The Peril of Terrorist President Barack Obama


Hollywoods Savior

Hollywoods Savior

 The most serious concern in the forthcoming US presidential election is that American voters are extremely upset with recent economic crisis. Once the public become cool headed, Obama’s incompetence and inaptitude for president will be apparent. Though Senator Obama criticizes Bush economic policy, he is no expert on the economy. His personal ties with William Ayers and Reverend Jeremiah Wright are serious defect as the Commander in Chief. This is beyond moral issue. America is at war against terrorists.

Also read America’s first far-left radical President?

Barack Obama is popular because of the way he looks, the way he talks, and the way he presents himself – but remember that’s his field of expertise. His primary accomplishments include looking good, lying with a straight face, and associating himself with powerful radical activists. When you think about it, he is exactly who un-American liberals want living in the White House.


Filed under democrats, Intolerant Left, obama, Videos

LA Times Obama-Rashid Khalidi Video: $175,000 Reward Offered for Tape

LA Times Obama-Rashid Khalidi Video:

LA Times Won’t Release Video of Obama and Wife at Jew-Bash McCain accuses the Times of covering up the information

Blogger Doug Ross Gets Tip on Two Obama Quotes at 2003 Event

“We should know about their relationship including, apparently, information that is held by the Los Angeles Times concerning an event that Mr. Ayers attended with a PLO spokesman.”

“The Los Angeles Times refuses to make that videotape public. I’m not in the business about talking about media bias but what if there was a tape with John McCain with a neo-Nazi outfit being held by some media outlet, I think the treatment of the issue would be slightly different.”
–John McCain, to WAQI, also known as Radio Mambi

Read more here


Leave a comment

Filed under democrats, Intolerant Left, obama, Videos

Hollywood insiders rip MSNBC, defend Palin

The Intolerant Sexist Leftist-Hollywood
The Intolerant Sexist Leftist-Hollywood

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election.

 The cable news channel is “completely out of control,” said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat.

 She added that she would prefer a lunch date with right-leaning Fox News star Sean Hannity over left-leaning MSNBC star Keith Olbermann.

Olbermann was criticized by many who attended Monday’s luncheon sponsored by the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The event was dubbed “Hollywood, America and Election ’08.”

Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC — and other media — has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters.

 “We should stop the demonizing,” she said, adding that Democrats have been worse than Republicans as far as personal attacks on candidates are concerned. “It diminishes us,” she said of her fellow Democrats.

1 Comment

Filed under democrats, Feminists, hollywood, Intolerant Left, Liberal Feminist Hypocrisy, News, Sham of Feminism

BTW I’m Voting For Mccain / Palin – A Black American’s Powerful Video Testimonial

Leave a comment

Filed under mccain, Videos

Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

For more on this…..

1 Comment

Filed under democrats, Intolerant Left, obama

Ayers’ Weathermen planned “re-education”, genocide

Undercover agent Larry Grathwohl discusses the Weather Underground’s post-revolution governing plans for the United States. From the 1982 documentary “No Place to Hide” (available in its entirety as a playlist on  — Video courtesy of user: Seahorse1776)


Filed under democrats, Intolerant Left, obama, Videos

Megyn Kelly versus Alan Singer on William Ayers

1 Comment

Filed under democrats, Intolerant Left, obama, Videos

“Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments.

“Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring
the revolution home. Kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.”
–Bill Ayers, Weather Underground, 1970

1 Comment

Filed under Intolerant Left, obama, Videos


The Page says:

PAC TV ad hammers the Democratic presidential nominee with the kitchen sink and more: pledge of allegiance picture, Cuban flags, Palestinians, Hamas, and — of course — Reverend Wright.

1 Comment

Filed under democrats, obama, Videos

The October Surprise—Suit To Remove Barack Obama From The Ballot. Barack Obama And The Democratic National Committee Is Committing Fraud On The American People


Filed under democrats, obama, Videos

Audio: Palin and Laura Ingraham knock Obama on abortion, Ayers

Leave a comment

Filed under Extreme Obama, obama

‘Barack Obama’s Friend Tried to Kill my Family’

The McCain campaign just released this statement by John M. Murtagh:

“When I was 9 years-old the Weather Underground, the terrorist group founded by Barack Obama’s friend William Ayers, firebombed my house. Barack Obama has dismissed concerns about his relationship with Ayers by noting that he was only a child when Ayers was planting bombs at the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol. But Ayers has never apologized for his crimes, he has reveled in them, expressing regret only for the fact that he didn’t do more.

“While Barack Obama once downplayed his relationship with Ayers, today his campaign took that deceit one step further. Barack Obama now denies he was even aware of his friend’s violent past when, in 1995, Ayers hosted a party launching Obama’s political career. Given Ayers’ celebrity status among the left, it’s difficult to believe. The question remains: what did Obama know, and when did he know it? When did Obama learn the truth about his friend? Barack Obama helped Ayers promote his book in 1997, served on charitable boards with him through 2002, and regularly exchanged emails and phone calls with him through 2005. At what point did Barack Obama discover that his friend was an unrepentant terrorist? And if he is so repulsed by the acts of terror committed by William Ayers, why did the relationship continue? Any honest accounting by Barack Obama will necessarily cast further doubt on his judgment and his fitness to serve as commander in chief.

“Barack Obama may have been a child when William Ayers was plotting attacks against U.S. targets — but I was one of those targets. Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family.”

Also read Obama is Hiding a Radical Past

1 Comment

Filed under obama

Obama is Hiding a Radical Past

Did you know that Barack Obama was affiliated with a leading national socialist party?  Barack Obama didn’t include in his 2008 resume that he entered politics endorsed by Chicago’s leading socialists. This just keeps getting better and better. Barack Obama was an active participant in the 1990s, and a direct political beneficiary, of the Chicago New Party and, importantly, the Chicago DSA, a group of socialists affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America.

  1. Barack Obama attended and participated in meetings of the Chicago New Party and the Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America.
  2. Barack Obama sought the endorsement of the Chicago DSA which by the party’s Political Committee as well as Mr. Obama’s signature on contract promising “a visible and active relationship with the NP.”
  3. Barack Obama actively used the endorsement from the Chicago DSA.
  4. Barack Obama won his DSA-endorsed and -backed campaign to secure his seat in the Illinois State Senate.
  5. Barack Obama continued his involvement with the Chicago DSA — including directly asking the group to join “his task forces on voter education and voter registeration” — and received their endorsements in subsequent campaigns.



Filed under obama

Breaking News: When Did Barack Obama Stop Believing in Socialism?

This will be really interesting. I can’t wait for this…..

Our own intrepid Matthew is going to break a huge story within an hour (at least that is the plan as I type). He has discovered documents that clearly demonstrate Barack Obama received the endorsement of a socialist group that required candidates to seeking their endorsement to sign a contract that mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with that socialist party.

This VIDEO below explains why Barack’s campaign cannot give a straight answer about when he decided that Bill Ayers had been a terrorist:

Watch it here

As you will see when Matthew’s piece goes up, Barack signed onto a socialist agenda back in 1996. When, if ever, did he decide it was wrong? Why has he hidden this part of his life? Is America ready to trust a guy who lies about his past socialist ties to help pull America out of the economic ditch it is in.

Stay tuned.

Update – Obama is Hiding Radical a Past

Leave a comment

Filed under obama

Support for Palin Increased Following the Debate & One user voted more than 600 times for Obama and Biden in our poll

The source

Support for Palin Increased Following the Debate. What Does That Mean?

“fraudulent poll respondents favored Obama and Biden more than McCain and Palin. One user voted more than 600 times for Obama and Biden in our poll. We removed those votes from this analysis, and we also removed those of three other respondents with suspicious voting patterns”

In combing through the results of our Palin/Biden vice-presidential debate poll, I came across an interesting trend: readers who completed our poll the morning after the debate favored Sarah Palin much more than readers who took the survey immediately after the debate.

Between 11pm and 11:29pm on Thursday, 24% of respondents who were not undecided said that Sarah Palin had won the debate over Joe Biden. The following morning, that figure had risen dramatically, to 43% between 10:00am and 10:29am. (The margin of error is ±2 points on the first figure and ±5 points on the second figure.)

This result suggests one (or more) of these three possibilities:

  • Republicans were slower to get on the Internet after the debate than were Democrats. This could be due to a number of reasons. I’m thinking time zones: the debate ended at 10:30pm on the East Coast, but only 7:30pm on the more liberal West Coast. It’s possible that liberal Westerners voted immediately after the debate, while conservative Southerners voted the next morning. Or it could be that Republicans go to bed earlier than Democrats.
  • Sarah Palin received enough positive media coverage after the debate that readers who absorbed this analysis before voting in our poll (i.e., those who voted in the morning) were more sympathetic to Palin than were those who voted before reading any analysis. Expectations for Sarah Palin were about as low as possible before the debate, which left many commentators at least somewhat impressed. This sentiment might have been effectively transmitted to voters between the end of the debate and the following morning.
  • Reactions to the debate were visceral. Neither candidate spent much time during the debate talking about policy, so perhaps immediate reactions were primarily emotional. Sarah Palin is fairly divisive, so it is possible that many respondents watched the debate, walked away with a strong opinion, and then moderated over the next twelve hours as they went back to thinking about the reasons that they support one candidate or the other—reasons that tend to be deeply held and not easily changed by a single debate.

Vp_poll_results_v2_2 The second and third hypotheses are supported by the fact that more respondents were undecided about the winner of the debate on Friday morning (7%) than on Thursday night (3%).

I’d be the last one to suggest that a Web poll like this one is scientific, but this trend is substantial. Practically everyone who took our poll arrived there by searching Google for some variation of “debate winner.” Our sample, then, was thinking about the debate in terms of winners and losers, and they were interested in seeing results presented in those terms. These results seem, at the very least, to suggest that voters may moderate their views after they have given their political senses a short rest.

A few other interesting things emerged from our poll, as well. Undecided respondents tended to favor the Obama-Biden ticket after watching the debate: of the 16% of respondents who said the debate had changed their minds, 48% said that they would vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden, while 40% said that they would vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Democrats were also more confident of their own candidate’s performance: of those who reported that they would vote for McCain and Palin in November, 91% said that Palin won Thursday’s debate. Of those intending to vote for Obama and Biden, 96% said that Biden won the debate.

A final note: fraudulent poll respondents favored Obama and Biden more than McCain and Palin. One user voted more than 600 times for Obama and Biden in our poll. We removed those votes from this analysis, and we also removed those of three other respondents with suspicious voting patterns—only one of whom entered votes favoring McCain and Palin.

–Jon Bruner

Leave a comment

Filed under vp debate

Obama Admitted His Work With Terrorist Bill Ayers Qualified Him For US Senator (Video)

Via Gateway Pundit


…And, Barack Obama admitted his work with Bill Ayers gave him his credentials for public office.
And, yet The New York Times wants you to believe that their paths just happened to cross!

In this must see video Barack Obama admits that one of his major qualifications for political office was his work with terrorist Bill Ayers. In this video Obama also calls Rev Meeks, Father Pfleger, and Jeremiah Wright his friends:

Via a previous Ace of Spades posting.

In a recently discovered video Barack Obama admits that it was his work with terrorist Bill Ayers that qualified him for his election to the US Senate:

I am in my second term but it’s true that certainly Senator Trotter and Congressman Rusher(?) have been in elected office longer than I have. I can’t deny that. I would argue though that my experience previous to elected office equips me for the job. I have a background as an attorney. I’ve represented affordable housing organizations that build affordable housing something that’s a major issue in the district. I’ve chaired major philanthropic organizations efforts in the city like the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that gave $50 million to prompt school reform effors throughout the city.

World Net Daily has more on the NY Times whitewashing of the Ayers-Obama relationship.

UPDATE: Ayers Was on Woods Fund Board with Obama When He Stepped on Flag

UPDATE 2: Obama called the accusations a “smear” today at a rally today.

Founding Bloggers wants the Truth Squads on the case.

UPDATE 3: Michelle Obama had Ayers speak at a forum she organized in 1997.
But, the NY Times wants you to think that their paths just happened to cross. Right.

Leave a comment

Filed under obama

Factors that Could Lead to Obama’s Downfall

I really wish the Republicans will take heed of this excellent advice…..
by Lorie Byrd

Change is an effective mantra in elections following two consecutive terms by one party in office. That is especially the case when the current officeholder is unpopular and the economy is weak. Barack Obama has that as a tremendous advantage in this race and recent polls breaking his way show it, but there are some significant factors that could still lead to his undoing.

When you look at the unpopularity of the current administration, the financial crisis that has overshadowed all other issues, the fawning media and the promise of a charismatic young figure offering change, it would appear this race is over. In fact, it would not be surprising if that candidate were leading by twenty points by now. Prospects are certainly looking good for an Obama win at this time, but there are a few factors that can still work in John McCain’s favor. Obama’s liberal voting record, his far left associations and the fact that Democrats control the Congress could all still cause trouble for Obama.

Obama is spending significantly more in my state of North Carolina than McCain, so I see a lot of Obama ads. One I saw several times this week was incredibly reminiscent of some Bill Clinton ads from 1996. I remember the Clinton ads because even though I opposed him, I was impressed by how good and how persuasive they were. Bill Clinton sat in what looked like could be a living room, or perhaps a large homey office, with natural lighting, and talked directly to the camera. He told voters that he was for a middle class tax cut and for “ending welfare as we know it.” I couldn’t argue with either of those ideas. I knew enough about the Democratic party at the time to know it was pretty unlikely that would happen, but I had to admit it sounded good.

When Clinton promised those things, the economy had already begun, and was maintaining, a steady recovery. That didn’t stop him from referring to it as the worst economy in 50 years, though, and the nation bought it. Now we have an economic situation that both candidates agree is one of the most dire our country has faced. In spite of the fact that Democratic policies are largely to blame, the unpopular sitting Republican President and his party are going to be saddled with the majority of the blame. Those in the media will ensure they are, regardless of whether or not they are deserving of it.

In the Obama ad I have seen many times this week, he is sitting in a setting very similar to the one Bill Clinton used in 1996. Also like Clinton, he talks directly into the camera and promises tax cuts for the middle class. Will this approach be as effective for Obama as it was for Clinton?

A big difference between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama is that Clinton could credibly claim to be a moderate. He was a governor from a southern state. Southern Democrats are sometimes just as conservative as their Republican counterparts. Barack Obama is from Chicago and he has an unbelievably liberal voting record both as a state legislator and in the United States Senate. Barack Obama has voted against tax cuts or for tax increases 94 times. Obama has a liberal track record that should set off voters’ alarm bells. Why should anyone believe he would now cut taxes when he has consistently opposed them for so many years?

Bill Clinton promised tax cuts, but even in an economy that was recovering nicely, he came back to voters barely a month in office and said that in spite of working as hard as he had ever worked, he was not going to be able to deliver them. There are certainly many excuses Obama could find to back out of his tax cut promise, but even if he did come through on it, there is another problem with it. Obama’s tax plan is hard on small businesses. Even though many lower and middle income individuals would see less taxes personally, small businesses would face a bigger tax burden. Those small businesses employ lower and middle income people. If voters understand that the same tax policy that might allow them a bit more money in their refund checks could also put them in the unemployment line, they might not be so eager to vote for it. The only way they will know that though is if John McCain can successfully make that point.

The only reason Bill Clinton delivered on his “ending welfare as we know it” pledge was because after vetoing it twice, he was told that he had to pass it or he would lose his re-election. He therefore signed a welfare reform bill that a Republican majority had passed. That brings up another factor that could work in McCain’s favor. Voters favor divided power.

The Democrats currently control both the House and Senate and barring some extreme unforeseen circumstances will not only continue to hold, but most likely increase their margins of control. Barack Obama has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. Most far left liberal policies are not terribly popular with American voters, but if the Democrats control the White House and all of Congress, voters will have essentially given them a blank check to do just about anything they want. One only has to look at the extreme liberal voting record of Barack Obama, as well as the liberal agendas and records of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to see what they can expect in an Obama presidency.

It should be obvious to voters that an Obama presidency along with a Democrat-controlled Congress would result in the most liberal policies many of us have seen in our lifetimes or imagined in our wildest nightmares. Add to that the very real possibility that a President Obama would appoint two or three Supreme Court judges. There would be virtually no check on the power held by liberal Democrats and they would feel emboldened by the election to claim a mandate for anything they proposed.

This is a scenario that should frighten all but those in the most extreme left wing of the Democrat Party, but I don’t think it is a scenario that most voters have really considered. Those in the media are not going to write or talk about Obama’s extreme liberal voting record, just as they have not, and will not, investigate his associations with the likes of domestic terrorists, slumlords, and fat cats that fleeced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is up to the McCain campaign to draw that picture for the voters.

Those on the left will say it is fear mongering, even though for years they have warned of the extreme right wing and the fascist dictator state that America would become under Republican governance. They can’t do that with John McCain, who has so often been in opposition to conservatives. Since he would almost certainly have a Congress controlled by Democrats, any attempt to scare Americans with a rightwing fascist state is absurd.

Those on the left can neither credibly argue that a far left agenda would not prevail in an Obama administration. Barack Obama’s voting record is Exhibit One that is exactly what voters should expect. The case against Obama and complete Democrat control of government is bolstered by crooked associates of Obama such as William Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Rev. JeremiahWright. Additional clues to the leftist paradise that might exist under Obama can be seen in the thuggish attempts to silence his critics, whether it be his goons trying to shut down talk radio interviews or his operatives in state offices who are threatening to sue anyone who makes claims about Obama they deem false.

It would be no mystery to voters that an Obama presidency would be dominated by a far left liberal agenda if they were looking at the track records and associates of the candidates. Instead they are largely being shown an illusion of a modern day Messiah who is ready to unite the country and solve all its problems. They are being shown images of adorable children singing songs of worship and praise to Obama who is going to “rearrange” things to make them right. They are being given fluffy, puffy stories about the candidate by those who profess to be news reporters. The veil is so thin, really, if you know what stands behind it. Whether or not the McCain campaign can lift that veil in the final month of this campaign will determine the course of the country in ways we can only now imagine.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Palin Rebound


Published: October 2, 2008
There are some moments when members of a political movement come together as one, sharing the same thoughts, feeling the same emotions, breathing the same shallow breaths. One of those occasions occurred Thursday night when Republicans around the country crouched nervously behind their sofas, glimpsed out tentatively at their flat screens and gripped their beverages tightly as Sarah Palin walked onto the debate stage at Washington University in St. Louis.

There she was, resplendent in black, striding out like a power-walker, and greeting Joe Biden like an assertive salesman, first-naming him right off the bat.

Just as the midcentury psychologist Abraham Maslow predicted, Republicans watching the debate had a hierarchy of needs. First, they had a need for survival. Was this woman capable of completing an extemporaneous paragraph — a collection of sentences with subjects, verbs, objects and, if possible, an actual meaning?

By the end of her opening answers, it was clear she would meet the test. She spoke with that calm, measured poise that marked her convention speech, not the panicked meanderings of her subsequent interviews.

When nervous, Palin has a tendency to over-enunciate her words like a graduate of the George W. Bush School of Oratory, but Thursday night she spoke like a normal person. It took her about 15 seconds to define her persona — the straight-talking mom from regular America — and it was immediately clear that the night would be filled with tales of soccer moms, hockey moms, Joe Sixpacks, main-streeters, “you betchas” and “darn rights.” Somewhere in heaven Norman Rockwell is smiling.

With a bemused smile and a never-ending flow of words, she laid out her place on the ticket — as the fearless neighbor for the heartland bemused by the idiocies of Washington. Her perpetual smile served as foil to Biden’s senatorial seriousness.

Where was this woman was during her interview with Katie Couric?

Their primal need for political survival having been satisfied, her supporters then looked for her to shift the momentum. And here we come to the interesting cultural question posed by her performance. The presidency and the vice presidency once was the preserve of white men in suits. As the historian Ellen Fitzpatrick pointed out on PBS Thursday night, if, in 1984, Geraldine Ferraro had spoken in the relentlessly folksy tones that Palin used, she would have been hounded out of politics as fundamentally unserious.

But that was before casual Fridays, boxers or briefs and T-shirt-clad Silicon Valley executives. Today, Palin can hit those colloquial notes again and again, and it is not automatically disqualifying.

On Thursday night, Palin took her inexperience and made a mansion out of it. From her first “Nice to meet you. May I call you Joe?” she made it abundantly, unstoppably and relentlessly clear that she was not of Washington, did not admire Washington and knew little about Washington. She ran not only against Washington, but the whole East Coast, just to be safe.

To many ears, her accent, her colloquialisms and her constant invocations of the accoutrements of everyday life will seem cloying. But in the casual parts of the country, I suspect, it went down fine. In any case, that’s who Palin is.

On matters of substance, her main accomplishment was to completely sever ties to the Bush administration. She treated Bush as some historical curiosity from the distant past. Beyond that, Palin broke no new ground, though she toured the landscape of McCain policy positions with surprising fluency. Like the last debate, this one was surprisingly wonky — a lifetime subscription to Congressional Quarterly. Palin could not match Biden when it came to policy detail, but she never obviously floundered.

She was surprisingly forceful on the subject of Iran (pronouncing Ahmadinejad better than her running mate) though she stepped over the line in claiming that Democrats sought to raise the “the white flag of surrender.”

Biden, for his part, was smart, fluid and relentless. He did not hit the change theme hard enough. He did not praise Barack Obama enough. But he was engaging, serious and provided a moving and revealing moment toward the end, when he invoked the tragedy that befell his own family and revealed the passion that has driven him all his life.

Still, this debate was about Sarah Palin. She held up her end of an energetic debate that gave voters a direct look at two competing philosophies. She established debating parity with Joe Biden. And in a country that is furious with Washington, she presented herself as a radical alternative.

By the end of the debate, most Republicans were not crouching behind the couch, but standing on it. The race has not been transformed, but few could have expected as vibrant and tactically clever a performance as the one Sarah Palin turned in Thursday night.

Leave a comment

Filed under debate, sarah palin

Shocking Video Unearthed – Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis.

At a 2004 hearing see Democrat after Democrat covering up and attacking the regulations to protect Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (their Cash Cows) that are now destroying our economy because the Democrats let them cheat.

Also read “A New Opportunity for McCain

By Peter Ferrara
Published 10/1/2008 12:08:01 AM
According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the financial crisis is all due to the Bush Administration’s “right wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no oversight, no regulation.”

But at a hearing in the House in 2004, now available in video on YouTube, the Republicans sought to expand supervision and regulation, over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Federal regulators testified that the reckless financial practices of these two government-sponsored enterprises threatened the entire financial system. Republican after Republican called for a new regulatory authority to supervise Fannie and Freddie and impose standard bank regulation on them.

Franklin Raines, the former Clinton budget director who went on to serve as chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified that the mortgage-related securities of these two organizations, which have now rocked the entire financial world, were “riskless.” During his tenure, Raines criminally led Fannie Mae to falsify its books so that he would qualify for excessive bonuses and compensation eventually totaling $90 million.

But the Democrats excoriated the Republicans for criticizing the wonderful practices of Fannie and Freddie that had been so successful in achieving their goals of affordable housing. The Republican concerns for safety and soundness were dismissed as trumped up efforts to frame the brilliant leadership of Mr. Raines, and said to show once again that Republicans don’t care about the middle class and the poor. Barney Frank, now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, foolishly laughed off concerns over safety and soundness without offering any evidence to rebut these concerns. Instead, he shamefully led the Democrats in attacking the regulators, who had provided the evidence that Fannie and Freddie were increasingly threatening the safety and soundness of the entire financial system.

The following year John McCain was one of three co-sponsors of legislation to impose such regulatory supervision and controls over Fannie and Freddie. The Bush Administration supported this as well, in one of its four attempts to win legislative approval for such expanded regulatory authority. But the Democrats shouted these proposals down as an assault on affordable housing for the middle class and the poor.

So it was the Republicans who tried time and again to expand proper regulatory controls to prevent this crisis. And it was the Democrats who stopped them because such regulation threatened their policy of turning Fannie and Freddie into welfare programs. It is Chairman Barney Frank, not SEC Chairman Chris Cox, who should resign for his shameful and stupid role in creating this crisis. And if Franklin Raines is not prosecuted and sent to prison for his naked thievery, then we must let all of the Enron convicts out of jail and issue them a national apology.


Leave a comment

Filed under democrats

So the friend of terrorists is fit to be the president of America?

Beyond the speeches, how much do you really know about Barack Obama? Learn about his connection to William Ayers.


Filed under obama

CBC News apologizes for web column attacking Palin

Finally the readers are quite successful in instilling some sense into the biased anti-American leftist media…..

Jonathan Kay: an astonishing mea culpa from the CBC

Vince Carlin, the CBC Ombudsman, has now issued his assessment of the Mallick column.

CBC News apologized Sunday for publishing a column about Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, conceding that it was “viciously personal.”

More than 300 people complained to the CBC ombudsman about a column that ran on Sept. 5 on by award-winning freelance writer Heather Mallick.

The article, “A mighty wind blows through Republican convention,” reportedly said Ms. Palin was chosen to appease the party’s “rural,” “unlettered” “white trash” base and said that the vice-presidential nominee looked like a “porn actress.”

CBC News publisher John Cruickshank said in a letter that the public broadcaster erred in judgment.

Vince Carlin, the CBC Ombudsman, did not fault Ms. Mallick for “the caustic nature of her tone or the polarizing nature of her opinion.”

“But he objects that many of her most savage assertions lack a basis in fact,” Mr. Cruickshank wrote.

“Mallick’s column is a classic piece of political invective. It is viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan. And because it is all those things, this column should not have appeared on the site.”

The column was attacked by the National Post as well as Fox News.

Ms. Mallick wrote: “[17-year-old] Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the ‘pramface.’ Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family-obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi ‘I’m a f–kin’ redneck’ Johnson prodding his daughter?”

As a result of the complaints, new editing procedures have been put in place “to insure that in the future, work that is not appropriate for our platforms, will not appear,” Mr. Cruickshank wrote.

In his assessment of the complaints, Mr. Carlin also noted that displays a “very narrow range” on its web pages and the broadcaster is addressing that by expanding the diversity of its writers and opinions, Mr. Cruickshank added.

Leave a comment

Filed under Intolerant Left

If over half of American women approve of Sarah Palin then how can feminists continue with the ruse that their incoherent discourse reflects the interests of 51 percent of the population?

According to Rasmussen Reports, “she (Sarah Palin) earns positive reviews from 65% of men and 52% of women.”



If over half of American women approve of her then how can feminists continue with the ruse that their incoherent discourse reflects the interests of 51 percent of the population? They do so because it is their nature. If they dropped the pretense of feminism and “women” being one, they would find themselves devoid of funding and legislative support.


Filed under Feminists, Liberal Feminist Hypocrisy

Turns out, Palin had met with a foreign leader

When Gov. Sarah Palin told ABC’s Charles Gibson that — as governor of Alaska — she had never met with the leader of another nation, she apparently forgot about her meeting last year with Icelandic President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson.

By Hal Bernton

Seattle Times staff reporter

Sarah Palin’s trip to New York this week was billed as the Republican vice-presidential candidate’s first chance to meet with foreign heads of state. That perception was fueled by her comment this month, when she told ABC News’ Charles Gibson that — as Alaska governor — she never had met with the leader of another nation.

But Palin misspoke, perhaps forgetting about a meeting with Iceland President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson last October in Anchorage. The meeting was confirmed Thursday by Bill McAllister, Palin’s Alaska press secretary.

Iceland, a nation of some 300,000, has taken a lead in developing geothermal-energy resources, and Grímsson spoke at an Arctic energy symposium, and then had a private meeting with Palin. They talked for the better part of an hour, primarily about geothermal energy and Iceland’s expertise in developing that resource, according to Mead Treadwell, an Alaska Republican and Arctic expert who attended the meeting.

“[Grímsson] is a head of state, I know that,” Treadwell said. “And we have pictures of them together taken at the meeting.”

Gibson, in his Palin interview broadcast Sept. 11, grilled the governor on her foreign-policy experience, asking if she’d ever met with a head of state who can negotiate for that country.

“I have not,” Palin said, “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.”

McAllister said he hadn’t spoken to Palin about the remark. But he guessed that the governor was “probably thinking in terms of major events, thinking about Putin, and they seemed to be talking about issues on a larger platform.”

Just this week, Grímsson was back in Anchorage to attend another international forum on Arctic issues.

This time, he met with Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell while Palin was in the Lower 48.

“She would have probably met with him again had not circumstances intervened,” McCallister said.

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy


Leave a comment

Filed under Videos

A feminist’s argument for McCain’s VP

It should be no surprise that the Democratic response to the McCain-Palin ticket was to immediately attack by playing the liberal trump card that keeps Democrats in line – the abortion card – where the party daily tells restless feminists the other side is going to police their wombs.

The power of that accusation is interesting, coming from the Democrats – a group that just told the world that if you have ovaries, then you don’t count.

In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn’t the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term “the enthusiasm gap” for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling – a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don’t agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.

Whether we have a D, R or an “i for independent” after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they’ll realize it’s not up to them any longer.

Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it’s about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It’s that simple.

The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as “terribly sexist” and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism.

Concerned feminists noted, among other thinly veiled sexist remarks during the campaign, Obama quipping, “I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal,” and Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen in a television interview comparing Clinton to a spurned lover-turned-stalker in the film, “Fatal Attraction,” noting, “Glenn Close should have stayed in that tub, and Sen. Clinton has had a remarkable career…”. These attitudes, and more, define the tenor of the party leadership, and sent a message to the grassroots and media that it was “Bros Before Hoes,” to quote a popular Obama-supporter T-shirt.

The campaign’s chauvinistic attitude was reflected in the even more condescending Democratic National Convention. There, the Obama camp made it clear it thought a Super Special Women’s Night would be enough to quell the fervent support of the woman who had virtually tied him with votes and was on his heels with pledged delegates.

There was a lot of pandering and lip service to women’s rights, and evenings filled with anecdotes of how so many have been kept from achieving their dreams, or failed to be promoted, simply because they were women. Clinton’s “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling” were mentioned a heck of a lot. More people began to wonder, though, how many cracks does it take to break the thing?

Ironically, all this at an event that was negotiated and twisted at every turn in an astounding effort not to promote a woman.

Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters – pro-choice women and gays to be specific – would be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course. There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us – but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.

Make no mistake – the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party’s increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.

The party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That’s why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.

They are deciding women’s rights must be more than a slogan and actually belong to every woman, not just the sort approved of by left-wing special interest groups.

Palin’s candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change. The simple act of thinking outside the liberal box, which has insisted for generations that only liberals and Democrats can be trusted on issues of import to women, is the political equivalent of a nuclear explosion.

The idea of feminists willing to look to the right changes not only electoral politics, but will put more women in power at lightning speed as we move from being taken for granted to being pursued, nominated and appointed and ultimately, sworn in.

It should be no surprise that the Democratic response to the McCain-Palin ticket was to immediately attack by playing the liberal trump card that keeps Democrats in line – the abortion card – where the party daily tells restless feminists the other side is going to police their wombs.

The power of that accusation is interesting, coming from the Democrats – a group that just told the world that if you have ovaries, then you don’t count.

Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions – the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin’s focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters.

On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin’s comment. You see, none of her peers, no one, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she’s voting. Many more now are realizing that it does indeed take a woman – who happens to be a Republican named Sarah Palin.

Tammy Bruce is the author of “The New American Revolution” (HarperCollins, 2005) and a Fox News political contributor. She is a former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women. A registered Democrat her entire adult life until February, she now is registered as a decline-to-state voter.

Locations of visitors to this page


Filed under Feminists