Of course the BIG deal of the day is the presidential race and Electoral College count. Will Obama win big? McCain squeak by? Will we even know today or this week?

What will happen with the majorities in the House and Senate. It is difficult for me to understand how a Congress with the lowest approval rating can gain more seats for the party in power, but I have given up trying to understand people's irrational choices. 

If California's Proposition 8 passes, it would eliminate gay marriage. If it fails, gay marriage stays.

In Wisconsin I am watching the Assembly races. I think Leah Vukmir is safe. Hope Rich Zipperer does well too. Dan Knodl from the 24th Assembly District will attract my attention--remember the endorsement problems? Will Republicans still support him?

I'll also be watching Yash Wadhwa's race--not just because I want another Republican seat in the Assembly, but because I like his personal story.

In the State Senate, I am pulling for John Gard* and Alberta Darling. 

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner should be a sure thing, but Paul Ryan? I hope voters have the good sense to send him back to Washington.

As for Germantown's $22.5 million Elementary School Referendum (some tech and safety upgrades included too?), will voters there buy the Brooklyn Bridge, oh, excuse me, the idea that a new school won't really cost them because the state aid will make up for the added bonding expense?

Supporters of Tuesday's main referendum measure argue that the increase in property taxes needed to pay for the borrowing would be offset by additional state aid collected as a result of higher enrollment.

Remember the Germantown School Board discontinued full-day kindergarten next year because of space constraints. If this referendum does not pass, what will they do then? Go to all half-day or work out some other solution?

It should be interesting!

*Correction, John Gard ran for Congress not State Senate 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Presidential candidate Barack Obama has used his skin color to his advantage in this election.  Anytime anyone brings up his past associations with Rev. Wright, terrorist William Ayers, Father Flager,  or FannieMae's Franklin Raines, etc., Obama's campaign squawks, that's racist. (Go figure, 2 of those men are white.) Referencing Obama as a community activist/organizer was deemed a code word for black too.

But in just the past few weeks, more disturbing relationships have come to light: Obama's ties and associations with The New Party socialists and Marxists.

From Gateway Pundit, Photo Discovered Of Obama With Fellow Chicago Socialist Party Members:

Bloggers New Zeal and The Big Feed discovered this photo of Barack Obama and other New Party socialists including Danny K Davis (center), from the front page of New Party News, Spring 1996:

Click to Enlarge
Winners! NP-endorsed candidates Patricia Martin (far left), Danny Davis (center), and Barack Obama (far right), celebrate with Chicago New Party members Ted Thomas and Ruth Schools after their victories in the Democratic Primary last month.

From POWERLINE: "We wrote here about Barack Obama's ties to the New Party during the 1990s. The New Party was a far-left organization founded by members of the Democratic Socialists of America and other extremists. It not only endorsed Obama in his 1996 state Senate race, but, when Obama won, wrote that he was an 'NP member.' "

And don't forget Obama's high school mentor, Communist Frank Marshall Davis.

How about the fact that the US Communist Party Endorsed Obama and Fidel Castro Endorses Obama--Again.  Need I say more?

But associations aside, all you have to do is look at Obama's platform to see where his ideology lies. The Obama tax plan is nothing but a redistribution of income, giving checks to workers who don't pay any Federal income taxes! If that doesn't scream socialism, I don't know what does.

If Obama is elected president, it would be a historical first. Not just because he would be the first Black* president in American history, but more significantly, the first Pink one. It is the Pink color that breaks my heart.

*Yes, I know the current PC term is African American, but that does not fit into the theme of color. 

Don't miss Another Communist in Obama's Orb, Meet Michel Klonsky, Obama's "social -justice" education expert.  

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I was just thinking...could Congress enact some sort of emergency legislation for a nationwide voter ID requirement, and if a voter did not have one, their ballot be cast provisionally. Guess I wasn't the first.

GrasstopsUSA sent out an email, asking that we demand "Congress be called back into session IMMEDIATELY and emergency legislation must be passed that simply states that voters must produce a valid state or federal ID at the polls or have their vote counted provisionally." (I do not support GrasstopsUSA financially but find their emails interesting.) This has a snowballs chance of going anywhere, but dealing with voter fraud after the fact is pretty ineffective.

It does little good to question a vote after the fact. Once ballots are cast in the usual way, it is impossible to know if they came from a legitimately registered voter or a fraudulent one. 

Another idea might be for emergency legislation requiring the permanent ink on the finger solution, as they did in Iraq. It wouldn't prohibit illegals from voting, but at least a person could cast only one vote.

My son informs me that idea would not work because we are too sophisticated a society and have access to solvents. (I guess I can already picture certain groups passing out little foil packets of solvent wipes to their voters.) 

What about requiring a fingerprint to vote? That wouldn't disenfranchise anyone since we all have a fingerprint. (Retailers used to require fingerprints if paying by check.) I don't like the Big-Brother-ish aspect of that idea, but voters might be hesitant to use a fraudulent registration if they knew there was a record of it.

I contacted Congressman Sensenbrenner, Senators Kohl and Feingold and the President about my concerns regarding the need for voter ID and signed up to be a poll watcher. At least I know I tried.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

The Senate bailout plan passed Tuesday night. The bill went from the 113 page house version to 450-something pages! How could the Senators even read 450 pages?

This travesty of a bailout bill epitomizes everything wrong with Washington: Dire problem...Don't fix problem...Load on the pork...Make problem worse.

What is in there? I heard some tax breaks. The oddest was for children's wooden arrow manufacturers. I call that the good part because at least it probably does not amount to much money.

This bill is probably everything Congressman Paul Ryan feared. Certainly the Senate version did not get that month long, or even a week long committee meeting process that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner wanted. Instead they rushed this pig through.

Michelle Malkin posted 3 pieces Tuesday: Kill the baliout: The vote draws near, and The Senate votes, and Read the Senate bailout bill here, which included the bill's language. They give a flavor of the night and bill. Nays include: Brownback, Bunning, Dole, DeMint, Feingold, Inhofe, Johnson, Sanders, Sessions, Shelby, to name a few. The votes are recorded at end of Malkin's The Senate votes posting. (I will have to thank Feingold, which does not happen very often.)

Correction: Hold the phone, the following did not make it into the final bill: The bill included an amendment from Senator Sanders for a 10% income tax surcharge on incomes above $500,000, $1million for couples. That will hurt some small business owners.

It goes back to the House Thursday, with a vote possibly on Friday. If you are a praying person, pray the House would have wisdom.

The most important piece, the repeal of the Community Reinvestment Act I think is still sadly lacking. Without that piece of the pie, I think we are doomed to just keep repeating the cycle.

Seems that additional 340-some pages were pure lard.

Sickening. 

We have a model that worked pretty well when the government stepped in with the Savings and Loans. Why didn't they do that?  What about the Republican model of lending institutions purchasing insurance? Another possibility comes from frugal Dave Ramsey.

Post Script bright spot: "The bill also reaffirms the Securities and Exchange Commission's authority to suspend so-called mark-to-market accounting, an issue that gained surprising traction among lawmakers looking for less costly alternatives to the Bush plan. The practice, adopted in the aftermath of the savings-and-loan collapse in the 1980s, pegs the value of assets to their current market price, rather than the price paid for them.'

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I heard both Congressmen Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner interviewed on Jay Weber's radio show this morning. (Hour 4 Part 2). Since I trust the opinion of both of these men, I was curious as to why Ryan voted YES and Sensenbrenner NO on the latest bailout bill. 

First Congressman Ryan, who does have a degree in economics. The following are some notes I took from the interview--they are not direct quotes. Listen to the podcast if you can.

Ryan said the bill yesterday was the Paulson plan with quite a bit of tweaks.

The original Paulson bill was 3 pages: Give me a blank checkbook with $700billion.

We wrote a [Republican] alternative. Ours said, Let's make the firms buy insurance.

We rewrote the bill, added stock options--warrants to taxpayers, so the taxpayer is first in line to get money back (if there are profits--that means ACORN would not be getting funding as the orig. Paulson bill stated.) Executives won't get a Golden Parachute.

This bill was $350 billion: $250b immediately and $100b later. An additional $350b would need to be voted on in the future.  

Over the weekend, credit markets went crazy. The problem is not just on Wall Street. Credit markets are shutting down. [That means cash flow for payrolls is unavailable.] There is a fear of recession.

"I'm now sincerely worried this could lead to recession."

Jay Weber: Can we move slowly or do we need to move quickly?

Ryan: Tax money goes out the door either way, this way (bailout) or from FDIC (if banks fail.) Paulson mishandled this so badly.  We added 107 pages to his bill. 

I have never seen things like this [credit freezing up]--ever. Businesses won't be able to cash flow payrolls.

Weber: There is a deep distrust of Congress.

Ryan: 2,300 calls [to my office] almost all against the bailout. [That is changing a little now.] We have to corral Wall Street so it doesn't spill to Main Street.

Weber: Why aren't Republicans hammering this?

Ryan: I am. Since 2002 I have voted against Freddie and Fannie every time.

I think Paul Ryan voted for this measure because he is genuinely worried about our economy shutting down. He knows that if businesses cannot get credit to meet their payrolls, that means workers do not get paid. With many Americans just a paycheck away from being broke, we cannot afford to let that happen. Businesses also use credit to purchase supplies and equipment for future production.

Then it was Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner's turn:

Paulson [Barney Frank] plan fatally flawed from the beginning. That money all came from taxpayers.

The word was, $700billion would not be enough.

America can't afford this. We are wealthy, but there is a limit. 

All of this is inflationary. Interest rates will shoot up. [Remember] 20% prime rates during Carter? 

We should go back to the regular order [of crafting legislation] with committee meetings, rather than Paulson saying we have to do this.

Weber: We're racing against the clock.

Sensenbrenner: When markets opened [today] they were up 200, so hopefully the markets have calmed down.

Paulson is pushing for now. It bailed out the people who caused the problem.

I'm prepared to go back when Pelosi calls us back.

This is a case of Congress serving the people. 

Weber: What angers people is Frank and Dodd in charge of the fix. Is there any mechanism to say when you failed the people, get off the committee!

Sensenbrenner: The Community Reinvestment Act was a significant factor [to what is going on.] 

The process worked yesterday. The speeches like from Pelosi need to stop. She also knew there were not the votes to pass. Why did she bring the bill to the floor? [To fix blame on the Republicans]

Weber: Would you change the Community Reinvestment Act?

Sensenbrenner: Repeal of that law should be in the new package now.

The Security and Exchange Commission dropped the ball--enforcement was not vigorous. 

The Justice Department should investigate if any fraud was committed. [Imprisonment would serve as a deterrent.]

So there you have the Yea and the Nay. Where is Solomon when you need him? 

Conservatives would hope the next version of the bailout bill would be better for taxpayers, that it keeps money from ACORN and repeals the Community Reinvestment Act. With this crew I don't have much hope.

My fear is that the next version will included ACORN funding again or worse. The Democrats will vote for it, and President Bush, who is really over a barrel here, will have to sign it.

Calls from Americans running 500 against, to 1 in favor, of the bailout might be the only thing that saving us from an UGLY pig of a bill.

Post Script: Along the lines of Sensenbrenner's request that they craft this bill carefully, 165 Economists rip bailout plan:

The economists say they are well aware of the current financial situation and agree there's a need for bold action but ask Congress "not to rush."

They urge lawmakers to hold appropriate hearings and "to carefully consider the right course of action." 

Right now the market is up 307 points from yesterday's close. You can check anytime on USAToday. (If you leave it open, it automatically refreshes.) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Remember Rep. Nancy Pelosi's Remarks Upon Becoming Speaker of the House two years ago? (Emphasis mine) 

I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship, and I look forward to working...

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Boehner, and the Republicans in the Congress, for the good of the American people.

... and the American people told us they expected us to work together for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standard and with civility and bipartisanship.

... After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go; no new deficit spending.

... Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

... My colleagues elected me to be speaker of the House. The entire House. Respectful of division of our founders, the expectations of our people and the great challenges that we face, we have an obligation to reach beyond partisanship to work for all America.

... Let us stand together to move our country forward, seeking common ground for the common good.

Did her performance yesterday live up to her promise? Blaming Bush for all of this? (There is plenty of blame to go around. If our economy is in such danger, and I think it could be, is this the time for finger pointing or "seeking common ground for the common good.")

Pelosi let 16 Democrat Congressmen in tight races off the hook--they could vote NO. Obama campaign co-chair Jessie Jackson Jr., Democrat from Illinois, voted NO.

If Speaker Nancy Pelosi was so sure this bill needed to pass, why did she poison the deal with her rant and not insist her own party support it? Was she hoping it would fail so they could get the ACORN funding back in? Who knows.

I think it all comes down to a matter of trust. Do you trust this Congress to come up with an acceptable solution?  

About this time 2 years ago, before the majority shifted to the Democrats, the Congress' approval rating was 25%. Last year it was 11%. In July it was 9%: "The overall national approval rating is at 9 percent. The first time in history that the rating has fallen to a single digit. ...So you see, history can be made. All it took was some hard work and bipartisanship."

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner said, "Now is not the time to fix the blame, it is time to fix the problem."  I pray they will be able to do just that before credit totally freezes up and businesses can't make payroll.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Remember the story about the Trojan Horse? The Greeks gave a huge horse statue to Troy. The unsuspecting Trojans brought the gift into their city. During the night, the Greek warriors inside the horse came out and took the city. Hence the saying, Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. The gift ended up being the undoing of the citizens of Troy.

Well, I am saying, Beware of Dems bearing drilling bills. It is not what it seems, in fact, it is worse than doing nothing.

On the surface, it looks like the House Democrats are concerned with high energy prices in America. In reality, this bill does very little to increase domestic oil production. I think they are only concerned with reelection. 

Considering that 90% of the oil available exists within 50 miles of the shoreline, what will allowing drilling beyond 50 miles do for us? This bill essentially bans access to 100% of the oil on the west coast, including Alaska. It is all show and no go.

This is what happened in the House. From GrasstopsUSA:

On Monday evening at 9:45pm, Pelosi dropped a 245 page bill on Congress (H.R. 6899, the so-called "Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act.").

...she effectively stifled substantive debate, by-passed the committee process, prohibited amendments and forced a vote within 24 hours! 

And on Tuesday evening, the House of Representatives passed this "sham bill" on a mostly partisan vote of 239-189! And Pelosi's bill is NOTHING BUT SMOKE AND MIRRORS and will ACTUALLY PROHIBIT DOMESTIC DRILLING, RAISE YOUR TAXES, and has a 'mother-load' of Congressional pork!

OK, right there that should tell you something. Democrats have been against drilling all along and Republicans for it.

If the majority of Democrats voted for H.R. 6899 and the Republicans didn't, doesn't that tell you something? It isn't real! 

What does this worse-than-nothing H.R. 6899 bill include? (My emphasis)

The bill would allow states to “opt-in” to drill in the Outer Continental Shelf 50 to 100 miles off of their coast, as well as explore for oil shale on federal lands. The bill excludes the eastern Gulf of Mexico as well as Georges Bank, and does not include any revenue sharing provisions for States. States therefore have little incentive to “opt-in”. It also allows for lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A), but does not include any provisions regarding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In addition, it would prohibit 48 companies from competing in future OCS oil and gas lease sales.

H.R. 6899 requires the sale of at least 20 billion barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve within sixty days of enactment. It imposes a new 15 percent renewable energy requirement on private utilities. The bill also includes several green housing initiatives for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and creates a new $2.5 billion Residential Energy Efficient Block Grant Program, as well as a $5 billion Alternative Energy Sources State Loan Fund.

H.R. 6899 extends current and creates new tax credits and other incentives with the stated goal of promoting energy efficiency and conservation. Many of the tax credits that are being extended by this bill are set to expire December 31, 2008. The bill includes $17.744 billion in tax increases on oil companies by denying them manufacturing deductions and limiting the ability of U.S. companies to utilize foreign tax credits with respect to foreign oil and gas extraction. [Tax increases will be passed onto  us.]  

The bill does not include lawsuit reform, nuclear energy, clean coal, or refinery provisions.

Guess the House Democrats did not listen to Obama's acceptance speech: "As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves [that involves drilling], invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."

So much for wanting to end America's dependence on foreign oil.

Whatever the case, a similar energy bill faces long odds in the Senate this week - potentially leaving Congress without a major legislative accomplishment on an issue of top concern to voters.

...Rep. Paul Ryan, a Janesville Republican, accused the Democrats of trying to fool voters about where they stand on drilling: "It's very clear this is written in such a way to make it look like they're in favor of drilling."

The Senate will vote on their own versions. I am not hopeful. All we can do at this point is contact our dynamic duo senators and request that they vote against this drill-nothing version and the President veto this farce.

Senator Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Senator  Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill.

President Bush  comments@whitehouse.gov.

It is pretty sad that the best we can hope for is that Congress will run out of time before they can each pass a do nothing drilling bill or for a President's veto pen. The Congress' greatest gift would be to do nothing and just let the moratorium expire. 

House Republican quotes regarding this bill:

Republican House Minority Leader, John Boehner, "It would permanently lock up 80% of our nation's offshore energy resources--holding hostage billions of barrels of American oil."

Congressman Jeb Hensarling called it, "a hoax bill that would permanently prevent exploration of nearly 90% of the Outer Continental Shelf for American energy and block energy production in arctic Alaska and the Inter-Mountain West." 

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt said, "I'm offended...And the American people should be offended that we're not doing the job for them that really matters." 

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3 or 6:30-7:30pm

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

I venture to say that every American born before 1955 remembers where they were and what they were doing the day they heard President Kennedy was shot. (I was in Jr. High science class.)

Likewise, for Americans born before 1995 or so, that morning we heard about the attacks on the Twin Towers will be forever fixed in our psyches.

We were heading back from our Way out West Yellowstone vacation--hadn't had a TV or radio on in weeks. Mt. Rushmore, South Dakota was our last stop. But as we approached the monument's parking lot, we were met by a Park Ranger, blocking the entrance. He told us to move on. That is odd, we thought. At the second parking lot we asked the Ranger at the barricade why we couldn't park, since Mt. Rushmore is always open.

I will never forget his reply. We are closed because of the terrorist attacks in New York and don't know if there will be others on prominent American landmarks. (Mr. Rushmore was considered a possible target.)

What?

We could see he was not in the mood to chat, so we drove on and quickly turned on the radio. Unbelievable. We listened, but could not process what was transpiring on the east coast. It was very surreal--especially because we were far from home. 

After topping off our gas tank and visiting the ATM we talked about what we should do. Go home? Stay put? We opted for staying in South Dakota. Plus, if things really went crazy, we figured better to be in a hotel than stranded on the road.

Numb, we muddled through the day, visiting Custer State Park, with the car radio on.

Our son was 12 years old at the time. My husband and I yearned to tell him everything would be alright. But in all honesty, we couldn't. We just did not know what lay ahead. The only thing we could assure was that it was in God's hands: 2 Chronicles 32:8 came to mind.

"With him is only an arm of flesh, but with us is the LORD our God to help us and to fight our battles."

We were all Christians, ready to meet our God. If He chose to protect us, great. If not, so be it. 

Our nation held its collective breath, waiting for something else to happen after those first 4 plane crashes. Thank God, it didn't.

After a few days, we started our trek home. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, we saw "God Bless America" signs pop up everywhere--from gas stations, to fast food restaurants, to city hall marquis. People instinctively knew we needed divine intervention.

I really thought we could be in for a string of attacks. That life in America would come to resemble life in Israel, where attacks and explosions are commonplace.

But amazingly, we have been incident free. I attribute our safety to 2 things: God's grace and President Bush. Whatever you may think about the Bush administration, it is quite remarkable that we have not suffered another attack. It certainly isn't because the terrorists have forgotten about us.

"America! America!
God shed His grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!"

I visited Fairly Conservative after writing this, H/T for article to THE Right Side of Wisconsin 

PS Just got in from putting our flag out. (Hadn't had it out for a long time...) Remember to fly it at half staff today, and don't forget to pray for our nation, leaders, and families that lost loved ones. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

I am happy to report that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner will continue serving in the United States House of Representatives. He won with 36,665 votes to Jim Burkee's 10,080.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

I don't know that many people are even thinking about voting today, but Tuesday, Sept. 9th is the primary election for the Nov. 4th election. As usual, we will go vote. (One of the joys of having an adult child is that our household vote total now is 3!)

Don't assume that this election does not matter. There are primary challengers to Congressman Sensenbrenner, Register of Deeds, and Assembly, depending on your district. 

We all vote on United States Congressman in our area. You would think Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner would be running unopposed, but "Republican" Jim Burkee is challenging him for the job.

I don't even have to wonder about which one to support--Burkee's Journal Sentinel endorsement along with the Shepherd Express' tells me all I need to know. (The Journal also endorsed Sensenbrenner's opponent Bryan Kennedy 2 years ago.)

I will cast my vote of support for Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, because he has been a steadfast supporter of fiscal and social conservative values. I do contact Congressman Sensenbrenner fairly often about legislation.

I live in State Assembly district 14--east Brookfield, West Allis, etc. Here is my sample ballot. 

Leah Vukmir is my 14th Assembly Representative. She gets my enthusiastic support too for being a champion for taxpayers and conservative values. Leah will be challenged by Democrat David Hucke in November.

If you live in State Assembly district 98--west Brookfield and Pewaukee area--this is your ballot. 

Rich Zipperer, Republican 98th Assemblyman, will be challenged by Democrat Victor Weers this November. If I lived in the 98th, I would wholeheartedly support Zipperer. He too is a strong conservative voice in Madison.

State Assembly district 24 is to our immediate north--Menomonee Falls, Germantown, etc.--here is their ballot. 

The 24th district will be choosing their Republican Assembly candidate from a field of 4 contenders (listed in order on the ballot): Michael Moscicke, Randall Ryan Melchert, Jason Lasage, and Dan Knodl. As I have already stated, my choice would be Randall Melchert.

The Democrats are also presenting two 24th Assembly candidates: Charlene Brady and Torrey Lauer on tomorrow's ballot.

By the way, Republican 8th District State Senator Alberta Darling will be challenged in November by Democrat Sheldon Wasserman.

So go vote today!

If your district was not listed, you can find your sample ballot here. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

If the liberal media wants to know why conservatives have pretty much given up reading their papers and watching their broadcasts, this may give them some insights. From Investor's Business Daily: (My emphasis throughout)

"Iraq War: We interrupt coverage of Bristol Palin's pregnancy to announce that the U.S. has turned over control of Iraq's wild, wild west to Baghdad. Memo to Barack Obama: Soon you will have nothing left to surrender.

On Monday, while Democrats waited to see if Hurricane Gustav would be another Katrina and the GOP juggled its convention schedule, U.S. commanders formally returned responsibility for security in Iraq's Anbar province to the Iraqi Army and police. [The Iraqis have actually been in control since April.]

Maybe you missed it. The New York Times Web page had three stories on Bristol Palin. The Washington Post's online magazine, Slate, is running a "Name Bristol Palin's Baby" contest. And Us Weekly has "Babies, Lies and Scandal" on its cover.

Victory in Iraq can't compete in an environment where Bristol's boyfriend is more thoroughly investigated than Obama's lifelong association with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers.

The media prefer to ignore how wrong Obama was on the major foreign policy issue of the Bush years. He opposed the war and the surge. He supported cutting off funding. He sponsored a bill to have U.S. troops withdraw in defeat by March of this year, their sacrifice in vain. His policies would have led to a humanitarian and strategic disaster.

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence," he [Obama] said in 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse." When confronted by ABC News with the success of the surge, asking if he would have supported it knowing what he knows now, Obama's answer was "No."

Not only was Obama wrong about Iraq, but he selected a running mate who also was wrong. Remember Joe Biden's Slice and Dice solution to turn a sovereign Iraq into a sectarian sectioned country? 

I am thrilled that Iraq has made this progress, but I don't think it was due just to the increase in troops. IBD touches on this:

The extra troops allowed a take-and-hold strategy that convinced Iraqis that America wouldn't cut and run. It would later be called the "Anbar Awakening."

Sure, the extra troops helped reverse the dire situation in Iraq, 

In 2006, al-Qaida in Iraq declared Baqouba to be the capital of the Islamic State in Iraq, and said it controlled both Anbar and Diyala. In January 2007, CNN's Michael Ware described Ramadi, a city of 500,000 and Anbar's capital, as "the true al-Qaida national headquarters."

But more than that, the Surge told the Iraqis that we were committed to being there. Despite the end the war rhetoric from liberal politicians and media, the Iraqis were not in this alone.<.p>

My neighbor's son, a Marine, had been to Iraq on 2 tours. During the first tour, he said that the people were so afraid, it was palpable. He explained you could always tell when an attack or surprise bombing was going to occur because the residents would be very quiet and hide in their houses.

Since the people were usually friendly to the Americans, why wouldn't they warn them if an attack was imminent? Because they were afraid of repercussions from the terrorists. You see, they did not feel they could depend on the Americans to be there later. When you don't know who will hold the power later on, do you really want to cross them now?

The Iraqi people still remembered what happened in the first Gulf War when the Kurds in the north went out on a limb for America. After we pulled out, Sadam ruthlessly attacked them in revenge. 

But on my neighbor's 2nd tour of duty, he noticed the people were more willing to talk to the Marines. The people were more confident that America meant business and would see this through.

This phenomena was even noticeable during Brookfield's last mayoral race. Many people were for the opponent, but because of their job, city contracts, or their need to remain in favor with City Hall, they were fearful to take a bold stand against the incumbent.

People naturally like to be on the side of the winner. In Iraq however, it was a matter of life and death. 

If the Iraqi people had doubts about America's resolve to see things through, I think we can lay a good amount of that blame on the liberals and liberal media. Almost from the start they were determined to turn Iraq into a Vietnam.

Thankfully, some people, like John McCain (and others), were not about to let popular opinion sway them from what they believed was necessary.  Because of that resolve and Providence, we are edging toward victory.

"Not in our wildest dreams could we have imagined this," said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi national security adviser, who flew in from Baghdad. "Two or three years ago, had we suggested that the Iraqis could take responsibility, we would have been ridiculed, we would have been laughed at."

On Tuesday, General David Petraeus had another surprise, announcing that U.S. troops might be leaving Baghdad as early as next summer. Another defeat for the defeatists.

Is it any wonder the liberal media is ignoring this?

(AFP/Graphic)

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Oh, this is a new low (H/T Drudge): Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever today:

This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job.

Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

...Voters not affiliated with either party are the most critical of Congressional performance. Just 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings, down from 6% last month. Sixty-three percent (63%) believe Congress is doing a poor job, up from 57% last month.

Just 12% of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11% to 13% throughout 2008. The majority of voters (62%) say Congress has not passed any legislation to improve life in America.

What I find so puzzling is that according to the pundits, an increase in Congressional seats by Democrats is predicted for this November.

We are at an all time low in voter approval with the Democrats in control, but polls show Democrats are still favored? From Rasmussen:

Despite these negative attitudes towards Congress, Democrats continue to enjoy a double digit lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The Rasmussen survey hit the nail on the head,

Most voters (72%) think most members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers. Just 14% believe members are genuinely interested in helping people.

The blame can be spread over both parties, but being a conservative, I find some Republicans more tolerable. It must be very frustrating to be one of the 14%. 

I think we should just let the Congress take longer vacations. It is the only time I don't have to worry about what they are up to in Washington! If voters don't wake up soon, that may be the best solution. ; )

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.29 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: