Barack Obama Truth Squads To 'Target' Opposition Voices

This post harks back to one of my earlier postings about Obama's attempt at trampling Free Speech. This one too.

One of the hallmarks of a socialist agenda is control of information. The Nazis did it back in the 1930's, the Communists have done it since the 1917 October Revolution. And now, Barack Obama is bringing that type of censorship here to the shores of America.

The big story out of Missouri is that Barack Obama has begun enlisting law enforcement personnel in targetting those who may oppose his candidacy and working to silence their criticisms of him and his socialist policies. This does not bode well for the Republic. Nothing good can come from anyone in any position of power who attempts to silence dissent either by force, or the threat of force.

According to KMOW News in St. Louis:

Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign has asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad during the presidential campaign.

Those were the exact words. They want to "target" anyone who has an opposing viewpoint to Brack Obama.

But, these self-appointed "truth-squaders" are extremely partisan in their selection of what the truth is. For example, the Obama campaign ran an ad stating that John McCain was against all stem-cell research. This is a blatant lie as John McCain has expressed support for adult stem-cell research.

Or how about all the lies the Democrats put out about Gov. Sarah Palin? When the Dems spread the lie that trig was really britol's baby? Where was the truth-squad then? When the Dems spead the lie that Gov. Palin wanted to ban books? Where was the truth-squad then?

Apparently, the Obama truth-squaders are perfectly okay with Dems telling lies.

Gov. Matt Blunt of Missouri released a statement about the situation:

What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment. This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson's thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election. Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.

You can read more about this story at the following links:

Gov. Blunt Statement On Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use Of Missouri Law Enforcement
Gov. Matt Blunt
Missouri Governor Website
September 27, 2008

Missouri Sheriffs' And Prosecutors' Obama 'Truth Squad' Getting Old Media Silence
Tom Blumer
NewsBusters
September 29, 2008

St. Louis Prosector Who Joined Obama 'Truth Squad' Pleads Innocent
Rick Moran
American Thinker
September 29, 2008

Obama’s Missouri Goon Squad Plays The Victim
Michelle Malkin
MichelleMalkin.com
September 29, 2008

Divest From The Failures And America's New Credo: Qua Mei? (Where's Mine?)

It's going to happen. Wall Street is going to get bailed out at a cost of $700 billion to the taxpayer. It makes me sick to think that Congress, with their ultra-low approval rating, is going to saddle more bills on us and that those bills are going to be passed along to our children and grandchildren.

Well, we voted for change in 2006 when the Democrats took over and now we are really getting that change. It just isn't the change that the Dems promised us.

On the way into work today, I heard a caller on a morning talk show suggest something that we should all look into. He offered that we should all pull whatever money we have out of the banks being bailed out and invest it instead in a bank or institution that operates on more sensible business practices. That sounds like a very good idea. We need a list of all the banks that will be partaking of this bailout so that we'll know which ones to pull our money out of.

You may ask: "Why pull your money out if they are getting bailed out?" Because they will get right back into the same trouble as they will continue to operate under the same bad business principles that got them here in the first place. Remember the Chryler bailout back in the early 80's? I do.

Here are some that I know of:

• American International Group (AIG)


• Goldman Sachs Group Inc.


• Merrill Lynch & Co.


• Deutsche Bank AG


• Morgan Stanley

We, as a people, should not in the least bit tolerate having these institutions around if they are simply going to suck money out of us every ten or fifteen years. Since the government won't get rid of them, we need to do something.

I have already called my investment broker and asked him to look into which of my investments are held by the above institutions. When he finds them, he will pull me out of them and reinvest the money more sensible institutions.

I recommend that you all do the same.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, let me share with you some more reasons why we should divest from these failing lenders.

D.F. Krause from North Star Writer's Group has penned an open letter to Congress in which he asks "Where's mine?" Along the way, he notes some of the more ludicrous bailouts that are taking place with Congressional support.

From his column:

I also see that Congress wants to loan $25 billion to the Big Three automakers. Gosh, why don’t they just borrow the money from banks? Oh. Right. I forgot. Their credit ratings are garbage and no bank in its right mind would loan them money – especially when they’re so busy doing all these subprime mortgage deals! I guess banks aren’t very smart, but even they know better than to loan money to GM, Ford and Chrysler.

The only time I ever hear the words "bank" and "smart" in the same sentence is when the banks are being criticized, and rightly so.

Remember when you bailed out Chrysler 30 years ago? Now they want money again. What a surprise! And how did they talk you into that one? By promising that at least this time they won’t bring Lee Iacocca with them?

That line may have been written sarcastically, but it is absolutely true. Bailing out businesses that practice bad habits will lead to more bailouts in the future. Those businesses should have been allowed to fail.

Wall Street invested billions in bad mortgages. GM, Ford and Chrysler wasted billions and made crappy cars no one wants.

Where does it all end? Right at the foot of the American taxpayer.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Qua Mei? America’s New Credo: ‘Where’s Mine?’
D.F. Krause
North Star Writer's Group
September 29, 2008

Iraq Veteran Produces YouTube Video Endorsement For John McCain

Check out the following video from YouTube:

Iraq Veteran Endorses John McCain

Be sure to send this link to everyone you know.

'Crony' Capitalism Is Root Cause Of Fannie And Freddie Troubles: Democrats At The Center Of It All

Terry Jones at the Investor's Business Daily has a nice, clean, concise and accurate description of what happneed at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and why we taxpayers are being cajoled into paying for it.

The truth is that depspite the shrill calls from Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank that it is "all the Republicans fault," it has been the Democrats at the center of the maelstrom. It was the Democrats who, at least twelve times, derailed Republican efforts at reforming Freddie and Fannie and as we showed in a previous blog post, Barney Frank was one of those opposed that reform very ferociously.

So, why did the Dems opposed the reform of Freddie and Fannie? Money. That's it. That's the whole reason.

Here is the history in a nutshell:

It all started, innocently enough, in 1994 with President Clinton's rewrite of the Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act. Ostensibly intended to help deserving minority families afford homes — a noble idea — it instead led to a reckless surge in mortgage lending that has pushed our financial system to the brink of chaos. ... Fannie and Freddie, the main vehicle for Clinton's multicultural housing policy, drove the explosion of the subprime housing market by buying up literally hundreds of billions of dollars in substandard loans — funding loans that ordinarily wouldn't have been made based on such time-honored notions as putting money down, having sufficient income, and maintaining a payment record indicating creditworthiness. With all the old rules out the window, Fannie and Freddie gobbled up the market. Using extraordinary leverage, they eventually controlled 90% of the secondary market mortgages. Their total portfolio of loans topped $5.4 trillion — half of all U.S. mortgage lending. They borrowed $1.5 trillion from U.S. capital markets with — wink, wink — an "implicit" government guarantee of the debts. This created the problem we are having today. As we noted a week ago, subprime lending surged from around $35 billion in 1994 to nearly $1 trillion last year — for total growth of 2,757% as of last year. No real market grows that fast for that long without being fixed.

And the part about money for the Dems? Read on:

Fannie and Freddie became huge contributors to Congress, spending millions to influence votes. As we've noted here before, the bulk of the money went to Democrats. ... Meanwhile, Fannie and Freddie also became a kind of jobs program for out-of-work Democrats. Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, the CEOs under whom the worst excesses took place in the late 1990s to mid-2000s, were both high-placed Democratic operatives and advisers to presidential candidate Barack Obama. Clinton administration official Jamie Gorelick also got taken care of by the Fannie-Freddie circle. So did top Clinton aide Rahm Emanuel, among others.

And yet, despite the fact that the Dems are in the middle of this whole fiasco, Obama, Dodd and Frank are insistent that it is a Republican problem. Unfortunately, their surrogates in the media are spreading this misleading (or outright false) message.

But, do you remember all those campaign ads by Barack Obama about how their were lobbyists on John McCain's staff? Well, Obama should change his campaign slogan of "Change we can believe in" to "Hypocrisy for our own cause." Here is how Obama deals with those lobbyists:

Over the span of his career, Obama ranks No. 2 in campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie, taking over $125,000. Dodd, head of the Senate Banking panel, is tops at $165,000. Clinton, ranked 12th, has collected $75,000. ... It emerged that Clinton aide Raines, who took Fannie Mae's helm as CEO in 1999, took in nearly $100 million by the time he left in 2005. Others, including former Clinton Justice Department official Gorelick, took $75 million from the Fannie-Freddie piggy bank.

Today, Raines is a top advisor for the Obama campaign.

So, the next time somone accuses the Republicans of this Freddie and Fannie mess, ask the accuser what happened to all the money that the Dems made off of Freddie and Fannie and ask when was the last time the Dems tried to reform them.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

'Crony' Capitalism Is Root Cause Of Fannie And Freddie Troubles
Terry Jones
Investor's Business Daily
September 22, 2008

Modern Day Hitler Addresses The United Nations, Recieves Applause And A Hug

So, what type of person would Barack Obama sit down and negotiate with without preconditions? The Jew-hating President of Iran, that's who.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations this past week and said what pretty much everyone thought he was going to say. The only two nations to stand up in protest were the United States and Israel.

So, what did he say? Eve Epstein has the following from National Review:

Ahmadinejad has revealed his agenda. He is not just against Israel. He is against the Jewish community in its entirety. This was made plain by the dastardly speech delivered by the Iranian strong man from the platform of the General Assembly earlier this week. The text came straight from Joseph Goebbels. ... Amadinejad announced that the Wall Street financial crisis was the fault of the Jews. Jews, writ large. True, he spoke of “Zionists.” True, most Jews are, indeed, supporters of the state of Israel. But he attacked the Jewish community around the world for crimes they were said to have committed, with no relation to Israel. He is rebranding a real and full-throated antisemitism. The nightmare sketched by Philip Roth, in his novel about the possible revival of the real thing, has come out from under the bed. Listen to the Iranian president in his own voice of malevolence — citing the “deceitful, complex and furtive manner” of people who live as Jews. The Jews control the media. The Jews control financial centers. The Jews force politicians to hearken to their interests. The Jews are an “acquisitive and invasive people.” We have heard that voice before, and it did not end well.

No, it did not. What is even more distressing is that our supposed "allies," the same nations who helped us bring down Nazi Germany, didn't make one little peep of protest. Not Great Britain, not France, no one.

And after Amadinejad finished giving the U.N. his reasons for hating the Jews, what did the U.N. do? They applauded him. Not only that, but the President of the General Assembly embraced the Iranian President after conculding the anti-Semitic remarks.

This is why we need to get the U.S. out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the U.S.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Where’s The Outrage, Turtle Bay?
Eve Epstein
National Review
September 25, 2008

The Wall Street Bailout: Congress Agrees To Screw The American Taxpayer

Well, they're going to do it. Despite the fact that the vast majority of America is against it, Congress and President Bush have reached an agreement that will bailout the floundering S&L's which got themselves into their own mess and are now holding their hands out to the American taxpayer for relief.

In short, this bailout means that while the taxpayer is getting screwed, the ones who caused this problem will be getting kissed.

Even the members of Congress don't fully understand all the provisions of this legislation. There are so many things that can go wrong with it that no one in their right mind would ever vote for it. Robert J. Samuelson over at NewsWeek made some intitial observations:

Under Paulson's proposal, the Treasury could buy distressed mortgage-backed securities. Consider a batch of hypothetical securities originally worth $100 million and paying an interest rate of 6 percent. They're no longer worth $100 million because half of the homeowners have stopped making their monthly payments. Suppose, then, that the government buys the mortgages for $50 million. It earns 6 percent on its $50 million, and if it borrowed money at 4 percent to buy the securities, it would make a tidy profit. If the government holds the securities until maturity and all the remaining homeowners repay their mortgages, the government would come out ahead.

Read that last sentence very carefully. "If the government holds the securities until maturity and all the remaining homeowners repay their mortgages ..."

How many of you reading this blog believe that all of those homeowners will repay their mortgages? How many of you believe that even half of those homeowners will repay their mortgages? For those homeowners who fail to repay, who do you think is going to pay?

If you said, "The American taxpayer," then you are absolutely correct.

Here are a few more variables that no one in their right mind would predict for the better:

First, we don't know what price the government would pay for the mortgage-backed securities. There are conflicting goals. On the one hand, the government wants to minimize the bailout's costs to taxpayers; that would favor paying the lowest possible price. In my example, the profit would be greater if the government paid only $40 million. On the other hand, the whole idea of the bailout is to help banks and other financial institutions get rid of risky assets and replace them with cash that would encourage a resumption of normal lending and investing. That favors a higher price. If the government paid $80 million instead of $40 million, say, it would lose money. Second, we don't know how a weakening economy will affect future mortgage repayments. The worse the economy gets, the more homeowners will default. At the end of June, about 2.75 percent of home mortgages were in foreclosure, and an additional 6.4 percent were at least 30 days behind in their payments. The unemployment rate was 6.1 percent in August. If it rose to 7 percent or higher, defaults and delinquencies would climb. In my example, if only 25 percent of borrowers repaid their mortgages, the government would lose money.

In short, it is a good bet that this latest attempt at government intervention is going to blow up in our faces somewhere down the road and once again, the American taxpayer is going to be forced into paying that bill too.

This bailout is a bad idea. It needs to be killed pronto.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

What Is It Really Going to Cost?
Robert J. Samuelson
NewsWeek
September 25, 2008

Barney Frank: Lies And Damned Lies About Freddie And Fannie

So, what does a left-wing socialist do when confronted with a financial crisis caused by the government? He incorrectly blames it on the private sector.

That is precisely what Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) did when he blamed the current Wall Street crisis on the free market. Here is exactly what he said:

"The private sector got us into this mess… The government has to get us out of it. We do want to do it carefully."

Now, there is no spinning this nor is there any taking it out of context. Rep. Frank was clear and unambiguous in what he said.

But, he is making false accusations. In fact, he is either deliberately lying or he has the worst memery in the history of the House of Representatives.

On September 9, 2008, the Wall Street Journal published an excellent article which details Frank's history of comment and action on the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae meltdowns. Here is the history:

In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."

Apparently, Frank doesn't seem to think that they are "overblown" now.

Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets." Great or not, we'll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam's assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities. Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that "there is no federal guarantee" of Fan and Fred obligations. A month later, Freddie Mac's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," he said at the time.

I don't believe that anyone even remotely familiar with the situation as it exists today would deny that this was "any kind of crisis."

More:

Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury." Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become "a self-fulfilling prophecy." In April 2004, Fannie announced a multibillion-dollar financial "misstatement" of its own. Mr. Frank was back for the defense. Fannie and Freddie posed no risk to taxpayers, he said, adding that "I think Wall Street will get over it" if the two collapsed.

Good! Then we don't need this bailout nor do we need any Federal oversight, now do we?

Frank wasn't done yet. Read on:

By early 2007, Mr. Frank was in charge of the House Financial Services Committee, arguing that he had long favored some kind of reform. "What blocked it [reform] last year," Mr. Frank said then, "was the insistence of some economic conservative fundamentalists in the Bush Administration who, to be honest, don't think there should be a Fannie Mae or a Freddie Mac." What really blocked it was Mr. Frank's insistence that any reform be watered down and not include any reduction in their MBS holdings. In January of last year, Mr. Frank also noted one reason he liked Fannie and Freddie so much: They were subject to his political direction. Contrasting Fan and Fred with private-sector mortgage financers, he noted, "I can ask Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to show forbearance" in a housing crisis. That is to say, because Fannie and Freddie are political creatures, Mr. Frank believed they would do his bidding. And this is exactly what Mr. Frank attempted to prove when the housing market started to go south. He encouraged the companies to guarantee more "affordable" mortgages, thus abetting their disastrous plunge into subprime and Alt-A loans. He also pushed for, and got, an increase in the conforming-loan limits to allow Fan and Fred to securitize and guarantee larger mortgages. And he pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements -- which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall. But the biggest payoff for Mr. Frank is the "affordable housing" trust fund he managed to push through as one political price for the recent Fannie reform bill. This fund siphons off a portion of Fannie and Freddie profits -- as much as $500 million a year each -- to a fund that politicians can then disburse to their favorite special interests.

Ahh! Now we are getting to the real truth here. As long as special interests were getting a good share of the profits, all the mismanagement by Rep. Frank & Co. was okay. But once that mismanagement culminated in a financial crisis, it was all the fault of the "private sector," or so Barney Frank claims.

They always say to give credit where credit is due. Well, Barney Frank certainly deserves his share of the credit for helping to bring about the current financial crisis.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Fannie Mae's Patron Saint
The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed
September 9, 2008

My Take On The Proposed Bailout And A Look At Some Gaffes

The big topic of conversation this week is about the lending houses on Wall Street. There is a bailout plan in Congress right now that has a minimum price tag of $700 billion and an estimated price tag of $3 trillion. I know there are pros and cons to each side, but I am coming out against the bailout.

Why?

Because I am one of those Americans who works hard, ensures that I stay gainfully employed, pays all of my bills on time and doesn't live beyond my means. But, because I am one of those hard workers, I am also in the group who will have to pay for this bailout.

On the other side, we have people who do not work so hard, don't live within their means and we also have lending houses making very bad business decisions and when those decisions came back to haunt them, they ran crying to the Federal government and asked then to saddle people like me with the bill.

I don't want to pay. I mean, hey, if it is okay for others not to pay their mortgages or take on more debt than they can pay back, why should anyone expect me to be the responsible one? If others can shirk their responsibilities, I can too. Correct?

Of course that is correct. That is why I am against this bailout. I, and the millions like me, should not be punished for someone else's mistakes.

Further, this bailout fails to correct the government mechanism that allowed this crisis to occur: The Community Reinvestment Act Of 1977. This law forced banks into making bad loans. The Clinton Administration expanded on it in the 90's to force banks to take on even higher risks. That law is still on the books and as long as it is there, it will create more problems down the road.

Now those risks have blown up in our faces. It is time to let the lending industry fail so that it can be rebuilt in a more rational manner.

Saddling me, my children and my grandchildren with more debt is not the answer. Holding the people responsible for this accountable is the right answer.

Call Congress and tell them not to approve this bailout.

---

So, Joe Biden made another gaffe. He says that back in 1929, when the markets collapsed and the depression began, President Roosevelt didn't just sit there. No, he got on television and began pitching his plan to fix it.

There is just two problems with this. Roosevelt wasn't President in 1929 and television was not a staple of mass communications yet.

One has to wonder, with all the gaffes that Biden (and Obama) have pulled, where do the Democrats come off with all of their criticisms of Sarah Palin?

Let's look at some of these gaffes.

For Biden:

- Biden invites a wheelchair bound State Senator to "stand up and take a bow."

- Biden contradicts Obama on clean coal.

And what of Obama?

- 57 states.

- Forgetting that he was in Kansas City rather than St. Louis.

- Saying John McCain would be Geroge Bush's "4th term."

- Telling a seven-year-old little girl that America was a "mean country."

- Having to be reminded that he was a Christian rather than a Muslim.

Before the Dems start any more false rumors about Sarah Palin, they might want to have a sit-down with the two guys on their own ticket. Right now, the biggest advantage the Republicans have is the Democrat ticket.

Joe Biden Speaks: What Is He Saying (And Thinking)?

Sen. Joe Biden might want to sit in on a few meetings with the Obama campaign staff before going out and making anymore statements in the name of Barack Obama. Two of his most recent quotes show exactly why.

On the recent attack ad that Barack Obama put out against John McCain, TownHall reports this:

Asked about the negative tone of the campaign, and this ad in particular, during an interview broadcast Monday by the "CBS Evening News," Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said he disapproved of it. "I thought that was terrible, by the way," Biden said. Asked why it was done, he said: "I didn't know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we'd have never done it."

Later, Biden backtracked when he discovered the Barack Obama had seen the ad and approved of it.

On "Clean Coal" power plants, The Politco has this to say:

Some great rope line video from Joe Biden's recent Ohio swing, where he was asked by an anti-pollution campaigner about clean coal -- a controversial approach in Democratic circles for which Obama has voiced support, particularly during the Kentucky primary. Biden's apparent answer: He supports clean coal for China, but not for the United States. "No coal plants here in America," he said. "Build them, if they're going to build them, over there. Make them clean." "We’re not supporting clean coal," he said of himself and Obama. They do, on paper, support clean coal.

Unless Barack Obama has switched his position and is now against clean coal. This statement shows that the Obama campaign is not really for any kind of real domestic energy production.

You can access both articles on-line here:

Biden Aays Ad Mocking McCain Is 'Terrible'
TownHall.com
September 23, 2008

Biden: 'No Coal Plants Here In America'
Ben Smith
The Politico
September 23, 2008

TrooperGate: Meet The Man In The Middle

For some reason, Democrats have a habit of diefying people who are somewhat less than scrupulous and oftentimes, that diefication comes before they really know who that person is.

Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Jesse Jackson, just to name a few.

Now, they have jumped the gun on diefication again, this time with former Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.

Far from being an upright man who did what was right, Monegan's story is one of growing interest and a dark past. From Amanda Carpenter at TownHall:

[Monegan] recently admitted dislocating his wife's shoulder "by accident" by "wrestling and tickling" her according to the San Francisco Chronicle. His estranged wife Georgene Moldovan, however, tells it a little differently. Moldovan said she sought a restraining order against Monegan in 1994 after he threatened to kill her, waved a gun at her and knocked her shoulder out of socket, according to court papers. The court papers say: "he pulled out his gun and waved it at me outside my home and yelled he would kill me if I stopped him." Moldovan told the SF Chronicle that Monegan "would show up unannounced and break into my apartment and do threatening things. I was forced to get a restraining order because I was really fearful he was going to harm me." She said he also threatened to throw her body into a cold, Alaskan river.

I bet Monegan didn't want any of this coming to light as it is very embarrassing. Still, the original question of TrooperGate was whether or not Monegan was fired because of his refusal to terminate Governor Palin's ex-Brother-in-law Mike Wooten.

But there is no evidence that this was the case and Monegan even admitted that there was no pressure for him to fire Wooten.

Here is the real story behind the firing:

Thomas Van Flein, Palin's legal counsel, submitted a report to investigators last week that said Monegan was eventually fired for “outright insubordination.” Fein cited evidence showing Monegan defied the Governor by making public requests for projects Palin did not support in her budget, such as an $1.8 million increase for the Anchorage Community Land Trust (a project Palin had previously vetoed) and by planning an unauthorized trip to Washington to lobby the Alaskan delegation for more money. Monegan wanted Washington to give him between $10 million and $20 million to rehire retired troopers to specialize in sexual assault cases. The Palin administration maintained Monegan needed to fill his 56 general enforcement vacancies that already had an existing funding stream before hiring specialized enforcement staff outside the budget. Flein also included an avalanche of 2008 emails from Palin’s staff that discussed Monegan’s, a political appointee who served at the Governor’s pleasure, disruptive agenda in his report. None of the emails mentioned Wooten.

That's right, none of the emails mentioned Wooten. I wonder if the Obama operatives, Democrats Hollis French and Ken Elton, will make sure that these facts are mentioned in the final report?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Violent Men At Center Of "Troopergate"
Amanda Carpenter
TownHall.com
September 22, 2008

Obama Campaign Engages In Chicago Style Election Fraud: Norfolk, Virginia

Apparently, when Barack Obama was a community organizer in Chicago, he learned the tools of the Chicago style politcal trade very well. "Vote early. Vote often." That was the mantra for Mayor Daley.

Barack Obama is trying to bring that mantra to Norfolk, Virginia where they have effectively ordered the local election board to waive a voter registration requirement of filling out a residency form. The residency form is necessary to ensure that voters really are Virginia residents and therefore qualified to vote in Virginia. Without the form to determine eligibility, it becomes possible for a voter to cast two or more votes.

From Judicial Watch:

Taking orders from Barack Obama’s campaign, election officials in a crucial battleground state are waving procedures for registering new voters even though doing so violates state election laws. The Democratic presidential candidate complained that college students—a demographic that he says ardently supports him—in Norfolk Virginia were discouraged from registering to vote because they had to complete a questionnaire to determine residency. Virginia law requires local registrars throughout the state to decide eligibility based on residency and the questionnaire was designed by the state elections office to confirm where the new voters live. In Norfolk many college students come from out of state and must register to vote in their home districts. Case in point; a student from Georgia who registered to vote in Virginia yet pays out-of-state tuition there, is declared as a dependent in Georgia and has a Georgia driver's license and car registration.

So, Barack Obama, true to his Socialist nature, wants his supporters to vote as many times as possible while the rest of us only get to vote once.

Obama certainly didn't wait to long to start stealing this election, did he?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Gets Virginia City To Wave Election Law
Judicial Watch
September 22, 2008

Financial Meltdown: Where Does The Buck Stop?

That's a good question. Where does it stop? And what can we do to make sure that something like this doesn't happen again?

Well, we need to find out where this all started and how. Without doing so, all the debate will be meaningless and the current efforts at a bailout will simply result in more crises down the line.

So, where did it start? Sheldon Richman, editor of The Freeman and an economist with the Foundation for Economic Education has the answer to this. According to Cybercast News Service:

“The biggest culprit, I think, is the implicit guarantee the government has always issued to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” Richman said. “Something like 80% of the mortgages these days are held or backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac,” he said, and “they get special treatment from the government like no other lender gets.”

Okay, there was a big bailout of these two earlier this year. What do they have to do with anything and why?

“[T]he financial industry is regulated all over the place.” In Richman’s analysis, it is precisely the government guarantee of Fannie and Freddie that is “short-circuiting” the market.” ... Providing context, Richman said government policy laid the foundation of this crisis more than 30 years ago when Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. This law forced banks to loan money to low-income borrowers as a way to ensure that financial institutions would “meet the credit needs of the local community.” Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the act to combat “red-lining,” a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”

Now we are getting to the meat of the problem. Government had been forcing lending institutions to make high-risk loans and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have been buying up those loans. When the defaults on these loans began to pile up, the collapse of Freddie and Fannie happened and the need for the bailout soon followed.

Further, it wasn't that banks wanted to make (or even encouraged the making of) these loans. They were forced to.

The Clinton-Reno threat of “vigorous enforcement” pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown, Richman said. “Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn’t have been getting mortgage loans.” This threat combined with the government backing of Fannie and Freddie set the stage for the current uncertainty, because the “banks could just sell the loans off to Fannie or Freddie,” who could buy them with little regard for negative financial outcomes, Richman said.

The problem is that the government's policy of requiring private institutions to make these bad loans is still in place. The failures of Freddie and Fannie and the bailouts of AIG and Bear Stearns are just symptoms. The disease of government intervention is still on the books.

One of the conditions for enacting a bailout should be to remove the ridiculous high-risk loan requirements put in place by the Carter and Clinton Administrations.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Financial Meltdown: Where Does The Buck Stop?
Matt Cover
CNSNews.com
September 22, 2008

What Does Barack Obama Really Stand For And Do You Agree With Him? Take The Test!

Take the Barack Obama test and see if you know what he really stands for and how often you agree or disagree with his positions:

The Barack Obama Test

Are You Better Off Than You Were Two Years Ago?

I’ve been away for a bit. I spent an extended weekend in Virginia Beach with my wife. This trip represents our “babymoon” since this will probably be the last time we have a chance to get away before our new baby is born in December.

Anyway, I know there is plenty out there to talk about right now. There is Troopergate and the fact that Todd Palin is refusing to testify. I applaud Todd for this. After all, we have already shown how Troopergate is nothing more than a partisan witch hunt. Todd did the right thing in saying "no" to the partisan efforts of Democrats Hollis French and Ken Elton.

Then there is the bailout being considered by Congress. It is becoming known as the “Mother of all Bailouts” and it is a very bad idea. It will allow companies and firms who engaged in bad business practices to survive those bad decisions rather than allowing them to fail as the market dictates and thus allowing companies and firms who practice wiser and sounder business policies to step in and take over. That is what should have happened.

But I think a good place to start this week is by asking the question: “Are you better off than you were two years ago?” I think we can all answer: “No.”

Ever since the Democrats took over Congress, they have done nothing but allow or cause more damage to the American people. How can I say this? Easy. Check out the most recent Mullings column by rich Galen:

Just to review the bidding. On January 5, 2007 (just about the time Nancy Pelosi and her cronies took control of the House): - The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at about 12,400. - The New York-based Conference Board said its consumer confidence index was at 110.3. - The Bureau of Labor Statistics had the unemployment rate at 4.6% - According to CNN gasoline a gallon of gasoline, in January 2007, averaged about $2.20.

That is where we stood. Now, this is where we are:

- Last Thursday at about 1 pm Eastern, the Dow had hit a bottom of about 10,500 before Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke intervened. That is a drop of about 15% in the Dow from two years ago. - The Conference Board's latest take on the pulse of consumer confidence had it at a very thready 56.9 in August - a drop of about 48% - The unemployment rate in August was reported at 6.1% by the BLS an increase of 33%. - Gasoline prices are at about $3.70 a whopping 68% jump.

So, why blame Congress rather than the Bush Administration? Because, Congress is supposed to have oversight power. But rather than use that power to tackle real problems head-on, the Dems instead used it for pushing their own agendas, trying to grab and consolodate power and trying to embarrass the President. All of this happened to the detriment of the American people.

In fact, Congressional hearings were held to determine whether or not Major Laegue Baseball players were using steroids at the same time as a housing and mortgage crisis was brewing. They've held vote after vote of resolutions to surrender in Iraq at the same time that energy prices were going higher and higher.

I don't know very many Americans who are more interested in steroids and surrendering than they are in where they are going to live and how much it will cost to have transportation for their familes. The only ones I can think of at the moment are the Democrats in Congress.

So what changed in 2007 that helped to facilitate all of this? Read on:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Ma) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Ct) took control of the House and Senate Banking Committees. Rep. George Miller (D-Ca) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Ma) took over their respective Labor Committees. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mi) and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) became chairs of the Energy Committees.

If you read that closely, you will notice that all of the above chairmen have D's after their names.

The Democrats have been more interested in wrecking President Bush's foreign policy rather than working on the problems that they are required to work on under the Constitution. As a result, the American people have been suffering and will continue to do so as long as power-hungry Democrats who are willing to do anything, including hurting the American people, in order to gain and maintain power are in office.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Are You Better Off ...
Rich Galen
Mullings.com
September 22, 2008

New Taxes And Less Domestic Energy: H.R. 6899

In case you missed it yesterday, the Dems in the House forced through a fake Energy Bill (H.R. 6899) which will simply not work. Congressman John Campbell breaks it down for us.

Lack of Incentive:

The bill allows offshore drilling, only for States that choose it, no closer than 50 miles from the coast, however it also prohibits revenue sharing of new oil and gas proceeds, thereby removing any incentive for States to “opt in” and allow drilling off their coasts. Nor does the bill offer any lawsuit protection, so companies that do search for oil will continue to be hampered with limitless litigation by environmental groups.

So the bill will allow extreme environmental groups to launch lawsuit after lawsuit making it cost prohibitive for oil companies to explore and produce. The Dems are clearly bowing to environmental extremists to the detriment of Joe and Jane Average American.

The bill will raise taxes:

This bill raises taxes on large oil and gas companies engaged in domestic energy production by nearly $13.9 billion over 10 years, all to provide tax breaks to favored energy projects and products. The bill also limits the use of foreign tax credits on the international operations of oil and gas companies, which pushes the overall tax hike in the bill up to $17.7 billion.

And the Dems are still living in a fantasy world where higher taxes on businesses are actually paid "out of pocket" by those businesses rather than the tax being passed on to the customer in the form of higher prices, as happens here in the real world.

Reduces Revenue:

The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has estimated the government could initially receive $5 billion in additional revenue without raising taxes by opening the OCS and allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR]. Yet this bill continues to limit drilling in the OCS. According to CBO, it reduces revenue to the Treasury by $1 billion.

And when the revenues go down, what is the first reaction of the Dems? Raise taxes again! This bill is designed to destroy the American economy. The really sad part is that the Dems have their blinders on and can't even see what is happening out here in Main Street America.

New Fees For Energy Companies

The bill raises $5.8 billion by imposing new fees on certain leases that currently pay no royalties. It also imposes $1.8 billion of new fees on non-producing Gulf of Mexico leases, and requires retroactive lease payments back to 1 October 2007 on certain leases.

Pop-quiz: If taxes get passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices, who do you think is ultimately going to pay these fees? If you said: "The consumer," then you are absolutely correct. So not only will prices be forced higher with higher taxes, they will be forced even higher with these new fees. It seems as though the Dems have somehow convinced themselves that everyone in the U.S. has a limitless supply of money and all of it should be confiscated by the government.

Higher Spending, No Deficit Reduction:

The bill increases the top line for appropriated spending by $6.6 billion, so that total 2009 nonemergency discretionary spending increases by 9.3 percent over 2008. All new revenue in the bill is set aside in a reserve fund to offset future appropriated spending increases. There is no guarantee this funding will be used to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Remember all the talk the Dems did back in 2004 about how the deficit was a bad thing? Amazing how quickly they changed their tune when they took control of Congress in 2006.

More Earmarked Spending:

The bill restructures the New York Liberty Zone Program, making it a $2-billion earmark that can be used for any transportation infrastructure project in New York City. The measure also earmarks $25 million to establish a so-called “National Energy Center of Excellence.”

Yep. You can thank Charlie Rangel for that one. He can't even figure out the tax code that he, above all, has the most influence on, yet he knows how to gouge the taxpayer for more money. I wonder if the "National Energy Center of Excellence" will actually have a grip on reality or if it will be some leftist fantasy world where everything is power by pixie dust and unicorn whiskers.

Exploiting the Fannie-Freddie Bailout:

The bill seeks to make Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac green when the problem is they are insolvent. It directs the two financially ailing firms to develop loan products and flexible underwriting guidelines to facilitate a secondary market for energy- and location-efficient mortgages on low- and moderate-income housing. The bill also calls for Fannie and Freddie to facilitate second and junior mortgages for energy-efficiency and renewable energy improvements.

And those "energy efficient" homes are among the most expensive in the United States. Let's see if middle to lower income families can take on those loans without defaulting.

Congressman Campbell puts it into a nice little nutshell: "This bill is designed to fail." But the Dems will wrongly claim they did something about the energy crisis while the reality is that they are simply trying to screw the American people with more of their old, tired-out, bound to fail Socialist agenda.

You can access the original article on-line here:

New Taxes For Energy That Won’t Produce
Congressman John Campbell
TownHall.com
Spetember 16, 2008

New Taxes And Less Domestic Energy: H.R. 6899

In case you missed it yesterday, the Dems in the House forced through a fake Energy Bill (H.R. 6899) which will simply not work. Congressman John Campbell breaks it down for us.

Lack of Incentive:

The bill allows offshore drilling, only for States that choose it, no closer than 50 miles from the coast, however it also prohibits revenue sharing of new oil and gas proceeds, thereby removing any incentive for States to “opt in” and allow drilling off their coasts. Nor does the bill offer any lawsuit protection, so companies that do search for oil will continue to be hampered with limitless litigation by environmental groups.

So the bill will allow extreme environmental groups to launch lawsuit after lawsuit making it cost prohibitive for oil companies to explore and produce. The Dems are clearly bowing to environmental extremists to the detriment of Joe and Jane Average American.

The bill will raise taxes:

This bill raises taxes on large oil and gas companies engaged in domestic energy production by nearly $13.9 billion over 10 years, all to provide tax breaks to favored energy projects and products. The bill also limits the use of foreign tax credits on the international operations of oil and gas companies, which pushes the overall tax hike in the bill up to $17.7 billion.

And the Dems are still living in a fantasy world where higher taxes on businesses are actually paid "out of pocket" by those businesses rather than the tax being passed on to the customer in the form of higher prices, as happens here in the real world.

Reduces Revenue:

The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has estimated the government could initially receive $5 billion in additional revenue without raising taxes by opening the OCS and allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR]. Yet this bill continues to limit drilling in the OCS. According to CBO, it reduces revenue to the Treasury by $1 billion.

And when the revenues go down, what is the first reaction of the Dems? Raise taxes again! This bill is designed to destroy the American economy. The really sad part is that the Dems have their blinders on and can't even see what is happening out here in Main Street America.

New Fees For Energy Companies

The bill raises $5.8 billion by imposing new fees on certain leases that currently pay no royalties. It also imposes $1.8 billion of new fees on non-producing Gulf of Mexico leases, and requires retroactive lease payments back to 1 October 2007 on certain leases.

Pop-quiz: If taxes get passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices, who do you think is ultimately going to pay these fees? If you said: "The consumer," then you are absolutely correct. So not only will prices be forced higher with higher taxes, they will be forced even higher with these new fees. It seems as though the Dems have somehow convinced themselves that everyone in the U.S. has a limitless supply of money and all of it should be confiscated by the government.

Higher Spending, No Deficit Reduction:

The bill increases the top line for appropriated spending by $6.6 billion, so that total 2009 nonemergency discretionary spending increases by 9.3 percent over 2008. All new revenue in the bill is set aside in a reserve fund to offset future appropriated spending increases. There is no guarantee this funding will be used to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Remember all the talk the Dems did back in 2004 about how the deficit was a bad thing? Amazing how quickly they changed their tune when they took control of Congress in 2006.

More Earmarked Spending:

The bill restructures the New York Liberty Zone Program, making it a $2-billion earmark that can be used for any transportation infrastructure project in New York City. The measure also earmarks $25 million to establish a so-called “National Energy Center of Excellence.”

Yep. You can thank Charlie Rangel for that one. He can't even figure out the tax code that he, above all, has the most influence on, yet he knows how to gouge the taxpayer for more money. I wonder if the "National Energy Center of Excellence" will actually have a grip on reality or if it will be some leftist fantasy world where everything is power by pixie dust and unicorn whiskers.

Exploiting the Fannie-Freddie Bailout:

The bill seeks to make Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac green when the problem is they are insolvent. It directs the two financially ailing firms to develop loan products and flexible underwriting guidelines to facilitate a secondary market for energy- and location-efficient mortgages on low- and moderate-income housing. The bill also calls for Fannie and Freddie to facilitate second and junior mortgages for energy-efficiency and renewable energy improvements.

And those "energy efficient" homes are among the most expensive in the United States. Let's see if middle to lower income families can take on those loans without defaulting.

Congressman Campbell puts it into a nice little nutshell: "This bill is designed to fail." But the Dems will wrongly claim they did something about the energy crisis while the reality is that they are simply trying to screw the American people with more of their old, tired-out, bound to fail Socialist agenda.

You can access the original article on-line here:

New Taxes For Energy That Won’t Produce
Congressman John Campbell
TownHall.com
Spetember 16, 2008

Democrats Pass Their Fake 'No Energy' Bill And Rangel's Tax Tangles

It was done under the cover of the night. No committees, no public scrutiny. The Democrats, once again thumbing their collective noses at their own 2006 promise of bipartisanship and transparency, passed H.R. 6899, 236-189. 15 Republicans sided with the Dems and 13 Democrats voted "no."

Instead of increasing our energy supply here at home and bringing down energy prices, here is what the bill does:

· Implements vast restrictions on energy drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) compared to what would otherwise be allowed if the current moratorium on OCS energy development were allowed to expire on October 1, 2008. · Provides states no incentive to allow for the expanded OCS drilling. That is, states would not get revenue shares in any of the newly leased areas. · Repeals the moratorium on oil shale on federal lands, but prohibits any actual oil shale leasing unless a state allows it via state law. Allowing the current moratorium to simply expire in two weeks would allow for oil shale leasing on federal lands without state approvals. · Releases 70 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and provides for a subsequent replenishment with a less desirable grade of oil. · Authorizes $1.7 billion taxpayer dollars to subsidize public transportation ridership already at record levels. · Includes a requirement, commonly known as the Renewable Portfolio Standard or the Renewable Electricity Standard, that electric suppliers, other than governmental entities and rural electric cooperatives, provide 2.75% of their electricity using renewable energy resources by the year 2010—and increasing incrementally to 15% by the year 2020. · Directs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to develop loan products and flexible underwriting guidelines to facilitate a secondary market for energy-efficient and location-efficient mortgages on housing for low and moderate income families—and for second and junior mortgages made for the purposes of energy efficiency or renewable energy improvements. · Mandates gas stations owned by larger oil and gas companies to install at least one alternative fuel pump (natural gas, E-85, biodiesel, or hydrogen) by 2018. · Includes the Charlie Rangel transportation earmark for New York by terminating the remaining portions of the New York Liberty Zone tax incentives program (implemented to encourage business investment in lower Manhattan). · Includes several tax increases—primarily the special carve-out of large (and foreign-government-owned) oil and gas producers from the domestic manufacturing tax deduction, the freeze of this tax deduction for all other oil and gas companies, and a restriction of how foreign oil and gas extraction income is determined for purposes of the foreign income tax credit. The bill also includes a PAYGO gimmick that will force energy companies to remit $3 billion in estimated taxes in FY2013 sooner than they otherwise would have to.

So, we Americans are left with record high energy prices and in addition to that, the Dems have saddled us with even higher taxes which will mean even higher prices as those taxes go into effect and they are passed along to us consumers. Apparently, the leftists are still living in the fantasy world where everyone believes that higher taxes somehow help a sagging economy, rather than the real world knowledge that high taxes will more deeply hurt an already sluggish economy.

Here is what is not in the bill:

· Litigation reform, so that American energy exploration and development, including that authorized by this legislation, is not further halted by environmentalist lawsuits. · Allowing energy exploration and development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). · Expedited petroleum refinery permitting. · Expedited nuclear reactor permitting. · There is also no language regarding futures markets speculation.

In short, this bill bows to the extreme left while brushing aside the concern of mainstream Americans.

You can access the roll call vote on-line here:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 599

House of Representatives
September 16, 2008

And you can access the highlights of the bill on-line here:

Blackburn Denounces Another Sham “No-Energy” Energy Bill
Terry Frank
TerryFrank.net
September 16, 2008

---

So what does it mean when the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee doesn't understand the tax code? It means that the current tax system must be scrapped and rebuilt.

From the Associated Press:

Rep. Charles Rangel paid no mortgage interest on a beach resort property for about 15 years, a lawyer for the powerful House committee chairman said Friday. The New York congressman's lawyer, Lanny Davis, told The Associated Press that Rangel got his no-interest deal for the villa in the Dominican Republic because he was an original buyer in the resort development. The Democratic chairman of the Ways and Means tax-writing committee has come under scrutiny for his vacation property and apartments he rents in his home district of Harlem. Davis said Rangel failed to report rental income from the resort property on his taxes, but didn't realize it was necessary because of the way the deal was structured.

Uh-huh. Rep. Rangel is supposed to be the foremost expert on tax law in America and we are supposed to believe he doesn't understand the system? I've got two competing theories on that.

1) He does understand the system and was trying to game it for personal gain.
2) The tax code is now so complicated and convoluted that it is no longer a workable tool and must be done away with.

Either way, Rangel's little caper shows, with clarity, yet another reason why we must get rid of the current tax code and replace it with the FairTax.

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

The FairTax:

• Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
  
• Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
  
• Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
  
• Allows American products to compete fairly
  
• Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
  
• Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
  
• Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
  
• Abolishes the IRS
  

The FairTax also addresses three end-goals that no other tax reform plan speaks to:

1) It removes forever the power of the IRS to intrude on private American lives.
2) It removes forever the power of K Street lobbyists to influence Congressional tax legislation.
3) It prevents hidden taxes from being passed along to the consumer.

You can access the original article on-line here:

When The Ways And Means Chairman Doesn't Understand The Tax Code...
Associated Press via Americans For Fair Taxation
September 2008

Compare Charles Gibson's Questions For Governor Palin With Those He Asked Senator Obama

Just a little something to make you think. Someone remarked that Gibson asked Senator Obama questions as if the Senator were the Vice-Presidential candidate and asked Governor Palin questions as if she were the Presidential candidate. It sure does look that way, doesn't it?

The media bias in this case couldn't be more obvious:

Obama: How does it feel to break a glass ceiling? How does it feel to “win”? How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling? Who will be your VP? Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP? Will you accept public finance? What issues is your campaign about? Will you visit Iraq? Will you debate McCain at a town hall? What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech? Palin: Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders? Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job? Questions about foreign policy -territorial integrity of Georgia -allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO -NATO treaty -Iranian nuclear threat -what to do if Israel attacks Iran -Al Qaeda motivations -the Bush Doctrine -attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

Seeing the differences between the questions, it becomes very clear why the Dems do not want to debate the "experience" issue. Governor Palin at least has the courage to speak up in public whereas Senator Obama hides behind his Old Media surrogates.

ABC News Maliciously Edits Palin Interview With Charles Gibson

When is Old Media going to learn that with the Internet, we will always be able to analyze and fact-check behind them?

ABC must think we are still in 1975 when Old Media could get away with hatchet jobs that slime candidates without someone exposing the bias. That is no longer true today.

As such, Charles Gibson and the editing crew at ABC must have certainly known that we would get a hold of the transcripts from the Governor Palin interview sooner rather than later and yet they still did hack job in an effort to turn the interview into a hit-piece.

Mark Levin has the relevent excerpts of the transcript. It is available here as well:

EXCERPTS: Charlie Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin (September 11, 2008) THE BOLDED & UNDERLINED PARTS WERE EDITED OUT OF THE INTERVIEW GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say “I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?” PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I’m ready. GIBSON: And you didn’t say to yourself, “Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?” PALIN: I didn’t hesitate, no. GIBSON: Didn’t that take some hubris? PALIN: I — I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink. So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate. GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials? PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it’s about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that’s with the energy independence that I’ve been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States. GIBSON: I know. I’m just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy. PALIN: It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It’s that important. It’s that significant. GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year? PALIN: Canada, Mexico, and then, yes, that trip, that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was the trip of a lifetime and it changed my life. GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state? PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries. GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations. PALIN: Right. GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments. PALIN: Right, right. GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one? PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite. GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations. PALIN: Sure. GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia. The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia? PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep… GIBSON: You believe unprovoked. PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia. And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor. GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you? PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska. GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia? PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along. Sarah Palin on Russia: We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along. GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO? PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia. GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus. PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO. Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but… GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia? PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help. But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members. We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today. GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade. PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries. And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to. It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries. His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen. Sarah Palin on Iran and Israel: GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel? PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes. GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right? PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable. GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran? PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure. GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program. PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that. GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities? PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security. GIBSON: So if we wouldn’t second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that. PALIN: I don’t think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation. GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right. PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself. GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us? PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we’re able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we’re a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society. GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be? PALIN: His world view. GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war. PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better. GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that? PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America. I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people. GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us? PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend. GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government? PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option. GIBSON: But, Governor, I’m asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government. PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target. GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area? PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table. Sarah Palin on God: GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war? PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote. GIBSON: Exact words. PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side. That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms. Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq. GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.” PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That, in my world view, is a grand — the grand plan. GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God? PALIN: I don’t know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.

I hope you read the whole thing through. You can see how the ABC editing team omitted certain quotes to make things seem a little out of context, and you probably also noted how they tried to cover up Gibson's gaffe about the misquote referring to "a task that is from God."

It is pretty clear that ABC intended to make this into a hit piece. Further, you can bet that the Forum hosted by Geroge Stephanopoulus won't be bring forth any corrections or filling in any blanks left by the above edits.

You can access the original excerpt on-line here:

EXCERPTS: Charlie Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin (September 11, 2008)
Mark Levin
MarkLevinShow.com
September, 2008

ACORN Voter Fraud Uncovered In Michigan And Former Prison Camp Commander Endorses John McCain

Here's a surprise. ACORN, the leftist organization that is dedicated to "reform" has been submitting fraudulent voter registration forms to municipal clerks all across Michigan.

Actually, that comes as no surprise since ACORN was known to actively engage in voter fraud in the 2004 elections.

From the Detroit Free Press:

The majority of the problem applications are coming from the group ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which has a large voter registration program among its many social service programs. ACORN's Michigan branch, based in Detroit, has enrolled 200,000 voters statewide in recent months, mostly with the use of paid, part-time employees. "There appears to be a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications," said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State's Office. "And it appears to be widespread." Chesney said her office has had discussions with ACORN officials after local clerks reported the questionable applications to the state. Chesney said some of the applications are duplicates and some appear to be names that have been made up. The Secretary of State's Office has turned over several of the applications to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Back in 2004, one ACORN worker submitted voter registration forms with names like Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse and Clark Kent.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Bad Voter Applications Found
L.L. Brasier
Free Press Staff Writer
September 14, 2008

---

This election just keeps getting more and more curious. The London Telegraph is reporting that Tran Trong Duyet, the commandant of the Hao Lo prison in Hanoi from 1968 to 1973 is endorsing John McCain for President of the United States.

An excerpt:

[Duyet] recalls Mr McCain "as a typical child of a traditional military family. He was conservative and faithful to his country's policy of the Vietnam war". "In a talk between men we shared many things about girls and love and so on," said Mr Duyet, who claims Mr McCain helped teach him English. "I think John McCain is a very smart man." In his run for the presidency, Mr McCain's years as a PoW are constantly invoked for the courage he showed under repeated torture, never giving the Vietnamese anything they could use in their propaganda. ... What remains of the prison is now a museum, where Mr McCain's old flight suit is on display. There is also a monument to his capture on the bank of the Hanoi lake where he crash landed. But like many Vietnamese, Mr Duyet is grateful to Mr McCain for the role he played in the 1990s - restoring trading and political relations between the countries. "I would like to say that if John McCain is elected president I hope he will further improve the relationship between Vietnam and the United States," said Mr Duyet. "And as a friend I want to wish him good health and good luck in the presidential election," he added. Then he blurted out "My friend!" in English, the language he says Mr McCain helped teach him, which he has almost totally forgotten.

As I said, very curious.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

John McCain Endorsed By His Vietnamese Jailer
Thomas Bell
London Telegraph
September 15, 2008

It's Official: Troopergate Is Now A Partisan Witch-Hunt Being Conducted By The Democrats

The Dems must be getting really, really desperate. They see their numbers falling faster than the water going over Niagra Falls, and they are now doing anything and everything to Swiftboat Sarah Palin, even if the rest of the world sees what they are doing while they are doing it.

In a previous post, I introduced you to the investigators of Troopergate. It is already shady enough that Democrats French Hollis and Kim Elton are using their positions of power to influence the investigation. But more information is coming to light, and it is not good news for the Dems who really need this to be a big scandal in order to revive Barack Obama's sagging campaign. Now, we have evidence that Hollis, Elton and compnay may be witness tampering.

From Amanda Carpenter over at TownHall:

A Friday hearing revealed that an Obama partisan has manipulated an independent investigator’s subpoena list for a controversial inquiry against GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The investigation is intended to determine whether Palin abused her office by firing Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. Palin says she fired him over budget issues. Her foes believe the firing was due to Monegan’s unwillingness to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law State Trooper Mike Wooten, a man who has admitted to “tasering” his stepson, illegally shooting a moose and has been accused of threatening his former father-in-law with violence and drinking in his police car. Investigator Steven Branchflower admitted he had ceded control of his subpoena list to Sen. Hollis French (D.) during Alaska’s Joint Judiciary Committee September 12 hearing that was scheduled to approve subpoena requests. [CLICK HERE FOR AUDIO.] French is a partisan who has endorsed Palin’s Democratic presidential ticket rival Barack Obama for president and is actively supporting his candidacy. Lawmakers approved 13 of Branchflower’s subpoena requests that day, which included one for Palin’s husband, Todd. Four other subpoenas were approved for aides Branchflower believes participated in a meeting called by Palin’s former chief of staff Mike Tibbles where Wooten’s firing was allegedly discussed. Rep. David Guttenberg (D.) asked Branchflower why he was requesting subpoenas for only those people attending the meeting and not Tibbles himself. Branchflower said he would “have to defer that question to Mr. French.” “I put the list together with, talking to Mr. French,” Branchflower added. Sen. Gene Therriault (R.) told Branchflower, “I don’t understand why you would have to defer that question to Sen. French. If it’s your list you’re in complete control of the list, then why can’t you answer the question?” Branchflower had no explanation. He only offered, “I’m not sure why his name was removed. My initial request was to have him on the list.” At that point, French interjected. “It appeared to me there wasn’t the political will to subpoena Tibbles.” “Something’s fishy here,” Therriault replied. “I mean either Mr. Branchflower conducts his investigation without direction, and now we know he’s been directed on the date and changing what he’s doing and how he’s doing it because of the time pressure he is feeling. And now we’re hearing that people that he’s trying to get information from, there’s direction going on on that, too.” Indeed. Although the investigation is far from concluding, French has suggested it may culminate in an “October surprise,” perhaps even Palin's impeachment as Governor-- a game-changing outcome that would certainly increase the Democrats chances of winning the White House in November. The final report, which French has already described as “damaging,” is set to be released on October 31, four days shy of the presidential election.

Clearly, Hollis French is an Obama operative who is directing this investigation (check the picture) so as to cause as much damage as possible to the McCain-Palin ticket and it is very likely that the Obama campaign knows about it since they sent 30 lawyers and other operatives up to Alaska to try and dig up any dirt they could on Governor Palin.

The actions of Hollis and Elton give this investigation all the markings of a witch-hunt and it is being conducted by the Democrats.

More:

According to campaign finance data available on opensecrets.com Elton has donated at least $2,000 to Obama’s campaign. Three other Democrats on the Elton’s 14-member council are also supporting Obama for president, as identified on Obama’s presidential website. Further fueling the GOP’s fire is the fact that former Commissioner Monegan and state trooper Wooten are surprisingly mild-mannered about this “scandal” that’s blown into a national news story after Palin’s vice presidential appointment. Monegan told the Anchorage Daily News on August 30 that he was never pressured to dismiss Palin’s former brother-in-law. “For the record,” he said, “no one has ever said fire Wooten. Not the governor. Not Todd. Not any of the other staff.” Wooten, for his part, has reportedly turned down at least $30,000 from tabloids hungry for his side of the story. ... CNN reported that Obama campaign officials had been contacting Wooten’s union ...

Something is definitely fishy up in Alaska. And it seems to be centering on two Obama operatives: Hollis and Elton.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Partisan Tampers With Palin Subpoena List
Amanda Carpenter
TownHall.com
September 13, 2008