The Blues States included Minnesota, in which Obama has a lead of less than 1 percent with only two percent reporting. Both Deleware and the District of Columbia are Blue, yet they have ZERO percent reporting. Granted, both Deleware and DC will go to Obama, but how does CNN explain counting these States in favor of Obama, while leaving Texas as a “neutral” State, despite their tendency to vote Republican, AND despite the fact that with 12% reporting, McCain is up by 8%?

I need another beer, but if you have not voted yet, and your polling stations are still open.. please go vote and ignore the ridiculous electoral maps which have already declared Obama a winner.

Update: It is now a little after 10 PM Eastern time and CNN is showing Wisconsin as a BLUE State with a 3 percent lead and only 12 perc ent reporting, yet McCains lead in Texas is still 8 percent with 27 percent reporting and it is still listed as neutral.

Twas the night before elections
And all through the town
Tempers were flaring
Emotions all up and down!

I, in my bathrobe
With a cat in my lap
Had cut off the TV
Tired of political crap.

When all of a sudden
There arose such a noise
I peered out of my window
Saw Obama and his boys

They had come for my wallet
They wanted my pay
To give to the others
Who had not worked a day!

He snatched up my money
And quick as a wink
Jumped back on his bandwagon
As I gagged from the stink

He then rallied his henchmen
Who were pulling his cart
I could tell they were out
To tear my country apart!

On Fannie, on Freddie,
On Biden and Ayers!
On Acorn, On Pelosi’
He screamed at the pairs!

They took off for his cause
And as he flew out of sight
I heard him laugh at the nation
Who wouldn’t stand up and fight!

So I leave you to think
On this one final note-
IF YOU DONT WANT SOCIALISM
GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!

If video does not embed, click here.

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It’s just that it will bankrupt them.

Strong words from the candidate, particularly considering the current economic crisis. Any new costs imposed on coal plants would inevitably be filtered down to the consumer, in this case the consumer is anyone who uses electricity. Of course I am sure Obama would now like to amend his words to include a re distributive plan, which would take the billions of dollars collected from coal plants, and redistribute it to low income families to offset their increased costs. This is not a solution however, as it offers no incentive for coal plants to continue their operations as we search for alternative energy sources. Combine this with Obama’s opposition to nuclear power and what we have is a nation living in the stone age, with blackouts becoming a frequent occurrence due to a limited electricity supply.

Anytime a Presidential candidate threatens to bankrupt one of Americas industries, the people need to pay attention.

Hat Tip HotAir.com

Barack Obama’s aunt, a Kenyan woman who has been quietly living in public housing in Boston, is in the United States illegally after an immigration judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago, The Associated Press has learned.

Zeituni Onyango, 56, referred to as “Aunti Zeituni” in Obama’s memoir, was instructed to leave the United States by a U.S. immigration judge who denied her asylum request, a person familiar with the matter told the AP late Friday. This person spoke on condition of anonymity because no one was authorized to discuss Onyango’s case.

Information about the deportation case was disclosed and confirmed by two separate sources, one of them a federal law enforcment official. The information they made available is known to officials in the federal government, but the AP could not establish whether anyone at a political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been involved in its release.

Is this a big issue? Well no, not on the surface. With over 12 million people residing in the United States illegally, the fact that one Kenyan woman ignored a Judge’s order to leave the country should be a non issue. What makes it an issue however is that woman just happens to be the Aunt of a powerful United States Senator, and possibly America’s next President. No Quarters asks a very pertinent question:

And why did the Senator not file a form I-130, a Petition for Alien Relative, on behalf of his aunt after her request for political asylum was rejected? As a United States Senator, he certainly could expedite the adjudication of such a petition.

The reason Obama did not intervene on behalf of his Aunt, at least according to the Obama campaign is simple… he was unaware of her immigration status:

A statement given to the AP by Obama’s campaign said, “Senator Obama has no knowledge of her status but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws be followed.”

Are we to believe that Obama’s Aunt, having been denied asylum by a Federal Judge, would not have contacted her nephew who is a United States Senator, and asked for assistance? I am sure it is possible, however it is not likely. More likely, is that Obama was contacted, however he did not wish to jeopardize his political career in the event his assistance became public. Such a denial could be viewed as admirable, as it is not often we find politicians who do not jump at the opportunity to use their political influence to do a favor for someone they know. However his subsequent denial of any knowledge of his Aunt’s legal status squashes any admiration I would have had for him due to initial refusal to help.

More concerning than his Aunt being just one of 12 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States are the political donations she had made to the campaign… illegally.

Federal Election Commission records show that Onyango donated at least five times to her nephew’s campaign in July and September. Three of the donations were for $5 each, and two of the donations were for $25. Records compiled by The Huffington Post show she gave a total of $260 to the campaign.

Federal election laws make it illegal for non citizens to donate money to political campaigns. Anyone who believes that this is an isolated instance of a non citizen donating to the Obama campaign, please contact me I have a bridge for sale. The fact is the Obama campaign went out of their way to make it possible for anyone to donate to his campaign, by disabling the credit card verification system on his website. With this security system disabled, the campaign could very well be accepting donations from foreign contributors who use an arbitrary address here in the United States. With the verification system turned on (it is on by default on all online merchant accounts), those donations would be rejected because the address provided did not match the billing address on the credit card.

When Obama decided to opt out of public financing, he declared it was because the system was broken. The Obama campaign the goes on to purposely break their own system, to allow illegal contributions to slip through. This is not the change we need, nor is it change we can believe in.

Exit question: How did Obama’s Aunt qualify for public housing if she is residing in the United States illegally?

Not long after Michelle Malkin released her top ten list, News Channel 5 in Missouri had the opportunity to interview the chosen one. Less than 1 week before the election, here are the 5 questions they found most pertinent to ask a Presidential candidate:

1.) Your presidential campaign may go down as the most organized in history. Yet the polls remain tight in Missouri. In the last seven days what else can you say to sway undecided and McCain leaning Missouri voters?

2.) Today, Bob Clark-founder of Clayco Construction sent a letter to his employees. In part it read, “Sometimes, but rarely, a person appears at the right time and the right place to transform ordinary people into thinkers and doers who can accomplish more than they ever thought they could. That truly is the definition of inspiration. Barack Obama has this quality. I have witnessed it personally many times.”

In 2004 Mr. Clark raised thousands for the Bush campaign. But for the past two years, he’s raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for your campaign. Please respond?

3.) Who has helped your campaign more; Missouri U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill or Oprah?

4.) What was it like when you were in St. Louis in front 100,000 people? What were you thinking as you looked out from the Arch to the Old Court House and beyond?

5.) Many people are worried about your safety. What are your thoughts in light of the alleged skin head plot?

What is it like to speak in front of 100,000 people? Who helped your campaign more a Senator or Oprah? Are these really the questions undecided voters in Missouri would like to have answered just 6 days before the election? This interview is an embarrassment to journalists everywhere, and more notably for News Channel 5 themselves.

With the current state of the economy, the “reporter” (and I use that term loosely) chose to ask no questions about the mortgage crisis, nor the economy as a whole. Journalists are supposed to inform the public, not kowtow to their candidate of choice.

Barack Obama almost certainly heard the words of Alexander Tyler who said “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury…” Obama has taken these words to heart, as he promises 95% of Americans money from the public treasure, at the expense of the 5% who earn the most. While McCain warns of the potential negative affects of Obama’s tax plans on small business owners, as well as the public treasury, Barack himself prefers to concern himself more with winning an election than with fiscal responsibility.

The Wall Street Journal gives us a brief history lesson this morning, as to what happens when you tax the rich:

Mr. Obama is in fact proposing to raise the capital gains tax to 20% from 15% — which would be an increase of 33%, but Mr. Huizenga is close enough for IRS work. His office confirmed to us that he stands by that statement, though he prefers not to elaborate on it. Mr. Huizenga also has NFL company. In July, we wrote about the Rooney family’s musings about selling part of the Pittsburgh Steelers to avoid the 45% death tax rate.

We saw a similar tax effect in 1992 when Bill Clinton raised tax rates. The Wall Street crowd accelerated income, bonuses and stock sales to pay the 31% rate, not the expected higher rate. One of those who cashed out in 1992 was Robert Rubin, who would soon join the Clinton Administration.

One economist who observed this tax avoidance was Austan Goolsbee, of the University of Chicago, who is now a top Barack Obama adviser. In a 1999 paper, “What Happens When You Tax the Rich?,” Mr. Goolsbee wrote that “the higher marginal rates of 1993 led to a significant decline in taxable income.” Many of the superrich were able to change the timing of compensation to avoid paying the higher rates. Mr. Goolsbee concluded this was merely “a short term shift,” but it did cost the Treasury revenue it had been anticipating.

Obama’s spending proposals rest on the assumption that the higher marginal tax rates on Americas top 5% of income earners would bring in sufficient revenue to cover the costs of these programs. When those revenue expectations fall short, as they surely will, money will need to be raised from other Americans to cover the difference.

I have warned in the past that Obama’s promise of only taxing the rich was nothing more than election rhetoric which would not stand up to real life tests. I reminded readers that in 1916 Congress convinced Americans that an income tax was acceptable, by declaring it would only be the top 6% of income earners who would have to pay. Inevitably, as will almost always be the case, Government spent more than it collected, making it necessary to tax lower income Americans to cover the shortfall.

Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

Exit question: If photo id is a requirement to ensure a Presidential candidates protection, why can’t it be required to ensure the integrity of the voting process which would elect him?

The first item that caught my attention this morning was Nancy Pelosi, who provided us with yet another laughable statement. In Pelosi’s America, the term “bipartisan” appears to be synonymous with totalitarianism.

“Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan,” said Pelosi.

Pelosi idea of bipartisanship, is giving one party complete and total power to make decisions as they see fit, without the possibility of the opposing party amending the legislation. This coincides with Pelosi’s previous demonstrations of “bipartisanship”, such as when she changed the rules of the House to prevent a vote on a free trade agreement. Or when she passed the so called ethics bill, by refusing to close the vote after the bill had failed, in order to strong arm junior Representatives into voting her way. And let’s not forget when Pelosi attempted to change rules which have been in affect since 1822, so she could raise taxes and government spending without having to vote on it.

Now Pelosi is asking the American people to grant her party more power, so she can avoid all of these pesky little rules which require both parties to vote on legislative changes. We don’t call her “Queen Nancy” for nothing!

As far back as 1999, The New York Times warned us of the implications of lowered credit standards, and the possibility of a Government bailout being necessary if the economy were to slow:

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

..By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

The warning signs were there, and went completely ignored by Congress. Lest we forget, in 2003 President Bush warned more oversight of Fannie Mae would be necessary, and Democrats scoffed at him, worried new regulations would reduce home ownership in low income neighborhoods.

“Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book: you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem. But here’s the thing: this isn’t 9-11. We know how we got into this mess. What we need now is leadership that gets us out.”

Well that is a fine campaign speech Senator, but how do you really feel about commissions?

Among the presidential campaigners, Sen. Barack Obama, speaking at New York’s Cooper Union late last month, blamed corporate lobbyists for carrying deregulation too far and he pledged regulatory reform, but nothing more specific than the creation of a financial oversight commission.

Francis Beckwith notes this is not the first time Obama has called for a commission either:

Apparently, then, we can dismiss Senator Obama’s call for commissions on Social Security (11/2007), torture (9/2007), war crimes (8/2008), and financial oversight for Wall Street (4/2008) as four separate instances of the senator pulling “the oldest Washington stunt in the book.” Perhaps the person who ghost writes his teleprompter can first do a Google search on the senator’s behalf to see whether he had opined on prior occasions on the matter of commissions.

Ed Morrissey quips:

So let’s get this straight. Obama called for a bipartisan commission on Wall Street oversight five months ago. John McCain now agrees with that suggestion. After McCain agrees, Obama says it’s nothing more than a political dodge? That’s far worse than John Kerry’s famous flip-flop on the $87 billion in war funding in 2004; it’s an admission that Obama was never serious in the first place.