There are two things I abhor in any election. Any exploitation of children and of our military is off limits in my book.

This video crosses a line which should concern all who will soon be electing our next President. Should Barack Obama be the majority choice it is one I know I will not soon forget.

I don’t care to hear the excuse that his campaign did not produce it, they have to power to have it pulled at any given moment.

I’ve read much of what has been written today on this topic but the one post which I would like to share is the following from Roger Simon:

Watching this video has disturbed me more than almost anything I have seen in recent years. It is the kind of exploitation of children that reminds me of Young Pioneer Camps I saw when visiting the Soviet Union in the Eighties. You could say, as some have, that this is much like what happens with children in churches and synagogues across America, but this is about a political figure - one of two current presidential candidates and the one leading in the polls. The Drudge headline references the “Dear Leader.” Quite apt. Here for you edification are the words of the people who saw fit to put this together (there’s more at the link):

Also writing on this topic:
The Anchoress
Ace
Confederate Yankee who tells us what should come as no surprise:

Here’s a partial list of those who helped produce this “grassroots” effort:

* Jeff Zucker — American television executive, and President & CEO of NBC Universal.
* Post-producer (former choreographer?) Holly Shiffer.
* Motion picture camera operator/steadicam specialist Peter Rosenfeld (appropriately enough, worked in “Yes Man,” a movie about ” a guy challenges himself to say ‘yes’ to everything for an entire year.”
* Darin Moran, another motion picture industry professional, who just finished filming — how appropriate — Land of the Lost.
* Andy Blumenthal, Hollywood film editor.

I’d like to think Senator Obama would call for these videos to be taken down but I won’t hold my breath. Using children in a manner such as this is reminiscent of far too many not so pleasant events in history. Anything to feel adored and whatever it takes to win. Pathetic.

After trashing the President, the administration and the Republican party on the floor of the House yesterday, the Speaker is rethinking her position. She’s decided to play nice:

Dear Mr. President:

Yesterday’s defeat of the Economic Emergency Stabilization Act resulted in additional severe economic impacts both on Wall Street and on Main Street. The consequences of yesterday’s vote – an historic drop in the stock market and the loss of $1.2 trillion in savings, investments, and retirement funds – had a major impact on American families, small businesses, and others that demonstrated the imperative for Congressional action.

We have already made much progress in improving the plan originally sent to Congress. After many days of discussions, we reached bipartisan agreement on key additions, including strong measures to protect taxpayers from the costs of this program; to impose tough accountability on Wall Street through strong oversight and transparency; to limit excessive executive compensation and golden parachutes; to reduce home foreclosures to help families remain in their homes; and to sequence the funding of the program to ensure appropriate cost controls and independent reviews.

Read the rest. Maybe we can guess her next move before she makes it.

Sorry, I have no kind words for the Speaker of the House. She has proven herself arrogant and untrustworthy as the Karl Rove interview of yesterday aptly points out.

If the Democrats remain in control of the House following the November election they should consider a challenge and attempt to replace Ms. Pelosi. Not only Congress but the country would be better for it.

Seems those who watch the Vice Presidential debate this Thursday will have a little help determining if either candidate is lying:

Have you ever wanted to know when politicians are lying? A startup called RealScoop thinks it can nail it down for you in real-time with the help of voice analysis technology that it claims is used widely in law enforcement and fraud prevention.

Dubbed the Believability Meter, RealScoop’s analysis technology analyzes over 100 vocal elements of the human voice and performs over 1,000 calculations per second to find out if a politician or celebrity is telling the truth. On Tuesday, RealScoop will cover the Vice Presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, putting each one’s statements to its Believability test.

Technology is great but I like my common sense and gut instincts a whole lot better. I suppose that means I concur with Mr. Reisinger when he states:

I’m sure the highly political among us will find value in this to help prove their point that the candidates they support are telling the truth and those they do not are lying, but the more objective among us will see this for what it is: pure rubbish.

HT: Instapundit

Another school of thought (in plain English) on the current Wall Street issues:

Pouring 700 billion of our money into failing financial institutions seems akin to throwing spaghetti against the wall. Keep throwing until something sticks. They tell us that credit will dry up if we don’t inject cash. No credit would be disastrous for the economy, but they have not explained well enough why the banks have failed so suddenly and drastically that emergency room surgery is required. Knowing why would help us poor taxpayers feel better about how the problem should be solved. Ever wonder how many other bank failures are out there waiting behind the curtain to take their bows? Are we going to throw even more money at them too?

Should we consider a solution that requires no money, or at least a lot less? Here’s one. Have the SEC suspend the accounting rule called mark-to-market. By a relatively simple accounting adjustment, troubled banks’ assets and capital could be increased and credit kept available. Accounting purists, cover your ears. Eyes glaze and minds wander when I say balance sheet, so let’s use the acronym BS, a more appropriate description. BS’s have two sides: assets on the left, liabilities and capital on the right. Banks are required to maintain certain levels of capital (the difference between assets and liabilities) in order to make loans. When assets shrink, capital shrinks. When the ratio of capital to assets drops to a certain level, (think ten-to-one), banks are not allowed to make loans. And if it drops too low, they can be classified as insolvent. This can happen overnight, and it did.

[emphasis-mine]

Perhaps the highlighted section is one of the major problems Americans have with this entire concept.

Check out the rest of the article at American Thinker.

To see a complete list go here.

By the way, the sun is still rising in my neighborhood today.

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit is someone I respect.

If he trusts this information from one of his readers then I believe it is worthy of note.

Nah–no media bias..none at all.

The Anchoress offers this:

I suppose this is why print media and the press in general don’t care about their tumbling revenues; when The Pelosi gets the regulated internet and restricted Congress that she wants, and Obama gets his thugs and his Justice Department monitoring, intimidating and shutting down alternative media (and the dissenting voices we’ve been told are “patriotic” when a Republican is in the White House) the incestuous mainstream press will go back to being the only game in town. Pravda West.

I’ve got to hand it to those Democrats and Speaker Pelosi. They sure knew how to game this whole issue on the Wall Street bailout.

First, they come out smiling and announcing how they have reached a deal:

Then, after 40% of their own members do not vote in favor of the legislation, they blame everyone but themselves:

So now Barney Frank answers for the Speaker of the House? His tone and demeanor towards his fellow House members will certainly make it easier for dialogue to begin again..sure it will.

The Speaker used a tone and showed a disdain for both the President and the opposing party today in her remarks prior to the vote (not at other times on the House floor) which I do not believe I ever remember seeing in all my years of observing Congress.

Why would she want to sabotage this legislation? In my opinion, the answer is simple. The longer this remains an issue in front of the public and the press is hammering away at it, the more she believes it helps Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress running for re-election.

Frankly, I am reaching the point where I just don’t care anymore. Will it really make any difference who is elected to any of these offices come November?

Obviously, all the decency and honesty is evaporating faster than a bowl of jello set over an open flame.

I concede, Obama good, McCain, bad..Democrats, perfect..Republicans..unpatriotic, crybabies.

Think I’ll just go off and have a good cry now and maybe take down my American Flag. After all, wouldn’t want anyone to think I really jumped ship.

What shameful behavior on the part of our elected officials (and The Speaker in particular),when they hold the future of so many Americans in their hands.

Update: An Absolute Must Hear!! HT:Johnny Dollars Place

The best explanation on this vote I have heard yet! Listen to Karl Rove explain how the legislation was killed on the floor of the House.

Welcome, Anchoress readers.

After calling House Republicans unpatriotic for not attending a meeting they never knew about and then getting on the floor today to make a partisan speech, it seems the “unpatriotic” Republicans joined quite a few of the “unpatriotic” Democrats in opposing the bailout bill. Final vote total: 205-228. Seems the extra dozen votes she could have received if she hadn’t been so partisan would have passed it for her.

Opponents said part of the reason for the opposition from Republicans was what they termed a partisan speech by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said one GOP source. House Minority Whip Roy Blunt said he thinks Republicans could have provided a dozen more votes had Pelosi not given her speech. [Emphasis mine.]

Pelosi had said that Congress needed to pass the bill, even though it was an outgrowth of the “failed economic policies” of the last eight years.

“When was the last time someone asked you for $700 billion?” she asked. “It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush administration’s failed economic policies — policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.”

House Republican Conference Chairman, Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., said “he was disappointed that the process that yielded a bipartisan approach took a very marked, partisan tone at the end of the debate.”

This is not a partisan crisis, this is an economic crisis,” said Deputy Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor, who said that 94 Democrats also refused to go along with the bill. He described the vote as the result of “Speaker Pelosi’s failure to listen and failure to lead.”

Pelosi said that Republicans have not received the message from the White House that bipartisanship was needed.

“We delivered on our side of the bargain,” Pelosi said, congratulating Democratic leaders for getting 60 percent of the caucus to support the White House bill. “We extend a hand of cooperation to the White House, to the Republicans so we can get this issue resolved”

95 of her Democrats voted against the bill, along with 66 Republicans.

With all the documentation we have given you over the past couple of days as to how this mess began in the first place, it seems we don’t want the same people who got us here to try to get us out.

Pelosi made a mistake of gigantic proportions if she wanted this bill to pass. She should have stayed in her office and not said a thing and could have picked up enough votes to pass the legislation.

Her whip should have counted noses. She has enough Democrats in the House to pass anything she wishes to get passed, but even her own party went against her. Maybe they don’t trust Barney Frank to do the negotiations now either.

It is ludicrous to try to blame the president for the financial mess this country is in as far as this crisis goes since the record clearly shows it was Democratic House members who put in the faulty rules and refused to regulate Freddie and Fannie as long as seven years ago.

I think her days as Speaker are numbered, whoever is in charge of the next House.

I get no satisfaction from this outcome, except I hope the next bill will be negotiated by different people and be a truly bi-partisan bill from beginning to speeches in the debate.

Let’s see how they spin this now. I started to watch when she was speaking and got so disgusted I just turned it off and walked away.

A Presidential candidate or a character in a steamy romance novel.

Which best describes the following sentence?

The rain pouring down, his jacket off, his white dress-shirt clinging to his body,…..

Geeze, if it was the romance novel at least I could put it down and walk away. On the other hand, I’m not one of those “young people” anymore so maybe it is true…maybe I just don’t understand:

“Sometimes the skies look cloudy and it’s dark. And you think the rains will never pass,” Obama preached, “The young people understand that the clouds -– these too will pass, that a brighter day will come.”

Only five more weeks folks, five more weeks.

HT:Drudge

This is scary. My husband has a degree in accounting and could never explain so I could understand why the market crashed in 1929.

After the last couple of weeks I’m learning more about economics than I care to know.

The AP notes the President spoke to the nation today and Senators Dodd and Gregg appeared on some morning shows to explain the package as written.

By the way, if you want to read all 106 pages of the bill in PDF format you can get it here. I’m going to try to save it to my desktop so I can absorb it as I go along. Here’s hoping nothing else gets thrown in during conference.

Bush argued that jittery U.S. taxpayers will benefit from a number of safeguards that lawmakers wrote into the pending legislation during weekend negotiations on Capitol Hill, including checks and balances on the operation of the program.

The president spoke shortly after two leading players in the Hill bargaining went on television news shows to urge passage, even as both acknowledged the necessity of this action represents a sad day for the nation.

Asked if the compromise bill indeed will go through Congress, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., replied: “We hope so.”

But the Connecticut senator, chairman of the Banking Committee, also said the bill is not a panacea for all the problems that have bedeviled the U.S. financial markets. He also said, though, that failure to act would spread the contagion of frozen credit markets even further. “This is not just about Wall Street,” Dodd said. He said that it’s “potentially going to hurt other people across the country.”

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who represented fellow Republicans in the weekend talks, called it a “tourniquet” for the ailing financial industry and slow-moving economy.

The latest assessments of prospects for passage came as investors worldwide and in early trading in the United States continued to show doubt about whether the bill would go through, much less go a long way toward curing the systemic problems that have unnerved financial markets across the globe for weeks.

The House was slated to vote later Monday on the deeply unpopular rescue package for the stressed financial industry. Bush on Sunday conceded this was a difficult vote in an election year - and repeated that sentiment in his statement Monday morning.

But he called a vote for the bill “a vote to prevent economic damage” to communities across the country.

He also said the legislation addresses the root cause of the problem - “assets related to home mortgages that have lost value during the housing decline.”

And the president noted that under provisions of the pending bill, “the federal government will be authorized to purchase these assets” and said that will help financial institutions to resume lending to individuals and businesses.

“I know many Americans are worried about the cost of the bill,” Bush said. But he also said the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the federal Office of Management and Budget expect that the “ultimate cost to the taxpayer” will be much less.

Ran across this over at RedState.

How much proof is needed (in their own words) before folks realize Congress had the heads up long ago that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were run by corrupt individuals and headed for serious trouble?

This is a bit long but the comment at the very end from President Clinton is most telling.

While Senator Obama is claiming it was he alone and John McCain had nothing to do with the bailout deal, the Washington Post, no friend of McCain’s, haswritten a piece that gives the inside look of what happened on Thursday in Washington.

When Sen. John McCain made his way to the Capitol office of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) just past noon on Thursday, he intended to “just touch gloves” with House Republican leaders, according to one congressional aide, and get ready for the afternoon bailout summit at the White House.

Instead, Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, was waiting to give him an earful. The $700 billion Wall Street rescue, as laid out by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., was never going to fly with House Republicans, Ryan said. The plan had to be fundamentally reworked, relying instead on a new program of mortgage insurance paid not by the taxpayers but by the banking industry.

McCain listened, then, with Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), he burst into the Senate Republican policy luncheon. Over a Tex-Mex buffet, Sens. Robert F. Bennett (Utah) and Judd Gregg (N.H.) had been explaining the contours of a deal just reached. House Republicans were not buying it. Then McCain spoke.

“I appreciate what you’ve done here, but I’m not going to sign on to a deal just to sign the deal,” McCain told the gathering, according to Graham and confirmed by multiple Senate GOP aides. “Just like Iraq, I’m not afraid to go it alone if I need to.”

For a moment, as Graham described it, “you could hear a pin drop. It was just unbelievable.” Then pandemonium. By the time the meeting broke up, the agreement touted just hours before — one that Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the No. 3 GOP leader, estimated would be supported by more than 40 Senate Republicans — was in shambles.

An incendiary mix of presidential politics, delicate dealmaking and market instability played out Thursday in a tableau of high drama, with $700 billion and the U.S. economy possibly in the balance. McCain’s presence was only one of the complicating factors. Sen. Barack Obama played his part, with a hectoring performance behind closed doors at the White House. And a brewing House Republican leadership fight helped scramble allegiances in the GOP.

It is unclear whether the day’s events will prove to be historically significant or a mere political sideshow. If the administration and lawmakers forge an agreement largely along the lines of the deal they had reached before McCain’s arrival Thursday, the tumult will have been a momentary speed bump. If the deal collapses, the recriminations spawned that day will be fierce.

But if a final deal incorporates House Republican principles while leaning most heavily on the accord between the administration, House Democrats and Senate Republicans, all sides will be able to claim some credit — even if the legislation is not popular with voters.

“If there is a deal with the House involved, it’s because of John McCain,” Graham, one of the Arizonan’s closest friends in the Senate, said yesterday.

In truth, McCain’s dramatic announcement Wednesday that he would suspend his campaign and come to Washington for the bailout talks had wide repercussions.

Democrats, eager to reach a deal before McCain could claim credit, hunkered down and made real progress ahead of his arrival. Conservative Republicans in the House reacted as well, according to aides who were part of the talks.

[Emphasis mine]

There were specific things the House Republicans did not want in the package and since Pelosi and Reid didn’t want to take full blame for the bill, even though they had enough votes to pass it and excluded the House republicans “by mistake” it appears the House Republicans got things cleaned up a bit and with the backing of Sen. McCain.

It looks like Boehner and Company had more sense than the Republican senators or the Democratic representatives and that’s why they were not invited to the negotiating table.

In walks McCain, he makes a statement that even if he has to stand alone he will, and out comes a better proposal. No one is happy about it, but one candidate shouldn’t be taking all the credit for it. Look at the table in the link Sue provided here and see how much worse it would have been without the House Republicans sticking to their guns.

The truth is always in the details and until this is committed to paper we won’t know exactly what is going on. I did hear on the news today that the written proposal will be put on the internet for us to read before passage.

Here is the summary of the highlights as put out by Speaker Pelosi:

IMPROVING THE FINANCIAL RESCUE LEGISLATION

Significant bipartisan work has built consensus around dramatic improvements to the original Bush-Paulson plan to stabilize American financial markets — including cutting in half the Administration’s initial request for $700 billion and requiring Congressional review for any future commitment of taxpayers’ funds. If the government loses money, the financial industry will pay back the taxpayers.

3 Phases of a Financial Rescue with Strong Taxpayer Protections.

• Reinvest in the troubled financial markets … to stabilize our economy and insulate Main Street from Wall Street

• Reimburse the taxpayer … through ownership of shares and appreciation in the value of purchased assets

• Reform business-as-usual on Wall Street … strong Congressional oversight and no golden parachutes

CRITICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RESCUE PLAN.
Democrats have insisted from day one on substantial changes to make the Bush-Paulson plan acceptable — protecting American taxpayers and Main Street — and these elements will be included in the legislation

Protection for taxpayers, ensuring THEY share IN ANY profits

• Cuts the payment of $700 billion in half and conditions future payments on Congressional review

• Gives taxpayers an ownership stake and profit-making opportunities with participating companies

• Puts taxpayers first in line to recover assets if participating company fails

• Guarantees taxpayers are repaid in full — if other protections have not actually produced a profit

• Allows the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families

Limits on excessive compensation for CEOs and executives

New restrictions on CEO and executive compensation for participating companies:

• No multi-million dollar golden parachutes

• Limits CEO compensation that encourages unnecessary risk-taking

• Recovers bonuses paid based on promised gains that later turn out to be false or inaccurate

Strong independent oversight and transparency

Four separate independent oversight entities or processes to protect the taxpayer

• A strong oversight board appointed by bipartisan leaders of Congress

• A GAO presence at Treasury to oversee the program and conduct audits to ensure strong internal controls, and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse

• An independent Inspector General to monitor the Treasury Secretary’s decisions

• Transparency — requiring posting of transactions online — to help jumpstart private sector demand

Meaningful judicial review of the Treasury Secretary’s actions

Help to prevent home foreclosures crippling the American economy

• The government can use its power as the owner of mortgages and mortgage backed securities to facilitate loan modifications (such as, reduced principal or interest rate, lengthened time to pay back the mortgage) to help reduce the 2 million projected foreclosures in the next year

• Extends provision (passed earlier in this Congress) to stop tax liability on mortgage foreclosures

• Helps save small businesses that need credit by aiding small community banks hurt by the mortgage crisis — allowing these banks to deduct losses from investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stocks

Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi – September 28, 2008

*Update:

House Republican Whip Roy Blunt’s office provides this side-by-side comparison of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s original Wall Street bailout proposal with the final compromise agreed to over the weekend by congressional and Treasury negotiators:

Go here to read.

According to the Washington Post:

Congressional leaders and the Bush administration last night struck a historic accord to insert the government deeply into the nation’s financial markets, agreeing to spend up to $700 billion to relieve Wall Street of troubled assets backed by faltering home mortgages.

Negotiators emerged from a marathon session in the Capitol about 12:30 a.m. to announce that they had reached agreement on a proposal to give Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. broad authority to organize one of the biggest government interventions in the private sector since the Great Depression.

Is civility disappearing totally from government?

Has this financial crisis created an atmosphere so unhealthy that we now have the Speaker of the House referring to Republicans as “unpatriotic” for their not attending a scheduled meeting?

Perhaps she should have conferred with Senator Dodd prior to uttering those words:

More from the House GOP offices:

Well, we didn’t go to yesterday’s meeting because they didn’t invite us. Dodd even said on NBC nightly news last night that they just forgot.
It’s pretty infuriating.

[emphasis-mine]

Interesting that the Democrats were so anxious to pin the failure of the original deal on the financial bail out on the Republicans and John McCain when it appears it was their own Presidential candidate who inflicted the damage at the White House meeting:

…..This according to Bob Schieffer of CBS.[emphasis-mine]

Paulson called Lindsey Grahamnesty and said, “Look, I need the House Republicans. I need Republicans on this. We can’t get anywhere without them. You’ve gotta call McCain. He’s the only one that can do it.” So that’s why McCain goes to Washington, and they end up having a four o’clock meeting at the White House yesterday. They all think they’re going into a negotiating session. The president, in order to let everybody be heard, deferred to various Democrats, and every one of the Democrats — Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Frank — declined to speak and deferred to Obama. So Obama became the official Democrat spokesman in the meeting. This was to hype Obama’s leadership and presidential aura and so forth. What happened next, the first thing out of Obama’s mouth — Paulson is in the meeting — is he starts ripping the House Republican proposal and asks Paulson what he thinks of it.

This led Boehner and the other Republicans in there to think they have been sandbagged. We found out this morning that Obama had no clue — because he was in transit doing other things, he had no clue — what the House Republican position was. What happened was that on the way to the meeting sometime during the day, Obama’s staff received an e-mail from Treasury Department employees who work for Paulson detailing the House Republican plan. So when the Democrats deferred to Obama, he launched into that. He had no clue what it was. That’s why he asked Paulson for his comments. I don’t know what Paulson said, but this is what led to the fireworks. This is what led to everything breaking down in there. This is why Dingy Harry walked out, ’cause it didn’t work.

[All references to Senators by other than their proper title are those of Rush Limbaugh]

Remember it was the Democrats who insisted the insertion of presidential politics was not helpful in this debate yet they allowed their candidate to speak on their behalf.

If this is indeed what transpired, then not only did the Democrats stretch the truth at the completion of the meeting, but it was extremely disrespectful to the President of the United States.

What egos these Senators and Congresspersons must have to place themselves and their politics above the Executive and the country which it serves.

If memory serves, both McCain and Obama are Senators first candidates second and they should be in Washington in their official capacity as such in an attempt to move this process forward, not garner political points.

There is plenty of blame to go around in this financial mess but deliberately falsifying facts (on either side of the aisle) and calling members of the opposing party “unpatriotic” serves no purpose and the effects will no doubt be long lasting.

*For those who would like to read the thoughts of an international auditor in the insurance industry regarding this crisis check out the piece at the link. Quite an interesting and enlightening read.