The inconvenient truth about fascism ... Since my April 2 column that compared Barack Obama's economic policies (and others) to those of Italy's Benito Mussolini, I have been denounced on the pages of the Economist, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Toronto Star, and the New York Times (less strongly denounced there than in the others, oddly enough), and by Chris Matthews (and guests Tony Blankley and Larry Sabato) on Hardball, and also had the idea made fun of by CNN morning hosts while they played a rather tame and sober interview they had done with me on the subject. Never mind that in the New York Times on April 7 , David Leonhardt went farther, comparing the policies to the economics of Hitler in the course of saying that was a good thing because Hitler's economics worked. Somehow, the rather fact-based piece I wrote was seen by the media elite as out of bounds, but Leonhardt's was acceptable analysis because it was meant to praise Obama rather than bury him. Yet Leonhardt's column is proof enough that it is not some right-wing conspiracy theory that sees fascistic leanings in the big government, corporatist approaches taken by The One in the Oval Office. Since then, the evidence has grown only stronger. As the Examiner noted yesterday, the Obama takeover of General Motors is astonishing in its scope and reach. The money quote from GM itself: "The U.S. Treasury will be able to elect all of our directors and to control the vote on substantially all matters brought for a stockholder vote." (spectator.org)
News Unionists in the tank for Obama ... Mr. Obama sought to portray the Republican definition of bipartisanship as "a situation in which basically, wherever there are philosophical differences, I have to simply go along with ideas that have been rejected by the American people in a historic election." He added: "We're probably not going to make progress," and in case the other party missed the message, he later said that "opposing our approach on every front is probably not a good political strategy." Casting blame on Mr. Bush for the economic woes, the president vowed that "even as we clear away the wreckage of this recession, I've also said that we can't go back to an economy that's built on a pile of sand." (He did not mention the loss of nearly 2 million jobs in his first 100 days, nor the $350 billion deficit the federal government incurred in the first financial quarter.) For his part, Mr. Obama gave his administration an "A," ticking off a host of initiatives and efforts he and his top aides have made since taking office Jan. 20. "So I think we're off to a good start," he said. "I'm proud of what we've achieved," he added, and also "I'm pleased with our progress." The president opened with a seven-minute statement, and even though he read his speech from a large teleprompter, he was as measured and metered as a great Broadway actor (although it was his second performance of the same piece - he had already performed a matinee in Arnold, Mo., on Wednesday for a town hall full of supporters). Like each of his other two prime-time press conferences, he had the White House press corps eating out of his hand, guffawing at his every joke, great or small. (washingtontimes.com)President Tea Bag
Union bigs use tax-funded fraud group to harm workers ... Congress is very interested in changing the labor laws to allow unions to have more power to organize workers. The most important changes are the card checks and forced arbitration. The proposed law will force workers to join unions in order to be able to work. When unions were first organized, they did help workers to improve their work hours, their safety conditions, their hourly pay and many other conditions that they endured. Now the only things that unions want is power. The union executives are no longer interested in the rank and file members. Yes, the unions were needed in the past and still can be useful. They can still help workers; however, they have changed their objectives. Now they are seeking power by being a political arm of the Democratic party, as is ACORN. (delawareonline.com)Glorious 100 Days
Sen. Amy Klobuchar placed on Dirty Money Watch ... WHO: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act (aka Card Check) WHAT: Klobuchar received the following dirty money: Communication Workers of America (PAC ) $1,000 in 2008 election cycle; $10,000 in 2006 election cycle. Boilermakers Union (PAC) $1,000 in 2008 election cycle; $1,500 in 2006 election cycle. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (PAC) $5,000 in 2008 election cycle; $10,000 in 2006 election cycle. American Federation of Government Employees (PAC) $10,000 in 2006 election cycle. Service Employees International Union (PAC) $2,500 in 2008 election cycle; $10,000 in 2006 election cycle. United Steelworkers of America (PAC) $10,000 in 2006 election cycle. WHY IT’S DIRTY: Multiple officers and members of these unions, including division presidents, secretary-treasurers and business managers, have been convicted since 2001 of felonies ranging from embezzlement, falsifying official reports to government, mail fraud and conspiracy. The Communication Workers of America and the American Federation of Government Employees have had eight convictions, The Service Employees International Union has had nine convictions and The Boilermakers have had 10 members convicted, while the IBEW has had 14 members convicted. The United Steelworkers of America, which includes Paper, Allied-Industrial Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (PACE), has had 30 convictions among its membership. The amounts of embezzled funds range from over $5,000 to over $100,000. WILL KLOBUCHAR GIVE IT BACK: Klobuchar did not respond to The Examiner’s request for comment. THE SCORE: Number of Democrats who have given it back: 0 • Number of Republicans who have given it back: 0 (washingtonexaminer.com)
