How The Democrats ‘Chummed The Waters’ For This Financial Crisis And Government ‘Feeding Frenzy’

McCain hits Obama’s Chicago Ties in new ad

McCain hits Obama’s Chicago Ties in new ad

Rick Moran
I was wondering when the McCain camp was going to get around to attacking Obama’s ties to the Chicago machine. It is fertile ground to plow what with Obama’s connections to some of the shadier politicians in America; Daley, Stroger, Rezko, Emil Jones, and host of others.

The latest ad from the McCain campaign connects Obama to this corrupt city political operation:”Not ready to lead” indeed.

The Second American Revolution

The Second American Revolution

Enough is enough

Monday, September 22, 2008

BREITBART: Enough is enough


With George Bush off the front pages for much of the last few months, the political pathology known as Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) took an unexpected summer hiatus.

BDS sufferers – liberal Democrats seething over successive presidential election losses and hamstrung by a Republican president confidently wielding wartime authority – failed to transfer their enmity to Sen. John McCain, largely because they couldn’t bust his “maverick” brand, but to a larger extent because they assumed Sen. Barack Obama was going to win in a laugher.

That presumption ended when Mr. McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. Before Charlie Gibson could even grill the Alaska governor over her “hubris” in accepting Mr. McCain’s historic invitation, the raw rage that focused for eight years on the 43rd president of the United States transferred in a flash to a former “Miss Congeniality” and Anchorage suburban mother of five who immediately swung the momentum to Mr. McCain’s side.

Palin Derangement Syndrome, a more irrational variant of the Bush contagion, doesn’t require sufferers to know anything about the subject of their hatred. Anonymous, unsourced rumors fuel the fire (book banning, speaking in tongues, creationism, etc.). Lovely family photos hacked from a personal e-mail account displayed on commercial Web sites push more buttons. Asterisks from Mrs. Palin’s biographical sketch – “moose hunter,” “small-town mayor,” “wife of champion snow machine racer” – cause excessive sweating and irregular heartbeats. She even fired a guy who Tased a 10-year-old. (Oh wait, she didn’t.)

What will happen when they find out she shops at Wal-Mart?

Predictably, the celebrity left – ridiculous enough to form a strong opinion based on unreliable data points and narcissistic enough to broadcast it – has taken to stage, television, newsprint and blogs to express its extreme ire at the Thrilla from Wasilla.

Sandra Bernhard celebrated the 20th anniversary of her career-ending one-woman show, “Without You I’m Nothing,” warning that if Mrs. Palin were to go to Manhattan she’d be “gang-raped by [her] big black brothers.” The lipstick-on-a-pig lesbian also called Mrs. Palin a “bitch” and an “Uncle Woman.”

Joyless niche comedian Margaret Cho blogged, “She is evil,” fantasized about having hateful sex with Mrs. Palin and attacked a multitude of her supporters: “If you were truly Christians, you would let gays get married, and send them #$%ng presents from Bed Bath and Beyond!”

Everything-aholic Lindsay Lohan (“Mean Girls”) joined the Sapphic pile-on by issuing a joint diatribe with her putative partner, disc jockey Samantha Ronson: “Is our country so divided that the Republicans’ best hope is a narrow-minded, media-obsessed homophobe?”

“Media obsessed?” Those cameras follow Mrs. Palin because she’s running for vice president. Not because she’s going to the Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf – like some people we know.

Not since Rosie O’Donnell & Co. manhandled Elizabeth Hasselbeck weekdays on “The View” have liberals been so gleeful to watch a bitter lesbian tear down a confident and beautiful conservative Republican woman. Unresolved high school lust and angst at well-adjusted cheerleaders and popular prom queens should be left for medical professionals, not for midmorning television gabfests.

For many, gay marriage is a key issue.

Yet none of these gilded-ghetto living haters point out that their savior, Mr. Obama, stands against gay marriage, too. Is that change Melissa Etheridge can believe in?

Like President Clinton, who supported regressive anti-gay-rights legislation such as “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act, Mr. Obama gets a massive pass from the activist gay left and their stenographers in the mainstream media.

The never-reported political reality is that both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama understand that key components of the Democratic Party – the black and Hispanic blocs – hold views that Brad Pitt would deem “homophobic.”

For these minority groups, and for many other religious Democrats, gay marriage is a nonstarter.

Yet liberal celebrities and activist journalists never hurl epithets at these coddled groups no matter how retrograde their ideas. President Bush correctly pegged this phenomenon as “the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.” Political correctness, the rigging of politics using different rules for different groups, and buttressed by the media, ensures that Democrats always have the upper hand.

Clumsy on her lesbian training wheels, Miss Lohan and Miss Cho, Miss Bernhard and Miss O’Donnell, are granted immunity for their outrageous rhetoric because they are party girls – Democrats through and through – and creatures of the media. And because of this protection racket, none will be forced to attend sensitivity training for crossing the line last week against Mrs. Palin.

It’s also why few will know that the Alaska governor vetoed legislation that would have prevented gays from getting marriagelike benefits. It’s also why the media made Republicans Mark Foley and Larry Craig the butts of jokes that would be considered homophobic if hurled at liberal Democrats.

Not since the drubbing of Clarence Thomas during his 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings have liberals in Hollywood and the elite media so openly conspired to deny a minority the right to free thought and free expression of political ideals. Now Sarah Palin is exposing the Democratic Media Complex to a new generation, many of them open-minded women.

Perhaps if he wins in November, the eminently tolerant John McCain will pick an openly gay person to serve high in his administration.

That’s when the real Democratic Party derangement will begin.

Andrew Breitbart is the founder of the news Web site and is co-author of “Hollywood Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon – the Case Against Celebrity.”

Trump Endorses McCain

Palingate: Extensive Evidence Suggests Barack Personally Behind Spreading False Palin Rumors, With Built-In Coverup

Palin ‘Gets it’ on Iran (Updated)

Palin ‘Gets it’ on Iran (Updated)

Ethel C. Fenig

In an action resembling a bizarre Saturday Night Live sketch organizers of a non/bipartisan rally opposing Iran’s President Ahmadinejad and his hate filled message were forced to retract an invitation to Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) to speak because Senator Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY), (D-IL) and would rather allow hatred than share a platform with her.
However Palin didn’t let this pettiness distract her from the importance of the issue.  At a rally in Minnesota,  Palin forcefully stated
“John McCain and I are committed to drawing attention to the danger posed by Iran’s nuclear program and we will not waver in our commitment,” Palin told a crowd of 9,000 supporters in Blaine, MN. “I will continue to call for sustained action to prevent Iranian President Ahmadinejad from getting these weapons that he wants for a second holocaust.”
Further proving that the Governor from faraway Alaska has her priorities straight, Palin continued
“Unfortunately, though some Democrat partisans put politics first and now no elected official will be able to appear at that “Stop Iran” rally. Iran’s pursuit of these weapons should concern all Americans; this should not be a matter for partisan politics,” Palin said.
Compare her mature attitude to Clinton’s, who even though the UN is in her jurisdiction, withdrew when she learned Palin was invited.
Who has more understanding of the issues, the so called inexperienced governor of a small state or the so called experienced senator from a large, cosmopolitan state?


Ed Lasky points us to Palin’s speech she was going to give at the rally that was published in the  New York Sun.

Ed adds:

“The estimable New York Sun published the speech Governor Sarah Palin would have given at the Iran rally in front of the United Nations had political machinations by Democrats, The Obama campaign, and left-wing groups Jewish groups (such as the J Street Pac with ties to George Soros and Barack Obama) not led the rally’s organizers to disinvite her.”


I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country — leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.

Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York — to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan — and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator’s intentions and to call for action to thwart him.

He must be stopped.

A pity she never got to deliver it.

Former Clinton Staffers Jump to McCain Camp

Former Clinton Staffers Jump to McCain Camp

Thomas Lifson
MSNBC reports on the former Hillary staffers now supporting McCain and making strong arguments against The One. One must wonder if (officially) pro-Obama Hillary urged these loyal staffers to not do this. It would be unusual for Clinton loyalists to do something against her wishes. Some gems from the former Clinton supporters:

“Obama really doesn’t have the experience,” said Miguel Lausell, senior national political advisor to Hillary Clinton. “We don’t know what he’s going to be doing. We don’t really know where he’s coming from, and that’s the big difference.”
Luchy Secaira, former Sen. Hillary Clinton Delegate-at-Large, said that
stance on women’s issues is all talk and no action. Secaira said that Obama’s rhetoric on the Equal Pay Act is not backed up with hiring practices in his Senate office.
“We need to look no further than Sen. Obama’s own senate office, where it’s been documented that he pays women less on his staff than males on his staff,” said Secaira. “He talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk.”
“The Hispanic community has nothing to fear, because they know John McCain,” Secaira added. “He has fought against his own party on behalf of the Hispanic community and was an integral part in trying to bring forth comprehensive immigration reform.” 

Hat tip: Ed Lasky

Big Labor’s Billion Dollar Bet on Obama

Big Labor’s Billion Dollar Bet on Obama

By Mallory Factor

The dirty little secret of Big Labor’s massive support for the Obama campaign is the anticipated end to state right-to-work-laws and secret ballots in unionization campaigns.

On June 26, the AFL-CIO brass officially endorsed Barack Obama for president.  With Big Labor’s largest umbrella organization and its member unions pouring unprecedented resources into the general election campaign, the public ought to fear the legislative payback that would ensue if Obama were elected.

Indeed, Big Labor is launching its largest political campaign in its history, and this year, more than ever, Big Labor means Big Money.  The union conglomerate is already sending teams of canvassers to knock on doors in swing states.  Unions are distributing 1.5 million flyers and sending 500,000 targeted attack mailers to voters as well.


The two largest union coalitions — the AFL-CIO and the “Change to Win” Federation, a coalition of the American labor unions formed in 2005 as an alternative to the AFL-CIO — have publicly admitted they will spend at least $300 million combined on federal elections alone.  When combined with political action committees and local unions and other union funders, at least $1 billion of union money (mostly in forced union dues coerced from workers as a job condition) is being dumped into electioneering.


The Democratic Party is but a penny ante player in comparison to Big Labor; the party itself will likely spend mere chump change in electing Obama and other pro-union candidates in comparison to that which will be spent by unions.


You can bet that the union bosses expect a lot of “change” from Obama next year when it comes to labor law.  An Obama administration — possibly coupled with a filibuster-proof Senate — will feel a real sense of obligation to repay political debts.


Top on the union agenda is the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act” (EFCA), which is better described as the Employee “No Free Choice” Act.   If it passes, employees would effectively have to declare their support or opposition to unionizing their shop and lose the ability to cast their vote by secret ballot.  Under this Act, union organizers would “collect” signed cards from workers that then count as “votes” for unionization.  When organizers have the signatures of over fifty percent of employees, the union instantly sweeps every worker into its ranks.


According to Big Labor’s logic, employees can only have a “free choice” when union officials stand over them and pressure them to sign the cards.   Employees who have been subjected to card check union drives have complained they have signed the cards as a result of coercion and deceptive practices. 


Mandatory card check drives will mean that millions more American workers will find themselves in unions and facing the “choice” between paying union dues or being fired.  Both George W. Bush and John McCain said they would veto this power grab, while Obama is a co-sponsor and leading advocate.


Another union power grab on the fast track is the misnamed “Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.”  If it becomes law, the bill would force state and local governments to collectively bargain with union officials over all contracts involving police officers, firefighters, and paramedics — even in states with laws guaranteeing workers the right to choose whether or not to join a union.  This would literally overturn “Right to Work” protections for these groups of workers in the 26 states that provide these rights.  The Act would also create massive unfunded mandates by imposing significant additional costs on state and local governments which are not reimbursed by the federal government.


Public safety employees would no longer be permitted to bargain individually and could be forced to accept the union’s “representation” — like it or not.  Meanwhile, the bill would facilitate efforts by firefighter union bosses to stamp out (at tremendous cost to the taxpayers) the proud tradition of volunteer firefighting in America.


Like the Card Check Forced Unionism bill, the police and firefighter monopoly bargaining bill has so far been blocked — barely — in the Senate, backstopped by a Bush veto threat.  But it could be unstoppable under an Obama presidency.


One of Obama’s pet projects is the Patriot Employers Act, which he introduced last August.  The bill offers incentives — in the form of tax breaks — to employers that comply with a litany of Big Labor demands.  To get these tax breaks, companies need to agree to eliminate secret ballot elections for unionizing in their shop and to enforce a gag rule on truthful and non-coercive speech about the downsides of unionization.


But there’s more.  An Obama White House will also seek law changes that prohibit permanent replacement of striking workers.  Under current law, an employer has the right to continue operating during a strike by hiring replacement workers.  To prevent a total shutdown, an employer must have the ability to recruit replacement workers who may hope for a permanent job.   In advocating a ban on striker replacements, Obama’s message is clear – union ordered strikes would be automatic winners, and American workplaces would come to a screeching halt in the face of extortionate union demands.


Then there is the ultimate, though rarely spoken, goal of Big Labor: ending the rights of “Right to Work” states to secure the rights of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union. This could be effected by repealing Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act.  Without this provision, forced unionism would prevail in all states, and states could not protect private sector workers from union demands to pay dues to them as a condition of employment.  This is a huge win for unions and pro-union candidates — literally billions of additional dollars in new coerced dues would flow into Big Labor’s coffers which could be used to support pro-Union candidates. 


So the union bosses have found their man.  With their billion dollar bet on Barack Obama, they know that the payoff of new union coercive powers will be worth the trouble.


Mallory Factor is a merchant banker and the co-chairman and co-founder of the Monday Meeting, an influential meeting of economic conservatives, journalists and corporate leaders in New York City.

Banned words to describe Obama, Part II

Banned words to describe Obama, Part II

Ed Lasky

A week ago, American Thinker ran a short blog on words that are consider racist “code words’ when used to describe Barack Obama. We can add two more to this ever-inflating list: young and inexperienced.

“Obama’s name and his African heritage are obstacles to the party’s chances of capturing the White House, party activists are finding,” Dave Davies reports in the Philadelphia Daily News. “I’m hearing a lot of people saying, ‘He’s too young, he’s too inexperienced,’ ” said Philadelphia AFL-CIO President Pat Eiding. “What they’re really saying is, ‘He’s black.’