#NewTone: Liberal super PAC using ethnicity-based attacks on McConnell’s “Chinese” wife


Despicable.   Via Lousiville’s WFPL news radio:

A Democratic group is under sharp criticism for controversial online messages about Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s wife.

For months, the liberal super PAC Progress Kentucky has attacked McConnell and held demonstrations at his offices and home.

Recently, the group turned its attention to McConnell’s wife, former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, with a focus on her race.

In a Feb. 14 Twitter message, Progress says: “This woman has the ear of (Sen. McConnell)—she’s his wife. May explain why your job moved to China!”

The Tweet links to a website run by conspiracy theorist and radio host Jeff Rense, alleging Chao, who was born in Taiwan, discriminated against American workers during her tenure.

Progress Kentucky spokesman Curtis Morrison says the group’s leaders do not review every Tweet and initially denied any had mentioned Chao superficially. But he later told WFPL that a group volunteer had sent out the messages targeting the former secretary.

“It’s not an official statement. It’s a Tweet. And we will remove it if it’s wrong,” he says. “I follow Ashley Judd on Twitter and she removed a Tweet the other day, she Tweeted to you Phillip. People make mistakes in Tweets. It happens. Inferring that Elaine Chao is not a U.S. citizen was not our intention.”

Other messages from Progress’s social networking account about Chao have run for the past several days, saying her “Chinese (money)” is buying state elections. According to campaign finance records, members of Chao’s family donated $80,000 to the Kentucky GOP last year.

The super PAC has also posted vocal support of their criticism, one of which said “not many know McConnell’s wife is Chinese.”


In years past, opponents have questioned McConnell’s relationship with his father-in-law, James Chao, who owns Foremost Maritime Corp., a New York-based shipping company. The business has trade connections to China and Chao’s father has ties to its government.

Questioning his relationship with his father-in-law is one thing. Using his wife’s heritage to try and “prove a point”, on the other hand, is most definitely not.

Naturally, top Republicans have demanded an apology from Progress Kentucky and have called for Democrat leaders to denounce the attacks in the strongest of terms.  PK has said they will issue an apology to Chao later today and several leading Democrats at the state and national level have repudiated the PAC’s line of attack.  Even actress Ashley Judd, a potential opponent (seriously) for Senator McConnell in the 2014 Senate race, criticized the PAC without mentioning them by name:

Well, it sounds like the obligatory apologies and/or denunciations have been made, but the thing that should be the focus beyond this is how little national mainstream media attention this story has gotten. Had the parties been switched here and it was a Republican PAC making these types of attacks, we’d have wall to wall coverage, and non-stop “analysis” by MSDNC and other liberally slanted “news” outlets as to What It All Means for the future of the GOP. But it’s not, so state coverage is about the best we can get.

In a perfect world, the mainstream press would be consistent but ….. oh well.

Related: Via Daily Caller – Ashley Judd’s biggest problem: Her history of bizarre comments

California’s big-government madness, drowning in a sea of laws


**Posted by Phineas

CA bear flag

I ran across an item today in the Los Angeles Times that just floored me. The article was discussing a proposed new tax on sodas to fight the “obesity crisis” (insert eye-roll as needed). See if you can spot what caught my attention:

A proposal to tax sweetened soda in California has renewed debate over the state’s role in preventing obesity among its residents.

State Sen. Bill Monning (D-Carmel) has introduced legislation that would levy a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on sweetened beverages, including sodas, as part of an effort to fight obesity among young people.

The money paid by beverage distributors under SB 622 would go to a Children’s Health Promotion Fund to pay for a statewide childhood obesity prevention program. “This bill will combat the obesity crisis and ensure that our children– and future generations of Californians– are not doomed to a shorter life expectancy and can instead live longer, healthier lives,” Monning said.


The Monning bill was one of 2,189 bills introduced by state lawmakers by Friday’s deadline for this year,…

Okay, so maybe I helped you a bit there.

California’s elected legislators oligarchs have proposed two thousand one hundred eighty-nine new laws or amendments to existing laws.

Keep in mind that the legislature has 120 members in total, so, on a per-capita basis, each legislator has introduced more than 18 proposed laws. I have a hard time imagining us needing more than 18 new laws in total, let alone 18 x 120.

This is one of the unintended consequences of passing Proposition 1A in 1966, by which we created a full-time legislature, one that has the longest session of any in the nation, by the way. Legislators feel they have to have something on the resume to show the voters and to justify that $95,000 per year salary, and what better way to do it than write a bunch of laws? That’s what “professional lawmakers” do, isn’t it?

Again, eye-roll. No government anywhere, anytime needs more than 2000 new laws per year.

As far as I’m concerned, Californians back in 1966 made a tremendous mistake for which we’re now paying, as the legislature is controlled by a bunch of progressive full-time nanny-staters whose only solution to any problem –even problems that aren’t their business or may not exist at all– is more government, more laws, more intrusion in our lives. And if we ever hope to restore some sanity here, returning the legislature to part-time status will have to be a big part of the solution.

PS: I’m also strongly reminded of what the Roman historian Tacitus once said:

“The more corrupt the State, the more numerous the laws.”

Wise people, those Romans.

PPS: Oh, and the soda tax is lame, too. Another piece of useless social engineering brought to us by our Coastal Overlords.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

President for sale: $500,000 gets donors quarterly access to The One


The NY Times reports on the Organizing for Action group – formerly known as Obama for America – and their goal to sell unprecedented ultimate access to the President … to the highest bidder (bolded emphasis added by me):

President Obama’s political team is fanning out across the country in pursuit of an ambitious goal: raising $50 million to convert his re-election campaign into a powerhouse national advocacy network, a sum that would rank the new group as one of Washington’s biggest lobbying operations.

But the rebooted campaign, known as Organizing for Action, has plunged the president and his aides into a campaign finance limbo with few clear rules, ample potential for influence-peddling, and no real precedent in national politics.

In private meetings and phone calls, Mr. Obama’s aides have made clear that the new organization will rely heavily on a small number of deep-pocketed donors, not unlike the “super PACs” whose influence on political campaigns Mr. Obama once deplored.

At least half of the group’s budget will come from a select group of donors who will each contribute or raise $500,000 or more, according to donors and strategists involved in the effort.

Unlike a presidential campaign, Organizing for Action has been set up as a tax-exempt “social welfare group.” That means it is not bound by federal contribution limits, laws that bar White House officials from soliciting contributions, or the stringent reporting requirements for campaigns. In their place, the new group will self-regulate.

Officials said it would voluntarily disclose the names of large donors every few months and would not ask administration personnel to solicit money, though Obama aides will probably appear at some events.

The money will pay for salaries, rent and advertising, and will also be used to maintain the expensive voter database and technological infrastructure that knits together Mr. Obama’s 2 million volunteers, 17 million e-mail subscribers and 22 million Twitter followers.

The goal is to harness those resources in support of Mr. Obama’s second-term policy priorities, including efforts to curb gun violence and climate change and overhaul immigration procedures. Those efforts began Friday, when thousands of Obama supporters were deployed through more than 80 Congressional districts around the country to rally outside lawmakers’ offices, hold vigils and bombard Congress with e-mails and phone calls urging members to support stricter background checks for gun buyers.


But those contributions will also translate into access, according to donors courted by the president’s aides. Next month, Organizing for Action will hold a “founders summit” at a hotel near the White House, where donors paying $50,000 each will mingle with Mr. Obama’s former campaign manager, Jim Messina, and Mr. Carson, who previously led the White House Office of Public Engagement.

Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama’s top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships.

I’ll take “What is the definition of hypocrisy? for $500,000 Alex.” Even Chuck Todd, an MSDNC “journalist” and avid fan of President Obama like most NBC employees, says this whole thing stinks:

Excuse us? This just looks bad. It looks like the White House is selling access. The definition of how you define selling access. If you believe money has a stranglehold over the entire political system, this is ceding the moral high ground. And the President always has, from the moment he first announced his presidential bid in Springfield, six years ago, he stressed the need to curb the influence of special interests in Washington.

Here’s video of Todd’s commentary below, which includes clips of candidate Obama making promises anyone who paid close attention at the time (hint: Not Chuck Todd and other fawning journos) knew he wouldn’t keep on the issue of special interests:

“Wonder what candidate Obama would say about this?” Todd asks at the end of the clip.

Answer: The same lies and crapola he said the first time around when he ran for President, the same bull sh*t journalists who were so enamored of him at the time (and, in actuality, still are) *willingly* failed to investigate. In fact, the vast majority of failings we’ve “learned” about President Obama over the time he’s served in the White House were either predicted in advance by concerned conservatives are were already known but under-reported (or not reported at all) by mainstream media reporters. Conservative new media types were all over it but were either ignored or called “raaaacists” by “real reporters” who worked for CNN, ABC, CBS, and the like.

Things haven’t changed much, have they?

Chuck Todd and journalists just like him enabled disturbing abuses of power like this to happen in the first place not only by their by their willful ignorance of the facts but also with their dangerous “treat ’em with kid gloves” approach when it comes to their favored Democrat candidate(s) for political office. Had they taken their jobs seriously and not been so derelict, perhaps Obama wouldn’t have even won his first term, let alone the second. But they didn’t, so here we are. As a result, Todd and his colleagues in the mainstream press shouldn’t act so surprised that it has (finally) played out in color on the pages of both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, both outlets of which we should congratulate for finally writing extensively about an issue conservatives have been rightly blasting Obama about in print and broadcast media for years. Better late than never, gang.