Palin Exonerated But Mind Controlled Press Won't Believe IT

Investigator Stephen Branchflower:

"Today's report showed that the governor acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan," Meg Stapleton, a spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign, said in a written statement.

Stapleton added that the panel's report shows that the inquiry was partisan and that Palin and her husband, Todd Palin, were "completely justified in their concern regarding Trooper Wooten, given his violent and rogue behavior."

Panel: Obama Abused His Power in Almost Everything He Does

Investigators, who drafted thousands of bipartisan panel reports, found Obama in violation of a national ethics laws that prohibits public officials from using their office for personal gain.

OBAMA'S "BAD ECONOMY": Obama Pays $961,000 For Half-Hour Ad...

Barrack Obama Too Risky For America

Could 2008 Be a McCain Landslide?

Pollster: Don’t believe the Dem hype

The presidential race is still too close to call and could come down to the very last weekend before voters decide if they like or distrust Barack Obama, a national pollster predicts.

Understanding Neo-Communism…

"Why would it be important for today’s people to be reintroduced to Communism? The answer for today’s election cycle is extremely important because of the candidates that are running and the vastly different ideologies involved. Democrats and their philosophy of government, what it does, and how it should relate to people has much in agreement to the Communist ideal. And, when you have a candidate like Barack Obama that admits he has been heavily influenced by those Communist mentors such as radical Frank Marshall Davis, “Weatherman” William Ayers, and Marilyn “SDS” Katz, who “serves on his national finance committee,” that adhere to these ideals it becomes very important for the reader to understand what Communism is all"

Americans for Tax Reform: Obama Admits His Tax Hikes Would Harm Economic Growth

In a reversal, Obama now admits his tax hike plan has consequences

Last update: 5:30 a.m. EDT Sept. 9, 2008

WASHINGTON, Sept 09, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- In a stunning reversal, Barack Obama has finally admitted his proposed tax increases will cause harm to the economy.

During an interview shown on ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos asked Obama if he would still enact tax increases if there was a recession upon taking office.

Obama replied: "I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now. The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile." (Video clip available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7fSZiZG91o)

Obama's admission stands in stark contrast to his previous statements denying that his tax increase proposals would change behavior or damage the economy.

For example, during a March 27 interview on CNBC's Closing Bell, Obama said "I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent. If it-and if it-you know-when I talk to people like Warren Buffet or others and I ask them, you know, what's-how much of a difference is it going to be if it's 20 or 25 percent, they say, look, if it's within that range it's not going to distort, I think, economic decision making." (Video clip available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNLvgFh16xw)

"Obama knows his tax plan will hurt the economy," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "The only question he has is whether to raise taxes now or later."

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all federal, state and local tax increases.

SOURCE Americans for Tax Reform

What Obama doesn't want you to know

Some examples of Obama's extremism in the Illinois Senate, as provided by The Washington Times :

- Obama was the only senator not to support a bill "to report suspected child abuse while protecting the identity of the facility or person providing the information." The bill passed 54-0-1 -- the one being Obama, who voted "present." It passed the Illinois House 117-0.

- Obama voted present "on a bill in committee requiring criminals to serve consecutive sentences for separate crimes involving convictions for severe bodily harm or sexual assault, but didn't vote at all when the measure came to the floor." The bill passed the Senate 54-0 and the House 118-0.

- Obama voted present on a bill "making it harder for abusive and neglectful parents to regain custody of their children." The Senate vote was 57-0-1, with the lone wolf being Obama.

- Obama skipped a vote on a bill "to prohibit convicted sex offenders from serving on school boards." It passed without him, 58-0 in the Senate and 106-0 in the House.

The Obama Ayers Press Log

September 02, 2008

Annenberg, Ayers And Obama In The Weekend News

Barack Obama, unrepentant Weatherman Bill Ayers, and their link through their years of effort together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was in the news over the weekend.

First, the beginning of the Long Walkback was noted by Steve Diamond (Dean of the Annenberg story):

Perhaps realizing that there is no hope on the Ayers issue, the Obama campaign began its strategic retreat today. They trotted out a local ally in the Chicago school wars, Linda Lenz, to begin the effort. Her job: admit finally that, in fact, there was some kind of relationship between Ayers and Obama after all but "it ain't no big thang."

And over to Ms. Lenz herself:, who relies on the fact that Bill Ayers has been mainstreamed back into Chicago civic life:

In other words, Obama does, indeed, know Bill Ayers as more than just a guy from the neighborhood. So do a host of civic leaders in Chicago. For example, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge board included Susan Crown of the General Dynamics Corp. family; Patricia Graham, former dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and Arnold Weber, past president of Northwestern University and of the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago. Indeed, just about everyone active in Chicago school reform in the early days saw Ayers as a colleague. No one ever accused them of being radical because of their association with Bill Ayers.

Whatever one thinks of Ayers’ actions 40 years ago, there is nothing to condemn, and much to admire, about his leadership and commitment over the past 20 years in making schools better places to teach and learn. And there is nothing to condemn, and much to applaud, in Obama’s close association with those efforts.

Well, fine - we eagerly await the day when Obama steps forward and expresses pride in his long, failed association with Bill Ayers as they worked together on public school reform. Meanwhile we continue to wonder - if Obama is so proud of this, why the cover-up?

Clarice Feldman of The American Thinker notes the commencement of the walkback and awaits Obama's arrival at the reparations trap.

Up in Minnesota the Post-Bulletin highlights the media infatuation with Obama and passes this along to their readers:

Or consider Obama's association with Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, members of the notorious Weather Underground. The Ayerses bombed the Pentagon during the turbulent '60s and are unrepentant about this terrorist past.

Obama launched his political career at their home, and served as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation Ayers founded. But major media have been almost completely uninterested in the story.

Imagine if John McCain had a similar relationship with a right-wing militia leader who had bombed a federal building.

Down Georgia way the Augusta Chronicle tells us "What Obama Doesn't Want You To Know", with highlights of his liberal voting record and this about Ayers:

Meanwhile, as stories come out about his having learned at the feet of socialists and even a communist, Obama has tried to downplay his connections to admitted domestic terrorist William Ayers ('a guy who lives in my neighborhood,' Obama said in a primary debate). But in papers from Ayers' "Chicago Annenberg Challenge" released just this past week after a long battle, it appears the association between Obama and Ayers was much deeper. Obama served on the organization's board for years, for a time as chairman. And Ayers hosted Obama's first campaign fund-raiser.

"They in fact were partners in various entities and regularly exchanged ideas," writes Investor's Business Daily , "including on how to turn Chicago schools into re-education camps to create a generation of social revolutionaries."

Obama isn't just ignoring or running from his past. He's actively trying to cover over it: His campaign has threatened TV stations with their broadcast licenses for running ads noting Obama's link to Ayers.

In Utah the Daily Herald focuses on Ayers in "The company Obama keeps":

Since [Obama] has done so little, we can't very well judge him by his deeds.

National leaders must convey a sense of who they are and what they believe. Think of Ronald Reagan or Harry Truman, for example. But that's where Obama fails. And that's why his friendships and associations are so important and why his association with William Ayers is so troubling.

...

Obama and Ayers attended the same board meetings, retreats and at least one press conference, and met and talked often from 1995-2001. And the 132 boxes of Annenberg papers may yet yield more information.

It's no wonder that Obama's campaign tried to block release of the papers by the library, and has tried to censor ads about the Ayers-Obama relationship.

How could a man who wants to be president work so closely with an unrepentant terrorist? We know how a Harry Truman or a Ronald Reagan would react to a former leader of a group who took the side of America's enemies, and who boasts even now of doing so.

Michael Barone tells us that "Three ghosts haunt Barack": Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and the Born Alive abortion bill.

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal wants Obama to come clean on the Three Horseman of the Obamalypse:

Obama Should Come Clean On Ayers, Rezko And the Iraqi Billionaire

And finally, here is some coverage of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in the NY Times...

Psych! They still have not mentioned the Chicago Annenberg Challenge by name in a story although they braced their readers for shocks to come with this from Jim Rutenberg on August 27:

The fight may move to another front this week.

The University of Illinois at Chicago is in the process or releasing documents detailing Mr. Obama’s involvement with a non-profit education project started by Mr. Ayers.

All the news that's fit to print! The Times also has provided one bit of blog coverage at the Opinionator.

The Obama Ayers Relationship

Obama-Ayers: Chicago Schools Failed Under Ethnic Identity Agenda

Obama's LAUNDRY LIST OF LIES

OBAMA ELECTIONEERING AT TAX EXEMPT MOSQUES: POLITICAL ISLAM AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE

Is John McCain a Crook?

Obama's best defense against Bill Ayers: the Keating Five explained.

Iowahawk: It Takes a Village of the Damned

Obama's Jedi Mind Tricks

Why the Bailout Solves Nothing

By Chuck Saletta

The votes are in. The ink from the president's signature has dried. The massive bailout bill is now the law of the land. Congratulations -- you've just been sold an extremely expensive pig in a poke that you'll be paying for throughout the rest of your life.

If this ill-conceived, hastily passed, and pork-laden disaster had even a remote chance of helping the economy and credit market recover, it'd be one thing. But it doesn't, and in many cases, it will simply make things worse.

Hyperinflation or further slowdown?
The bailout itself has an estimated price tag in the neighborhood of $700 billion. To pick up that tab, the government can either print money or borrow it. If it runs the printing presses to create that cash, we run the risk of turning into the world's next Zimbabwe. If, on the other hand, the government borrows that cash, it'll learn a very painful lesson in the law of supply and demand.

While the government can certainly raise $700 billion in the debt market, the money to buy that debt has to come from somewhere. That somewhere will very likely be cash that investors could otherwise have used to finance productive, private-sector companies looking to help grow the economy. As a result, borrowing costs for companies other than the politically privileged recipients of the bailout cash will likely rise as they have to pay more interest to attract investors. That doesn't exactly spur economic growth.

Pretty much since Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's first round of panicked rate cuts in January, cheap and plentiful federal cash has resulted in higher borrowing costs for businesses. This round won't be any different. Government investments in commercial affairs have the tendency to crowd out private capital.

You saw it happen with the extension of Bernanke's "Primary Dealer Credit Facility." With that program, the Fed essentially opened its lending window to brokers like Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER), and Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS). Once they got hooked on that virtually unlimited source of cheap federal cash, there was no turning back. We all know how that saga ended. And thanks to the $700 billion worth of government ammunition now aimed at the private sector, it'll probably happen again, on an even bigger scale.

Digging a deeper hole
Add to that mess the "sweetener" provision of the bailout that increases the FDIC insurance limit to $250,000 from $100,000. On the surface, that seems like a smart way to entice people to keep more cash in what might otherwise be struggling banks. Unfortunately, however, the FDIC is already quite strapped for cash. To preserve what little capital it has, in fact, the FDIC is willing to jeopardize the very fabric of the capital market when it takes over larger banks.

Even when it doesn't actively attack the financial system, that agency has proved itself to be a terrible negotiator. The plan it brokered with Citigroup (NYSE: C) to take over Wachovia's (NYSE: WB) banking operations, for instance, left significant value on the table. Until Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) stepped in and offered a far better deal, it looked like Wachovia would've been the next bank hastily sold off to protect the FDIC's dwindling assets.

With the FDIC now on the hook for significantly more cash in any given bank failure, it'll likely have to raise the premiums it charges for that insurance. Of course, with so many banks already teetering on the edge, those additional mandatory charges won't exactly help them stay solvent. At this point, though, what are a few more bank failures or forced bargain-basement sales among friends?

The infinite moral hazard
Perhaps most worryingly of all, however, is what the bailout is intended to do. It's intended to hand over cash to banks that overleveraged themselves and gorged on toxic derivatives of risky mortgages back when that superficially looked like a profitable business model. Why anyone would want to reward such ill-conceived behavior with taxpayer money and thus encourage more of it in the future is beyond rational comprehension.

Seriously, for around three years, there has been plenty of evidence that the housing market that underpinned those derivatives was a bubble at risk of bursting. Any investment or commercial banker who ignored that data has no business running anyone else's money, much less receiving a windfall from taxpayers. It would have been better to let those disasters fail and fill the gaps they left behind with more intelligently managed banks like BB&T (NYSE: BBT) that largely avoided this mess.

Instead, we're now paying through the nose to subsidize failure and make life tougher for all who followed the rules. This situation won't end well, and by design, the bailout only makes things worse.

My Country ‘Tis NOT of Thee Anymore….

Congressional “Leaders” like Harry Reid, Christopher Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Chuck Schumer and other assorted CRIMINALS are disregarding the overwhelming ‘Will of the People’ and pursuing a course of action according to their own personal agendas and objectives.

Even the two favored Job Applicants, John McCain and Barack Hussein Obama are calling for quick movement to pass legislation to “resolve the Nation’s economic ‘crisis’”.

President George W. Bush, along with Treasury Secretary (and former Goldman Sachs CEO) Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, have been demanding that we, the American people, bail out Wall Street’s poor judgment and risk-taking, to the tune of $700 billion.

SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS. That’s a lot of money, folks. Close to ten thousand dollars per American household, by averages. Now, be honest with yourself: When was the last time the U.S. Government gave us an honest price tag for anything?

This legislation, which the United States Congress has not even DISCLOSED to the American public, will likely end up costing U.S. Taxpayers TENS OF TRILLIONS of dollars.

Our Financial System isn’t ALL that’s BROKEN

Think about this for a moment, dear reader….

• We elect Senators and Representatives to, well, REPRESENT us in Congress. Voters elect people to these positions based on who the majority believe will best serve the interests of their State’s citizens. To enact the ‘Will of the People’, if you, uh, will.
• These elected officials are then supposed to go to work every day, making decisions and voting for legislation based on what their constituents (that’s you and me) want to have happen in Congress.
• Despite HUGE evidence that most Americans do NOT want taxpayer money being spent on the greed, corruption, and criminal activity of bankers, lenders, brokers and other Wall Street moguls, they are ALL determined to pass some sort of legislation to ‘rescue’ these firms from financial ruin.

This isn’t new. If you take the time to watch what happens in Congress every single day, you’ll see that these people serve their Corporate masters and not the American People. It’s just not something that’s pointed out directly in your face on the nightly news.

Your Opinion is Worthless

Failure to execute the will of the voters is equal to failing to do the job for which they were hired. When you and I engage in this kind of behavior, we’re fired. Out of work. Jobless. When these criminal politicians ignore the voice of the American public and do what they’re told by the highest campaign contributors, we simply smile and re-elect them. In a sense, we’re getting the corruption we deserve.

Right now, most of you are even determined to vote for either John McCain or Barack Hussein Obama when BOTH of these elitist criminals are planning to vote in direct contradiction to the desires of you, the voters. And yet on November 4th, you’re going to cast your vote for one of them anyway. They make eloquent speeches, talk about huge ‘change’ in Washington, but here in the next few days they’re going to send you a very clear signal:

“We don’t care about anything but getting elected, and once we’re elected we’re going to do what we damned well want to do. The only thing significant to me about you, John Q. Public, is your vote. Once we have that, all we want from you is your tax dollars. Your opinions do not matter to us, at all.”

Read on...

Bailout Bill: The Biggest Pork Ever

Bailout type	Cost to taxpayers (Source: Reuters)
Financial bailout package approved this week	up to or more than $700 billion
Bear Stearns financing	$29 billion
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nationalization	$200 billion
AIG loan and nationalization	$85 billion
Federal Housing Administration housing rescue bill	$300 billion
Mortgage community grants	$4 billion
JPMorgan Chase repayments	$87 billion
Loans to banks via Fed's Term Auction Facility	$200 billion+
Loans from Depression-era Exchange Stabilization Fund	$50 billion
Purchases of mortgage securities by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac	$144 billion
POSSIBLE TOTAL	$1.8 trillion+
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS PER U.S. CENSUS	105,480,101
POSSIBLE COST PER HOUSEHOLD	$17,064+