Posted on 10/07/2008 11:43:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In the best tradition of Bill Clinton’s famous declaration that the answer to the question of whether or not he was having an affair with Monica depended on “what the definition of ‘is’ is,” Barack Obama was clearly splitting hairs and concealing the truth when he said that William Ayers was “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood.”
The records of the administration of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), released last week by the University of Illinois, show that the Ayers-Obama connection was, in fact, an intimate collaboration and that it led to the only executive or administrative experience in Obama’s life.
After Walter Annenberg’s foundation offered several hundred million dollars to American public schools in the mid-’90s, William Ayers applied for $50 million for Chicago. The purpose of his application was to secure funds to “raise political consciousness” in Chicago’s public schools. After he won the grant, Ayers’s group chose Barack Obama to distribute the money. Between 1995 and 1999, Obama distributed the $50 million and raised another $60 million from other civic groups to augment it. In doing so, he was following Ayers’s admonition to grant the funds to “external” organizations, like American Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) to pair with schools and conduct programs to radicalize the students and politicize them.
Reading, math and science achievement tests counted for little in the CAC grants, but the school’s success in preaching a radical political agenda determined how much money they got.
Barack Obama should have run screaming at the sight of William Ayers and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Not true...if Americans are scared, not trusting Obama...i dont care what color he is they are not going to vote for him....
Now they will tell you to your face...im voting for Obama....because no body wants to be called a racist or go against the cool thing to do....but in the voting booth,
alone
UH UH NO WAY , NO HOW NOBAMA
In 1989, following law school, Michelle Robinson became an associate at the Chicago law firm of Sidley & Austin Also in 1989, Barack Obama joined Sidley Austin as a summer intern — and Barack and Michelle meet. — she was his summer adviser. Also working at Sidley & Austin was the terrorist, Bernadine Dohrn, who helped bomb something like 25 targets, including the Capitol and the Pentagon.
Dohrn was working at the firm as a result of the recommendation of the CEO of Chicago’s power company, Tom Ayers.
His son, the unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers, ran the Woods Fund, the organization that, in 1985, put up the $25,000 to bring Obama to Chicago.
The Obama File.http://www.theobamafile.com/
McCain has to keep hitting on this. If he lets Obama play the moderate for the next 30 days , the game is over.
All true. Why doesn’t McCain shows how the dots connect? Obama’s friends are pro-Palestinian and/or hostile to the interests of the United States.
"My position has always been clear: If you've got a terrorist, take him out," Obama said. "Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take 'em out."
BULLSTALIN
This from a man who befriended a terrorist who bombed the Pentagon back in the 1970s. Hey Barry, when are you gonna "take out" Bill Ayers? You lying Marxist scumbag.
At the debate on Wednesday, Senator McCain should have said something like this to Obama: “We have proof that you know terrorists well, you are the friend of terrorists, yet you deny it. Are you a terrorist yourself, or merely a terrorist collaborator?”
Or he could have said this. Obama’s Tax Plan Is Really a Welfare Plan
Barack Obama’s tax plan is the opposite of supply-side economics. He proposes to raise marginal rates for just about every federal tax. He also proposes a raft of tax credits that taxpayers can receive if they engage in various government-specified activities. Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. His trick is to make the tax credits “refundable.” Thus, if the tax credit is for $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $1,000.
Such credits are not tax cuts. Indeed, they should be called The New Tax Welfare. In effect, Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand a slew of government spending programs that are disguised as tax credits. The spending on these programs is then subtracted from the total tax burden, in order to make the claim that his tax plan is a net tax cut overall.
On the tax side of the ledger, the details released by his campaign last week confirm what a President Obama has in mind for our most productive citizens. The top individual income tax rate, for example, would be increased by 13%, to 39.6%; the next-highest rate would be raised to 36%. The top rates on capital gains and dividends would rise by a third, to 20%
The Social Security payroll tax would be raised between 16% to 32% for families making over $250,000 a year. This means that the real returns these people get from their lifetime payments into the retirement program will be driven below 0%, according to my own previous research, which was published by the Cato Institute and elsewhere.
Mr. Obama also wants a permanent federal estate tax, with a top rate of 45%; his health-insurance plan includes a new payroll tax on employers; and he also contemplates several increases in the corporate income tax, including a new so-called windfall profits tax on oil companies.
Then there is the spending side of the ledger. Mr. Obama proposes a fully refundable Making Work Pay Tax Credit, which would have the government pay out $500 to each worker and $1,000 to couples — reminiscent of George McGovern’s 1972 election proposal for the government to send a $1,000 check to everyone.
His American Opportunity Tax Credit would provide a $4,000, fully refundable tax credit for college tuition expenses. His Mortgage Interest Tax Credit would provide a 10% credit — refundable — to offset mortgage interest payments for lower- and middle-income families. His Health Care Tax Credits, which the campaign says “will ensure that health insurance is available and affordable for all families,” include “a new refundable 50 percent health tax credit on employee premiums paid by employers.”
Currently existing tax credits would also become spending programs in the Obama tax program. The Savers Credit would be made fully refundable, and would be expanded, according to the campaign, “to match 50% of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000.” The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit would be made refundable and expanded to allow “low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit on the first $6,000 of child care expenses.”
The Earned Income Tax Credit is already refundable. Mr. Obama would expand it to “increase the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefits available to noncustodial parents who fulfill their child support obligations, increase benefits for families with three or more children, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty, which hurts low-income families.” In short, welfare spending is to be increased by paying more money out to low-income income tax filers.
The latest Congressional Budget Office data shows the bottom 40% of income earners already pays no income taxes. Indeed, they receive a net payment from the federal income tax system — meaning from the taxpayers — equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes, because of the refundable tax credits under current law. The middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, pays 4.4% of federal income taxes.
Overall, the bottom 60% of income earners pay less than 1% of federal income taxes on net. When “tax credits” primarily go to this group in the form of checks from the government (rather than a reduction in their tax burden) it is simply an abuse of the language to call the spending a tax cut.
Consequently, to say, as the campaign does say, that the candidate’s tax plan is a tax cut on net — and that it would limit taxes to 18.2% of GDP — is grossly misleading. The Obama tax plan would sharply increase real taxes. It also would come nowhere near to paying for the massive increases in federal spending he has proposed, including the spending that is disguised in the form of refundable tax credits.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910303529751345.html
Why on Earth would the McCampaign finally be hitting these issues on the trail, and then he didn’t say one word about it (again!) in the debate when he had the eyes of the nation???
It’s like the man wants to lose. Ayres is an absolutely legitimate concern. The (IMO very real) possibility that Obama isn’t even a natural-born citizen is an absolutely legitimate concern. The fact that in four years he took more money from Fannie Mae than any senator in history except Dodd, is an absolutely legitimate concern.
And nobody—I’m not counting Rush—is talking about the real reason behind the financial meltdown, which is the government holding a gun to the head of banks, forcing them to make affirmative action mortgage loans that had NO chance of being repaid.
MM
RE: “Why doesn’t McCain shows how the dots connect? Obama’s friends are pro-Palestinian and/or hostile to the interests of the United States.”
McCain knows he can do exactly that — there is plenty of evidence linking The One with this home grown terrorist trash. I think McCain may want to stay away from the Obama/Ayers topic himself and let others do the talking for him, at least until the final days.
I see a big step-up in coming days on this issue — via ads and Palin and others hammering away on it.
It seems to me this is a topic that needs to be kept out there, tossed around, regurgitated and discussed at great length for days/weeks before the election.
Since most voters have made up their minds anyway, what knowledge of the terrorist connection business does is hopefully change some minds. I don’t buy into the idea that there are so many undecideds still out there.
For me there is no doubt — debates and rallies and headlines would not change my mind away from voting for McCain/Palin.
It will take something really dramatic and damning to move people who like him away from The One. What’s a little terrorism among friends, right? Yet I see the drama building. Look out for the LATE October surprise. We still have to soldier through another “debate” and several weeks of campaigning. I am staying the course, staying positive that McCain will win this election.
Could it possibly be that the American voters are so far gone they will vote for someone with a clear pattern of relationships to America haters and worst such as Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright? Cry for the beloved country.
Bernadette Dohrn, introduced Barack to one of her classmates who then introduced him to Tony Rezko, who put a 125,000 down on the 500,000 home Barack purchased.
This is more than just a simple association. I'd call Ayers, Barack's backer and mentor as well as his friend. There isn't a goal Barack obtained without the help of Ayers, his wife and their friends, after graduating from college. They helped get him his Harvard Law Degree, positions as an attorney and community organizer, his start in politics (and were with him every step along the way), as well as the very upscale home in which he now resides. In addition to the socialist policies he will surely enact, what will Barack owe his terrorist friends once he gets in the whitehouse?
RE: “Could it possibly be that the American voters are so far gone they will vote for someone with a clear pattern of relationships to America haters and worst such as Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright? Cry for the beloved country”
In a word, Yes. It is possible. Just take a look at all the new “voters” out there — kids, immigrants (illegals included), and whatever else the Obama team has been able to rustle up and register.
It’s horrifying; I’m glad I have no small children to inherit this mess, yet I remain hopeful that the right people will be voting, en masse, and will have paid close attention and come to the conclusion that they don’t want a homegrown unrepentent terrorist’s puppet in the White House.
My view of the debacle is less partisan. The fed abeted one bubble after the other, First the dot-com —where I lost my shirt—and then the housing one. Each lured a lot of capital into the country. NOW what is going to be the draw? Well, it had better be a strong dollar. Ironically what can save us is the inability of the EU to take collective action.
“Too little, too late to stop the Obamanation?”
It all depends on the media.
Yes, we know how Clarence Thomas got into Yale Law School. He has told us. Obama have never told his true story. He is obviously bright, but it frightens me when I hear or read what he says, Cyrano once wrote a novel describing a balloon journey to the moon. God help the country when the Obama balloon reaches the thin air! It will be like Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs but in spades.
Have we totalled the times Obama tries to fake moderation by saying “I agree with Senator McCain” when McCain makes some point about foreign policy and fighting terrorism during these “debates”?
Its a game Obama plays that needs to be pointed out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.