boudin avoided a life sentence, a factor that did not sit well with the victims' survivors when she was allowed to go free.

Weather Underground member Cathy Wilkerson said in an interview about the book she wrote about her deadly "adventures," that the cult's leadership used what amounted to communist "reeducation" tactics to convince its members of the righteousness of their cause and to keep them in line.

From the New York Times, "She describes self-criticism sessions led by individuals who used the jargon of psychotherapy. Many in the ranks slept on floors and survived on pennies, but the leadership enjoyed opulent creature comforts. A strict "need-to-know" policy was enforced, meaning individuals could share little information, creating a culture of paranoia.

In the interests of creating "new men and new women," ... the leadership pushed an antimonogamy policy, giving joyless parties where virtual strangers had public sex. "We threw ourselves into the possibility of remaking ourselves as more effective tools for humanity's benefit to the point of sacrificing our own humanity."

In December 1969, according to the Times, a Weather Underground gathering in Flint, Mich., called for war on the United States. Wilkerson says the message was: "Violence was cleansing and resurrecting."

So let's not kid ourselves about Ayers and his intentions. That he escaped a prison term only because the defense successfully argued that evidence against him was gathered illegally by the FBI doesn't alter the nature of his mission. If the Patriot Act had been passed in 1969 Ayers might still be in jail.

The fact that both Ayers and his wife are university professors in Illinois where they live under the benign shadow of the Daley Democratic political machine, gives much credence to the oft-heard complaint that many of our nation's colleges are dominated by the radical far left.

And consider this from the NO QUARTER blog site http://noquarterusa.net/blog:
Barack was the Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Foundation. Bill Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist with wealthy family connections, had co-founded the Chicago Foundation and named Obama as the Chairman of said entity. So by 2001 Barack and Ayers had worked closely together on an effort to reform Chicago public schools. I am all in favor of school reform. But if you are involved with politics you ought to understand that if you hang with, work with, and politic with a guy who is an unrepentant terrorist that it might reflect badly on you. In fact, you should put some distance between yourself and said terrorist.

Barack did not. What is curious is that Barack despite facing criticism about his lack of experience, is closed mouthed when it comes to discussing his stint running a $50 million dollar foundation. What is he hiding?

(This photo of William Ayers is posted on the Rezko Watch blog site, which notes it was first discovered by Patrick Henry, who comments at the No Quarter blog. It came from a 2001 photo shoot promoting the publication of Ayers' memoir Fugitive Days. The photograph appears in the August 2001 Chicago Magazine interview with Ayers by Marcia Froelke Coburn. On the first page of the article entitled "No Regrets", Coburn writes: This-violence, death, and white-hot rhetoric-is his past and Ayers insists he has no regrets. "I acted appropriately in the context of those times," he says.)

But there is far more to Obama's association with people like Ayers and convicted felon Antoin "Tony" Rezko. The latter is a native of Syria, long considered a terrorist state, who moved to Chicago and was a major Obama financial supporter until convicted on several counts of fraud and bribery earlier this year.

For instance, Obama also served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which bills itself as a philanthropic organization devoted to improved education and other worthy causes. However, since 2003 the Joyce Foundation has paid grants totaling over $12 million to groups opposed to legal ownership of firearms.

These include the Violence Policy Center, which reportedly received more than $4-million over a decade ending in 2006, wants a total ban on handgun ownership, not to mention semi-automatics and other firearms, and strongly supports "substantial restrictions" on legal gun ownership.

But there is even more. In July of this year, in a speech in Colorado, Obama called for the establishment of a National Police Force, equivalent in size and strength to the military.

Why on earth would we need an agency that easily would require a half-trillion dollars annually to establish and maintain, especially when we have the FBI, CIA, National Guard, US Marshals, a plethora of intelligence gathering agencies, the US Park Service, and on and on?

Why especially, when calling for this organization would you compare it to the military, unless you wanted a force that would neutralize the military?

You don't have to take my word for it, check out these sites.

From World Net Daily, posted July 16, 2008:Obama's 'Big Brother' vanishes from speech. 'Civilian security force' missing from 'call to service' transcript
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69784

You can watch a video of his comments on You Tube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw

The comments in question are at the 16-minute mark. Obama said, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

We have plenty of police in America, including local, county, state and federal officers. We don't need a national police force either from a Homeland Security or budgetary viewpoint.

Most democratic countries don't have huge national police forces that are the equivalent in manpower and firepower to the military. There are countries that do, however, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin and other murderous dictators, Germany under Hitler, Cuba under Fidel Castro, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea, Vietnam, and lately an effort by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

So, is that the model of government that Obama is mimicking? Does he want to turn the United States into a Police State? If so, why? Who does he intend to control? People who previously owned firearms?

Remember, we have some 25-million veterans in this country who are trained in all forms of warfare from hand-to-hand combat, through small arms right up to nuclear weapons. They are a massive deterrent ... unless they are disarmed.

There hasn't been much about this in the national media, which is no surprise. But it seems very, very odd to me that with just a little bit of research on the Internet I can find compelling evidence that Barack Obama may well have ulterior motives in his run for the presidency.

I noticed that Democratic mouthpieces spent a lot of time on the Sunday morning political talk shows trying to throw water on Sarah Palin's questions about Obama's patriotism and associations.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but on the other hand, is it paranoia when they are obviously out to get you? If the leftist talking heads are trying to shut her down, it is all the more reason for Sarah Palin to talk even more.

From his long-term association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who is clearly racist and anti-American, to the Syrian born Rezko, to Ayers, to the Joyce Foundation, a pattern has emerged, and it is not one of support for traditional American freedoms.

There are many people on all sides of the political spectrum who say we don't really know as much about Obama as we should. Looking at his position on leftist terrorists, as well as his friendships with them, I'd say that is a gross understatement.

The bottom line was that at the end of 90 minutes of debating, Joe Biden was ranting, angry, emotional, nearly breaking down at one point.

Sarah Palin was still cool, collected, and in charge of her message and her emotions.

Wait, which one is supposed to be subjected to mood swings??

Palin did far better than just meeting Biden, she beat him. She never got off track, she never lost the point of her message and she never lost her composure.

She didn't do a lot of one liners, except pointing out that in the morning there will be films of what Biden said back when, as opposed to what he is saying now.

Biden spoke nearly constantly of the Bush Administration, while Palin spoke of the future and what she and John McCain envision.

She fielded the foreign relations, energy, and domestic policy questions with aplomb.

If handling tough times and the pressure of a national debate is an indication of who should be the vice president, one heartbeat away from the presidency, Sarah Palin proved she is more than up to the task.

At the end of the day Biden was looking hard, emotional and distraught. He wanted to point a finger of blame anywhere he could so long as it didn't come back at him. Biden looked like a man who knew he hadn't done the job.

He didn't look like a vice president.

Republican members of the US House of Representatives held firm and did the people's will on Monday, shutting down Speaker Nancy Pelosi's political manipulations and refusing to pass her Wall Street Bailout Bill.

Pelosi, true to form, gathered her inner circle of lackeys and, upon seeing that the travesty she calls legislation was not going to pass, allowed some of her minions to vote against the bill so they could claim solidarity with the people on the election trail. Connecticut Congressman Joe Courtney was among those who received dispensation from Pelosi. (It would be interesting to know what he had to give up in return.)

Judging from reaction in his home district, Courtney didn't fool anyone, and neither did Pelosi. You can hide in bed with the covers over your head all you want, but the people still know where you are, and that the conditions that led to this crisis were put in place by Congressional Democrats and former president Bill Clinton.

Pelosi and her propaganda ministers went to the MainStream Media and whined that "the Republican leadership" was to blame for not passing the bill because the GOP didn't muster enough Republican votes. But the Big Lie didn't fool anyone on that front either.

This is a classic example of just how out of touch Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Barney Frank, the Democratic National Committee and the ultra-left wing of the Democratic Party - including Barack Obama - are with the American voters. Most Senators - like Connecticut's Chris Dodd who chairs the Senate Banking Committee and was often the recipient of lobbyist donations that led to the financial meltdown - aren't up for re-election so they don't care what the people think.

But communications with members of Congress were running 3 to 1 against the bailout because the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want their tax dollars spent to reward a bunch of incompetents and criminals who see the federal budget as a feeding trough for their porcine appetites.

The Republicans did the people's will, because the people demanded it, not because they were trying to manipulate home district voting trends ahead of the November election.

As of this morning the Senate - apparently Reid saw that propaganda doesn't work in the age of the Internet - was planning on leap-frogging over the House of Representatives and passing its own version of the bill. The House is on recess for Rosh Hashanah, but may revisit the issue as early as tonight or tomorrow.

In another obvious propaganda ploy the news media and politicians have stopped referring to the 700-billion-dollar bailout as a bailout and now call it a "rescue." What was that line going around the last few weeks about lipstick on a pig? Still a pig isn't it?

Rescue my rear end. This is a bailout for for crooks and incompetents.

I sincerely hope that Republicans in Congress hold firm and see that the American people are on their side. We don't want this type of behavior by a few elitist financial manipulators rewarded by a massive influx of taxpayer dollars so "The Rich" as Obama continually refers to his real supporters, can continue their lavish lifestyles unabated.

More importantly, WE THE PEOPLE want to know who was responsible for this fiasco, and if there are applicable disciplinary, civil or criminal penalties we want them.

We want to know more about Chris Dodd's sweetheart mortgage deal. We want to know more about the lobbying money he took, and Barack Obama took.

We want to know more about Barney Frank's romantic relationship with a Fannie Mae executive. Frank, who received some $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie Mae is openly gay and had a relationship with a male Fannie Mae executive at the time he (Frank) was sitting on an oversight committee.

We need to know more about this, and by all means I do NOT mean the details of their relationship. I mean, how that relationship affected decisions made by Frank on Fannie Mae issues, and whether Congressional influence was up for trade.

Most of us don't give a damn about the nature of this relationship by the way. If there were people on the oversight committee's having heterosexual relationships with executives in the GSEs, lobbying firms, you name it, they should be investigated too.

We need a federal investigation and we need it to begin yesterday.

I see the Democrats are trying to restart the dormant investigation into why the Bush Administration replaced a half-dozen or so federal prosecutors a couple of years ago. They pulled the US Attorney from Hartford, CT, to restart this witch hunt, just as she was about to be asked to launch a federal racketeering investigation into illegal immigration "Sanctuary Cities" in Connecticut. (We aren't supposed to see the "coincidence" here.)

Nonetheless, there is still no corresponding call for an investigation into Bill Clinton firing more than 90 US attorneys when he became president, so obviously this is just another diversion. (Not that I need to repeat this, but the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and they can be replaced at will for any reason or no reason at all. This latest "investigation" will go nowhere and is just another diversion.)

But I want to know why, with all the useless, dead-end "investigations" the Democrats have launched since George Bush took office over politically charged but otherwise irrelevant issues, they don't want the financial meltdown on Wall Street investigated.

Probably because it would go directly into their offices!

Nonetheless, in the interests of preserving the union, we should have an impartial, all encompassing investigation, and if it hits Big People in Big Places, then it is time to bring them down to size, including sending them to prison if warranted.

And you can take that to the bank.

Thanks to Meat Loaf for the core of the headline above. You'll have to buy his CD Bat Out of Hell II: Back Into Hell, to hear the rest of the song.

So, we are about to see the US Congress agree on some form of a bailout plan for the Wall Street mess. That's the mess that was conceived, originated and created by none other than Congress in 1999, and signed into law by Bill Clinton the same year.

In the interests of "transparency" - not to mention truth - the Democrats and other crooks who have no explanation for their treachery against the American people need to develop an honest statement for the public. Their "failed George Bush policy" mantra has worn incredibly thin, is only believed by simpletons, and probably should be revised to something like "a decade of reaction to failed Bill Clinton policies!"

Oh, right, we're talking Congressional Democrats. No chance of truth in lending there.

Obviously the average American taxpayer has little to no input on how this all plays out, but if I was a member of Connecticut's Congressional delegation, including Sen. Christopher Dodd who was as much a factor in causing this imbroglio as anyone, I would heed what follows very carefully.

If the federal government takes over all this "bad debt" that it caused by removing the firewalls between lending institutions, insurance companies, etc., and by opening up the mortgage market to people who couldn't afford mortgages, there is a very real possibility that in the long run the US Treasury will profit.

A profit is possible, unlikely as that seems at the moment, because behind the bad paper everyone is talking about there exists real, three-dimensional property - houses that may not be worth as much today as they were the day they were purchased, but will be again in the not-too-distant future. When the market stabilizes and then reverses itself the affected properties will once again regain, then exceed their original sale values. It's a law. It has to happen; the only question will be how long will this take.

This happened before back in the FDR administration and the government recovered very nicely, simply by sitting on the absorbed properties until they regained their value, and then unloading them at a profit.

I strongly suspect this will happen again.

Connecticut Congressman Chris Shays, the last Republican Congressman in New England, says he wants protection for taxpayers should the government turn a profit in a year or two.

I want to take that one step further.

If the US government makes so much as a dime off of this fiasco, I WANT MY MONEY BACK!!

What exactly do I mean by that? This.

I want oversight of every dime of taxpayer money that is spent, and every dime of income that results from this "bailout" in any form. I don't want no stinking earmarks, no fast and loose amendments banning drilling for shale oil, no massive influx of tax dollars to NOBama's favorite slush fund - ACORN, or anything of that nature. No golden parachutes or contractually approved severance packages for shit-for-brains corporate executives either. Nada! Nothing!

If we take over, not the Congress, but WE the PEOPLE, all bets are off with the creators of this mess. Don't like it? Get the hell out of Dodge! We bail you out, we own you ... and your families too.

When the profits start rolling in, to the tune of more than a trillion dollars according to some estimates, I want checks made out to the American taxpayers - not rebates that get taxed as income the next year, either. I want a check paying me back for bailing out a bunch of slime-ball, pond scum Wall Street market manipulators and their corrupt Congressional stooges.

I want these checks to be dollar for dollar, dime for dime what the taxpayers put in, plus interest, with nothing, not a single red cent, deducted for administrative expenses. No diversions. None.

Do this, and you, meaning Congressional stooges and slime ball, pond scum Wall Street market manipulators, may escape the pitchforks and torches. Maybe. I can't make any guarantees on that. America is pissed! And they are pissed at you Senators, Congresspeople and slime ball, pond scum Wall Street market manipulators. YOU!

Do it not, and you will definitely feel the fires of revolution burning your asses. You'll be dragged out of the Capitol, or your hideaways in the country, tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on rail.

That is exactly what you deserve now, and I guarantee you it is exactly what you'll get if you try to turn this assault on the American economy into a money-making venture for yourselves and your corrupt, dishonest, classless, money-grubbing cohorts.

This is not a threat by the way. It is, however, an uncannily accurate prediction of future events.

The focus group gathered in my living room to watch the highly publicized, on-again, off-again, debate between GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain and Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama had one clear outcome; if anyone is going to ever be excited about this race again, it is up to Sarah Palin to ratchet up the pace.

No more than halfway through the pillow fight posing as a slug fest, I was told in no uncertain terms by one audience member, "I'm sleepy. How much longer does this go on?"

I remained stern and referred to the pre-debate form signed by all members of the focus group that they would stay to the end regardless of which side was winning or losing. This was supposed to be, after all, one of the few glimpses we will have into the psyches of the men who would lead our country for the next four years.

But, the group did have a point.

Perhaps it was moderator Jim Lehrer, of PBS, changing the format after both Senators had arrived at their respective podiums. I had expected the traditional format, where a moderator is in charge as a panel of experts who have their own pet peeves and agendas throw unrehearsed inquiries at the candidates, which pretty much guarantees that someone will be off their game at least part of the time.

But Lehrer was alone, and he challenged the participants to go at each other, kind of like a cage fight for political junkies. Obviously neither side was really comfortable with this format, and didn't really get into the spirit.

There were a few moments toward the end when Obama tried to talk over McCain, but McCain held his own and refused to yield. That resulted in a "debate" that actually left us with the archaic talk TV format where talking heads get 45 seconds to yell over each other, leaving viewers with no useful information, and screaming headaches.

Obama came across as crass by trying to do a James Carville imitation on McCain, and it just didn't work. Want to know what the really big buzz was on TV Saturday morning. "Why didn't John McCain look at Barack Obama much?"

Well, for starters, because McCain actually knew Ronald Reagan, along with a host of other Inside-the-Beltway types whose names he dropped all night long, and Reagan was the master of talking to the audience. McCain didn't win or lose anything by not trying to stare down Obama, and he did do well by talking to the audience, which is basically what you are supposed to do in that format.

Debates are supposed to be venues for real exhibitions of political viewpoints, and frankly, I thought it was rude and low-class of Lehrer to keep pushing for fireworks. Jerry Springer's format just doesn't work in national politics.

On the merits of the debate, I give McCain the edge for being far better informed on virtually every point than Obama. Obama came across as stiff, and trying to appear as an intellectual, especially with his pronunciations of PAAAACHisTAAAHN and TAAAALEEBAHN.

God, if I heard that one more time I was going to shut the whole thing down, pre-debate forms or not.

I also didn't like Obama blaming the Wall Street meltdown on President Bush, since that is a flat out lie. Bush was the one guy who was trying to head it off, but was stymied by Congress, including BAAAHrack OBAAAAHMA.

But I also didn't like the fact that McCain let that crap slide without addressing it and slamming Obama for misleading the American public. The very people in Congress who caused this mess have been trying to lay blame on Bush for a week now, and McCain had a national stage to slam dunk them, yet he let it slide. Not very impressive.

McCain made a huge gaffe in the veterans' community during their discussions on us winning in Iraq. He was criticizing Obama for not giving any credit to the military that won there, and until recently refusing to acknowledge that our efforts there had worked.

Yet is was McCain who erred when he said he understood what it was like to come home from the war in Vietnam as part of an "army in defeat."

Earth to McCain. The American armed forces not only won every single battle in the Vietnam War, we drove the communists to the edge of surrender twice. The enormity of our victory is born out by the casualties suffered - 58,000 US deaths, 48,000 from combat, compared to 1.5 million communist troops killed in action.

We wiped their standing army out twice over. We never lost anything.

The reason Southeast Asia fell is because McCain's buddies in the US Congress, abetted by his pal Henry Kissinger, sold out our allies. The enormity of our victories in Vietnam was offset only by the enormity our the betrayal by our own government.

Remember Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, North Vietnam's most famous general? Remember he wrote in his memoirs that if the Christmas bombings of the north in 1972 had continued for a mere two more days, the north was ready to surrender unconditionally?

Giap and the communists were saved by the duplicity of the US State Department headed by Kissinger, and the Congress that passed the Case-Church resolution in June 1973 cutting off all funding to South Vietnam. Two years later the north invaded, and without the guns, bullets and air power to stave them off, the south fell.

American combat forces had been gone for the better part of three years before South Vietnam fell, and it was the south that won a crushing military victory in the spring of 1972 over the communists, before Kissinger and Congress shafted them.

Historical fact, look it up.

Maybe McCain felt defeated when he was released from North Vietnam's Prisoner of War camps in 1973, but if he ever went to a Vietnam Veterans reunion, he'd find that one of the most popular slogans on T-shirts and caps is "We Were Wining When I Left. What Happened?"

Enough said.

I heard during the week that the McCain campaign strategists have set up sessions between Kissinger and Sarah Palin so she will be up to speed on international events in time for her debate with Joe Biden on Oct. 2.

Perhaps McCain's people should stop and remember that Kissinger is a proponent of Realpolitik, which amounts to instant gratification for international power brokers. It means, in essence, screw today's ally if yesterday's enemy suddenly proves more valuable to you.

That thinking was behind the abandonment of Southeast Asia in favor of opening relations with China. See how well that has worked for us?

If Sarah Palin wants to hear about the nature of the world outside the US from people who do the real fighting, instead of sitting in plush offices pushing pins into maps, she is hereby invited to come to Eastern Connecticut.

I can introduce her to some real experts on what is going on in the world and in one afternoon she will be up to speed on international reality, not international political expedience. That's a real invitation. Palin would be warmly received on the east side of the state, where people talk straight and would be happy to help her, rather than getting a headful of nonsense on the west side.

As far as the debates are concerned, I am looking forward to seeing her take on Joe Biden. I hope she is herself, rather than some boxed in overly groomed automaton.

One reason America responded so warmly to Sarah Palin is because she has thus far been the antithesis of the cookie cutter American politician/DC insider. If she remains true to herself she will be true to us, and the Vice Presidential debate could actually be both exciting and informative.

Otherwise, we're left where we were when Bush debated Kerry. Lots of talk, lots of TV and radio, but in the end, barely a one-point change in the polls.

Obama didn't call McCain "Senator" and instead used his first-name all night. McCain didn't look at Obama enough. Wow. Dynamic presentation of the information we need to decide our next leader.

Would everyone who believes in any form of religion please take a moment in the next few days to pray as fervently as possible that Sarah Palin comes to her debate ready to be herself? Please?

Oh, the post-debate polls. They mean nothing. As a demographic, Republicans and conservatives tend to not be home much on Saturday morning. Kids' events, grocery shopping, you known what I mean. We take calls on Sunday night. Ask us then.

From misreporting his comments on whether he would participate in the debate against Barack Obama tonight, to creating lies out of thin air about his attendance at a White House conference on the Wall Street meltdown, the national Democratic leadership is going after John McCain with a vengeance.

Which means, he totally outmaneuvered them, has them scared silly, and they are reacting with predicable venom, meaning the truth is not an issue.

We are in dire straits nationally. Our financial industry is on the ropes. This happened thanks to Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, many of their colleagues, and former President Bill Clinton.

How do I arrive at this conclusion? From my late father. He came to America in the mid-1920s from Scotland, and was just entering his teen years when the stock market crashed in 1929. He lived through the Great Depression and was personally aware of its impact on our Country.

My father told me many times in the 60s and 70s that even though we would periodically have slow economic times we would never have another depression because safeguards had been put in place in the 30s that would prevent the circumstances that caused the Crash of 1929 to repeat. But then in 1999 the US Congress passed new legislation, and Bill Clinton signed it, which removed the decades old safeguards and started the ball rolling toward this point.

President Bush tried to stop what they were doing and turn it around, but despite all that has been said about Bush in the last 8 years, he is one man, and without Congress behind him, he can't enact laws on his own. Congress of course was not going to bring back the safeguards because it is a den of thieves and many of the people who are running their mouths now, were making big money from their duplicity.

That is where there should be a federal investigation.

But did you notice that the usual clamor for "investigation" that you hear from Democrats in Congress when they have successfully manufactured a fake issue, is suspiciously absent this time? Want to know why?

Because most of the Democratic windbags in Congress would have to recuse themselves from participating because they would be investigating themselves, a clear conflict of interest. But that hasn't stopped these lying schemers from rushing the cameras to make diversionary comments about John McCain.

The one I like best is Harry Reid, who should be crowned Nevada's All Time Liar, standing in front of the cameras claiming John McCain is a media hog. What freaking nerve. And while that lying scumbag is bashing McCain, we find out from Michelle Malkin that Reid was trying to slide a ban on drilling for shale oil into the legislation for the financial bailout.

Is this guy just a classic example of skid marks or what? And his fellow Democrats tried to put earmarks that Bush threw out of a previous military spending bill, back into this bailout. What a bunch of oily, sleazy, low-class, ignorant pond scum.

These posturing criminals have been chanting "change, change, change" for the past year or so, and a Marine buddy of mine sent me a little item today that addresses that mantra perfectly.

So I'll leave you with the quiet sounds of Democratic vultures and locusts, munching their way through America's economy - probably on purpose if their past actions are any benchmark, and in the meantime, tell me if the following isn't right on the mark.

Subject: Change, Change, Change

Not long ago I read a joke ... It said all the politicians running for president are promising change to the American people. We send them billions and billions of tax dollars and they send us the change. Funny? Not really; there is too much truth in it to be funny.

That got me to thinking ... They all promise change. How about if they run on a promise of restoration rather than change. A restoration that would take us back in time to a place where things ran better, smoother and life was more enjoyable. Change? That, in truth, is what they have been giving us all along.

We used to have a strong dollar .... Politicians changed that.

Marriage used to be sacred ... Politicians are changing that.

We used to be respected around the world ... Politicians changed that.

We used to have a strong manufacturing economy ... Politicians changed that.

We used to have lower tax structures ... Politicians changed that.

We used to enjoy more freedoms .... Politicians changed that.

We used to be a large exporter of American made goods ... Politicians changed that.

We used to teach patriotism in schools ... Politicians changed that.

We used to educate children in schools ... Politicians changed that.

We used to enforce LEGAL citizenship ... Politicians changed that.

We used to have affordable food & gas prices ... Politicians changed that, too... and one could go on and on with this list.

What hasn't been changed, politicians are promising to change that as well if you will elect them. When, oh when, is America going to sit back with open eyes and look at what we once were and where we have come and say, enough is enough? The trouble is, America's youthful voters today don't know of the great America that existed forty and fifty years ago. They see the world as if it has always existed, as it is now. When will we wake up? Tomorrow may be too late. When will America realize.. Politicians are what is wrong with America?

What is needed is for the constitution to be amended to limit all Senators and Representatives to two terms.

PASS THIS ONE AROUND FOR A CHANGE

Word on the Internet is that Barack Obama's running mate, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, is going to bail out on the campaign, feigning illness, just in time to put Hillary Clinton in his place for the Vice Presidential debate with Sarah Palin.

Interesting, but is it true? First, if Biden is ill to the point that he can't continue on with the campaign, he should just quit now, not wait for some kind of "October Surprise" by which he and Obama hope to torpedo Sarah Palin. Otherwise, people like me will see it as a scam, and make the point that the Obama camp is trying to manipulate the voters, and that would not be a good thing.

Second, Hillary or no Hillary, Sarah Palin can hold her own with anyone on either ticket and assuming that she is weak because she is "the girl" is not only condescending and arrogant, it is stupid. Besides which, it won't fool the voters in the least and probably would backfire in a major way on Obama if there is even a shred of truth to any of this.

Picking a vice presidential candidate and then dumping him has not been a good strategy in recent political history.

I would refer you to the unfortunate removal of Democrat Thomas F. Eagleton as George McGovern's vice presidential candidate in 1972 after revelations surfaced of the late Sen. Eagleton's depression and hospitalization.

Now, I have often thought that Biden has a few screws loose, and his conduct on the campaign trail bears that out. But I don't think it is so bad he should be removed before he has a chance to show what he can do for the ticket in the general election.

But wait! What if it isn't a case that Biden is ill, or that the Obama campaign wants Hillary Clinton on board as a second-stringer just in case The Big O can't swing the electorate on his own?

What if Joe Biden is afraid to debate Sarah Palin? What if he has seen her in action, and knows that his own reputation as a master debater is just more MainStream Media smoke and mirrors.

I bet that's it! I bet that if there is any truth whatsoever to these Internet rumors that it really is based not on the Obama campaign being dissatisfied with the vice presidential pick, but that the vice presidential pick is afraid to debate Sarah Palin!

Such is the stuff from which legends are made.

One last question. What on earth could possibly have changed between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that somehow would suddenly make her the perfect VP pick for his campaign? They obviously don't like each other, she won't campaign for him, Bill Clinton thinks Obama is a tool, and neither the White House nor all of Washington, D.C., are big enough for both of them.

Hillary didn't get asked to be the VP nominee in the first place, reportedly because she doesn't want it, and would have turned down the request even if it had been made. Do you think something has changed so fundamentally between them now?

If Hillary stays on the sidelines, doesn't aggravate her party, and Obama loses, she gets to come back as the Big Dog on the ticket in four years. But if she gets on the ticket with Obama, and he wins, it is the end of her political career.

She will get a nice house, and will be able to be Queen Bee at functions where Obama has to be out of town, but other than that, she never gets another chance at what she really wants. So where is the profit in this for her?

She might be able to wait four more years for another run at the presidency. After all, Ronald Reagan did and he was much older than Mrs. Clinton. But eight years? That is too much of a stretch. It won't work and she will be left out in the cold.

No, her best bet is waiting and watching this election, and stepping in for 2012.

A serious political strategist sees this as way too much speculation with way too little return for the people involved. Biden would go the way of Eagleton, and Clinton would become an asterisk in political science books.

I'm going to chalk this up to Internet rumor mongering. But then again, if Biden bails just before the Vice Presidential debates and Obama has to find a replacement, won't I look smart!

MCCAIN WAS RIGHT ABOUT FIRING COX

Something of a family spat erupted late last week over the Wall Street meltdown and what should be done about it.

John McCain, in response to a question from a questioner, said he would have fired Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox.

In response, Newsmax.com posted an article this weekend in which Rush Limbaugh was quoted criticizing McCain for "throwing Cox under the bus."

I don't think McCain was throwing anyone under the bus, and I don't think it was a knee jerk reaction to media demands for comment. I think McCain was just reacting in the way that a lifetime in the military would dictate.

Remember the adage "The Captain goes down with the ship."

If you apply that adage to the meltdown on Wall Street you can see why McCain reacted as he did.

In the military, each individual is responsible for his or her own words and deeds. But further, each commander is responsible for the words and deeds of his or her subordinates.

If a lieutenant does something wrong, and it gets the attention of the highest level commanders, then you can bet that every person in a command position above that lieutenant will be called on the carpet to explain why that lieutenant screwed up.

If there is a breakdown in the command structure, or in communications, or in training that would have prevented the incident, everyone in the chain of command who had a hand in it will be held accountable.

In John McCain's world, if the nation's financial markets go to hell in a hand basket, and the reason for it is malfeasance in the lending institutions that caused the markets to go to hell in a hand basket, then people should be held accountable.

In John McCain's world accountability starts with those directly responsible, and ends at the top of the chain of command. In this case, the man sitting at the top is Christopher Cox, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Therefore, it makes perfect sense to call for his ouster.

I agree with Rush Limbaugh far more often than not, but in this case, I don't think McCain was throwing Cox under the bus, I think he was holding him to a higher standard.

It may well be that the Wall Street meltdown was not the direct result of anything that Cox did or did not do. But it happened on his watch, and in the real world that means he is responsible.

Holding people in high places to high standards, and making them accountable for the area of responsibility. What a novel concept!

With all the talk of the moment being about the economy you might think that some sharp-eyed journalist would have jumped on the opportunity to report on New Haven, Connecticut, one of the original Sanctuary Cities for illegal aliens, laying off 35 workers last week to cut costs.

New Haven, according to Mayor and unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate John DeStefano's reckoning, has between 12,000 and 20,000 illegal aliens living there worry free. According to the Community Watchdog Project which is challenging the Sanctuary City designation through legal channels, New Haven has spent more than $71,000,000 since December 2006 providing schooling and social services to the illegal alien population.

That is driving the home of Yale University right into a bottomless well of red ink. The mayor, being a good socialist and all, has decided it is better to turn the city into a giant slum rather than admit he was wrong. He would rather fire hard-working American citizens than stop giving away the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to people who don't don't pay taxes, are criminals by their very definition, and amount to one giant drain on the economy.

Want to see where the economy is headed? Look at New Haven, Connecticut, Sanctuary City, soon to be renamed South Bronx (east).

On Saturday, the Mayor and a handful - no kidding, less than 10 - of leftover 60s era hippies whose brains are so burned out on hallucinogenics that they don't know they are burn outs, "celebrated" the demise of their city. Meanwhile, another much larger group organized by the Community Watchdog Project demonstrated on the steps of City Hall, calling for an end to the insanity.

(The media didn't do much coverage of the Community Watchdog Project's rally, but that is not a surprise.)

Participating in the Community Watchdog rally was Congressional candidate Joseph Visconti, a West Hartford city councilman, who called for an investigation and indictment of DeStefano under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

This is huge. This is a definitive attempt to use the laws of the land to protect our country from an internal attack by a criminal enterprise - local and federal officials who are actively supporting illegal immigration, and thus gutting our economy from within.

It's bad enough that we have Wall Street financial markets falling apart thanks to ex-president Bill Clinton signing a law that removed Great Depression era safeguards that were supposed to protect us from just such a meltdown. It's bad enough that American taxpayers will now be on the hook to bail out a bunch of elitist greed hucksters who will walk away clean while we pay for their excesses. On top of that we have an assault on the core of our economy by elected officials who are sworn to protect and serve, not assault and plunder.

New Haven is not in the district where Visconti is a candidate, but he has a vested interest in what happens in New Haven because the Mayor of Hartford, where Visconti was born and raised, and which is in his district, has just designated Hartford as a Sanctuary City too.

Visconti also is a general contractor specializing in commercial construction and renovation, and as he said in his speech on the steps of New Haven City Hall - "I see it every day - skilled construction workers seeking jobs while illegal construction crews are brought in to perform carpentry, framing, roofing, drywall, painting and many other good paying jobs.

These are not jobs Americans don't want. These are jobs my crews want; the kind of jobs I want."

Visconti said after the New Haven rally that this is just the first step in his quest to have the feds indict Sanctuary City mayors under the racketeering statutes. He is currently researching the activities taking place in Connecticut's Capitol City to determine if there is a possibility for a RICO investigation there too.

Visconti is holding a fund-raiser at the Bushnell in Hartford on Saturday night, September 27, and will be making an announcement there about the next step in his quest.

It is unusual to say the least to see a politician stand up and say what needs to be said, and demand action where inaction has been the norm. But Visconti has a history of standing up for what is right and speaking the truth even when some members his own party would rather hear something different.

Visconti is running against John Larson who crows on his website that he is the #5 Democrat in Congress. Larson is a solid ally of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who is arguably the least effective speaker in the history of that body.

Larson, known in political circles as Pelosi's Poodle, stood by silently when he accompanied her to Iraq earlier this year and she insulted our troops by saying they didn't win the war there, "Iran let them."

Larson also is representing, for the moment, Hartford, a city that is awash with violence this year, part of a regular cycle of violence that comes from arresting criminals, giving them slap-on-the wrist sentences, then letting them loose on the community again. Larson's answer is to fund a bureaucratic study of why people become criminals rather than dealing with them head on when they invade people's homes or turn the streets into shooting galleries.

As far as illegal immigration is concerned, Larson apparently doesn't think it really matters much, since his websites don't address it.

What was that comment attributed to Louis XV - that's the fifteenth for Democrats - about conditions in France when he was king? "Apres moi, le deluge." After me, come the floods.

Visconti is on to something here, and judging by the reaction at the rally and from national groups who heard about his call for RICO prosecutions, the public is on his side. You wouldn't have seen it in the Connecticut media that covered Saturday's rally, they only showed the aging hippies and weirdos.

But the public will find out what happened in New Haven anyway. Most aware people already know that the mainstream media is in the tank for the leftists, so they rely on the Internet for real information.

As far as Louis the Fifteenth's comment, if I was Larson, I'd invest in a raincoat and an umbrella - maybe an Ark too.

So, according to the American Terrorist Media, Barack Obama is a latter day incarnation of Jesus Christ, because in Obama's view of the world Christ was a "community organizer."

According to the same 'reasoning,' Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin is a modern Pontius Pilate because, according to the Obama camp, Pilate was a governor, just like Palin! (Except Pilate wasn't actually a governor. He was a procurator, which was an agent of the Roman Emperor and carried out the Emperor's directives. Palin, as governor, actually has far more independent responsibility than Pilate did. In other words, she has more executive experience.)

So already we find that what we get from the Obama campaign and Obama supporters, many of whom eschew religion, is at best uninformed.

While I haven't seen anything about this in the mainstream media, well actually I haven't seen anything in the mainstream media, I bet a bunch of The Big O's supporters are atheists. I realize he calls himself a Christian and all, but I have watched the videos of his former pastor, His Eminence the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

I refer you in particular to the part where he says "God Damn America" is in the Bible. I long ago concluded that if this is what Obama calls religion I can't wait until we see his version of "government."

But let's not belabor that point. Let's ask ourselves instead, does Barack Obama think he is Jesus Christ?

I didn't hear him tell his campaign staffers to knock off the Christ comparisons. I didn't hear anyone denounce this Christ comparison - ridiculous, condescending, arrogant and sacrilegious as it is.

So I guess he really does consider himself to be the second coming - or the first if you don't believe Jesus was the Messiah.

But let's think about this for a minute.

What was the most notable facet of Christ's personality? Aside from miracle working I mean, and the occasional community organization?

Humility, right?

So, does Obama meet the humility standard?

Again, let's take a look.

Last week Obama's camp released a commercial attacking his opponent, John McCain, for supposedly being out of touch.

To prove his point, our alleged saviour's commercial said that John McCain doesn't use a computer and doesn't even send out emails, and mocked McCain for being out of touch with modern technology - in other words, old.

The commercial was immediately pounced on by the McCain campaign, because the real reason John McCain doesn't send out emails is because he can't use a computer keyboard due to injuries to his hands and arms suffered when he was tortured during more than five years as a POW in North Vietnam.

Now, a truly humble person would have been mortified about making that kind of blunder. I mean, the commercial probably was done in good faith, from a political standpoint. I seriously doubt Obama knew ahead of time that McCain has some permanent physical disabilities from being tortured that prevent him from typing.

Sure, he could have found out before he ran that commercial though. The extent of McCain's injuries and the limitations on some of his daily activities have been well reported over the years.

But even if Obama's research staff is just incompetent as opposed to mean-spirited, vicious, abrasive, and insensitive, it still falls on the candidate himself to rectify the damage done by the ill-advised commercial.

Obama could have and should have immediately taken responsibility, since he does after all want to be commander-in-chief where he will be at the top of the chain of command.

Obama could have and should have called McCain immediately, apologized on behalf of himself and his campaign stooges who produced that commercial, told McCain he was mortified over it, and then sent out a news release saying essentially the same thing.

But did he?

Well, no, he didn't. Instead he sent more stooges out to do the television talk show circuit and when asked about such a grievous blunder, the response was what I heard on Fox News Monday morning. An Obama staffer refused to answer when asked by America's Newsroom anchor Bill Hemmer if the Obama camp knew ahead of time that McCain doesn't use a computer due to wartime injuries.

Hemmer really worked hard to get at the truth, repeatedly bringing the interview back to the basic question - Did the Obama campaign know ahead of time that McCain has permanent injuries that prevent him from using a keyboard? But try as he might, he may as well have been talking to a wall, because the Obama staffer acted as though he didn't hear a word Hemmer asked him.

Instead the Obama mouthpiece kept talking over Hemmer's questions, repeating that "McCain is out of touch, McCain is out of touch, McCain is out of touch."

Well, Mr. Genius, we got that concept when you turned out that insulting piece of amateur-night claptrap and called it a campaign commercial.

Once again, Obama did nothing, said nothing, neither apologized nor took responsibility for what is said in his name. That is "in Obama's name," not the more familiar refrain "in Jesus' name."

I should point out here, that McCain is considered one of the most technologically astute national politicians in America. Hopefully, if he is elected, McCain can raise the profile of advanced computer technology that will enable him to use voice activation instead of typing to communicate with his supporters.

So I guess we have to conclude based on that example, which certainly appears to be representative of Obama's entire campaign, especially after the way he treated Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, that Obama may actually think he is the Son of God. But in truth there is little resemblance as this little test of humility reveals.

Obama is not a human incarnation of the humble Son of God who came to earth to serve humanity. Rather, Obama more and more appears to be going out of his way to appear as an arrogant, self-absorbed street punk turned elitist who wants to be President of the United States.

Not much to compare there now, is there? I sure can't wait until this guy is representing us among the heads of state in Europe. I bet he'll be a real hit on the Embassy cocktail circuit.

The clock is ticking.

Chris Wallace indicated at the end of Fox News Sunday today that he will bring back the time clock that he used for more than two years to ultimately grind down Barack Obama and shame him into enduring a relentless Wallace grilling.

This time the clock is set for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, who faces a Wallace interrogation, the ferocity of which causes the most assured of national politicians to quake in their boots.

Obviously, having just endured an assault on her abilities and integrity from ABC's Charles Gibson that left - well, Gibson actually - floundering like a fish out of water, Palin is teetering on her high heels in fear of facing Wallace.

Just to get his point across Wallace devoted the first 15 minutes of today's show to trashing her performance in Alaska with help from a local Democratic hack whose rapier like thrusts were breathtaking in their effectiveness.

For example:

Wallace: What do you think of Sarah Palin's record (abilities, integrity, hairdo, shoe style, etc.)

Alaskan Democratic Hack: We can't take four more years of failed Bush policies, yak, yak, yak; The McCain-Palin Team is just George Bush in disguise, yada, yada, yada; Bridge to Nowhere, natter, natter, natter!

Whoopee! With allies like that on his side Obama is sure to recover the ground he lost in the polls over the last month. I don't understand why no one on the GOP side ever comes up with assets like that.

How can we ever survive such focused, effective attacks from the Chicago Democratic machine?

It was obvious from the tone and direction of Wallace's interview that Palin is in for week after week of relentless pounding unless she folds and agrees to appear on his show. She did get an able assist from her Lieutenant Governor, but let's be up front here, after all, he will get a promotion if Palin becomes the Vice President of the United States so what should we expect from him? Right?

(It's hard to imply sarcasm in a column so I'll come right out and tell you, the previous segment was sarcastic. The Lieutenant Governor did a good job because he stuck to the facts, while the other side stuck to Obama campaign talking points.)

Here is my prediction. I believe that all the Democratic attacks aside, Gov. Palin has 10 times more experience and ability than Barack Obama, so conversely, I believe she will be ready for a Wallace interview in one-tenth of the time it took Barack Obama to prepare.

Thus, since Obama went something over 750 days before consenting to a sit-down with Wallace, I predict Gov. Palin will be ready for Wallace in 75 days maximum. Which means he can expect an interview with her, around, oh, Thanksgiving!

Hey, what a great gift for Chris Wallace! If she is ready for him earlier than that, she can be his featured interview on his pre-Thanksgiving show! Happy Thanksgiving Chris! We're with you buddy.

Oh, that's after Election Day isn't it? Well, what can I say, she still would be ten times faster than Obama!

(I really, really love writing a blog column. You can be incisive, divisive, ironic, sarcastic, and caustic all at once. What a hoot!)

There is one issue that came up during the Wallace pre-game show that should have been developed more but unfortunately Wallace really came up short, that being the so-called Troopergate issue.

The heart of this issue is that Gov. Palin's former brother-in-law, an Alaska State Trooper, went through a vicious divorce from the governor's sister. In the course of the proceedings allegations surfaced that the trooper used a taser on his 10-year-old stepson, that he threatened to kill the Governor's father, and that he drank on the job.

That has morphed in the world of Alaska's partisan politics to a claim that the Governor tried to force her Department of Public Safety commissioner to fire the trooper, and when he wouldn't, she fired the department head in retaliation.

Now, the former department head says she actually never did tell him to fire the trooper, but he "felt pressure," whatever the hell that means.

But let's go back to the original allegations. The trooper admitted that he used a taser ON A 10-YEAR-OLD-KID! What part of the rules and regulations governing use of a taser came into play when a little kid was involved? Was this full grown trooper threatened, did the kid pose a hazard to public safety? Nope, none of the above.

This cop sent thousands of volts of electricity through a child's body, using a device that has been known to cause cardiac arrest in full-grown adults, and we are arguing about Alaska's ex-Commissioner of Public Safety saying he "felt pressure!?" Is the world completely upside down in Washington, D.C.?

He tased a kid! And an internal investigation found that he indeed threatened to kill the Governor's father! Enough said. Fire his ass!

And I noticed that while the allegation about alcohol was that he drove after drinking, the trooper responded that he never had alcohol in his cruiser! And no one thought to ask him what he was doing when he was outside the cruiser? Did he ever drink on his lunch or dinner break? Did he have a favorite road house somewhere out on his rounds where he would stop for a nip?

I can't believe that no one thought to ask those questions.

Columnist Bill Kristol made a very good point on the FNS panel discussion today when remarking that the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers - that's print media, the dinosaurs of modern journalism - sent scores of reporters to Alaska for a few days to report back that they found five people who don't like Gov. Palin.

Meanwhile, however, Kristol noted that 80 percent of the voters in the state do like her. His point, that the residents who voted her into office twice as mayor and promoted her to Governor probably know more about her than a handful of biased reporters working for two of the most distrusted news outlets in America, is well taken. Kristol didn't say that last part about bias and distrust - I did.

So I'm supposed to trust the reporting of two newspapers that still brag about knocking off Richard Nixon and setting up the fall of Saigon and the slaughter of millions of Southeast Asians by the communists?

Yeah, credibility. That's the first word that comes to mind when I think of the Times - which has a communist for a publisher, and the Post, home of that other guy who keeps writing books trying to knock off GOP presidents but not Democratic presidents. First-rate balanced journalism from those two outlets, that's for sure.

I also agreed, almost, with Brit Hume when he said one reason the Palin-Gibson interview went so well for her was that the ABC camera crew made Gibson look like he was overbearing and condescending, which helped her immensely,

Actually, I think Gibson came across as an effete, pseudo-intellectual twit, because he is an effete, pseudo-intellectual twit, not because of what the camera crews did. It showed to perfection when Gibson tried to look down his nose at Palin and indicated she didn't understand the so-called "Bush Doctrine," when it was Gibson himself who was wrong.

Remember that adage that lawyers should never ask a question in court if they don't already know the answer? Same goes for leftist propagandists posing as "journalists."

One last thing. Obama's camp supposedly has changed tactics away from criticizing Gov. Palin, which has gained him nothing, in favor of criticizing Sen. John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee. Obama started out the new strategy with a commercial laughing at McCain because he doesn't use a computer to send out emails.

Obama omitted mentioning that McCain can't use a computer keyboard because of damage done to his hands and arms by the North Vietnamese when McCain endured years of torture as a Prisoner of War. McCain can't do jumping jacks either, because the communists ripped his arms out of his shoulder sockets. But that's not relevant to his abilities as president, at least not in my book.

Anyway, even while suffering another major gaffe, which is being ignored by the Times and Post, go figure, BO's people are all over the Internet questioning Gov. Palin's vist to the Iraq War Theater a couple years ago. Prior to the Surge when all of Iraq was aflame with violence, Gov. Palin went to the war zone to meet with troops and get an update on the war.

News reports say Palin stopped in Kuwait where troops were stationed, and went to an outpost on the Iraqi border. When she finished her inspection, Gov. Palin visited wounded troops in Germany.

Obama's people say the outpost wasn't actually inside Iraq, it was on the Kuwait side of an imaginary line in the desert, therefore she is a liar.

Barack, did anyone ever tell you that an Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal is awarded to troops who go into the theater, which also includes Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf, but may not actually be inside Iraq? Same goes for the Vietnam War, Korean War, and WWII.

At least she went, and this was way before Iraq was declared safe or before she was well-known on the national scene. And Gov. Palin visited wounded troops because it was the right thing to do, not because she was plotting her ascendancy on the national political scene.

Yet, the Democratic heir apparent, who refused for years to go to Iraq until the Surge was complete and Al Qaeda vanquished, then lounged in the Baghdad Green Zone with reporters and celebrities when he finally did go, has the audacity to mock the Governor?

And let's not forget that Obama refused to visit wounded troops when he couldn't take the media along. Yet, his camp is using this as a campaign issue?

It figures. Tell me again, this guy is running for president ... Why?

In the past week the media has been in an uproar over Barack Obama saying if you put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig, referring to GOP Vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's comment that the only difference between her and a pit bull is lipstick.

You'll note that I didn't say "allegedly referring to Sarah Palin" when I said what Obama meant about his comments, because there is no alleged about it. He said it, he meant it, and he's here to represent it.

Obama used an old adage to demean Sarah, and then he tried to claim it was just a metaphor, not a simile. (Oh go look them up will you? This isn't Merriam-Webster's site you know.) Naturally, the media and the Democrats' national apologists went to extremes to give him a pass.

Nonetheless, the argument went back and forth, did he really mean it about Sarah, or was he just talking about another "failed policy of the Bush Administration?" However, it was a follow-up comment that really went over the media's head, or that they just had no interest in parsing.

Immediately after the pig comment BO said "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."

So immediately, the elitist "we wouldn't say s**t if our mouths were full of it," media, said he was referring to John McCain being an old, stinking, rotten corpse.

I must respond in kind. Bulls**t!

He was still talking about Sara Palin, except he was using a vile, sexist reference to a woman's anatomy that is standard commentary for slime ball, gutter-crawling misogynists. I don't even want to go down that road, but every guy who has ever spent any time in a locker room, a bar, a street fight, an area where a street fight can break out at any time, or generally in the company of other guys, knows exactly what Obama was referring to when he spoke of smelly fish right on the heels of his lipstick comment, and neither statement was about John McCain.

Frankly, even if he was referring to McCain he still got a pass - remember the crappola back in the primaries about death threats? Can you imagine the outcry if McCain had said what Obama said? But he wasn't talking about John McCain at all and every honest man who heard his comment knows it.

The dishonest ones do too, but they aren't saying anything.

I was watching a video of BO on another web site yesterday, and it showed a previous insult He Whose Middle Name Must Not Be Spoken launched at Hillary Clinton back in the primaries. In that incident he didn't say anything, he just gave the former First Lady the finger.

You know what I mean here. The middle finger.

In other words he flipped her off. He didn't throw it out at the end of his arm like most honest people would do, though. Nope, he ran it up the side of his face as if he was wiping something away from his eye. But he wasn't. He was flipping off Mrs. Clinton.

BO, He Whose Middle Name Must Not Be Spoken, who claims he is ready to be president of the United States of America, used generations old street lingo to say F**K You, in a public forum.

When I saw that, and I saw the audience reaction to it, and BO's reaction to the audience, and then watched the video of his "lipstick" and "dead fish" comments, I came to another conclusion about the man who would be God.

He is nothing more than a street punk with no real class and no ability to react to a threat with anything more than a street punk's obscenities. He also has real control issues and when he feels threatened by a woman he over-reacts and uses the grossest of responses.

This man has no respect for women in general and he has no ability to respond to the daily ebb and flow of a national presidential campaign with anything that remotely shows class and dignity. And on top of everything else the media overlooked, he got the intro to these comments straight out of the Washington Post!

Here's what he said: "John McCain says he's about change too. Exce- and and so I guess his whole angle is - watch out, George Bush - except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl-Rove-style politics, we're really gonna shake things up in Washington. That's not change."

The problem with that line is that he took it straight from an editorial cartoon in the Post a few days earlier. I read it first on the Make Them Accountable blog, which referred me to Joseph Cannon at Cannonfire, which had a transcript of BO's comments and then showed a Post editorial cartoon from a few days earlier that used the exact same intro! But not a word about it from the media.

So is that the criteria he used when selecting Biden for his VP nominee? A penchant for plagiarism?

For my older, white women friends out there who still think Obama is the second coming - or first if you prefer - I'd say take a good, hard objective look at this man's actions, especially in regards to women. He is fine when a woman is "in her place" but you may want to rethink what he believes that place should be.

It has been a lot of years, a lot of miles, and a lot of upward mobility since I fought in the alleys and parking lots of places I never want to visit again. It has been many years and miles from the service towns and the waterfronts of ports I visited in the Marines, but some things never change.

Barack Obama showed this week that he is not far from the streets, never will be, and has not grown. He is far worse than an empty suit, he is a sexist and a bigot, and a disgrace to his party. He is not ready to be president of the United States and he never will be.

Chris Wallace and 'Fraidy Cats

This isn't as bad as Obama, but it was unnecessary and unfortunate nonetheless.

If you read this column with any regularity you'll know that I make it a point to watch Fox News Sunday if at all possible every week. I enjoy the guests, the panel discussions and the subject matter.

Back in the early summer host Chris Wallace was running a daily timer showing how long it had been since Obama had been invited, and refused, to be a guest on the show and subject himself to a Wallace grilling.

Eventually, after more than two years, Obama folded and did his penance. I never heard Wallace insult Obama in all that time, merely mention week after week that another seven days had passed and no word from the Obama camp.

But this past week, as he ended an interview with McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis, Wallace asked when Sarah Palin, who has been on the national scene for all of about a half-month, was going to be available for FNS.

Wallace was parroting complaints from others in the Mainstream Media that she hadn't been making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows. In fact, she made a point at the GOP convention that the media was not her first priority in this race, and that she would be appealing directly to the American public.

Davis, in what I thought was a unique and long overdue retort, told Wallace that the campaign will decide Gov. Palin's public schedule, and she will do media interviews when the campaign decides it is most advantageous. Way to go Davis!

I really like Fox News Sunday and it usually is a big part of my weekend. I get ideas for columns later in the week, I enjoy the debates, I learn what is going on in the minds of newsmakers, and I especially enjoy it when Brit Hume has heard just about enough from Juan Williams on some liberal point or other and sighs exasperatedly "Juan," but draws it out for a few seconds.

But I didn't like what Wallace did after Davis said Sarah Palin will be available at the right time, and that will be decided by the campaign not the news media.

Wallace, in a comment straight out of Obama's playbook, asked "What is she afraid of?"

What a low shot. It reminded me of a little kid in the schoolyard who runs up behind a girl, punches her in the back and then runs away. Cheap shot, low blow, all of the above.

I expect better from Chris Wallace. He has been around a long time and he knows the ropes. His ego may be as big as the studio when he is off the air, but I expect him to act professionally when he is on the air.

I seriously doubt Sarah Palin is afraid of him or any other newscaster out there. I believe she has a message to deliver and she is in the process of doing just that. She is not playing to the egos of hosts who, in many if not most cases, would consider it a career boost if they could say they were the one that knocked her out of the race.

Afraid? She didn't appear timid when she did a lengthy interview with Charles Gibson on ABC Thursday night. She didn't appear timid at the GOP convention, nor anywhere else along the line.

Hell, I bet she could do a Chris Wallace interview without an increase in blood pressure or heart rate and then, for desert, beat him arm wrestling.

If I want cheap shot, inaccurate television there are at least three other cable channels and three networks I can tune in anytime. When I watch Fox News, whether it is Brit Hume's Special report during the week or Fox News Sunday, I expect accuracy, balance and professionalism.

Usually, I get it.

Well, did he? Let's get this right out in the open, shall we? All across the media spectrum the current criticism aimed at Republican Presidential candidate John McCain is in the form of questioning his "vetting" process prior to selecting Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

To Vet is a transitive verb meaning stabbing someone in the back and twisting the knife slowly right between two vertebrae where there are lots of nerve endings so the pain is excruciating. From this process you find out everything about a person.

Gov. Palin is an accomplished person in her own right which makes it very difficult to rip her apart on anything of substance. So the latest version of "incisive reporting" is to question how thorough the McCain camp was in delving into her background before making the VP selection.

Of course, this makes the point in a not-so-subtle way that the interrogator - posing as a journalist - thinks Gov. Palin is a flawed selection, or at least one that the interrogator - posing as a journalist - sees as a threat to the Barack Obama campaign.

I was thinking about this early this morning after hearing repeatedly that the McCain campaign had in fact asked the difficult questions, had "vetted" Palin and her family. McCain said he was well aware that she had children, and was notified prior to the VP selection that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant.

The left, at least the left that has quaffed the Obama kool-aid immediately went ballistic attacking the Governor and the Palin family, as well as McCain and his staff.

It turns our McCain had hired a Washington D.C. firm that specializes in vetting candidates to do the questioning, but that didn't stop the nutcases on the left. Instead of focusing on the questions that were asked, they started digging up people who weren't interviewed and the questions that they claim weren't asked.

I imagine that a proper vetting, according to McCain's whacko critics, would be done by a guy who looks like that Nazi SS freak in Harrison Ford's first Indiana Jones movie. It probably would go something like this:

Interrogator: "Mrs. Palin, we don't want to intrude, heh, heh - heh, heh, but we must ask you, Do you enjoy sex?"

Palin: "Look around you man, what do you see? Scads of children and an extended family, lots of joyous laughter to accompany the pitter-patter of little feet. What do you think?"

Interrogator: "Again Mrs. Palin, it is not what I think but what you say. So I must ask again, do you enjoy sex?"

Palin: "Look buddy, that's enough. How about moving on to my beliefs, my ethics, my political accomplishments?"

Interrogator: "Mrs. Palin, if you don't answer our questions, you must understand, ve haf ways to make you talk. But I am a reasonable man, I haf a way to resolve this. I haf brought with me a copy of the Kama Sutra. Are you familiar with this publication?"

Palin: "Not especially."

Interrogator: "Heh, heh. Well, Mrs. Palin, (drool, drool) I won't make this more difficult than it has to be. Instead of speaking about it, perhaps you could just go through the book and point to the positions you like best. Take your time, there are lots of pictures. Heh, heh."

Palin: "How about I turn you into skunk stew? Now get out!"

You know, as I go back over the preceding conversation for editing purposes it strikes me as incredibly close to what we could really expect from the MainStream Media. Sheesh.

Here's the deal. The two most powerful driving human forces are survival and procreation, and they are inextricably entwined. If humans don't get enough of the right kind of food, with sufficient cholesterol, then both testosterone, the male sexual hormone, and estrogen, the female sexual hormone, drop to levels that physically don't allow the body to engage in sex. Thus if there is insufficient food, there are less people coming into the world to eat it.

But if there is enough food, then there is procreation. Based on that concept, well, all I can say is the Palin family obviously eats healthy. And it looks as though Mom and Dad's genes relating to procreation have been passed to their offspring. I see that as a good thing within certain societal limits.

Did you notice that Sarah Palin smiles a lot?

Did you ever notice how liberal female faux-journalists have really, really tight pinched looks around their faces? Males too, actually. You know why don't you? Uh-huh. It's true.

So what do we do about this? Obama and his running mate Joe Biden are trying to be all noble and proper, saying they believe children should be off limits in political campaigns, while their minions go for Palin's throat.

Of course, there is more than a little chatter on the Internet that Biden has a daughter who was involved in a drunken brawl outside a bar and got arrested for attacking a police officer, so I can see why he wouldn't want anyone else's children - like his - under too much scrutiny.

As for Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol, the one who is pregnant, I have a feeling the young lady may have experienced a bit of teenage anger when her Mom got pregnant again, especially at a time when as the oldest daughter, Bristol was just coming into her own. I realize this is just amateur psychology but it wouldn't be the first time a teen who is on the verge of adulthood did something out of character to get some attention. We don't know of course and that is just speculation on my part, but it is certainly possible.

So what do we do about this? Well, it certainly doesn't alter Sarah Palin's capabilities one bit. She absolutely can handle the job. But the real issue is to convince the voters of this, or at least enough of them to overcome the hatchet job that the American Terrorist Media is doing on the Palin family.

I suggest the GOP sponsor a Bristol Palin Fan Club, run it on Face Book, and have a chapter in every state and territory where people vote for president. I would target 18 years old and upwards, and I would be very careful not to glorify the concept of unwed, teenage pregnancy.

But there is so much talk about the youth vote this year, I see no reason why the GOP should concede this segment of the battlefield. Bristol can do regular updates on her condition, talk about nutrition, pre-natal care, exercise, skin care, and the rigors of pregnancy. She also should be upfront on her fears and disappointments about the things she will be missing out on in life, since her job from now on will be rewarding, but difficult.

She can talk at length about what will be required of her when she delivers and point out that it isn't a picnic.

This really can become a lemonade issue for the GOP and we shouldn't allow this opportunity to pass us by. Bristol Palin can become one of the biggest draws to the GOP of anyone involved in the race.

It also would be good for her. This young lady is in a tough situation and she is getting hammered by the pond scum in the media and the Democratic Party. She needs our help, as much as we need hers.

I say we show Bristol Palin and the entire world, what we really are all about. This is no time to be judgmental, this is a time for us to step up as Republicans, and as Americans. In the short run, and the long run, we will all benefit.

So, let's get started on that Face Book project, shall we? One chapter in every state and territory where there is voting for president. Regular updates from Bristol, and a real, truthful inside look at the rigors of teenage pregnancy. She can do untold good if this is handled right.

As for me, I'm off to the library to check out the Kama Sutra.

One of the biggest components of the Big Lie that comprises the standard story on the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina was that George Bush did not respond quickly enough and that the suffering of thousands of stranded New Orleans residents was his doing.

In fact, the biggest culprit in a cast of thousands of culprits was Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, who through the worst of political partisanship delayed authorizing federal troops from entering Louisiana to help control looting, deliver necessary supplies, and evacuate its residents.

It is true that New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin also had a hand in the debacle that unfolded after Katrina had passed. Hours later, after some news outlets were broadcasting that the city had been spared, the levees that surround it suddenly breached.

News reports said that prior to Katrina making landfall, on Sunday, Aug. 28, 2005President Bush spoke with Governor Blanco to encourage her to order a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans. However, neither Nagin nor Blanco did much to implement the city's emergency response plan, even though Blanco issued a statement boasting that all necessary preparations had been taken.

Katrina officially hit Louisiana on August 29, 2005 but federal air crews weren't allowed to begin evacuating New Orleans until Sept. 3. Once they started, the city was empty of refugees in a day.

After nearly a week in which rumors of conditions inside the Super Dome grew wilder and less accurate every hour, Bush even flew Air Force One to Louisiana on Sept. 2, 2005, where he met with Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco at the New Orleans airport. There both Bush and Mayor Nagin urged Blanco to federalize the National Guard.

Blanco insisted on a private conversation with Bush on that issue. Bush talked to Nagin immediately following that private meeting and told Nagin "Mr. Mayor, I offered two options to the governor. I was ready to move. The governor said she needed 24 hours to make a decision."

Governor Blanco subsequently rejected the proposal. President Bush continued to press the offer so Governor Blanco rejected it in writing on September 6.

CNN and Fox News also reported that the Louisiana Homeland Security Department which operated under the orders of Governor Blanco refused to allow the American Red Cross to enter New Orleans.

Now let's jump to this past weekend when Hurricane Gustav was bearing down on New Orleans. Blanco is long gone, having been replaced by Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican whose parents hail from India. (That's code for "brown-skinned" which really takes the race issue of out this discussion, doesn't it?)

Gov. Jindal was all over the city, directing evacuation efforts, ensuring that the emergency preparedness plan was being followed, and taking care of business. Hurricane Gustav didn't reach the Category 5 strength that Katrina did, but Katrina and Gustav were both Category 3 hurricanes when they slammed into Louisiana.

That is about the only comparison between now and 2005. This year, the levees held. This year, the city was evacuated well in advance of the storm. This year the destruction across the Gulf Coast again was widespread, that's what happens when a hurricane hits, but this year there was no "experienced" Democratic governor putting politics ahead of the welfare of the state she was supposed to be serving.

Jindal has done more than just show his mettle in an emergency, however. He has shown how a capable person with the right mindset and a willingness to live up to his oath of office can get the job done, whether it is a routine day or a true, life and death emergency.

By showing how he, as a first-term governor, was able to respond to a national emergency, Jindal has paved the way for Alaska's Gov. Sarah Palin, who according to the Main Stream Media and the usual suspects on the left, doesn't have enough "experience" to be Vice President.

Jindal has shown that it isn't experience in government that matters, it is experience in life and a true devotion to the oath of office. In those areas, Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin have more than enough of what it takes to do the job, whether it is Governor of a state or Vice President of the United States.

Oh, Nagin is still Mayor of New Orleans but I didn't see much from him this time either. A day or so before the storm hit, he was warning that it was "The Mother of All Storms." Then today he was on the news telling people "Stay out of New Orleans."

OK, Mayor, we're with you on that.

The news first came out during the height of the coverage over Hurricane Gustav coming ashore on the Louisiana coast. Gustav had dwindled down to a Category 2 storm, far less intense than the Cat 5 some forecasters had predicted, but was still dangerous.

As Geraldo Rivera and his camera crew windsurfed their auto to the New Orleans levees and then walked to the top of them to show the effects of wind and storm surge, an item was inserted into the non-stop storm coverage - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.

An official statement from the Palin family, out on the campaign trail, said the teen intends to have the baby and will marry the father.

John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee, said he knew of the situation before selecting Palin to be his vice presidential running mate, and considers it to be a family matter that doesn't affect his choice nor Gov. Palin's capabilities. The pregnancy was on the news long before it was common knowledge at the GOP convention where formal activities had been suspended due to the hurricane.

I agree with McCain, but I can guarantee you that many Americans will not. Why?

Well, first off, the left has been looking for something with which to attack Palin, other than false claims about her stances on various issues, and her alleged
"inexperience."

So, having a teenage daughter who is pregnant out of wedlock is the perfect issue for the left, especially if those pushing the issue are hypocrites. But let's not stop there, we can expect exactly the same from some holier-than-thou types on the right.

The question is, will we as Americans allow this to be become the defining issue in the campaign for the presidency? We shouldn't if we are half the country we claim to be, but will we?

The media is certain to drive it. There probably already are dozens of "I-teams" spreading out across the Alaskan wilderness to find the father, and get as detailed a story on the when and how of this pregnancy as is possible with an unlimited budget.

Let's face it, teenage girls have getting pregnant out of wedlock ever since there were teenage girls and wedlock. And you can bet your vote in November that for all of recorded history there have been elitist prigs who have looked down their noses at families who have had to deal with the issue, while keeping their own priggish skeletons safely locked in their basement closets.

That is a matter of human nature far more than political persuasion. But still, there will be unlimited, caustic, and horribly personal comments made and the attack dogs on the left have to be drooling over this.

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama came out immediately saying the issue is off limits for the campaign. Chalk one up for him. I give Obama plenty of shots in this column so I have no qualms about giving him credit where it is due also.

But he has to go further. Obama has to make the point that attacks on the Palin family, and especially the young lady who, when all is said and done is the one bearing the heaviest burden, are off limits across the board. I know he can't stop the news and he can't stop the bloggers, but he sure can put the clamp down on a wide range of mainstream pundits, MoveOn.Org, and others who see this as an opportunity.

Personally, I think most people who either are solidly on, or leaning to the GOP side of the campaign, first responded with a sense of letdown, and "Oh, S**t," when they heard the news. We were all so happy, and so pumped over hearing that Sarah Palin was the VP nominee, and it certainly let some of the wind out of our sails.

But now that we have had a little time to digest this, what does it tell us? Well, first and foremost the Palin family practices what it preaches, as far as abortion is concerned, and they are loving people who have rallied around their daughter and sister.

It many ways it just shows they are more like typical Americans than the political elite that often dictates who will run and on what platforms. Maybe we will actually be talking about real life issues for the next two months.

Personally, this won't change my vote. But in the final analysis my thoughts are with Bristol Palin, the young lady who several months ago looked in her mirror and realized that there truly is a heavy price to pay for taking on adult actions before you really are an adult.

Her irresponsibility has put this issue on center stage, and while I don't think it should be condoned, or brushed off as inconsequential, I also don't believe it is right to punish her unborn child by making her an outcast and her life any more difficult than it already is certain to be. However many times this has happened in the past, this apparently is the first time it has happened to the child of a Republican woman who only three days ago was the first woman to be chosen as the Vice Presidential nominee.

Parenting is not to be taken lightly and Bristol Palin's life will never be the same, nor what it could have been.

Bristol Palin probably could have done something to hide the pregnancy from her family, and at 17 she probably could have secretly gotten an abortion. But like millions of other women, and no men that I am aware of, she came to the realization that she and she alone was responsible for her actions, and either decision she made would stay with her for the rest of her life.

I applaud her for choosing life, and I applaud the Palin family for standing by her. There will be vicious, heartless things said about this young lady and her family in the coming months. I hope she will be shielded from them, and I hope America is grown up enough to let this stay where it should - inside the home, to be dealt with there.