Good stuff. Hardy's article shows very well how Obie tried to did work the system and create phony law review precedents some courts might did subsequently rely on.

...The planÂ’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

JoyceÂ’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

In 1999, midway through ObamaÂ’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 03:53 PM | Comments (43)
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:15 PM | Comments (38)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

The Obama campaign and its worshipers in the media are responding to the McCain/Palin attacks featuring Bill Ayers with two wordsÂ…Charles Keating.

For those who donÂ’t remember this very old scandal (it dates back to 1987) Charles Keating ran a savings and loan that eventually collapsed, along with many others. Keating was politically connected (though that didn't save him from going to jail) and five Senators were brought up on ethics charges for improperly pressuring regulators on his behalf.

One of them was John McCain. The other four wereÂ…Democrats.

McCain was pretty much exonerated, with the committee saying only that he exercised ‘poor judgment’ by attending a meeting with regulators. McCain was never found to have exerted any influence on behalf of Keating.

In fact, itÂ’s likely that McCain was only kept in the case because to have removed him from it would have meant only Democrats would have been involved. That's not McCain spin, that's from Bob Bennett, the SenateÂ’s own investigator and noted Democrat.

"It was clear that McCain should not have been at the table nor should Glenn," Bennett said. "I felt it was unfair for McCain to be included as part of the Keating Five." Bennett stressed that he was not speaking as part of the campaign, though he noted he also represented McCain in his recent battles with the New York Times.

No less an authority than the NY Times (safe link to the Weekly Standard) agreed. Of course, that was back in 1995 when McCain was still their favorite Republican.

I'm not saying that Keating was a good guy or that the collapse of his S&L didn't cost a lot of money, I'm just saying he and McCain don't equal Obama and the terrorist Bill "We Didn't Bomb Enough" Ayers.

Strangely, if Obama weren't such a leftist tool I’d enjoy seeing McCain getting slammed for this. After all, it was his involvement in the Keating Five that gave him such an interest in reworking the First Amendment campaign finance reform. So even though we are all paying for his ‘sins’, there are bigger fish to fry at the moment. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 02:48 PM | Comments (92)
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.

There's more wiry spin today that Obama had no idea about Bill Ayers' past, including weak smoke from David Axelrod.

Please.

Rundown here from Bob Owens, today's message being a slight rework of the "Obama was 8 years old when Bill was a-bombin and shit" and why that's total bullshit.

One wonders about the strategy. "Obama is too fucking stupid to know who this guy is?" But that's the strategy.

The narrative: Ayers is a harmless "retired hippie" and Obama is too young to have known anything about all that hippie "bombin and killin" stuff.

A video roundup here.

As a moron from Texas, I can understand why "past" associations with retired 70s radicals don't play well with my neighbor. We don't get Chicago politics all that well, but we sure as shit get it when some jerkweed stomps on the flag in a back alley (to avoid the impending "public outcry" of "hey, what the fuck, asshole?"). And that isn't buried in the past.

I am encouraged that Palin addressed it over the weekend, and I hope that's a sign we're gonna see more than what ace called cutesy internet ads, but damnit this is an issue that should resonate. I suspect many of us give it the blahs because we think it's old news.

Well, yeah, it's old (as Dave in GR might say, he might say that). But it, or at least the pertinent details of "it", is new enough to many voters. Hammer it like a Viking.

(there are no Vikings in Texas)

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 01:31 PM | Comments (31)
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

Viral attacks truth is where it's at in 2008. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:23 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 77 words, total size 2 kb.

Zombies.

Cthulhu.

Thanks to Dave in Garfield Ridge.

Posted by: Ace at 12:48 PM | Comments (17)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Link here; there may be other videos coming.

This post previewed his prepared text, but it seemed to me he was riffing a lot in the actual delivered remarks.

Oh: Courtesy of JackM., here's the Everything's Awesome blog I promised.

Posted by: Ace at 01:31 PM | Comments (188)
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

I want happy talk. Give me happy talk. Don't say anything bad about my leaders. Give me happy talk. Do not attempt to change their disastrous positions through criticisms and private lobbying. Just give me happy talk.

Happy talk.

Happy talk.

Happy talk.

Happy talk.

I need me my happy talk, 24/7, even if doing so encourages McCain in his ill-advised inertia.

Happy talk.

Happy talk.

Happy talk.

I cannot bear anything but happy talk.

Hey, buddy? I support McCain when he's right and I criticize him -- in an effort to change his behavior -- when he's wrong.

I have privately lobbied for this change for a fucking week. I have sent 15 or more emails about this. 20+ is more like it.

Friday night? When I wasn't blogging? I wasn't out. I was sending emails to the McCain camp. I spent my fucking Friday night pleading with people to change their strategy.

I put up Patterico to posting about this so I could link it. All in an effort to pressure this result, however weakly. I was doing whatever I could.

So take your Stalinist insistence on nothing but 24/7 happy talk and get the fuck off my blog. I've had it with you, and idiots like you.

I'm not letting a smile be my umbrella.

You want happy-talk? Well I fucking want to win.

So who between us is more "on the team"?

someone... wants to know if this is the right time to be "taking credit."

Well, I'm not taking credit. I had nothing to do with this. They came to this conclusion independently, I'm sure.

But I tried.

I am just sick of the constant sniping. I say Palin needs to sound more authoritative and get more comfortable with federal issues? I get sniped. Guess what-- she did need to do that. She has to do more of that.

I have kept the Fannie/Freddie thing off the blog, mostly, for a week, even as I became increasingly alarmed about this "let's not talk about it, we'll just hope it blows over" strategy. I have tried my best to keep it private.

I broke today and went public. Not to be a dick. But to ratchet up the pressure.

Well, fortunately, it seems that McCain actually made this decision this weekend. (I hope.) So my timing was off. I understand that, but also understand: I wrote that way in order to ring the alarm bells. Not to fucking tank him, for God's sake.

The fucking Happy Talk Brigades demand that any criticism -- even of the helpful variety -- is off-limits.

I've had it with the Happy Talk Brigades. I'm trying to fucking win, you dipshits are trying to lose with your unending demands that even obvious errors must be embraced as terrific because to note otherwise would be to undercut the team.

Hey, Happy Talk Babies: You tell me how to spin this as good news and I'll do so. How about that?

You want to know when we're winning and what's working and when we're losing and when things need to change?

Or do you just want to pretend that Obama having 52% on Rasmussen is cause for fucking celebration?

Fucking infants.

I'll start a new blog for you. It'll be called the Everything's Awesome blog. Instead of linking stuff with "Heh," I'll just link everything with "Awesome!" That'll be the only word that actually appears in any post -- "Awesome!"

You want to deal with the situation as it is, or deal with a make-believe pretend-situation that's prettier for you?

Everything's Awesome! So, so awesome!

Posted by: Ace at 11:14 AM | Comments (276)
Post contains 620 words, total size 4 kb.

Yes, they are now saying the CRA/Fannie/Freddie disaster was one the Democrats lobbied for, one that McCain attempted to avert in 2005, and that McCain's efforts were blocked by a party-line vote.

And that, in turn, lead to the 700 billion bailout.

"All roads lead back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

They are focusing on regulation of Fannie and Freddie -- conceding, implicitly, that sure, Republicans are generally reluctant on regulation, but not on this issue.

"This could have been averted."

Who's on?

Congressman Paul Ryan, (R -- WI)
Peter Wallison, AEI Scholar
Doug Holtz-Eakin, Senior Policy Adviser, McCain-Palin 2008

Obama's lying, McCain attempted regulation, but Obama, with his silence, abetted Chris Dodd.

Moe Lane of Red State: Will Palin be doubling McCain on these issues, or making other attacks?

(Answer: Um... unclear. She'll be drawing similar distinctions. Doesn't answer really directly.)

My Question: McCain has been reluctant to get into this issue previously. What caused the change?

Doug Holtz-Eakin, Senior Policy Adviser, I believe, answers. He disputes the premise that McCain has been reluctant to defend himself, saying the campaign has always been very clear on the roots of the crisis.

However, he then notes that Barack Obama has been lying -- or "miscaracterizing" -- McCain's and Obama's respective positions on regulating Fannie and Freddie for the past two weeks, and that it's time for McCain to set the record straight.

I throw out a follow up: Will he be as strong in the debate on this issue as you guys are being here?

The answer is a non-answer. He'll make his case to the American people, etc., and demand that Obama take a position on the issues, etc.

I have hopes.

Posted by: Ace at 10:42 AM | Comments (61)
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

Glovesare off? Maybe he just isn't going to to after him on this during the debate-- but that to me seems "gloves on". The debate is the second-to-last chance to raise these concerns with 50 million Americans at once.

Merely making tough remarks at campaign appearances isn't going to help.

But perhaps he's finally heard the alarm bells.

This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed. But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.

Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, “a good idea.” Well, Senator Obama, that “good idea” has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

To hear him talk now, youÂ’d think heÂ’d always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign. He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them. Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didnÂ’t he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He wonÂ’t tell you, but you deserve an answer.

Thanks to DrewM and Benson.

Blast: As in, getting the word out. Signaling a change.

Geraghty.

Lane.

Morrissey.

Again... Not to defend myself at McCain's expense, but.... I've been riding this pony since early last week. And when I say "riding this pony," I don't mean on the blog. I meant sending emails which frequently devolved into ALL CAPS because ALL CAPS IS HOW YOU LET SOMEONE KNOW YOU ARE GOING FUCKING MENTAL WITH THEM ALREADY.

In order to boost McCain, I'll pretend I think that this was a rope-a-dope and all scheduled.

Posted by: Ace at 10:12 AM | Comments (102)
Post contains 508 words, total size 3 kb.