Governor Palin has driven many of the Left off the deep end!


“Naomi Wolf Bravely Speaks Truth to the Palin Police State

Moonbats Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 8:55:26 am PST

Our unhinged rant of the day: a new article by feminist nutbar Naomi Wolf (last seen at LGF praising the religion of Islam for keeping women submissive) at the ever-loony Huffington Post: Naomi Wolf: The Battle Plan II: Sarah ‘Evita’ Palin, the Muse of the Coming Police State.

Please understand what you are looking at when you look at Sarah “Evita” Palin. You are looking at the designated muse of the coming American police state.

You have to understand how things work in a closing society in order to understand “Palin Power.” A gang or cabal seizes power, usually with an affable, weak figurehead at the fore. Then they will hold elections — but they will make sure that the election will be corrupted and that the next affable, weak figurehead is entirely in their control. Remember, Russia has Presidents; Russia holds elections. Dictators and gangs of thugs all over the world hold elections. It means nothing. When a cabal has seized power you can have elections and even presidents, but you have freedom. [sic]

Do people like Wolf really believe this kind of stuff, or are they just working the left wing rubes who eat it up with sporks? A typical comment:

One trillion dollars to bail out the financial institutions? I don’t think so. I think they will use this money to set up their fascist police state, suspend the constitution and declare martial law.

Good grief. Hundreds of comments like that one.”


Obama Campaign Coverups


September 22, 2008
Deep secrets of campaign 2008

 “The news regarding the presidential campaign has been delivered on two tracks. On one track the mainstream media have played their usual role of the Victorian gentleman described by Tom Wolfe in The Right Stuff. In this capacity, to borrow Wolfe’s formulation, the mainstream media have prescribed the proper emotion, the seemly sentiment, the fitting moral tone, that must be established; and all information that muddies the tone and weakens the feeling has been thrown down the memory hole.

Wolfe’s description has obvious application to the press’s treatment of Barack Obama during this campaign season, with the result that important stories illuminating Obama’s character, judgment and lack of seriousness have been thrown down the memory hole if they have ever seen the light of day. Here are five of them, briefly noted with links.

Obama promises change the Teamsters can believe in: Wall Street Journal reporters Brody Mullins and Kris Maher reported in early May how Barack Obama won the Teamsters’ endorsement for president. In a meeting earlier this year, he privately “told the union that he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption[.]”

Obama holds himself out as a new kind of politician who refuses to play the old games. The Mullins/Maher story should have blown Obama’s pretense up several times over — Obama promises change the Teamsters can believe in! — but it has generated next to no coverage.

Some Democrats recently sought the impeachment of an attorney general for politicizing justice by the firing of eight United States Attorneys. Many Democrats joined in driving the attorney general from office on this bogus charge. Democrats now seek the election of a presidential candidate who is engaged in something that looks very much like the genuine article, with the appearance of corruption thrown in for good measure.

Obama rattles the saber on Iran: During the run-up to the primaries, Senator Obama did not appear in the Senate to vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment calling on the government to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist entity and thus suffer the imposition of sanctions.

On the day of the vote on the amendment, however, Obama issued a statement announcing that he would have voted against it. In the statement, the closest he came to addressing the merits of the amendment was his assertion that “he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran.” The amendment passed the Senate 76-22 on September 26, 2007, with many Democrats including Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Richard Durbin, and Chuck Schumer voting in its favor.

Obama mercilessly attacked Hillary Clinton for her vote in favor of the amendment. Obama likened it to her 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war. “This saber-rattling was a repetition of Iraq,” he said.

The day after securing the Democratic nomination, however, Obama appeared at the AIPAC policy conference in Washington and delivered a speech calling for “boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.” The time had arrived for Obama (to use his words) to rattle the saber.

Suffice it to say that Hillary Clinton has a special insight into the naked cynicism that fuels Obama’s campaign. However, to the extent that Obama’s cynicism makes her look like a highly principled politician, Senator Clinton may have somewhat mixed feelings about it.

Obama’s friendship with some guy who lives in his neighborhood: During the primaries Obama famously described unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers has “some guy in my neighborhood.” More recently, in his interview with Bill O’Reilly on FOX News, Obama asserted that Ayers was just one of the thousands of acquaintances he’s made over the years.

Obama’s description of his relationship with Ayers is simply deceitful. Thanks to the work of Steve Diamond and Stanley Kurtz among others, followers of the campaign on the Internet have discovered that Obama had a close working relationship with Ayers.

Apparently thanks to Ayers, Obama was named the chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the foundation of which Ayers was a founder and guiding force. Their working relationship gave rise to what Kurtz describes as a close and ongoing political partnership.

Obama’s devout belief in abortion: Obama holds himself out as a sort of moderate on the subject of abortion, asserting, for example, that abortions during the second and third trimesters should be rare. Asked by Pastor Rick Warren when a baby acquires the rights of personhood, Obama declared the question “above [his] pay grade.” No abortion ideologue he.

As a member of the Illinois legislauture, however, we now know (if you get your news from the Internet) that in 2001 Obama was the only member of the Illinois senate to speak against a bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as “persons.” As David Freddoso has reported: “The bill was in response to a Chicago-area hospital that was leaving such babies to die. Obama voted ‘present’ on the bill after denouncing it. It passed the state Senate but died in a state house committee.”

Freddoso also reports that in 2003 Obama voted was one of six Illinois senate members to vote against the Illinois bill that mirrored the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. The federal version of the bill had by then passed the Senate unanimously and been signed into law. The true history of Obama’s record on abortion places him on the fringe with abortion rights extremists in his own party.

Obama’s historical howlers: Obama has repeatedly made it clear when invoking American history to support his positions that he is shockingly ignorant. In support of his advocacy of presidential negotiations with Iran, for example, Obama points to the constructive role that the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit in Vienna played in the ultimate American victory in the Cold War.

By all accounts, however, the Vienna summit was a disaster for the United States. It led, among other things, to the emplacement of the Berlin Wall by the Soviet Union, to the Cuban missile crisis and to the enhancement of the American role in Vietnam. Either Obama is familiar with the history and is deliberately exploiting the ignorance of his supporters, or he has no idea what he is talking about. (I incline to the latter view.)

The anonymous Victorian gentleman who titled his underground sexual autobiography My Secret Life has his counterparts among the mainstream media this year, only they won’t write the book that should be called My Secret Campaign.”

David Axelrod, Obama’s Chief Media Strategist: Behind the Palin Fallacious Smears?

Read the whole article at

“It is also likely that the PR firm was paid by outside sources to run the smear campaign. While not conclusive, evidence suggests a link to the Barack Obama campaign. Namely:

  • Evidence suggests that a YouTube video with false claims about Palin was uploaded and promoted by members of a professional PR firm.
  • The family that runs the PR firm has extensive ties to the Democratic Party, the netroots, and are staunch Obama supporters.
  • Evidence suggests that the firm engaged in a concerted effort to distribute the video in such a way that it would appear to have gone viral on its own. Yet this effort took place on company time.
  • Evidence suggests that these distribution efforts included actions by at least one employee of the firm who is unconnected with the family running the company.
  • The voice-over artist used in this supposedly amateur video is a professional.
  • This same voice-over artist has worked extensively with David Axelrod’s firm, which has a history of engaging in phony grassroots efforts, otherwise known as “astroturfing.”
  • David Axelrod is Barack Obama’s chief media strategist.
  • The same voice-over artist has worked directly for the Barack Obama campaign.

This suggests that false rumors and outright lies about Sarah Palin and John McCain being spread on the internet are being orchestrated by political partisans and are not an organic grassroots phenomenon led by the left wing fringe. Our findings follow.”


“The blogosphere is doing the job the MSM thinks no one else can do.

A collaborative investigative effort by our friends at The Jawa Report to expose an apparently astroturfed, anti-Sarah Palin smear campaign seems to have caused late-night panic in Barack Obama-linked p.r. circles. The bloggers digging into the provenance of anti-Sarah Palin smears on the web got results last night/early this morning while most elite journalists were still in their pajamas sleeping.

First, read this. Read the whole thing. Rusty Shackleford — with help from Jane of Armies of Liberation, Stable Hand, the Jawa team, Dan Riehl, Ace of Spades, and Patterico – traced a Palin-bashing YouTube video to a Democrat public relations firm, Winner and Associates, and one of its employees, Ethan S. Winner. They believe the voiceover for the ad — which spreads the lie that Sarah Palin belonged to a fringe third party, the Alaska Independence Party — was done by a professional whose voice they believe was also featured in several Obama ads and other spots produced by Obama top strategist and astroturfer extraordinaire David Axelrod’s firm.

Now, here’s the juicy part. Within an hour of publication of the Jawa Report’s investigation, “eswinner” deleted the smear video that he had uploaded several times on September 11″

Obama’s Flagrant Deception About Social Security


“In Daytona Beach, Obama said that “if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would’ve had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week.” He referred to “elderly women” at risk of poverty, and said families would be scrambling to support “grandmothers and grandfathers.”

That’s not true. The plan proposed by President Bush and supported by McCain in 2005 would not have allowed anyone born before 1950 to invest any part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. All current retirees would be covered by the same benefits they are now.”

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis

Democrat Economic Policies Fail By Definition. They could have prevented the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapse if they weren’t blinded by their Progressive ideology in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005.

This is not to say the Republicans are blameless in this issue by any means. But just like the issue of Social Security, Democrats are not only anti-reform but they have inflicted much damage to our economy by allowing mortgages to high risk lendees.


Commentary by Kevin Hassett

Sept. 22 Bloomberg

“The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn’t. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street’s efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn’t make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it’s hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission’s chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie’s position on the relevant accounting issue was not even “on the page” of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a “world-class regulator” that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan’s Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn’t be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie “continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,” he said. “We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn’t become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: “It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.”

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that’s worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)”

To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at

Last Updated: September 22, 2008 00:04 EDT

The Revolution Sought by Obama-style Community Organizers


By Melanie Phillips

“In her game-changing convention speech, Sarah Palin took a swipe at Obama for having been nothing more in his life than a ‘community organiser’.

This prompted the Obama campaign to issue a pained defence of community organisation as a way of promoting social change ‘from the bottom up’. The impression is that community organising is a worthy if woolly and ultimately ineffectual grassroots activity. This is to miss something of the greatest importance: that in the world of Barack Obama, community organisers are a key strategy in a different game altogether; and the name of that game is revolutionary Marxism.

The seditious role of the community organiser was developed by an extreme left intellectual called Saul Alinsky. He was a radical Chicago activist who, by the time he died in 1972, had had a profound influence on the highest levels of the Democratic party. Alinsky was a ‘transformational Marxist’ in the mould of Antonio Gramsci, who promoted the strategy of a ‘long march through the institutions’ by capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society. In similar vein, Alinsky condemned the New Left for alienating the general public by its demonstrations and outlandish appearance. The revolution had to be carried out through stealth and deception. Its proponents had to cultivate an image of centrism and pragmatism. A master of infiltration, Alinsky wooed Chicago mobsters and Wall Street financiers alike. And successive Democratic politicians fell under his spell.

His creed was set out in his book ‘Rules for Radicals’ – a book he dedicated to Lucifer, whom he called the ‘first radical’. It was Alinsky for whom ‘change’ was his mantra. And by ‘change’, he meant a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this, he said, was through ‘people’s organisations’.

Community organisers would mobilise direct action by the oppressed masses against their capitalist oppressors. In FrontPageMagazine.Com John Perazzo writes:

These People’s Organizations were to be composed largely of discontented individuals who believed that society was replete with injustices that prevented them from being able to live satisfying lives. Such organizations, Alinsky advised, should not be imported from the outside into a community, but rather should be staffed by locals who, with some guidance from trained radical organizers, could set their own agendas.

The installment of local leaders as the top-level officers of People’s Organizations helped give the organizations credibility and authenticity in the eyes of the community. This tactic closely paralleled the longtime Communist Party strategy of creating front organizations that ostensibly were led by non-communist fellow-travelers, but which were in fact controlled by Party members behind the scenes…

Alinsky viewed as supremely important the role of the organizer, or master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People’s Organization… Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.[40] The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict[41] and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.”[42] ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’;[43] i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.

Obama’s connection with Alinsky, whom he never met but whom he reportedly idolised, was through two bodies promoting the Alinsky model of community organisation, ACORN and the Gamaliel Foundation.  John Perazzo again:

Obama was trained by the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in Chicago and worked for an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of ‘a more just and democratic society’ is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method. As The Nation magazine puts it, ‘Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing…’  In fact, for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method.

But Obama brought a special slant to Alinsky’s radicalism.Far from being – as he has been painted – a ‘post-racial’ politician, Obama’s politics are all about promoting the cause of black people and achieving ‘reparations’ from white society (a perspective through which his whole welfare redistribution agenda is framed). Accordingly, he saw his three-year role as a community organiser in Chicago as mobilising black people for action against their white oppressors. Finding himself hampered in creating an activist network among black churches, he decided to join such a church to give himself more credibility. That’s why he joined the infamous black-power Trinity Church of Christ – a move, it seems, that had less to do with any spiritual quest than as a radical tactic for mobilising the black proletariat.

According to Stanley Kurtz in National Review (subscription required), as a trainer for Gamaliel and ACORN Obama used his influence to secure a major increase in funding for both groups. Kurtz writes of Gamaliel, one of the least known yet most influential national umbrella groups for church-based community organizers:

Gamaliel specializes in ideological stealth, and Obama, a master student of Gamaliel strategy, shows disturbing signs of being a sub rosa radical himself. Obama‘s legislative tactics, as well as his persistent professions of non-ideological pragmatism, appear to be inspired by his radical mentors’ most sophisticated tactics. Not only has Obama studied, taught, and apparently absorbed stealth techniques from radical groups like Gamaliel and ACORN, but in his position as a board member of Chicago’s supposedly nonpartisan Woods Fund, he quietly funneled money to his radical allies — at the very moment he most needed their support to boost his political career.

Kurtz also quotes Rutgers political scientist Heidi Swarts who, in her book Organizing Urban America: Secular and Faith-based Progressive Movements, lays out the strategy of stealth:

Swarts calls groups like ACORN and (especially) Gamaliel ‘invisible actors,’ hidden from public view because they often prefer to downplay their efforts, because they work locally, and because scholars and journalists pay greater attention to movements with national profiles (like the Sierra Club or the Christian Coalition). Congregation-based community organizations like Gamaliel, by contrast, are often invisible even at the local level. A newspaper might report on a demonstration led by a local minister or priest, for example, without noticing that the clergyman in question is part of the Gamaliel network. ‘Though often hidden from view,’ says Swarts, ‘leaders have intentionally and strategically organized these movements that appear to well up and erupt from below.’

Although Gamaliel and ACORN have significantly different tactics and styles, Swarts notes that their political goals and ideologies are broadly similar. Both groups press the state for economic redistribution. The tactics of Gamaliel and ACORN have been shaped in a ‘post-Alinsky’ era of welfare reform and conservative resurgence, posing a severe challenge to those who wish to expand the welfare state. The answer these activists have hit upon, says Swarts, is to work incrementally in urban areas, while deliberately downplaying the far-Left ideology that stands behind their carefully targeted campaigns.

To avoid seeming like radicals or ‘hippies left over from the sixties,’ Gamaliel organizers are careful to wear conventional clothing and conduct themselves with dignity, even formality. Since liberal social movements tend to come off as naïve and idealistic, Gamaliel organizers make a point of presenting their ideas as practical, pragmatic, and down-to-earth. When no one else is listening, Gamaliel organizers may rail at ‘racism,’ ‘sexism,’ and ‘oppressive corporate systems,’ but when speaking to their blue-collar followers, they describe their plans as ‘common sense solutions for working families.’

If anyone should doubt Obama’s debt to Saul Alinsky, they might ponder this encomium from no less an authority than Alinsky’s own son. In a letter to the Boston Globe, L. David Alinsky wrote of his father’s influence at the Democratic Convention:

All the elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situation and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd’s chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the agenda by the power people.

Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

Obama’s questionable links to various radicals are now well-known: the black power racists Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Fr. Michael Pfleger, the former Weather Underground terrorism supporters Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn. On CNN’s Glenn Beck show a few days ago Jerome Corsi, author of Obama Nation, observed:

Obama began his career, his coming out party in 1995, and Ayers and Bernadine Dorn’s home. And then for, you know, some 20 years, Obama has been working with Ayers, certainly since 1995, on a series of foundations: the Annenberg Foundation and the Woods Foundation. The boards of directors together, or in the Annenberg Foundation, Ayers created it, and Obama was on it. And together they spent the money of these foundations to implement their radical socialist agenda.

As EM Forster wrote in a somewhat different context, only connect.

When Hillary Clinton was fighting Obama for the Democratic candidacy, her camp implied that the party would be making a terrible mistake in selecting Obama because, unlike centrist Hillary, he was a left-winger. But Hillary is an even more fervent Alinsky acolyte. In their book The Shadow Party, David Horowitz and Glenn Poe recount how Hillary first met Alinsky through a left-wing church group to which she belonged in high school, and stayed close to him until his death. Indeed, so impressed was she with his beliefs that she wrote a 75-page salute to him in her senior thesis at Wellesley College in 1969, which contained excerpts of the not-yet published Rules for Radicals. She wrote:

If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution. Ironically, this is not a disjunctive projection if considered in the tradition of Western democratic theory. In the first chapter it was pointed out that Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been feared — just as Eugene Debs or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths — democracy.

That’s not democracy as we know it, more a Marxist conception of people power. On FrontPage, Perazzo writes:

During her senior year, Hillary was offered a job by Alinsky but chose instead to enrol at Yale Law School. Alinsky’s teachings, however, would remain close to her heart throughout her adult life. According to a Washington Post report, ‘As first lady, Clinton occasionally lent her name to projects endorsed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), the Alinsky group that had offered her a job in 1968. She raised money and attended two events organized by the Washington Interfaith Network, an IAF affiliate.’

Alinsky was a radical straight out of the Gramsci playbook. In both America and Britain, Gramsci’s acolytes have been conducting a decades-long march through the institutions. In Britain, they have substantially achieved their aim of subverting western morality and changing the face of British society. No political party stands against this. In the US, they have made huge inroads but haven’t yet won. With Palin on one side and Obama on the other, it is now clear that this US presidential election has taken the culture war to the gates of the White House itself.”

Touching a raw nerve in the Liberal template

This is really rich!


The Palin Effect
Her enemies are bellowing like a wounded moose.
by Noemie Emery
09/29/2008, Volume 014, Issue 03

Excerpt below:

“McCain picked Palin for a number of reasons–youth, pizzazz, energy, appeal to the base and to middle-class women, to the West and to blue-collar voters–but it may turn out that the main contribution she makes to his effort is in goading the Democrats into spasms of self-defeating and entirely lunatic rage. Somehow, every element of her life–the dual offense of being a beauty-queen and hunter; the Down syndrome baby who wasn’t aborted; the teenage daughter about to get married, whose baby also wasn’t aborted; the non-metrosexual husband working the nightshift; the very fact of five children–touched a nerve on the liberal template, and sent the whole beast into convulsions, opening an intriguing and somewhat frightening window onto the turbulent id of the left.

On September 2, the New York Times ran six stories that touched on the teenage daughter’s pregnancy, three of them above the fold on page one, each of them making Palin’s family life look like Tobacco Road meets Jerry Springer. Carol Fowler, chairman of the Democratic party in South Carolina, said that Palin’s main qualification “seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion,” which, in some circles is nothing to brag about. (Fowler’s husband Don, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, had just faded from the headlines after suggesting that the disruption of the Republican convention by Hurricane Gustav reflected the judgment of God.)

The editor in chief of the New Republic said Palin was “pretty like a cosmetics saleswoman at Macy’s,” and called her and her ilk “swilly people.” Leftist “comediennes” made up rape scenarios. A hacker broke into Palin’s private email account, spreading family photos and emails far and wide. Gawker, a website beloved of the New York-based media, gleefully dialed up one daughter’s voice mail, published the photos, and a long list of email addresses of Palin’s friends and family. Rumors surfaced that four-month old Trig was really the son of her now-pregnant daughter. Vanity Fair and New York magazine offered “The Authentic Trig Palin Conspiracy Time Line,” with alternative theories of the infant’s conception and parentage. Talk of bodily fluids sloshed through the blogosphere, as “Who had her baby, and when did she have it?” became the rallying cry of the left. A blogger for the Atlantic demanded medical records: “The circumstantial evidence for weirdness around this pregnancy is so great that legitimate questions arise.”

But the main questions that arose concerned these over-the-top accusations, and the mental state of those making them. At the end of it all, Palin’s backers had become a large guard of impassioned defenders; McCain got a boost among independents and in state-by-state polling; and a Ramussen poll showed that 68 percent of the people considered the press biased and partisan, and 51 percent thought it was out to skewer Republicans. Democrats, who have fretted for years about winning more votes in Middle America, are seeing their plans for “expanding the map” being flushed down the toilet. Wooing the red states will have to wait for the next cycle.

There were signs too that Palin was confounding Obama almost as much as she was enraging the left and the press, assuming there still is a difference between them. Planning to run as the agent of change against boring old white guys, he was knocked off his balance by the sudden emergence of a rival barrier-breaker, and someone as young and as jazzy as he. As Michael Barone wrote, the fighter pilot played an old pilot’s trick on the rookie, getting “above and behind the adversary so you can shoot him out of the sky.” In political terms, McCain set it up so “that the opponent’s responses again and again reinforce the points you are trying to make, and undermine his own.” Just so. Obama can’t knock her as a flash in the pan, because that’s what he is; he can’t say she just gives good speeches, because that’s what he does; he can’t say she doesn’t have enough deep experience, as his is scarcely deeper. In August, he didn’t seem to know that Russia has a seat on the Security Council, and has the power to veto its measures. If Palin becomes president before 2012, it would be after a period of intense preparation. If Obama does, he would be unprepared on Day One.”

Canadian Taxpayer Funded Liberal Media and Chairman of the US House and Ways Committee Spew Hateful Vitriol Against Palin


Click on the link above to see the video below.

The Fox news anchor in the above video unfortunately succumbs to name calling against the Canadian journalist. 

And here’s the tax evading and Freddie Mac enriched Democrat Chairman of the House of Representatives House and Ways Committee demonstrating the reflexive attitude of so many Liberals toward Sarah Palin. They can’t help their revulsion towards traditional values.  

Barack Obama has tried privately to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence


“September 19, 2008
Some dare call it inappropriate, part 2


In “Some dare call it inappropriate,” John Hinderaker drew attention to Amir Tahiri’s New York Post column reporting how Barack Obama has tried privately to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence. John also noted the Obama campaign’s response to Taheri’s column. Taheri promptly shredded the Obama campaign’s response in a column that also merits attention. Pete Hegseth comments at NRO:

Taheri’s column comports with second-hand reports I’ve received from those with access to top U.S. decision-makers in Iraq. Rather than use his touch-down trip to Baghdad to fact-find and consult with senior Iraqi and American officials, Sen. Obama made a concerted effort to push his post–Bush administration agenda, undermining — in word and deed — current diplomatic efforts in Iraq. Tuesday, the Obama campaign essentially confirmed the details of Taheri’s reporting.  

Some will see this interference in foreign policy during a time of war and cry, “Treason!” While the episode truly is a scandal, I will check my emotions — as I find the overabundance of outrage in our politics tiring and toxic. I believe, rather, that the underlying naivety of Obama’s overtures is the more disturbing lesson to be distilled from this discovery.

It’s not just that Sen. Obama doesn’t believe in the mission in Iraq, it’s that he still doesn’t get it (to plagiarize from the senator himself). Fundamentally, he doesn’t understand the mission in Iraq, what it takes to win a war, or the ramifications of the outcome of this war for the U.S.’s enduring national security. He just doesn’t get it.

Hegseth’s column provides sober commentary on Taheri’s revelations. (Andrew McCarthy also comments on Taheri’s revelations in another NROcolumn column this morning.)


Coverage of the exchange prompted by Taher’s column has been extremely limited. See the news stories that turn up in this Google search on “Obama and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari” (whose disclosure provided the basis of Taheri’s column). Insofar as the mainstream media are concerned, the story esentially remains a deep secret of campaign 2008.

To comment on this post, go here.”

The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate

by David Freddoso

Obama a Lefty, Not a Reformer

The first serious negative biography of Senator Barack Obama casts the Democratic nominee as a fake reformer and a real liberal.

The Case Against Barack Obama by National Review’s David Freddoso, blasts Obama for failing to take on the Chicago machine, for listening to “radical advisors,” and for backing “doctrinaire liberal” causes from teachers unions to abortion rights.

It does not, however, compare him to Paris Hilton, or dwell at length on his religion or race – making the substance of The Case Against Barack Obama sound a bit unfamiliar amid a campaign cacophony of hyperbolic web ads, alleged race cards, and viral smears.

Freddoso says John McCain’s campaign and Republicans at large are making the wrong case against the Illinois senator.

“I don’t think you beat Obama by saying that he’s Paris Hilton,” said Freddoso, a reporter for the conservative magazine National Review, referring to McCain’s latest advertising campaign. “The more important thing is really to look at is he who he says he is? Is he really this great reformer?”

Freddoso’s book, released today by the conservative publishing house Regnery and provided exclusively to Politico by the publisher, occupies a small island in the often-shrill sea of criticism of Obama. As a range of conservatives suggest that Obama is a closet radical, and as McCain’s campaign aims to disqualify him from the White House on the grounds of his international fame, Freddoso makes a case that conservatives should look at the presumptive Democratic nominee’s record.

His thesis: “It’s not that Obama is a bad person. It’s just that he’s like all the rest of them. Not a reformer. Not a Messiah. Just like all the rest of them in Washington. And just like all the other liberals too.”

Freddoso’s is one of two new books harshly attacking Obama. The other, by Jerome Corsi, reportedly covers some of the same territory as the viral emails that have plagued the Democratic candidate, making much of his slender connections to Islam and his teenage drug use.

Freddoso opts largely for a fact-based critique, and writes that the viral and overt smears have allowed Obama to evade substantive criticism.

“Too many of those criticizing Obama have been content merely to slander him,” he writes. False rumors about Obama’s religion and ancestry have produced, Freddoso writes, “an intellectual laziness among the very people who should be carefully scrutinizing Obama.”

His book comes with Republican popularity at a historic low, amid widespread disenchantment with Republican ideals of limited government and hawkish foreign policy. Many – including, apparently, McCain’s strategists – doubt a Republican can win a policy face-off. But as the real campaign hones in on the character of the candidates, Freddoso’s book attempts to build an alternate case against Obama. Freddoso’s argument begins in Chicago….Though Obama’s first political steps were in Hyde Park’s reformist politics, Freddoso focuses on the smooth accommodation he made to the machine…. — Politico, Ben Smith, August 4, 2008

Book Description
He’s the media’s darling, the fresh face of the Democratic ticket. But what does Barack Obama really stand for–and will his extreme liberal agenda and complete inexperience in global affairs endanger the country? That’s what David Freddoso, investigative reporter and National Review Online columnist, examines in The Case Against Barack Obama. In this shocking exposé, Freddoso explores the reality behind the rhetoric, the plans behind the promises, and the faults behind the façade, revealing:

* Why Obama’s inexperience and extreme left-wing voting record is more dangerous than any threat we face today
* Why the Rev. Wright debacle reveals Obama’s poor judgment of character and deceitful nature
* Why it won’t be politics of change with President Obama–it will be liberal politics as usual

Freddoso exposes the real Barack Obama: a typical big-government politician, the #1 most liberal U.S. senator, and–if he were commander in chief–a serious threat to our national security.”

How the Mainstream Media Interviews Republicans


Charlie Gibson of ABC News: Fair Interviewer Democrat Advocate

Obama interview: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 interview:
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]”

“No major media outlet has reported on Barack Obama’s long association with and defense of William Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist, nor have they pressed him on his lack of executive experience or the absence of any significant political accomplishments except his own elections.”


ABC’s Gibson grilled Palin hard, but it may backfire


Published: Sept. 12, 2008 at 11:47 AM

Charles Gibson of ABC News was out for blood and inherently applied a double-standard compared with the kid gloves George Stephanopoulos used on Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois on Sunday night.

Gibson was out to embarrass Palin and expose her presumed ignorance from the word go. By contrast, when Obama referred to his “Muslim faith” on Sunday and did not correct himself, Stephanopoulos rushed in at once to help him and emphasize that the senator had really meant to say his Christian faith.

By contrast, Gibson tried to embarrass Palin by referring to her Christian faith in asking people to pray for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Palin countered by pointing out she was following the precedent set by Abraham Lincoln.”

Media Losing What Remains of its Credibility

The main media’s unwillingness to ask hard questions of Senator Obama compared to Governor Palin is further diminishing their already rock bottom credibility, even in the eyes of a former Senator Clinton aid. Read on!

From CBS News:

“Mark Penn: Well, no, I think the people themselves saw unfair media coverage of Senator Clinton. I think if you go back, the polls reflected very clearly what “Saturday Night Live” crystallized in one of their mock debates about what was happening with the press.

I think here the media is on very dangerous ground. I think that when you see them going through every single expense report that Governor Palin ever filed, if they don’t do that for all four of the candidates, they’re on very dangerous ground. I think the media so far has been the biggest loser in this race. And they continue to have growing credibility problems.

And I think that that’s a real problem growing out of this election. The media now, all of the media — not just Fox News, that was perceived as highly partisan — but all of the media is now being viewed as partisan in one way or another. And that is an unfortunate development. So you think the media is being uniquely tough on Palin now?

Mark Penn: Well, I think that the media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they’re not doing on the other candidates. And that’s going to subject them to people concluding that they’re giving her a tougher time. Now, the media defense would be, “Yeah, we looked at these other candidates who have been in public life at an earlier time.”

What happened here very clearly is that the controversy over Palin led to 37 million Americans tuning into a vice-presidential speech, something that is unprecedented, because they wanted to see for themselves. This is an election in which the voters are going to decide for themselves. The media has lost credibility with them. “

Continued Democrat & Main Media Vitriol (and panic) About Sarah Palin


“Dem. Rep. Steve Cohen (TN) – I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the parties have differences. But if you want change, you want the Democratic Party. Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”

“Sliming Palin

False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain’s running mate.


We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.”

Conservatives Understand the Left, but not Vica Versa


September 11, 2008

Palin and the Left’s Comprehension Gap

By Dave Smithee

“At the root of this curious gulf of ignorance has always been the fact that the left is unable to understand that conservatives keenly understand them and the alleged rationales behind their policies.  We know they think government needs an active role in social justice, that civic and free market mechanisms like business, church, and charity are insufficient to deal with poverty, urban decay, and the social pathologies that foster them. They think that in order to foster social progress, the state needs to assume active advocacy roles on a limitless range of issues. They think that the consolidation of wealth and influence embodied in the United States is internationally dangerous, destabilizing, corruptive, and worst, just plain unfair. We understand. We may utterly disagree and denounce it to hell, but we understand.

When conservatives see liberals, they see the proponents of bad, inefficient, and eminently corruptible state and social systems that with eye-watering predictability, corrupt those who administer them and harm their alleged beneficiaries. Often for generations.

But we also know that when liberals look at conservatives, no such courtesy or openness of mind is extended.  They don’t see considered issues, critical thought, or the faintest possibility of reason. They see white trash men waving bibles at teen brides, while a gaggle of kids groom each other for lice on a cracked linoleum floor. ‘Bitter clingers’ who mindlessly adhere to second-amendment rights so they can shoot baby possum off a tin fence on slow Friday nights. The other sort of conservative invariably invokes 19th century robber barons, plutocrat industrialists swollen with loot plundered from the proletariat, abating their whipping of Dickensian child labor just long enough to polish a monocle.

For reasons above my pay grade since it seems to be doing them no favors, the Democrats and media cling to and propagate these curiously garish caricatures about conservatives that would be more at home in the works of Bosch than in any recognizable reality. And not just in private; but as par for the course in the national discussion. For example, Sarah Palin doesn’t merely have ‘flawed policies’. In the space of two weeks, we’ve discovered she’s apparently a power-drunk loon, an anti-semite, a hypocrite, an unfit mother, a religious fanatic, a redneck escapee from the set of Deliverance, a Nazi sympathizer, and an 18th-century secessionist. All she’s missing is a mustache to twirl.

The reality that forever eludes our left-wing intelligentisa is simple. The bulk of conservatives are not sleeping on dirt floors. We are simply those who have thought beyond step one, and realized that the state is not, and cannot be, the answer. We realize that all of history up to our current disastrous experiments with statism, economic ‘management’, and the disastrous social welfare theories of whites that have been perpetrated on minorities, have proven that conservatism offers the optimal arrangement of social conditions under which individuals, families, communities, and nations thrive. Are there sexists and bigots among the conservative community? As surely as there are those on the left who believe mankind deserves wholesale slaughter for angering Gaia, or lunatic professors willing to call slaughtered American civilians ‘Little Eichmans’.”