Liberal Hypocrisy of the Day: Attacks against Christians

Isn't it ironic that liberals are offended if you accuse certain minorities for causing most of the mischief in town (backed by statistics of course) or impugn homeless people for urinating in places where most people would not, or label you a racist for not wanting to want for a certain Democratic presidential candidate.

Remember, stereotypes are usually based on facts.

Said liberals are quick to cast aspersions on anyone that disagrees not with them. They love to flaunt their sophistication and enlightenment. After all, this certain Democratic president is often referred to as the "Enlightened One."

That sophistication is thrown out the window when it comes to Christianity; the gloves come off.

Note the following, courtesy of the Minneapolis Star Tribune's Katherine Kersten:

I get it -- Al Franken is a serious senatorial candidate despite his penchant for the pornographic. Franken's one-liners about rape and oral sex and his leering fantasies about big-busted women were just for yucks, right?

Last June, DFL bigwigs chose to forget about their man's decades-long record of sexual crudity after he hooked the endorsement by putting on a serious face and saying "sorry" at the party's convention.

But Franken didn't apologize for another aspect of his trash-talking shtick. He's aimed some of his most offensive material at religious believers, particularly Christians.

Why hasn't this been aired in public? We in the press are too busy searching through Sarah Palin's junior high yearbooks and tracking down the filing dates of Joe the Plumber's tax returns.

Meanwhile, Franken gets a pass for making a joke of the life and death of Jesus Christ.

Franken finds Christ's crucifixion to be a barrel of laughs. For example, in his 1999 book, "Why Not Me?" he wrote about his discovery -- as a fictional former president -- of "the complete skeleton of Jesus Christ still nailed to the cross" during an archeological dig. At the Franken Presidential Library gift shop, visitors can buy "small pieces of Jesus' skeleton."

"We would like to display Jesus' skeleton at some future point," Franken went on. "It's merely a matter of designing and building an exhibition space ... . Until then he's very comfortable in a box down in our basement near the geothermal power station."

Very funny. Anybody want to try a joke like that about Mohammed?

Reread the last sentence. Of course no one will make a joke about Mohammed or Islam in general for two reasons: 1.) liberals have aligned themselves with Muslims, despite their overwhelmingly negative views towards women, homosexuals, and non-Muslims; 2.) they fear violent retribution from Muslims if insulted.

You don't see too many Christians issuing fatwas, do you?

The enlightened liberals have no problem stereotyping and mocking Christians for their beliefs. Personally as a Christian, I'm not too offended by what Franken said; with that said, his humor is lame. He's just not a funny guy. He thinks he is, but he's not.

For a group that recoils in horror at any little verbal indiscretion, their hypocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to Christianity.

But hypocrisy from liberals shouldn't really surprise you, should it?

Liberal Lies: What the liberals WON'T tell you about Obama's "tax cuts" and rich taxpayers

In this edition, I analyze the notion that Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama's tax program is anything more than a free ride with no incentives for poor people. I came across an article, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal, that analyzes and essentially debunks Obama's proposed tax cuts. A term I had read in a recent article is "mathemagic." From what I've gleaned from reading and listening to various sources, is that Obama would essentially give money to people that do NOT pay taxpayers.

Note the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's called "welfare," folks. Let the transformation into a welfare state begin. Of course this is now surprise. We've heard Obama state in the past, most notably with Joe the Plumber, that sharing the wealth is good for everybody.

It is?

How is an bottomless cup of handouts for lazy, unmotivated poor people good for everybody? It doesn't make said poor people any richer, instead it makes everyone else poorer. Remember that Winston Churchill once said, "The vice of capitalism is that there is an unequal share of the blessings; the virtue of socialism is that there is an equal share of the misery."

Obama has also stated that 95% of the population will receive a tax break. Technically, that's impossible since a significant chunk of this country do not pay taxes. How he can reward those that do not pay taxes is through this concept of wealth redistribution. The "tax breaks" for those that do not pay taxes will come in the form of various refunds.

Regarding the notion that "rich" people do NOT share the overall tax burden, Dick Morris states the following:

In fact, the rich are paying vastly more in taxes than they ever have. "Reality Check," by Dennis Keegan and David West, points out that the percentage of income-tax revenues paid by the top percent of the population has almost doubled in the last 20 years; it now pays 40 percent of all income tax. (The bottom half in income pays less than 3 percent.) Despite the lower rates, the rich are paying more in taxes because they are earning more and more. In the last eight years, real, after-inflation income growth for the top 10 percent of the population has been more than 45 percent.

It's easy political fodder for the Left to blame President Bush and the upper class for the mortgage crisis and the supposed disastrous policies from the former. But what happens when you start taxing the upper class, and all forms of business owners?

These disastrous economic policies lie not in the Bush tax cuts, but instead with the increases in spending and the subsequent expansion of the federal deficit. It's almost an economic given that if taxes are lowered, revenues increase. Note the following:

Let's step back from the politics and ask one simple question: Does the idea of supply-side economics make fundamental good sense or not?

I say that it does. It's so simple: Tax rates that are too high can be self-defeating, and so lowering them can increase total revenues. Bartlett told me that this idea can be traced all the way back to Jonathan Swift, who wrote in 1728 that "in the business of heavy impositions, two and two never make more than one." He noted that economists and philosophers from Smith, Montesquieu, Say, and Mill, to von Mises and Keynes, wrote about the basic principle.

In the modern era, of course, no economist is more closely associated with supply-side economics than Arthur Laffer. He embodied the idea as the famous Laffer Curve, which illustrates that government will earn no revenues at all if tax rates are either zero or 100%. Somewhere in between is a tax rate at which government revenue is maximized. So when rates are too high — too near 100% — revenues can be increased by cutting taxes.

According to the TaxProf blog, hundreds of economists have signed an letter opposing Obama's tax to plan:

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

Again, what Obama and his minions in the Democratic Party have done, enabled by their partners in crime in the corrupt media is simply lie to the public, whether it's about the economy, global warming, or big oil.

Obama-bots: Drinking the Kool-Aid

The parallels are eerie...the way Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama has captivated millions of people, not only in this country, but globally as well.

Is this man running for president or leading a cult?

It matters NOT what this man says or does, his followers and the corrupt, liberal mainstream media continue to figuratively fellate the man. Furthermore, at every turn, he and his minions, for that is truly what they are, have attempted to stifle free speech and dissent.

He has also made his intentions clear, the conversion of a country based on Judeo-Christian principles to a godless socialist nation where minorities and those practicing alternative lifestyles are bestowed status of "special," abortions occur at will, our taxes skyrocket, global warming is standard orthodoxy in public schools, etc.

The possibilities, if this man is elected and Democrats continue to grab seats in the Congress, are truly frightening.

What's further frightening is that the sheeple of this country are letting it happen. This man can do and say want he wants without fear of retribution. Couple the threat of the most liberal president in history with a nearly filibuster proof Congress, and the possibilities are frightening; a liberal supermajority, if you will.

Note the following, from the Wall Street Journal:

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

Those of us on the right are watching the new United Socialist States of America unfold before our very eyes; ironically, the Left bitched and moaned when the Bush Administration used warrantless wiretapping on international phone calls between suspected terrorists to ultimately keep this country safe, YET, the Obama Thugocracy, has attempted to stifle dissent at HIS urging.

I stated in a column last week that the Left's hypocrisy knows no bounds, and their lack of culpability is turning this country into a welfare-state. It's this hypocrisy is evident in the Left's collective mocking of those of us who believe in the TRUE One, Jesus Christ. Instead, the Left has embraced their own messiah, Barry Obama.

No, Barry, you were NOT born in Bethlehem.

Liberals and their utter lack of responsibility

That's really what it comes down to with liberals and their Democratic enablers, doesn't it?

Whether it's the $700 billion bailout, terrorism, abortion, taxes on the rich, health care, entitlements, their collective mentality is either the "underprivileged" are owed or are entitled to something because they've been held down, or it's okay to partake in irresponsible behavior sans fear of taking personal responsibility.

The $700 billion bailout was passed jointly by a Republican White House and Democratic Congress. But the essence behind the bill was Democratic implications that homeowners who had purchased houses and had been foreclosed upon, or were facing foreclosures, were actually "tricked" into buying houses by predatory lenders. Puh-lease. If you click the link to Michelle Malkin's column, you'll notice that the number of left-wing mortgage counseling services is staggering.

No, the problem is that 1.) instead of working and saving for a house that fit within our price range, people from all walks of life wanted a big house; in other words, something they couldn't afford. 2.) when the shit went down, because they greedily purchased said excessive home, they figured that Joe and Joanne taxpayer would foot the bill for them. So the socialists in Congress, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al, along with some Republican idiots, passed a bill "bailing out" the idiots who didn't belong in those house, at the expense of honest, hard working Americans.

But if you talk to a liberal, they tell you that something had to be done. The ones who couldn't afford the expensive homes (see $200 thousand on a $30 thousand budget) were tricked, they were lied to.

Bullshit, I say. Moreover, because many of these homeowners were minorities, the specter of racism looms over any accusation from those of us on the Right. If we impugn these people, it's because we've all taken off our KKK hoods long enough to point fingers.

By extension, this bailout issue seques into the notion of entitlements, welfare, and taxes. Because liberals play the victim card to perfectly, it's easy to blame those of us who work hard and pay our taxes. Somehow, according to liberals, we've kept poor Americans, once again, often minorities, from grabbing their slice of the pie. By taxing us that have worked hard, paid their bills, gone to college, etc (and notably because we're "white"), Democrats, led by presidential candidate Barack Obama, want to "spread the wealth around." Why? Because it's good for everyone?

Huh? How is it good to reward laziness and lack of motivation? Rather than make poor people richer, it instead makes ALL of us poorer. Rather than allow those of us to enjoy our HARD-EARNED prosperity, we're all supposed to suffer together.

When it comes to the War on Terror, and our subsequent "world standing," it's actually George W. Bush's fault that Radical Muslims loathe us to the extent we do. Nevermind that terrorist attacks were being committed in the name of Allah LONG BEFORE Bush became president (see: Beirut, early 1980's, USS Cole, 1998 Embassy bombings, Khobar Towers, FIRST World Trade Center bombing), or that President Bill Clinton responded ineffectually to terror attacks perpetrated against, NOR really took any action to apprehend Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Regarding abortion, nothing epitomizes lack of responsibilty than statements from Obama, whereby he would never want to burden mothers with the "punishment" of an unwanted child. Rather than hold accountable those who engage in unsafe fornication, he wants to allow abortions occur, completely unfettered. Nevermind that we've butchered 30+ million babies in this country.

That is the ultimate in lack of responsibility.

Minnesota Update: Examining key issues (Energy, global warming, open borders) in the Walz-Davis race

On occasion, I like to dissect political issues germane to Minnesotans like me. In this case, I'm deconstructing the 1st Congressional District battle between Democratic Congressman Tim Walz and Republican challenger Brian Davis.

The Austin Post-Bulletin has provided essentially a scorecard on where each candidate stands on pertinent issues.

Here are some of the issues:

Energy philosophies

Even though the moratorium has been lifted on off-shore drilling, both candidates battled over its merits.

Davis said he strongly supported a "drill here, drill now" philosophy, reciting a mantra that has become identified with his campaign. He noted that a decade ago the price of oil was $10 a barrel but rose to as high as $147 per barrel this past summer. He said Walz has done nothing to bring down gas prices, voting 12 times against off-shore drilling during his two years in Congress.

But Walz said such a proposal would have done nothing to alleviate gas prices.

"I'll tell you what, I did vote 12 times against that, because I'm not going to give Big Oil a free ride again," Walz said.

He said the key was not simply to focus on oil drilling, but to begin a process for transitioning to the next generation of renewable fuels, such as biofuels, and wind and solar power. He said bipartisan legislation he supported would have accomplished that, taking the royalties from off-shore leases and funding an "alternative and sustainable future" based on renewal energy.

In the process, it would have created jobs, powered the economy and enhanced the country's security, he said.

"That's a real solution. That's not a slogan," Walz said.

Note the statements from Walz on Big Oil, and the long-term plan for oil. First, had Bill Clinton not vetoed a bill in the mid-1990's sponsored by a Republican Congress to open ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling, we wouldn't be in this mess now. The oil WOULD be available. Second, the reference to "Big Oil" is merely a lame attempt by a liberal to tap into pubic resentment. Big Oil is no greater an evil than "Big Wind" or "Big Solar." In fact, Big Oil HARDLY makes money hand-over-fist. I've read numerous reports that for every $1.00 invested by "Big Oil," they recoup $.08 of profit. EIGHT LOUSY CENTS... but because you hear about their BILLIONS of dollars in profit, Democrats propagate a lie. Those billions are being shared by millions of people, not just a few oil tycoons.

What should we do about the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States?

Davis: "If you want to have a debate about legal immigration and a guest worker program, that is a legitimate debate. But illegal immigration has to stop by almost any means necessary, 'cause we're losing our country. Unlike Congressman Walz, I do support building a border fence."

Walz: "Let's have an open and honest discussion among our workers and businesses about what we need for labor in this country. Let's have them go through a legal system that gives them a biometric card. We'll have the workers necessary, and our resources will go to stopping at the border those things that we want to stop."

You see, you can't have it both ways, Tim. You can't purport to defend the rights of working class Americans by supporting an open border policy. Illegal immigrants thus extorting said policy are taking jobs from Americans. Furthermore, these people BROKE the law. Democrats have no problems enforcing crying foul when someone insults their "Dear Leader," Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama, or howling when someone proffers their opinions on the evils of Islam.

Is global warming man-made, and should efforts be made to control it?
Davis: "I contest (the idea) that the majority of global warming can be proven (to be caused) by fossil fuel combustion. Some of it, yes. All of it, no. I would also contest strongly that by burning fewer fossil fuels, we're going to control the climate."
Walz: "The vast majority of Americans who do see (the threat of global warming) see the concern to move toward (energy) alternatives, not only for economic reasons, not only for security reasons, but for the (purpose) of handing our planet to children in a livable, sustainable manner."

No Tim, the vast majority of us do NOT see the threat of global warming. If they have, it's because the corrupt mainstream media, in conjunction with leftist diplomats worldwide, have invented this notion, contrary to evidence that we're on the cusp on a significant cooling period instead. Did you know, for example, that global temperates are cooler by .07 degree C since 1998? I bet you didn't...the MSM won't allow it. Also, did you know there were periods, prior to the existence of humans, that carbon dioxide levels were three to four times greater than they were now? Probably not too much cars then, I would imagine.

Moreover, scientists by the truckload have denounced global warming, or at least implored governments to deliberate more on potential legislation.

Not your grandpa's Democratic party anymore

If my grandpa was alive, I have reservations that he would be a Democrat. Grandpa Twin Cities Conservative (Todd Anthony) was born and raised in Ely, Minnesota.

You see, after my grandpa returned from serving three years in the Pacific during WWII, he went to work in one of the mines on the Iron Range. If you've been to Ely or any of the surrounding communities, you probably know to which I refer. It's a region in Northern Minnesota comprised of bands of iron ore.

Traditionally, that area of Minnesota has been a Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party stronghold; it's voted almost exclusively Democrat in past elections.

More than likely, ol' Gramps would be disgusted at what the Democratic party has morphed into. Rather than represent the voice of the people, particularly that of the WORKING CLASS, it has evolved into a clique that represents the wishes of the latte liberal sect.

Nothing represents the latte liberal mentality more than what Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama said to a group of San Francisco liberals: "It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to . . . religion . . . as a way to explain their frustrations."

The only similarities between the Democratic Party of today and that of yesteryear would be its Socialist elements. Instead, the Democratic Party listens to the voice of the diplomats, the academics, and the fringe groups. Furthermore, these groups are often represented by the left-wing elitist:

"Like the 'new class', liberal elites are often understood to be university/college educated professionals, often considered to wield immense cultural power in the media, academy, and school system. They use this cultural power to influence politics beyond their numerical significance, advocating fringe interests to the detriment of 'mainstream' opinion. Their political arguments are allegedly self-serving and frivolous, aimed at restricting public choice."

These latte liberals share no ideals with Democrats like Grandpa. To be perfectly candid, my grandpa was bigotted. He disliked minorities (or anyone different from him for that matter), he disliked laziness, he LOVED America, he saved money, he worked hard, and he was VERY religious.

Tell me how ANY of the above mentioned characteristics mirror that of the latte liberal?

They don't.

For example, how does a trendy cause, such as global warming, which is supported by the tofu class, benefit WORKING CLASS Democrats (or working class AMERICANS) for that matter? It doesn't. Instead, because global warming apologists place such an emphasis on alternative energy and opposition to this country's natural resources, it does not allow us to cultivate our domestic energy supply, whether it's oil, coal, nuclear power, etc. In the case of oil, coupled with the almost daily increase in demand from countries like China and India, we cannot place our OWN oil in the world supply, bringing demand down, and thus lowering the cost of gasoline. Add to this the environmentalists' refusal to allow the construction of new refineries in this country.

What does this mean? Well, in addition to the aforementioned increased cost of gasoline, it also drives the prices of our monthly energy bills, whether it's at home or work. People need to come up with funds to pay for higher gasoline and higher utilies, so they cut back in other areas, such as travelling, going out to eat, going to movies, buying clothes, buying food, etc.

Speaking of food, the Left's insistence that end result of oil increases "global warming" has led to a worldwide movement to embrace ethanol. What ethanol does ultimately, as well as increased sugar cane production for automobile consumption, is drive up the price of food.

"(T)he rise in prices is also the self-inflicted result of America's reckless ethanol subsidies. This year biofuels will take a third of America's (record) maize harvest. That affects food markets directly: fill up an SUV's fuel tank with ethanol and you have used enough maize to feed a person for a year."

How does that benefit Working Class Americans?

It doesn't.

Something to consider also is that the latte liberal school relies on white guilt and support for "freedom fighters" (such as Hamas and the PLO). Futhermore, this mentality is prevalent in its opposition to our nation's military. It starts at the top; note the following comment from Obama:

"We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

How does that support the military?

It doesn't. Instead, it fuels hatred in Muslim countries, for example, that our troops are only there to rob and rape them. Furthermore, Islamic fundamentalists have used civilians as human shields, often hiding in houses and mosques. IF they want to fight dirty, our military should fight dirty as well.

I thought we learned our lesson after former Democratic president Bill Clinton failed to truly combat Islamic terrorism.

Ultimately, Obama's presidential bid has served as an opiate for many people in this country. Unfortunately, it's also proved that people often can't truly think objectively. His message of wealth redistribution, hope, and change has an intoxicating essence to it.

What we'll soon learn is that working class American will be the ones to suffer under his portending presidency.

Barney Frank: Playing the Race Card

Here we go (rolling eyes).

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), employing TYPICAL Liberal politics, stated "that Republican criticism of Democrats over the nation's housing crisis is a veiled attack on the poor that's racially motivated."

Typical, when presented with facts, this is what the Democrats do. They play the race card. Barry Obama isn't qualified? That's a RACIST attack!! The Democrats forced Affirmative Action down our throats through essentially coercion of financial institutions to lend to people with shady histories, no or low incomes, etc? That's a RACIST attack!!!

No, Barney; that's not a RACIST attack, that is a FACT instead. We taxpayers are suffering because you and your liberal minions, since the inception of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, have, under the threat of litigation, forced financial institutions to completely disregard all common sense and lending acumen, in order to put minorities into houses.

To compound the problem, you and your aforementioned liberal minions profited handsomely from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions.

Furthermore, Republicans such as George W. Bush and John McCain have issued warnings for year that, due to poor accounting practices, the above mortgage institutions faced financial peril. The Morning Bell states the following:

"(C)onservatives have been critical of how Fannie, and Freddie Mac, have leveraged their government-sponsored advantages (including exemptions from state and federal taxes, lower capital requirements, and the ability to borrow at rates well below those paid by private companies), to create a co-monopoly in the housing finance sector. When Fannie’s accounting scandal came to light in 2004, conservatives pushed hard for reforms to phase out Fannie and Freddie."

USA Today also adds that Conservatives should be furious that the Democrats, who essentially caused this mess, are getting off untarnished, no thanks to the corrupt liberal Mainstream Media:

"My bottom line: The McCain campaign is underestimating how absolutely furious conservatives are that free markets, and by extension Reaganomics and the last 25 years of American economic policy, are getting the blame for the housing and credit crisis. A real morale killer, they tell me. Over and over. Every day."

John McCain needs to remind the American public of that fact during tonight's debate.