baldilocks

Consequences of Enforced Equality

Are we screwed? And, if so, how did we get here?

Let’s see if an amateur can get the facts straight (mostly) off the top of the head.

The government “encourages” banks and loan organizations to grant mortgage loans to persons whose incomes would normally be judged as too low to afford the house-note. Many (most?) of these persons are not required to make a down payment.

Quasi-governmental mortgage guarantors Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae buy up the loans—the goods ones and the bad ones—bundle them into securities, and sell them back to the banks.

As a result of the housing boom of early this year going bust and an economy gone rocky due to the energy crisis, many of these home-owners found themselves unable to pay their notes and lost their houses. In turn, the banks, who understandably assumed that Freddie/Fannie guaranteed securities were low risk, were left holding the bag.

And now, in case of further mass defaults, the government wants to shore up the banks to the tune of $700 billion.

In short, the government wants to take the taxpayers’ money to get the banks out of a mess which that same government virtually forced the banks into in the first place. And if the answer is no, we all make like Humpty Dumpty. Maybe. But if the answer is yes, the same may happen.

And the Legislative Branch was warned but refused to take action.

Do I have this correct?

UPDATE: The screwers.

Hmmm...who to vote for?

(Thanks to Ace of Spades HQ)

An Absence Felt

Happy Birthday, Uncle.

New Territory

I'll be filming an episode of Pajamas TV this afternoon. Live for the very first time! Please no fat jokes (I'm working on it.)

BTW, I'm riveted by the political and economic goings-on as the next American over and, at some point, when I think I can contribute something useful to the conversation, I will. :::Yeah, I know. That's never stopped me before.:::

UPDATE: If you watched, you saw me freeze up a couple of times. Maybe I ought to have a shot of vodka before the next time, should they invite me back. Hey, it always works for the Russian oral DLPT!

Coolness factor: I got to sit next to Bill Whittle!

Thank you so much, good folks at Pajamas Media.

21st Century Missile Crisis?

Peter the Great is headed for Venezuela:

Russia flexed its muscles in America’s backyard Tuesday as it sent one of its largest warships to join military exercises in the Caribbean. The nuclear-powered flagship Peter the Great set off for Venezuela with the submarine destroyer Admiral Chabanenko and two support vessels in the first Russian naval mission in Latin America since the end of the Cold War. [SNIP]

The voyage to join the Venezuelan Navy for operations came only days after Russian strategic nuclear bombers made their first visit to the country. Hugo Chavez, the President, said then that the arrival of the strike force was a warning to the U.S. The anti-American Venezuelan leader is due to visit Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Moscow this week as part of a tour that includes visits to Cuba and China.

Peter the Great is armed with 20 nuclear cruise missiles and up to 500 surface-to-air missiles, making it one of the most formidable warships in the world. The Kremlin has courted Venezuela and Cuba as tensions with the West soared over the proposed U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe and the Russian invasion of Georgia last month.

Missiles are equal to a missile shield in Vladimir Putin’s universe (as if the deployment of the warships has to be an equitable move on the part of the Soviets Russians).

Last week Russia deployed two TU-160 BLACKJACK strategic bombers to Venezuela in order to take part in military exercises with Hugo Chavez's forces. The bombers returned home Friday but not before they took a “stroll” around the Caribbean. Additionally, Russia is set to participate in naval exercises with Venezuela in November. So why is Russia's Navy down south right now?

The Russian military hasn’t deployed to the Western Hemisphere since the USSR broke up.

RUSSIA'S OTHER ISSUE: Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili calls for an international investigation into the origins of the Georgia-Russia conflict, saying that the West cannot allow the breakup of his country to stand. Good luck with that, Mr. President. As you well know, Russia is an old hand at manufacturing facts; creating the idea that Georgia was at fault for its own invasion and the annexation of its territory must have been like falling off of a log for our friend Vlad. In the West, we call this 'astroturfing.'

(Thanks to Hot Air)

Not Just About You, Part Two

A member of an American minority group urges his fellows to think for themselves and break their 'addiction' to the Democrat Party.

[S]top being slaves to the Democratic Party.

If only.

RELATED: The owned wonder why the owner is not trying to buy them.

Neat Trick

My very first one act play...

******

Democrat: You’re racists!
Republican: No, we’re not!

Democrat: Then why’d you bring up the topic of race?
Republican: We didn’t bring up the topic, you did!

Democrat: That’s because we knew you were thinking about it.
Republican: Wait. You just accused us of bring up the race topic. You lied.

Democrat: Your racism got me so angry that I got confused.
Republican: That seems to be a chronic problem for you.

Democrat: See? You all are racists!
Republican: What did that have to do with race?

Democrat: You think black people are confused!
Republican: But, but, but…you’re white!

Democrat: I’m going to tell everybody how racist you Republicans are and we’re going vote for Obama because of you racists!
Republican: …

[The End]

Make Safe the City

Bill Whittle on Theoden and Eowyn McCain and Palin:

I sit with others in darkened rooms, watching films like Redacted, Stop-Loss, and In the Valley of Elah, and see our brave young soldiers depicted as murderers, rapists, broken psychotics or ignorant dupes –visions foisted upon me by bitter and isolated millionaires such as Brian de Palma and Paul Haggis and all the rest.

I’ve been told this story in some form or another, every day of every week of the past 30 years of my life. It wasn’t always so.

But it is certainly so today. And standing against all this hypnotic power — the power of the mythmakers in Hollywood, the power of the information peddlers in the media, the corrosive power of America-hating professors on every campus in America… against all that we find an old warrior — a paladin if ever there was one — an old, beat-up warhorse standing up in defense of his city one last time. And beside him: a wonder. A common person… just a regular mom who goes to work, does a difficult job with intelligence and energy and grace and every-day competence and then puts it away to go home and have dinner with the family.

Against all of that stand these two.

No wonder they must be destroyed. Because — Sarah Palin especially — presents a mortal threat to these people who have determined over cocktails who the next President should be and who now clearly mean to grind into metal shards the transaxle of their credibility in order to get the result they must have.

Think he's exaggerating? Enduring legends endure for a reason--because un-transcendent human nature--for which power is the ultimate goal--doesn't change.

Civilizations do not fall because of the barbarians at the gates. Nor does a great city fall from the death wish of bored and morally bankrupt stewards presumably sworn to its defense. Civilizations fall only because each citizen of the city comes to accept that nothing can be done to rally and rebuild broken walls; that ground lost may never be recovered; and that greatness lived in our grandparents but not our grandchildren. Yes, our betters tell us these things daily. But that doesn’t mean we have to believe it.

As is usual for Whittle's essays, this one is a keeper.

High-Tech Looting?

John McCain on the recent takeover of quasi-govermental mortgage guarantors Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac:

Two years ago I warned this Administration and Congress that regulations for our home loan agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, needed to be fixed…
But nothing was done.

Senator Obama talks a tough game on the financial markets but the facts tell a different story. He took more money from Fannie and Freddie than any Senator but the Democratic chairman of the committee that regulates them. He put Fannie Mae’s CEO who helped create this disaster in charge of finding his Vice President. Fannie’s former General Counsel is [sic] a senior advisor to his campaign. Whose side do you think he is on? When I pushed legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Senator Obama was silent. He didn’t lift a hand to avert this crisis. While the leaders of Fannie and Freddie were lining the pockets of his campaign, they were sowing the seeds of the financial crisis we see today and enriching themselves with millions of dollars in payments. That’s not change, that’s what’s broken in Washington.

(Links inserted by me.)

The leaders (CEOs) spoken of are James Johnson and Franklin Raines. Raines, who worked for Presidents Carter and Clinton, served as CEO of Fannie Mae from 1999 to 2004, upon which time he took a scandal-precipitated "early retirement." (I cannot find a reference to a 'former Fannie Mae General Counsel' who advises Obama.)

Why would any candidate for president ask such men--one of whom should be in prison--to advise his campaign, men whose mismanagement of Fannie Mae in the previous decade put the entire taxpaying nation on the hook for the company?

(Thanks to Mark Levin and Byron York)

Is That What You Really Want?

"I want you to argue with [your Republican and Independent friends and neighbors] and get in their face."

--Barack Obama, as oblivious to the concept of cause-and-effect as ever.

Obama takes time to remind his troops of the Jedi Mind Trick tactic:

"And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.' If they tell you, 'Well, he's going to raise your taxes,' you say, 'No, he's not, he's going lower them.' You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."

This sort of thing will surely solidify the base--the conservative base.

Not Just About You

In an after-action report of the McCain Campaign’s excellent summer offensive, J.B. White warns black Democrats about their own “navel-gazing narcissism” when it comes to the elitism and bigotry hurled at Sarah Palin.

I keep asking black people, and will continue to do so, have you called George W. Bush a Hitler? A chimp? Stupid? Have you laughed at the outrageous slandering of Sarah Palin? Every far left liberal who has thrown out that kind of foolishness about the Governor of Alaska (the kindest thing many of them have grudgingly said is "empty suit") has telegraphed to black people exactly what they truthfully think of your grandmother, your aunt or your cousin, etc. Especially if they step off the [Democrat] plantation.

As I've tried to point out before, those who would allow the phrase "white trash" to easily roll off of their tongues with respect to a Republican white woman who didn't marry her way into high office would just as easily Photoshop a Republican black senate candidate in minstrel makeup. (And isn't it interesting that sociologist Max Weber described "white trash" as persons in the Old South who didn't own slaves?)

Read the whole thing—a deft attempt at “deflating the identity politics balloon.”

Another Example of the "Truth"

Comedian Al Franken is running as a Democrat to take Republican Norm Coleman’s place in the US Senate. To that end, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is running the following ad:

I feel for these people. They need our prayers.

One problem, however: Norm Coleman wasn’t in the Senate when The Authorization of Use of Military Force against Iraq was agree to on October 11, 2002. Coleman wasn’t sworn in until January 7, 2003.

For using these poor people and lying to them, Al Franken and the DSCC deserve a…stern talking-to.

And...Godspeed to Major Stuart Anderson.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

No and Yes

The Obama Campaign denies that its leader interfered where he didn’t belong.

Barack Obama's White House campaign angrily denied Monday a report that he had secretly urged the Iraqis to postpone a deal to withdraw US troops until after November's election.

Then, in the next breath, the campaign admits that Obama interfered where he didn’t belong.

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, [Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi] said.

If this campaign and its product aren't the perfect personification of Leftist "theology", I don't know how much closer they could get.

(Thanks to Instapundit)

PREVIOUSLY:

Trippin' in Iraq

Trippin' in Iraq

Obama did what??

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

If true, this is a whole lot more serious than displaying a faux presidential seal.

McCain:

At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power. If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas [in a time of war]. Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq's Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama's judgment and it demands an explanation.

Eagerly await the response from the Obama campaign.

Shaping the Truth

What is truth?

--Pontius Pilate

Well it depends on who’s answering.

And it depends on the philosophy of the answerer.

If the answerer does not believe that truth is objective, if he believes that the truth is whatever he wants it to be, that the truth can be manipulated to his personal or political needs, if he even believes that the truth can contradict itself, then the answer is: truth is everything and nothing. The Truth is a Lie.

One of the tactics used by the Left is what I have privately called the God-tactic: calling things that are not as though they are, speaking a thing into existence. “Let there be Light!” The Left has insinuated itself into an omnipotent God’s place and it creates truth as necessary even if that truth was falsehood five minutes ago.

Being a creature of the Left, the Obama Campaign displays this quality and “creates reality” as it sees fit. To meet its specific needs, the Obama campaign declares “Let there be racism” in everything that the Republicans say and do, even if they are saying and doing nothing. The Obama Campaign creates items necessary for the goal—winning—out of thin air. Like God.

Here's another example: when Barack Obama tells the public that his various non-executive positions qualify him for the highest executive office in the land, but Governor Sarah Palin’s two executive careers make her insufficiently qualified for the second highest executive position in the land, the public is suppose to buy it. For the Left, truth does not have to make sense. Truth’s only purpose is to service the endgame: making Leftism dominant in the land. To that end, the Left’s "living truth" (not this Living Truth, for sure) must be believed by as many as possible. The Obama Campaign's smaller "truths" are merely designed to service the larger "truth" of Leftism.

This is how one can possibly conclude that a person who has never been an executive is more qualified for an executive position than is another person who has twice been an executive and is under consideration for a lower position than the first person. This is the embodiment of Belief and Faith in the Leftism—a belief and faith that have been honed and instilled by public indoctrination of this Leftism for decades. It’s a belief and a faith that have taken the place of logic with respect to earthly matters.

Additionally, we have seen one of the central tenets of this belief--this faith, this Leftism--continuously playing out in this presidential campaign in this manner: anyone who is not both white and male is assigned the identity of "perennial victim of white males," no matter how one may define herself. Therefore, when you, non-white person, or you, female, repudiate Leftism, you're a heretic and/or an apostate to that religion. And since victimization is bound up in your non-whiteness and/or your womanhood, to a Leftist you are "no longer black" no matter how much black African DNA is part of your genetic makeup or you are a "female impersonator" no matter how many babies you’ve birthed. This is one of the many ways that the Left has removed the Truth from truth.

The Right sometimes forgets the nature of this shape-shifting Leftist “truth” when engaging in ideological battle. I hear and read some on the Right who suggest that we adopt the adversary’s methods, specifically of creating a victimization group (white males) and/or counterattacking on the basis of race. To do so would demonstrate strategic blindness. When you’re dealing with an ideological opponent who deals in relative truth and in demonization, it’s mind-bogglingly stupid to abandon your principles and use their tactics. All that will get you is a “See? We told you they were all liars/racists/whatever.” The Right cannot win playing by Leftist rules because by Leftism’s rules, the Right is wrong merely by existing and, therefore, any means necessary to counter the Right are acceptable for use, even those means which contradict the Left's own ideology.

As said earlier, at need, the Left will deny an occurrence from five minutes past—asserting that its “truth” is more true than your Lying Eyes and Ears. Or the Left will deny its own objective and demonstrable racism and sexism and, in response, the faithful—well indoctrinated from birth and who base their existence and identity on Leftism rather than on the Truth—will forget the objective definitions of both –isms and simply believe.

My exhortation is this: don’t get frustrated (like I sometimes become) by the tactics of those who would refashion reality to promote the cause of Leftism. The louder they howl, the more certain you can be that your side is winning. Just have faith in the Truth, even when it hurts, because...the Truth is stronger.

(Thanks to Booker Rising)

Thanks

To N. for...

The Last Two Weeks

(Thanks to Gerard VanderLeun who is as disgusted with the Left as any morally and spiritually not-blind person would be--even some on the Left)

In View of the Day

(Thanks to Mudville Gazette)

Nancy's Pragmatism

One wonders whether the selection of McCain's Alaskan pro-drilling running mate and the GOP's humongous post VP selection, post-convention bounce had any thing to do with this decision.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Monday morning that the newest Democratic energy bill will be brought to the floor under normal rules and will be subject to a vote on a Republican alternative that is likely to call for even more drilling than Democrats are prepared to swallow. [SNIP]

The move is a dramatic departure from Democrats’ pre-August recess strategy, in which they brought up each of their energy bills under suspension of the rules and, in doing so, avoided having any votes on Republican measures calling for offshore drilling. But by embracing this strategy, Democrats also failed to get the two-thirds majority necessary to pass the majority of their energy bills.

And check this out:

A leadership aide said last week that Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) adoption of a pro-drilling position was a strategic one designed to bring the party in line with its presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), and give vulnerable caucus members political cover heading into the November elections.

For the Democrats, it's not about the welfare of the people but about keeping their jobs and about staying in line with their capricious candidate whose positions change with the wind--a wind so apparently strong that it ought to be considered an alternative energy source. Surprised? Me neither.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

Not So Senile After All

Say what you want about about John McCain. In picking Sarah Palin as his running mate, the guy schooled Barack Obama hard and showed him up for the beginner that he is. The selection of Palin, made public on McCain's birthday less than a day after Obama's DNC presidential exception speech, has totally dominated mainstream news--even if most of that reportage consisted of plaintive wailing--and pushed the Democrat nominee for president to the periphery. "Happy birthday to me," says the old man.

Since the resurrection of his presidential campaign, this phoenix quality of McCain's (no pun intended) shouldn't be a surprise to observers, but one can't help but admire the skill by which the man stays alive and sets his opponents--sometimes his fellow Republicans--to gnashing their teeth.

It's a gift.

ONLY RELATED BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT PALIN: Like the pretty, new girl in every situation, Governor Palin's name is on everyone's lips--much like Senator Obama's has been. And, as was and continues to be so with Obama, there are tons of rumors floating around regarding the governor. So it is that Charles Martin puts together a comprehensive list confirming some rumors, debunking others and, most fun of all, reaffirming that the "professionals" in Big Media are less than diligent about getting to the truth--at least when there's a Republican involved.

(Thanks to Marty)

Presents From Home

For the intellectual and the physical; birthday presents from my mom and my American dad.

Thanks, Parental Units!

Object Lesson

James Lewis at American Thinker:

So shrewd old McCain picks Sarah Palin for Veep, and steps on the Obama victory with devastating timing, the day after the launch. No big bounce in the polls for O[bama]. Within hours the Left feels cheated and betrayed. Why? Because they are entitled to victory. Because they have been in a rage for the last eight years [since Bush v. Gore] and can just feel that aching need for revenge. Because Governor Palin is a traitor to her gender, in their eyes, just as Justice Thomas is a traitor to his race. This is the language of the Klu Klux Klan and the Nazis, of course; "race traitor" was their name for whites who supported civil rights for blacks. But it's ok to be a racist if you're a liberal. In fact you are supposed to be a racist, a sexist, and a heterophobe: It's practically mandatory to take on all the sins of racial fascism as long as you flip the targets.

Can you say Liberal Fascism? Jonah Goldberg can.

These wild, vicious slanders are trotted out mainly to satisfy the emotional needs of their authors. The nasty, vicious quality is a signal of irrational, narcissistic rage.

Observing the Left's reaction to Sarah Palin like watching a sci-fi movie in which aliens ravage the Earth--Feces Fit or some such title. It's not so much that much of the Left is behaving in a crazy manner; it's that they think it would make a difference. So if the Left succeeds in destroying Sarah Palin and her family using lies, innuendo and nastiness and does so out of envy and revenge, we're supposed to vote for their candidate?

Yeah, okay.

I gave a ten to McCain's campaign this morning. As has been so for many other Republicans contributing in the last few days, it was the first donation that McCain 2008 Presidential Candidacy has received from me.* I wanted to get it in before tomorrow, when the campaign--pledged to take public funding--will no longer be able to accept donations.

Someone on the Left will do something crazy. Ier. Watch and see.

UPDATE: Victor Davis Hanson has coined a verb--to Palinize.

[T]o slander and caricature a working-class female public figure for the noble advancement of liberalism.

Sarah Palin—self-made woman, and governor of Alaska—is being reducing by the left to a hickish, white trash mom of five, analogous to the manner that esteemed jurists like Kenneth ("cigarette lawyer") Starr and Robert Bork were slandered by the media as incompetent right right-wing fanatics, and Clarence Thomas was pilloried as an affirmative action sex-maniac.

Why does the left and liberal media, in McCarthyite fashion, now seek to destroy rather than just oppose these public servants?

State of the Lie

Just a pair of reminders to keep your spirit guarded.

Ace of Spades HQ

The normal state we exist in is to assume most information we read is true, or sorta true, or true-ish.

We assume that people may be biased or just plain wrong. But we don't assume that hundreds of people conspire together to coordinate a lie they not only positively know is false, but they happen to know that first-hand, as they themselves invented the facts a couple of hours ago.

That's a weird thing: Coordinated mass lying. Sh*t is slipping by us that we're assuming might be true or somewhat true (those missing months of [Bristol Palin's] when she was [allegedly] carrying baby Trig, that "Alaskan Airline crew members stated [Sarah] Palin didn't look pregnant," etc.) just because we're simply not used to thousands of people agreeing to spread deliberate lies to as many people as they can. The fact that multiple people on multiple websites are claiming it, seemingly independently, tricks us into thinking, subconsciously maybe, "Gee, they must have gotten that from some article; they all couldn't just be lying in unison."

Or could they?

Jesus Christ to the Pharisees in John 8-44 (NIV)

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Principle from the Left

From Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings:

As far as I'm concerned, it's fair game to consider Sarah Palin's statements about her daughter's decision, and to compare them to her own views about abortion. That's a story about whether or not Sarah Palin sticks to her beliefs when they affect her own family, not about her daughter. But it is not fair game to use her daughter, or any of her kids, as pawns in a political argument. To my mind, this extends to using her daughter as evidence that abstinence-only education doesn't work: presumably, no one thinks that it works 100% of the time, and that's the only claim to which this one counterexample could possibly be relevant. (That's why God created large-scale studies.)

Finally, here's a commentator from either side of the political battlefield who acknowledges that a policy's feasibility does not depend on its perfection--who acknowledges that humans are imperfect, that they set goals which they don't always meet, but that the failure to hit the mark has no bearing on the worthiness of the goal.

Likewise, I think that arguing about whether Sarah Palin is a good mother is out of line: we have no idea at all what arrangements she and her husband have made for child care, how their relationship works, and so forth. Assuming that Sarah Palin would have to be her children's primary caregiver is just sexist.

If the past is any guide, some people will respond to this post by saying that the Republicans would not hesitate to use Democrats' teenage children to score political points. That may be. Three responses: first, so what? Just because they do it doesn't mean that we should.

So often I hear from my political allies that some tactic or strategy should be used because, after all, "they would do it to you." I'm always reminded of the excuses that children give to their parents when they fail to meet the standard which their parents set for them: "But Tommy does it too!"

So it's good to have the reminder that the Right and the Left are all equally and all too human.

Brava, Hilzoy, for adhering to the standard--the principles--you have set for yourself.

Pro-Life in Action

In the last few days since the greater American voting public became aware of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s existence, that of her husband Todd and of her five children, a wild rumor has been spread by the Left about the birth of her youngest—that he is actually the offspring of the Palins’ oldest daughter, a seventeen-year-old. Never mind the incredible viciousness of the rumor, the illogic of it stops a thinking individual in his tracks.

Well, as it turns out, the daughter really is pregnant right now.

Bristol Palin, one of Alaska Gov. Palin's five children with her husband, Todd, is about five months pregnant and is going to keep the child and marry the father, the Palins said in a statement released by the campaign of Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said.

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us," the Palins' statement said.

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support," the Palins said.

Isn't God hilarious?

One hopes that the Left would just stop right now with the “prying into the vaginas of others” as Ann Althouse so memorably puts it. But you know that they will find some other angle of attack and it will be just as stupid and it will alienate normal Americans even further from their candidate of choice.

Speaking of Obama, anyone know what he has to say about this whole state of affairs? I’ll bet he’s fuming over the fact that Palin’s selection as McCain’s running mate has completely eclipsed his DNC coronation. Come on, kinsman! Step on that tongue again and give us some fodder. Perhaps reiteration of that '"punished" with a baby' concept?

And I thought that the 2004 presidential election was a soap opera.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

UPDATE: Well done, Senator Obama.

Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama Monday afternoon issued a strong statement to "back off" reports of Bristol Palin's pregnancy, telling reporters families — and especially children — are off limits in this presidential campaign.

Mr. Obama, campaigning here, also noted that his own mother was 18 when she gave birth to him.

"People's families are off limits," he said. "People's children are especially off limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. "

"I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories," he added. "That shouldn't be a topic in our politics."

He knows that the continuation of this horror would do nothing but hurt his chances. He's right.