That is what will resonate after people have forgotten the rest of the speech.

Yes, Sarah Palin sold the governor’s private jet. She put it on Ebay.

Awesome is made of Sarah Palin’s speech.

The crowd was electric. Sarah Palin owned it. The line about mayors are kind of like community organizers brought down the house. Her appearance on stage got over 2 minutes of standing O.

It was great. And she delivered it well despite the teleprompter breaking half way through.

Just got to watch Sarah Palin prepping her floor appearance tonight. She looks confident. It should be great.

Whoa.

What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

I’ve written before about Barack Obama’s ties to the far, far left.

In 1996, he sought the New Party endorsement. The New Party has, by 1996, become the party of Communists and other radicals. It was, for all intents and purposes, an amalgamation of CCC, CPUSA, Green, and Social-Democrat parties.

As I noted then

By 1996, the New Party had solidified its ties with ACORN, unions, and the left so much so that even the New York Times referred to it as “leftist.” Manning Marable, writing in the left-wing New York Beacon, on October 23, 1996, wrote that “there are four key components in this strategy for progressive political change.” Among those components were civil disobedience and “support for independent movements like the New Party which are running candidates in local races. More importantly an innovative approach to electoralism is represented by ACORN’s ‘living wage’ referenda campaigns.” . . . .

In These Times reported on February 17, 1997, that “the [New] [P]arty, with 80 members in the [17th] ward, many of whom are also active in the Service Employees International Union and the advocacy group ACORN, has begun to build a parallel precinct organization.”

A New Party member, writing in the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America newsletter in 1996, described the New Party as mostly made up of ACORN members. The member, Bob Roman, wrote, “As the single 800 pound gorilla in the Chicago New Party, it doesn’t leave a lot of room for newcomers to participate except on ACORN’s terms.” Obama, if you will remember, worked for ACORN and in 1996, ACORN was not organizing the community, they were getting people out to vote for Barack Obama.

It should come as no surprise then, this morning, to read this:

The latest matter involves Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign paying more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the scandal-ridden, leftist Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) for services the campaign now says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports.

The ACORN subsidiary, Citizens Services Inc., did “get-out-the-vote” work instead of the polling, advance work and major event staging the Obama campaign had first stated in its Federal Election Commission finance report during the primary

Yet again, ACORN rallies for Obama.

The man is a leftist radical with a messiah complex. If you still want to vote for him, go right ahead, but just know who you are dealing with.

Well, it looks like the Chicago Annenberg Challenge records are going to be opened up after all. No doubt the University of Illinois and Barack Obama’s campaign have sufficiently scrubbed the records to remove the most glaring of details about Barry’s friendship with Bill Ayers.

But we know there has to be some panic there. As we have theorized all along, Barry cannot take a punch.

Consider this: despite all the denials and assists from the media in downplaying the relationship, Barack Obama has resorted to a new ad making the case that he has no real relationship with Bill Ayers. This is full blown panic. He’s trying to build up a media sponsored and reported narrative before the world starts digging anew.

Unless those Annenberg records have been sufficiently scrubbed, it is terribly poor timing for Obama. It is an act of desperation. Obama knows people are now paying attention and he knows people are questioning both his ties to the far left and his judgment (Obama calls it “questioning my patriotism”).

The connections between Ayers and Obama, despite Obama’s commercial, are too intertwined to be merely bumps into each other on the sidewalk walking back from New Party meetings.

Bill Ayers helped found and fund Annenberg Challenge and Barack Obama ran the program. In addition, they live just a few blocks from each other in Hyde Park. In 1995, if you will recall, Bill Ayers invited Barack Obama into his living room to raise money for Barack’s Illinois Senate race. Remember, in 1995, Obama was aggressively seeking the communist New Party endorsement.

Ayers even gave Obama money in 2001 for his re-election. The same year, Ayers told the New York Times he didn’t “regret setting bombs.… I feel we didn’t do enough.” Obama did not give the money back.

***Here is the key detail.*** Bill Ayers, a man who thinks he should have done more than try to blow up the Capitol, the Pentagon, and kill a few cops, *saw something in Barry Obama that he liked.* He liked Barry enough to hold a fundraiser for him and give him money.

***What does an unrepentant terrorist see in a politician and like?*** Whatever it is, I suspect most Americans would not like it if they’d seen it. Maybe that is why Obama is in full panic mode, working hard to change the story and deny the facts.

An advisor to Senator McCain’s campaign tells me, “Senator Obama’s enduring friendship with bomber William Ayers brings serious questions about his judgment to the surface.”

I suspect, now that Obama has gone to great pains to deny the connection, thereby making it a story worth media coverage, we’re gong to be exploring the depths of Obama’s poor judgment.

Now that the Dem Veepstakes are resolved, on to the Republicans. Here’s what I can tell you.

1. Joe Lieberman’s (I-CN) star has burned out on the veep spot. I’m told McCain very much wanted Lieberman, but the campaign has heard from enough people to know it won’t happen. Expect Lieberman to be a member of the Cabinet, letting Republican Governor Jodi Rell appoint his successor.

2. Mitt Romney’s star has dimmed with Joe Biden’s pick. I’m told that a Romney pick, though still on the table, would take off the table a lot of attacks the McCain camp could use against Obama via Joe Biden’s words. Were Romney the pick, the Obama camp would do the same, throwing McCain and Romney’s attacks back at each other. Likewise, I’m told a few higher ups perceive the latest buzz about Romney is being generated by Romney supporters and not by the McCain team.

3. Still shining brightly is TIm Pawlenty. Biden was a necessary pick to bolster Obama’s inexperience and potentially, though unlikely, help in Pennsylvania. A Pawlenty pick would neutralize the Biden “blue collar” story and put Minnesota and, potentially, Wisconsin in play.

4. Wild cards are still out there but one card is absolutely off the table. Don’t expect Bobby Jindal to be McCain’s running mate.

5. Two states are quietly seizing on the disarray with the Nevada delegation. I’m told quite reliably that if McCain picks a liberal Vice Presidential nominee the majority of delegates in two states plan to force a vote on the convention floor. From how it was explained to me, five states must support a motion to vote on the nominee. Two states just might do it and they are calculating on Nevada going along with it, which would necessitate only two other states needed.

One note about the convention in general:

Die hard fiscal cons and social cons are both privately grumbling about the line up of speakers. One person told me, “That’s a lot of squishiness on the platform. Take out the people like the President, Vice President, Romney, and Jindal that they *had* to put up there and you aren’t left with much of a conservative speaker line up.”

See it here.

I’ll be on tonight between 9:00 and 9:30 p.m.

Editorial Note: People forget this issue came up more than once in Illinois. In 2001, Obama was concerned about abortion rights and the impact the Born Alive Infant Protection Act would have on abortion rights. In 2002, those concerns were addressed and fixed in the legislation. Now Obama’s concerns were more clear. His views on life had no where else to hide.

———

What has Barack Obama said about his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act?

Obama has made several points, which we should recount.

First, Obama claimed doctors must render the care away. As David Freddosso has regularly pointed out, that was not true.

In fact, the Illinois Attorney General determined that doctors were under no such obligation when a child, born alive, had been intended to be aborted. Doctors only had the obligation to give life sustaining treatment when **it was intended** that the child be born alive.

Obama, then claimed his concern related to there being no language protecting Roe v. Wade in the legislation. He told the Chicago Tribune as much in October of 2004. In fact, that has been his story the whole time.

This week, the story changed. This week, NRLC proved conclusively that the legislation did, in fact, protect Roe v. Wade.

Obama has now changed his story yet again. Now he says that, regardless of whether the statute protected Roe v. Wade based on its language, “even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law.”

But what did Obama say back then? What was Obama’s excuse back in 2002? What were his words on the floor of the State Senate. Senator Obama was the only person to speak out in opposition of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

What did he say?

I’ve got the transcript. I’ve got Senator Obama’s own words.

Here is what you need to know.

(more…)

Eat it, WalMart hater.

This reminds me of a case I had. My client wanted to change the zoning on a plot of land to allow for higher housing density. All the people around the land opposed him. He lost.

So he turned it over to a trailer park. Trailer parks were an exception to the density requirements. Now there are more trailers on the land than there would have been houses.