Breitbart Feed

Warren Fundraises from Out-of-State Special Interests

Sun, 27 May 2012 09:00:00 -0700

A report and chart at Masslive.com indicate that Elizabeth Warren is not running a Massachusetts-based campaign when it comes to fundraising. The bulk of her money seems to come from out-of-state Progressive activist funding groups with their own agendas, not necessarily aligned with the goals of Massachusetts.

Among her backers, "the Progressive Change Campaign Committee has raised more money for Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren than it has for any other candidate in the organization’s three-year history." Meanwhile, national activist group MoveOn.org claims to have raised "unprecedented," mostly out-of-state monies for Warren.

In contrast, Massachusetts businesses are overwhelmingly contributing to incumbent Senator Scott Brown. The state appears to be experiencing solid levels of growth and is ranked well in terms of leading the way out of America's recent economic difficulties: "Massachusetts economy expanded faster than any other state in New England last year and and ranked fourth in the nation in economic growth."

There is also a significant military and defense-based economy in Massachusettes that has grown in recent years. Historically, the national players backing Elizabeth Warren oppose military and defense spending; MoveOn.org was a key player in the antiwar protests of George W. Bush's presidency.

Warren's fundraising sources are an unfortunate revelation, due to the perception opponents have that she is a national media creation with little local, grassroots support. In addition to the roiling controversy over her professed Native American heritage, the Warren campaign faces a serious challenge proving its candidate's authenticity to voters.

Warren on Run from Press

Sun, 27 May 2012 06:53:00 -0700

Under siege over dubious claims of Indian ancestry, Elizabeth Warren slammed a car door in the face of reporters trying to ask her questions regarding what may now eventually become a campaign-ending controversy.

It was actually the third door slammed in the media's face while fleeing a campaign event at SEIU 1199 offices in Dorchester. An aide also slammed two stairwell doors on reporters, as Warren, frantic to evade questions from a Boston Herald reporter, fled up the stairs before entering an SUV, slamming the door on reporters, and being driven off without delay.

This latest Warren debacle follows a previous on-camera encounter that went badly for the would--be Senate candidate. As she repeatedly fails to even respond to these questions, the storm around the issue shows no signs of abetting.

The final leg of Warren's hasty retreat from the SEIU event was captured on video, sure to make news highlight reels around the state. The Herald originally broke the story of Warren's genealogy problems and is now comparing her to an embarassed and embattled John Kerry when he was confronted with claims he docked a $7 million yacht in Rhode Island to avoid paying taxes.

Headline image source: Boston Herald

Bloggers Briefing Preview: Grover Norquist Talks Taxes, Defends ‘The Pledge’

Sun, 27 May 2012 06:41:00 -0700

Let’s be honest, liberals want to raise your taxes. President Obama talked about it on the campaign trail in 2008 and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid raised it again last week. They tried to do it last year in the debt-limit deal and failed. Now they’re at it again.

Yet despite this rhetoric and corresponding pressure from mainstream journalists, Republicans have remained steadfastly opposed to tax increases.

This is where Grover Norquist enters the picture. The president of Americans for Tax Reform -- best known for its Taxpayer Protection Pledge -- has endured withering criticism for taking tax hikes off the table.

Norquist, who founded the taxpayer advocacy group in 1985 at President Ronald Reagan’s request, will speak at The Bloggers Briefing on Tuesday at noon ET. Breitbart News Network, in conjunction with The Heritage Foundation, will carry the briefing live.

The timing of Norquist’s visit comes as the liberal mainstream media attempt to divide conservatives on “the pledge.” The Washington Post ran a front-page story Saturday suggesting that a growing number Republicans were refusing to sign it -- “a small sign that could signal a big shift in Republican politics on taxes,” according to the Post’s Rosalind S. Helderman.

A closer look at the details, however, reveals that there might be less of a shift among the GOP on taxes than liberals would have you believe -- a point that even the Post acknowledges in 23rd paragraph of its story. Some of the Republican candidates who have declined to sign the pledge apparently face uphill battles in their races for Congress and might never make it to Washington.

And even with some Republicans declining to sign the pledge this year, Norquist notes that his organization is ahead of schedule collecting signatures. Mitt Romney has signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge as have 236 (of 242) Republican House members, 40 (of 47) Republican senators and nearly all challengers for the 2012 House and Senate races.

Norquist attributes the growing number of attacks to the 2011 debate over the Simpson-Bowles commission, which Obama created by executive order. The commission proposed a $2 trillion tax increase, which Republican members rejected. It set the stage for the debt-limit debate, which resulted in spending reductions -- including dangerous cuts to the military -- but no tax hikes.

“Only by taking tax hikes off the table will politicians begin to focus on reforming government to reduce spending,” Norquist wrote in The American Spectator in March. “Verbal promises to avoid tax hikes are worse than meaningless. Written, public commitments like the Taxpayer Protection Pledge are increasingly self-enforcing and this past year alone they've saved American taxpayers trillions in avoided tax hikes and in actual spending restraint.”

The debate over taxes won’t soon fade. The central theme of Obama’s reelection campaign is “fairness,” which is a code word for redistributing wealth. And then there’s the unprecedented $494 billion tax hike that’s coming on Jan. 1, 2013. It’s been dubbed “Taxmageddon” given the economic devastation it would cause.

Norquist will certainly be a factor as these debates play out in the coming months. Tune in on Tuesday at noon ET to hear his outlook.

Obama's Refusal to Leave Wright's Church Meant Exposing Children to Hate

Sun, 27 May 2012 06:25:00 -0700

In the halls of the fundamentalist Islamic schools that preach hate of America and the West, children sit and learn. With innocent ears and bright eyes, what they learn becomes "fact." Their youth and inexperience prevent them from comprehending neither alternatives nor the underlying dogma. This hatred becomes a part of their lens, with life decisions framed by this fiery rhetoric. We can not hope for a change of heart and a different, more peaceful future if their spiritual leaders and teachers preach anger and hate.

The news media has dissected the speeches of Reverend Wright, revealing his loathing for America. His dark message of anger and fear is meant to energize and focus his followers. This is in stark contrast to the deep and abiding love fiercely expressed by Mitt Romney, a man who, by contrast, believes America is a great nation.

In Reverend Wright's congregation were also children, our future. Barack Obama can offer his nuanced basis for separating the speaker from the message. He can denounce Wright’s statements as hateful and wrong, while understanding and explaining the failings of every human being. He tells us that we all err and go too far at some point in our lives, that’s humanity. Yet in that congregation where they prayed for many years sat Barack and Michelle Obama with both of their own children.

The young cannot clearly distinguish between good and bad, the damned and the righteous. They can’t filter the differences between the message and the man. Our own legal system separates them as minors, incapable of full capacity. Reverend Wright was their spiritual leader as well. He was a person they believed was good, a role model. His words were important and their meaning singular and simple, taken at face value. They believed in him, as do children in the congregations of all religious leaders.

While we discuss the implications of the relationship between Reverend Right and Barack Obama, we should consider very carefully the characteristic of judgment. While Reverend Wright clearly had an adult agenda and a political statement to make, Barack Obama had a direct responsibility for the mental stability and growth of his children. As a parent, I try to be vigilant about the nature and tone of messages that are sent to my children. I watch the TV shows they select, the movies they see, the websites they visit and the friends they choose.

Of course, I can’t control everything. But one aspect of their lives that I have a significant amount of control over is their relationship to religion. I make every attempt to have them learn lessons that positively impact their relationship to others and their country, provide a basis for strength in difficult times as well as hope and joy. I am careful to listen to sermons and speeches to ensure that the message of my religious leaders do not deviate from my beliefs and sensibilities – not because I can’t understand the differences but because my children are actually better listeners than I am.

Barack Obama lacked the judgment and fortitude to remove himself and his family from Wright’s congregation, or maybe he didn’t think the message spewed was really all that offensive. His failure put his children at risk to accept this type of doctrine, whether found in the specific speeches we have heard or in the general tone of the Reverend’s leadership. This inability to make tough decisions represents his overall failure to grasp the fabric of American society and stand tall against those who seek to undermine our way of life, whether through fiery rhetoric, socialist malaise, or shoe bombs.

Hundreds of thousands of men and women have given their lives, and that sacrifice is part of our national identity. Mitt Romney is not afraid to unabashedly verbalize his love for America, a welcome respite from the often constrained utterances we hear from Barack Obama. As a nation, we continue to stand as a single beacon in the world for the triumph of humanity in society. When we strip hope and fierce self-determination from our children, we plant seeds of destruction and risk the fate of peoples who find it easier to hate and be angry than to own up to their individual responsibility to improve not only their lives, but that of their fellow man.

Our children are our future; the lessons they learn should be of strength and happiness, forgiveness and charity, not anger and fear. If Barack Obama, as a parent, could not exercise sound judgment to protect his children from Reverend Wright’s message of hate – how can he be the right person to lead this great nation into the future?

Obama Camp Silent on Media's Mormonism Smears

Sun, 27 May 2012 05:01:00 -0700

"As religion becomes an ever-more significant issue on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney's Mormonism will be off-limits as a subject for the opposition," Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod said last Sunday.

If that is the case, why is the liberal media still focusing on Romney's religion? Perhaps it's because they can get away with it, knowing full well that Obama won't be asked to live up to the same standard expected of Mitt Romney. Obama's campaign will be praised for the above-the-fray position by the media while the same media carry on the dirty work of defaming The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a world-wide religion. More from Axelrod in the same article:

He added, however, that Romney should to come [sic] out stronger against attacks on Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. A recent GOP ad proposal unearthed by the New York Times that aimed to focus in on Obama's relationship with the pastor brought the racially-charged issue to the forefront of the campaign this week. While Romney repudiated the ad, Axelrod and [sic] he wasn't vehement enough in his disapproval.

If Romney is expected to "vehemently" repudiate any possible attacks against Jeremiah Wright, then why isn't Obama expected to "vehemently" repudiate ongoing attacks against Mormonism? Why does Obama think he can get away with this double standard? Our president's insulting silence on media attacks against Mormonism shows a tacit approval, not to mention a lack of principled leadership. Romney demonstrates greater leadership by personally speaking out against attacking Jeremiah Wright.

Having regularly attended LDS churches in various congregations across the country for more than 20 years, I'm very familiar with my church and its doctrine.

The LDS Church teaches that the Founders of the United States were divinely inspired to create a new nation granting unparalleled rights and liberties.
The LDS Church relies on a lay (uncompensated) ministry, with members serving as local leaders and teachers for variable lengths of time. Sunday sermons are regularly by members of the congregation.
The LDS Church teaches members to volunteer, contribute, and serve in their communities.
The LDS Church teaches members to be law-abiding citizens, as explained in the 12th article of faith:

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

The LDS Church's primary focus is to teach people to follow Jesus Christ.
The LDS Church now has over 14.4 million members worldwide, with about 6.2 million members in the United States, or 1.7% of the US population, and these numbers continue to grow.
The LDS Church has an estimated 186,000 African American members, about 3% of members in the US.
The LDS Church teaches tolerance and respect for all other creeds, faiths, and beliefs. The 11th article of faith says:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

The LDS Church teaches patriotism despite receiving multiple abuses by the hands of government authorities in the early days of the Church. Early Church members were driven out of Missouri by mobs carrying out an Extermination Order from Governor Boggs, followed by mobs chasing them out of Illinois after only a few years' time. Early members sought but received no protection from local officials, state officials, or President Martin Van Buren, despite abuses against members' religious liberty, property, and even their lives.
The LDS Church teaches members to extend love and forgiveness to all people who have wronged them individually or collectively, following Jesus Christ's example.
The LDS Church maintains strict political neutrality, but takes a stand on some social issues such as Proprosition 8 in California. This political neutrality also explains how LDS United States Congressmen are both Democrats and Republicans. There are currently 15 LDS Church members serving in Congress, most notably Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

If Obama's team thinks that the media highlighting Mormonism will drive voters away, they are mistaken. Mitt Romney has not tried to distance himself from his faith and has been loyal to his church and its teachings. If one candidate's faith is brought into the public forum, then both candidates' faiths should be discussed in the public forum. Either Obama should lead on quelling attacks on Mormonism, or he should accept that Jeremiah Wright is relevant during this campaign season.

Former Harvard Admin Throws Warren Under the Bus

Sun, 27 May 2012 03:59:00 -0700

Elizabeth Warren can no longer count the Harvard University administrator who listed her as "Native American" among her advocates in the unfolding scandal of her professed minority heritage.

In the reaction to the Boston Globe's controversial article on Harvard's EEOC reports which listed Elizabeth Warren as a Native American, one particular revelation has gone largely unnoticed. Alan Ray, the former administrator who filed diversity reports during Warren's tenure, distances the university from any responsibility for erroneously listing her as a Native American.

[Ray] said through a spokeswoman that he "never encouraged any faculty member to list himself or herself in a particular way." Ray added that Harvard "always accepted whatever identification a faculty member wanted to provide," a characterization another highly placed former Harvard administrator backed up.

In previous reports by Breitbart News, there has been no definitive evidence--no silver bullet--that Warren is the one who volunteered the idea she was a minority. The evidence discovered by authors John Sexton and Michael Patrick Leahy suggest it is very likely, but the possibility has not yet been established as fact. However, with this statement, Mr. Ray has denied the only other likely explanation for EEOC reports listing Warren as a Native American.

Either Warren suggested to Harvard, as she presumably did in her Pow Wow Chow byline, that she was a Cherokee, or Harvard, either from her appearance or from some historical evidence, deemed her Cherokee. However, as has been explored in excruciating detail, there is no genealogical evidence for Warren's assumed heritage, and her blonde-haired, blue-eyed appearance does nothing to suggest any kind of minority background.

Mr. Ray has now come forward and clarified the university's role in this controversy, insinuating he merely went along with information volunteered to him by Professor Warren. Ms. Warren, however, refuses comment, even though the allegations in this story include falsifying federal diversity compliance reports.

If there is some other explanation besides Warren herself claiming Native American heritage for Harvard's EEOC compliance, she needs to offer that information to the public. Otherwise, her silence can and will be perceived as a tacit admission that no other explanation exists.

Liberal Cannibalism: SEC Targets Progressive-Friendly Chipotle

Sat, 26 May 2012 15:53:00 -0700

Modern Liberalism is more about politics than policy. Even the most devout liberals are not immune to the legal harassment levied against other entrepreneurs.

By all standards Steve Ells, CEO and founder of Chipotle Mexican Grill, is a model liberal. He believes in sustainable agriculture, has a restaurant that is vegetarian friendly, and calls Earth “The Planet.”

He also believes in charity. Chipotle has a foundation that supports family farms and fights against childhood obesity. They even know how to say “No Boy Scouts Allowed” in proper Liberalese: “Chipotle will not support organizations that discriminate against a person or a group on the basis of age, political affiliation, race, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation or religious belief.“

Sure you would expect any successful chain to face nuisance lawsuits. Last year, a Mexican National sued a Minneapolis Chipotle for violating his human rights by denying him a beer. They actually asked him for more identification than the State of Minnesota requires to vote. The chain was also sued by a man in a wheelchair who claimed that the counters were too high for him to watch his burrito being prepared, denying him of his “full Chipotle experience.”

There were investigations by Homeland Security, ICE, and the Department of Justice; few successful restaurants today can escape such scrutiny. Since they were busted in 2010, Chipotle has been using a government-run system called E-Verify to identify job candidates not eligible for employment.

Personally, I don’t see a problem with hiring Mexicans to work in a Mexican restaurant. If you go to a sushi restaurant there is a reasonable expectation that the chef is going to be Japanese. In fact, if you intend to order the potentially deadly blowfish, Fugu, you should probably demand it. You expect French chefs to have an accent and bakers to be fat. So there should be nothing wrong with expecting a real Mexican behind the counter at a burrito shop (I've always thought it was part of the full Chipotle experience).

After two years of jumping through hoops to satisfy federal authorities, Steve has a new immigration investigation to worry about, this time from the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is puzzling why the SEC would launch such an investigation. It seems a little out of their jurisdiction (Perhaps Jamie Dimon left his wallet there).

It seems like the Administration is targeting Chipotle for a little special attention. But why would they attack one of their own? Chipotle should rank high on the First Lady’s list of healthy choices. And they make a low-carbon burrito big enough to satisfy Al Gore.

It could be for Chipotle’s hiring of Julie Myers, former head of ICE and a controversial Bush appointee, to handle their immigration problems. More than likely, though, it stems from the corporation’s stated policy of not donating to “lobbying, political or fraternal activities.” Indeed, a quick stop over at OpenSecrets.org verifies that Steve doesn’t believe in mixing business and politics and hasn’t given a dime to any political candidates.

This is politics Chicago-style (apparently, deep-dish pizza isn’t the only tradition nationally franchised out of the Windy City). It’s flat-out harassment. The Administration is trying to convince the restaurant that it would be more profitable to donate than to pay legal fees. As the adage goes, Hell hath no fury like a liberal denied his protection money.

It’s also the most likely reason why General Motors publicly pulled their Facebook ads on the verge of the IPO: retaliation for Eduardo Saverin’s renunciation of his citizenship. In case you wonder why other billionaires claim that they aren’t paying enough taxes: it‘s easier to repeat the Administration’s talking points than to fight them. Apparently, just being liberal isn’t enough anymore.

On the bright side, it is really hard to imagine Steve Ells ever voting for Obama again. While we might have differences on the environment and vegetarian food, I’m sure that Steve and I are on the exact same page when it comes to the freedom to conduct business.

I also like his carnitas.

Obamacare and Appeasement: An Unholy Alliance

Sat, 26 May 2012 15:25:00 -0700

Republican members of Congress introduced healthcare legislation entitled "The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009." As per one of the sponsors, Senator Burr:

The American health care system needs a complete transformation. The Patients’ Choice Act will finally enable Americans to own their health care instead of being trapped in the current system, which leaves people either uninsured, dependent on their employer, or forced into a government program. With a focus on prevention and wellness and covering those with pre-existing conditions, the Patients’ Choice Act will make health care affordable and accessible to all Americans.

What Senator Burr and other members of Congress fail to recognize is that the healthcare system has been built on a foundation that favors the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, large hospitals, the American Medical Association, and the medical insurance industry. It has never represented the interests of doctors or patients. How could it, when the voice of corporate entities have been front and center in Congress in the form of lobbyists, campaign donations from special interest groups, along with individual conflicts of interest which encourage members of Congress to continue to place their financial interests above the good of the country.

The Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin. The former want to control the individual by controlling their access to health by creating a government controlled grid that micromanages an individual's access to care and choice of treatment options. The latter continues to pay lip service to free market initiatives while continually backsliding and refusing to introduce legislation that will provide a real alternative to Obamacare. Neither party has felt the need to ask the only group that really understands the problems with the healthcare system – the independent practicing physician.

Both parties have done a masterful job of demonizing the physician. The doctor has been the scapegoat for skyrocketing health care costs while giving even more power to the medical industry to those entities that have been the architects of the broken healthcare system that we have today. In short, the system is a complex network of corporate middlemen who have worked tirelessly figuring out ways to skim profits while simultaneously shifting the costs to patients, rationing their care in the form of pre-certifications, increasing premiums, and outright denials on one hand while decreasing physician reimbursements (in the form of bundling of payments), lowering fees, implementing recovery audits to claw back reimbursements, and outright denials of payment after services have been rendered on the other. The government has exacerbated the problem by putting rules and regulations into place which encourage and reward this behavior, while ensuring that doctors and patients continue to feed a beast that needs increasingly more money in order to perpetuate a system that is based on the management of chronic disease instead of true prevention. It is no wonder that we are spending more money on healthcare and taking more medication, while, as a society, we are getting sicker.

If members of the Republican Party are serious about true healthcare reform, they need to go back to the basics and remove mandates and regulations that do nothing to improve healthcare, but have actually caused the breakdown of our system. Here are some suggestions:

Reform EMTALA (The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act), an unfunded congressional mandate passed in 1986, which required hospital emergency rooms to treat all patients regardless of their ability to pay. The unintended consequence of this bill has led to hospitals treating all patients regardless of their ability to pay and passing along the cost to those who are able to pay.

Instead: Require that patients who present to the emergency room be triaged and treated for real emergencies only, and not problems that are best treated in an outpatient office or clinic setting such as removal of ear wax.

Require that pharmacy benefit management companies (PBMs) be separate independent entities from insurance companies.

This will avoid collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and medical insurance companies that routinely manipulate the medication formulary based on profits not effectiveness.

Restrict unfair trade practices of large retail pharmacy chains that align with insurance companies as the “preferred” pharmacy for their members.

This practice cuts out small independent pharmacies because they cannot compete; and this destroys price control through honest competition.

Change the way hospitals are paid so that they cannot double dip. i.e., receive government payments to treat indigent patients while charging paying patients higher fees under the guise of "recouping their costs" for treating indigent patients.

Instead: Bundle hospital fees into a single payment based on the patient's disease, or surgical procedure.

Change the tax code

Allow physicians to write off delinquent patient bills as bad debt. This would alleviate the need to send the patient to collections and remove healthcare costs as a cause of bankruptcy. It would also encourage medical care that is gratis because physicians could afford to offer it.

Allow Medicare and Medicaid access to cheaper drugs from other countries.

Allow importation of drugs from Canada to decrease costs to both Medicare/Medicaid patients and the government.

Enact tort reform

Make patients who bring frivolous lawsuits responsible for paying all court costs.

It is only by completely overhauling the healthcare system to make it a level playing field that we will begin to truly lower the cost of healthcare while improving access, encouraging innovation, and changing our health care system from one that is disease driven to one based on wellness and prevention. It will not happen if we try appeasement as speaker Boehner proposes by keeping parts of Obamacare. Health care will only be what we want it to be in a free market system based on choice and competition.

Left Mobilizing Massive Vote Effort in Wisconsin

Sat, 26 May 2012 14:33:00 -0700

Supporters of government reform have been buoyed recently by a slew of polls showing Gov. Scott Walker with a solid, growing lead in June's recall election. His blowout performance in the GOP primary showed that GOP voters were more energized than Democrats. Combine these facts with his overwhelming fundraising advantages, and it looks increasingly likely that Walker will survive the recall showdown. But it ain't over yet.

A Walker victory in the recall would be a devastating blow for public sector unions. They have already wasted millions of their members' dollars on failed recall efforts last year. They lost a special election for the state's Supreme Court. And their anointed candidate in the primary, Kathleen Falk, was crushed by Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett. The loss to Walker would demoralize their members ahead of critical Fall elections. Worse, it may inspire other Governors to consider the same reforms, weakening unions across the country.

So expect unions to pull out every stop over the next ten days. Even though the DNC hasn't committed resources to the effort, the Obama campaign in the state has shifted all its workers to help on the recall.

In-person absentee voting began this week. The unions are conducting a comprehensive effort to get their supporters to vote early. Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots sent along this eye-witness account:

On Tues. May 22, I went to the Municipal Building in downtown Milwaukee, at the corner of Kilbourn & Broadway to cast my absentee vote for Gov. Scott Walker. After driving around for 10 minuets, I finally found a parking place. In front of the building I saw 2 white vans & one bus dropping off large groups of people to vote. At least a dozen employed workers with clip boards, wearing blue T Shirts with the logo "WI Jobs NOW" organizing loads of people into the Municipal Building, directing the as where to go, how to fill out the registration forms, and assisting their people.

There was a steady line of at least 70 people between 11am and 12 pm. It took me an hour to complete my absentee vote.

Naturally, Wisconsin election officials are doing everything they can to accommodate the early voting. The MacIver News Service reported today:

The election officials in Madison and Milwaukee are going out of their way to encourage successful early voting efforts in their cities. Both will keep the polling locations for early voting open for extended evening hours prior to the June 5 recall including being open on the weekends and the Memorial Day holiday.

While the Walker campaign, the state and county Republican parties and conservative groups are encouraging early absentee voting as well, these efforts are mostly via phone calls and mailers. There is no such comparable GOTV effort to transport likely Walker voters to the polls in Madison, Milwaukee, or anywhere else in Wisconsin prior to June 5th.

Brett Healy with MacIver shared this photo, which gives a sign of the size of the union effort:

Each of the white vans in the photo are part of the union fleet to drive supporters to election offices for early voting.

It was also reported today that Big Labor getting additional support from union members in neighboring states, who are traveling to WI for the campaign's final push:

In a Friday filing, We Are Wisconsin said it was getting reinforcements worth $36,770 from the Ohio Association of Public School Employees, an affiliate of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The union represents such school employees as bus drivers, mechanics, crossing guards, clerical workers, custodians, aides, food service workers and security officers

"Just as hundreds of us in Wisconsin joined our friends in Ohio during the final days of the successful fight against SB 5, our brothers and sisters from Ohio have come to make phone calls and knock doors in support of Tom Barrett's campaign to reunite and move Wisconsin forward," said Kelly Steele, spokesman for We Are Wisconsin.

In the end, Walker's advantages and the increasing popularity of his budget reforms should be enough to withstand the union's aggressive get-out-the-vote efforts. But, with stakes this high, expect unions to put up a stiff fight until the very end. Supporters of Walker and government reform will have to answer the challenge.

Healthy Broadcast Stats Raise Questions on Need for Regulation

Sat, 26 May 2012 14:18:00 -0700

As the policy debate regarding how best to ameliorate what some style the “spectrum crunch” affecting wireless broadband providers plays out in Washington, D.C., TV broadcasters are trumpeting some new statistics that demonstrate the popularity of broadcast media with the general public.

Despite the advent of services like Hulu, broadcast consumption remains healthy--and may even be growing, according to former Senator and National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) President and CEO Gordon Smith.

"A Knowledge Networks study last year found that more than 17 million households representing 45.6 million consumers receive television exclusively through over-the-air broadcast signals, up from 42 million such viewers the previous year," Smith wrote in an op-ed this week in Politico, adding that over-the-air-only viewing remains substantial in minority communities and among younger viewers.

"The OTA-reliant population includes one out of four Asian-American and Spanish-speaking households and 17 percent of African-American homes. Pay TV 'cord-cutting' is also a growing trend for younger viewers, and today one out of five adults ages 18-34 is broadcast-only," according to Smith. Moreover, he argues, demand remains high among the overall population for prime-time broadcast shows, as well as major sporting and entertainment events like the Oscars and the Super Bowl.

While that has trade associations like NAB cheering, it also has others scrutinizing twenty-year-old TV marketplace rules wondering why broadcasters are insistent about preserving certain provisions that critics charge prevent a genuinely free market from operating. Such provisions, according to free market groups supporting legislation introduced by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), include rules that allow broadcasters to force a cable or satellite firm to carry their signal (with some, non-fee type costs to the cable or satellite company). They also have retransmission consent rules which do not serve to bar unauthorized airing of broadcasters' copyrighted content but, rather, narrowly define what matters can be negotiated between cable and satellite operators and broadcasters, with respect to signal carriage arrangements.

Proponents of the DeMint-Scalise legislation suggest that the broadcasters' position is about maintaining the upper hand in a market that is highly regulated in their favor.

Others contend that the number of "over-the-air only" households is actually a little lower than NAB publicly claims, because households that only use services like Hulu would, for statistical purposes, qualify as broadcast-only--and that the broadcast industry therefore may not be as healthy as it claims and looking for a little regulatory insurance.

But even if this is the case, it's hardly an argument for a regime which effectively acts as a bailout for a particular industry, say critics. Advocates of a free market approach, such as the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, and Americans for Tax Reform believe demolition of the existing regime would better benefit both business overall and consumers.

Expect broadcasters to push back hard on that argument, invoking figures relating to jobs in their industry and its dollar value to the economy as a whole--in both cases, points they are raising as part of the debate about spectrum allocation, as well.

Census: 49% of US Lives in Households Receiving Gov't Benefits

Sat, 26 May 2012 14:10:00 -0700

According to US Census Bureau data, 49.1% of the US population lives in a household where at least one member is receiving government benefits:

The 49.1% of the population in a household that gets benefits is up from 30% in the early 1980s and 44.4% as recently as the third quarter of 2008.

The increase in recent years is likely due in large part to the lingering effects of the recession. As of early 2011, 15% of people lived in a household that received food stamps, 26% had someone enrolled in Medicaid and 2% had a member receiving unemployment benefits. Families doubling up to save money or pool expenses also is likely leading to more multigenerational households. But even without the effects of the recession, there would be a larger reliance on government.

The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand, but those percentages also are likely to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages.

The key line from the WSJ:

The more people who receive benefits, the harder it’s going to be to make cuts, and it’s never popular to raise taxes.

The administration refuses to address the causes of the problem, a plethora of economic ailments which include the government spending more than it takes in, tight regulations on business and energy, and the weakening of the dollar.

Spending on food stamps continues to rise.

USA Today a year ago said that more Americans are receiving federal aid than ever before, Investors Insight noted the same, and CNN noted that one in six Americans receive government assistance.

Of course such a record-high number of Americans are receiving government assistance: this same government, by direction of this administration, has made it difficult for businesses to operate, provide jobs, and for Americans to be self-sustaining. Expect this number to rise as more drop out of the job pool.

Will GOP Support Free-Market Reforms or Re-Legislate ObamaCare?

Sat, 26 May 2012 14:01:00 -0700

We are just a month away from the Supreme Court’s ruling on ObamaCare. So, what will Congressional Republicans do when the high court renders its decision? Republican leaders apparently have been mulling over their options, and Speaker John Boehner has said, “When the court rules, we’ll be ready.”

On Friday, Majority Leader Eric Cantor said in a memo that the House will vote on two partial repeal bills as early as June 4th. The first bill would repeal the health law's tax on medical devices, and the second would relax the law's restrictions on the use of health savings accounts (HSAs). While the medical device industry would be relieved to have the excise tax on their products repealed, the choice to focus on HSAs is an especially smart one for the GOP, since ObamaCare bans the use of HSAs for nonprescription drugs unless a doctor provides a prescription.

In addition, legislation that would ensure greater use of HSAs brings us back to the GOP’s “Pledge to America,” in which they promised to repeal ObamaCare, which was accomplished in the House, and to replace it with policies that would “lower costs, increase access to quality care, and strengthen the doctor-patient relationship.”

The policies mentioned on the GOP’s website include tort reform, allowing the purchase of health insurance across state lines, expanding health savings accounts, ensuring access to insurance for those with pre-existing conditions, and the prohibition of taxpayer funds for abortion. The repeal of two pieces of ObamaCare is certainly a move in the right direction. But, what about the rest of those great ideas to bring about lower health care costs? How will Republicans proceed once the Supreme Court renders its decision on the law?

If the Supreme Court upholds the law in its entirety, it sounds like some House Republicans will attempt to administer something like “first aid” to the nation. These leaders state that they will try to gut the president’s signature legislation of its core--the individual mandate--as well as the requirement that employers provide health insurance to employees, or pay fines.

That sounds good, but, like the attempts to repeal the medical device tax and relax HSAs, it is unlikely these bills will get very far in the current Senate and, even if they did, due to some election-conscious Democrats, the president would probably not sign them into law. In this scenario, the hope would be that the Republican nominee, presumably Mitt Romney, will win the election and give everyone a waiver from ObamaCare via executive order, followed, hopefully, by full congressional repeal.

However, in the event the entire law is declared unconstitutional or parts of the law are overturned, some Republicans say--get ready for this one--that they would want to propose bills that will allow the “popular” parts of ObamaCare to remain. Those parts that have “polled well” with the public include allowing adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ health insurance plans, requiring insurance companies to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions, and keeping the Medicare “doughnut hole” closed so that the cost of prescription drugs does not increase dramatically for seniors.

Unless Speaker Boehner and House leaders have a plan that they are keeping under wraps, it would be a significant concern if Republicans, after two years of rightly assailing the boondoggle health care law, did not move to replace ObamaCare with a bill, or series of smaller bills, promoting free market principles in health care markets.

True, if the Supreme Court overturned ObamaCare, many Americans--even conservative Americans--would be so happy to be rid of it that they would be gun-shy about further intervention into health care policies. To give into this fear, however, could be a grave error. The reason why ObamaCare appealed to a fair number of uninformed people in the first place is because of the high cost of health care. With ObamaCare gone, health care costs will still be high. If Republicans leave the problems with health care costs unaddressed, they will open themselves up to attacks, from both the left and their conservative base, that they have, once again, done nothing when they had the chance.

It is worthwhile to mention that while, with ObamaCare, President Obama and Congressional Democrats turned health insurance into an entitlement program, the Republican health care proposals should not accomplish the same end. Republicans should be working to free up health care markets, voting to get government out of the way, and allowing competition to bring down costs. It should be the goal to enact long-term solutions to our dysfunctional health care system so that both young adults and those with pre-existing medical conditions have access to the health care they need. Votes based on what is “popular” in ObamaCare, when ObamaCare is the direct opposite of free market health care policy, seem grounded in what is politically expedient.

Common-sense, free-market health care policies that Republicans should consider include the ability for Americans to own their own insurance plans and an increase in the options and usage of health savings accounts so that Americans can take part in the decision-making process when it comes to health care costs.

For many, if not most Americans, health care has, quite inadvertently, become an “entitlement program” of sorts, not because of ObamaCare, but because of something that happened during World War II. Prior to the war, most health care was paid on a “fee for service” basis, whereby people paid doctors directly for their services. This was a time when health care was pretty much a “free market.”

The free market in health care, however, changed dramatically when WWII broke out, and factories needed to attract workers. One way they lured prospective employees was by offering fringe benefits, like generous health care “plans.” Then, both in 1943 and 1954, the IRS made the tax advantages for employer-based health care “plans” irresistible. Consequently, participation in health care “plans” rose from 9% of the population, in 1940, to 63% in 1963. Within less than 25 years, America moved away from a free-market, “fee for service,” health care system.

Even if a person pays for his or her own health insurance plan, most Americans today cannot even imagine paying doctors or laboratories directly for their services. When Americans pay “copays,” they pay the amount indicated by their insurance “plan,” without even knowing how much the doctor or laboratory is paid for services in total. The problem--and this is what needs to be addressed--is that most Americans are far removed from what their health care services cost, because employer-based plans have pre-arranged that for them. Imagine buying a house, a car, or a vacation without even considering the purchase price!

Employees might contribute to the costs of their health care insurance plans, often through payroll deduction programs, but they rarely, if ever, participate in the decision-making process about the direct costs of services themselves. Consequently, when health care costs increase, which they have already, employers may cut certain benefits, agree to “managed care” plans, in which the services of only certain providers may be used by employees, or expect employees to contribute more to their plans.

Throughout these changes, employees have little to do with the decision-making process, a main reason why health care costs are so high. When people become more directly involved in making choices for the highest quality service, at the lowest cost, the market will respond. And that’s where health savings accounts come in, allowing individuals to make more of those decisions. When we think about it, why do we want our employers making all the decisions for our family’s health care, based on what’s least expensive for them? Shouldn’t we want to make that decision? The answer, unfortunately, is that many of us do not. It’s a lot easier to have someone else do it for us. That’s called “entitlement” mentality.

If people owned their own insurance plans, it is likely that we would see a new industry of smaller insurance companies develop, businesses which would compete to provide Americans with health insurance that best suited their needs. Americans could purchase “catastrophic” health insurance plans, if they wished, to cover major medical and hospital costs, but, then, health savings accounts could be used directly by individuals for their discretionary medical care. When Americans are in the driver’s seat, people in health care industries will want our business, so they will become more competitive. And, if the Republicans follow through with tort reform as well, providers’ expenses will be less, a situation that will allow them to participate directly in the free market with their patients.

To get to that point, Republicans will need to put on their thinking caps, lead the discussion, and come up with a plan. It would be a shame to lose out on a chance like this--to lower the nation’s health care costs while still providing the best quality health care service in the world. Americans will get accustomed to having adult children on their insurance plans, just as they got accustomed to employer-based health insurance “plans.” Young adults, and those with diagnosed medical conditions, should be given the opportunity to purchase their own insurance plans. That means Republicans will have to get the government out of the way to allow that to happen.

Obama Holds Off on Pool-Destroying Regulations til After Election

Sat, 26 May 2012 13:43:00 -0700

Just in time for Memorial Day weekend, in an amazing example of evolution, President Obama announced he wouldn’t enforce regulations written by his own Administration.

I’m sure we’ve all heard about the ADA swimming pool lift requirement by now. In order to make swimming pools and spas accessible to Americans with Disabilities, all facilities were required to install permanent lifts in every public facility, at a cost of at least $6,000 each, by the end of May. Locations with multiple pools would be required to install a lift for every single pool on their property. Of course, each lift would need to have a qualified operator and lifeguard on duty.

Beyond the cost and hassle of getting the lifts installed, hotel insurance companies weren’t even sure if they would be able to write internal policies for them. Needless to say, the risk of lowering a quadriplegic into water over his head presents a liability problem or two. The cost could be so great that most facilities would just eliminate their pools. It’s why diving boards disappeared (I still haven’t forgiven personal injury attorneys for that one). I can only wonder what would happen to water parks, since most modern high-speed slides seem a tad hazardous for people with limited mobility.

Summer is second only to Christmas on the kid calendar. It means long days of hanging out in the pool and family road trips during which the majesty of the Grand Canyon is dwarfed by the anticipation of getting to the hotel in time for a swim before dinner. Shrewd recession-struck parents avoid the high cost of gas and complaints about a boring canyon and just take their kids directly to the closest Holidome®. Not every family is as fortunate as the First Family to be able to afford the Spanish Mediterranean, Martha's Vineyard, or a Hawaiian villa.

Needless to say, most facilities will just close their pools. And I’m quite certain that all the disappointed tourists will be told their vacation was ruined by President Obama.

Which is why the regulations had to go. But they were not eliminated -- only suspended. Facilities will now be given until January to comply. It’s the same time when Obamacare goes into effect, the Bush Tax Cuts expire, and Vladimir Putin gets to see the President's “flexibility” in its full glory. Once the election is over, the Hope mask gets tossed.

Which is why it is imperative that he be defeated in November. If these four years are the worst of any President in History, imagine what is on the horizon for the next four. An Obama Administration without a restraining re-election bid is like a lawnmower without an off switch. It just keeps going Forward.

And if he wins, there is a chance that swimming pools will be as faded a memory to this generation as the memory of a summer jackknife off the high-dive are to me.

We can’t let that happen to the heirs of our debt.

Student Loan Bill Designed to Hit GOP; Funded by Counter-Terrorism Budget

Sat, 26 May 2012 13:15:00 -0700

Over the last several weeks the Obama 2012 campaign has made a push into the college campus arena. A Harvard poll has shown that interest in the 2012 election among college students has dwindled in comparison to 2008.

During the last presidential election, then-candidate Barack Obama led Sen. John McCain by 34% among voters under 30, but finds himself only leading candidate Mitt Romney by 12 points among voters 18-24 and both falling behind candidate Ron Paul's reach in the age bracket.

The Obama campaign has strategized to hit 130 campuses during the campaign in order to rally soon-to-graduate students back into the ranks. Ironically, in 2007, then-Senator Obama missed two key votes on legislation signed by President George W. Bush which extended low interest rates through 2011 on student loans and provided a means for yearly renewal of increased funding to Pell Grants through 2017. However, now that President Obama needs student support in his re-election campaign, he seems to have taken more interest in the subject.

What better way to propagate the formula than to call attention to student loan debt and the increase of such debt due to expiring interest rates, highlighted to you on the campus of the University of North Carolina by the president? In fact, no sane member of Congress would chance losing precious student votes in the upcoming election for their party by voting against an extension to current student loan interest rates. That is, unless the bill, sponsored by Rep. Hansen Clarke (D-MI), was designed to fail and, by the way, didn't mention changes to interest rates on loans received prior to July of 2012.

However, it turns out that this was exactly the course of action destined for Clarke's H.R. 4170 Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012. The careful observer will find in the final paragraph of the bill the following:

Funds appropriated or otherwise made available for a fiscal year to carry out this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall be made available from the funds available for Overseas Contingency Operations.

Overseas Contingency Operations. Have we heard of this before? In fact, we have. In 2009, the Washington Post reported that the "Global War on Terrorism," a branding ordained by the Bush administration, had been given a softer, gentler sounding name.

In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department's office of security review noted that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.'

There are at least thirty-three of you for which that did make the situation abundantly clear. Analyzing any military filing or legislation since March of 2009, one will find that all operations revolving around counter-terrorism measures are referred to as "Overseas Contingency Operations." Counter-Terrorism is Overseas Contingency Operations. Overseas Contingency Operations is Counter-Terrorism.

Representative Hansen Clark's bill is designed to fail.

The Democrats know full well that no Republican is going to vote in favor of a bill that strips counter-terrorism funding in order to supplement Stafford loans to maintain lower interest rates on new student loans for another year. Further, what few may know is that the Obama administration's proposed budget only allots for a sustained interest rate until 2013 with an increase coming in the summer of next year.

Those hoping for a reduction in current interest rates will be sorely disappointed if they take the time to read the bill. While the bill's 10/10 Plan is retroactive -- allowing remaining debt to be forgiven if a loan holder has made the correct payments on his or her loans for 120 straight months (10 years) -- Section 4 indicates the reduction in interest rates will only be applicable to new loans acquired after the date the bill is codified, leaving those currently holding high interest rate student loan debt with their existing interest rate.

This bill does not solve the interest rate problem for existing loan holders and simply delays rising interest rates on new loans until 2013, at which point, if Obama retains the presidency, he no longer has to worry about capturing student votes.

The pure beauty of the bill, though, is that it is designed to acquire zero GOP support so that Republicans appear to not care about the needs of students, inevitably pushing student support and votes toward the Obama campaign in November. Classic Barry. It's like Oceans 11 but without all the mustaches, Pendergrast, or the fancy suits.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Hansen Clarke's office, was reached for comment but failed to respond before publication.

Unions Threaten Jobs with Push Against American Airlines

Sat, 26 May 2012 12:43:00 -0700

Misguided emotions, union misbehavior, and government intervention on behalf of Big Labor are collectively combining to threaten jobs and are putting in danger any potential deal between American Airlines and U.S. Airways which might serve to save American.

This most recent attempt to ram Big Labor’s agenda through the airline industry has been orchestrated by none other than Democrats in the United States Senate, who waded into the merger and accompanying battle to force costly union elections upon American Airlines -- elections which could delay their merger with U.S. Airways and force them to spend millions they need to restructure. CWA, the Communications Workers of America, is looking to represent American’s 3,000 passenger service attendants, but an election now would delay the merger process and obviously confuse American’s employees, who are about to transfer to an entirely new entity.

Yet Senators Harry Reid, Tom Harkin, and Jay Rockefeller this week attempted to use their position of power to “persuade” American to allow the elections, even though American could suffer extended hardship. It’s clear from their actions that they, and others like them in Congress, would prefer unions be allowed to run roughshod over corporations, if only because union campaign money is so desirable in a vital election year.

The collection of Senators currently pressuring for elections cite the American workers’ right to unionize as their priority, but to call these elections “necessary” assumes that the unions have pure intentions. In reality, hotheaded emotional reactions have held up a deal between American and seven union groups, primarily because U.S. Airways has been masterful at obtaining union concessions in the face of American’s bankruptcy. Five of seven Transport Workers Union (TMU) groups voted in favor of the deal American’s unions struck with U.S. Airways, saving 1,300 jobs and implementing measures that would have eventually given them pay raises, along with various other benefits. But mechanics groups and others rejected the deal, either in hopes of fewer concessions, or simply out of anger.

Defying reason in uncertain economic times, the two remaining union groups voted to put more jobs at risk.

The unions’ misbehavior continues past individual votes, as they have already thrown in their lot with U.S. Airways while American Airlines continues to sit in Chapter 11. Before the restructuring process even neared completion, all three unions involved with American threw their support behind a merger, instead of restructuring, going as far as negotiating labor agreements with U.S. Airways, and assuming that American would simply die on the vine and then be forced to abide by their agreements. U.S. Airways is already using these same agreements to argue to American’s creditors that a merger is the only possible way out for American, leaving American to either make the unions a better offer or accept their fate.
And it gets worse.

Further flying in the face of logic is the fact that these unions completely overlook potential problems that come with integrating two different groups of pilots from two different unions. The probability of tensions rising is one that cannot be ignored, and given the history of lawsuits emerging from previous airline mergers stemming from just this issue, the risk is serious. Indeed, the only thing that remains certain throughout these negotiations is that resources will remain wasted in court, when unions could have helped American"s restructuring process and saved the jobs of hundreds of American workers.

And now, the unions are pushing for a mid-bankruptcy election, holding American hostage to union – not workers’ and certainly not American’s – interests. Industry experts have recently stepped up to question whether the merger should even happen, given how bad the deal seems to be for American.

But Congressional Democrats would rather side with unions in a knee-jerk play for their love than take a close look at a major industry merger.

Against the backdrop of a struggling economy that has the airline industry facing higher fuel prices and tough competition, the abject refusal of labor unions to take the intimidation card off the table is one that cannot go unchallenged. As unions walk out of negotiations and threaten strikes, more employees are suffering. American Airlines’ unions must reevaluate their priorities, and Democrats in the Senate would be wise to reconsider the political calculus of involving themselves in merger negotiations for the sake of political points.

Democrats, Schumer Supported Religious Freedom on Peyote; Opposed It on Obamacare

Sat, 26 May 2012 12:16:00 -0700

The key to overturning the Obamacare contraception mandate may be a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act introduced in 1993 by then-Representative Chuck Schumer. Ironically, now-Senator Schumer attacked Republicans who used the religious freedom argument against Obama's plan to make churches pay for contraception they don't believe is ethical.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was introduced by Rep. Schumer after widespread public disapproval of a Supreme Court decision that restricted Native Americans from using hallucinogenic drugs as part of their religious rituals. The goal was to prevent laws that substantially burden Americans from the free exercise of their religion.

A coalition of both liberal and conservative groups came together, and the bill passed by wide margins--a unanimous vote in the House and a 97 to 3 vote in the Senate--before being signed by President Clinton.

Parts of the law were later ruled unconstitutional, as they put an undue burden on the states. However, the law still applies at a federal level and has obvious implications for the Obama care contraception mandate for religious organizations.

Apparently, Schumer had no problem protecting the right to take peyote, but he balks when it comes to institutions like the Catholic Church who elect not to fund the killing of fetuses.

This past March, when Republicans attempted to pass a bill to protect the religious freedom of churches not to have to fund means of contraception that they don't believe in, Schumer suddenly wasn't so keen on religious freedom any more.

As Roll Call reported about killing the conscience clause, "I don't envy the rank-and-file Republicans who walked the plank on this vote," said Schumer, who also heads the Senate Democrats policy and communications arm. "I think it's going to be awfully hard to defend it back home, especially in places like New England," he lamented.

Senator Schumer may not like religious freedom when it's applied to Obamacare, but unfortunately for him and the Obama administration, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act actually provides a solid argument against Obamacare's forced contraception proposals. As The Hill reports:

“I think the odds are pretty good for the plaintiffs here,” Marc DeGirolami, an assistant law professor at St. John’s University, told The Hill.

Because of the law, courts now have to apply certain standards to federal actions that might inadvertently infringe on religious liberty. In one sense, laws under scrutiny must aim to achieve a “compelling” government interest. In another sense, they must be designed in a way that burdens religion as little as possible.

The second claim might be hard for the administration to meet when regulators could have taken many other steps — like expanding Medicaid — to provide better access to birth control, DeGirolami said.

“Even if one concedes that the state has a ‘compelling interest’ in ensuring that all women have free access to contraception,” he said, “there are many, many less restrictive means of achieving that interest.”

How committed are Democrats to religious freedom? It seems that if it gets in the way of the their sacred cow of abortion rights, not very committed at all.

John Wolfe Sues Arkansas Dems For Delegates Won In Primary Against Obama

Sat, 26 May 2012 09:30:00 -0700

Earlier this week, Breitbart News reported that Arkansas state Democrats might attempt to disenfranchise the state's voters by refusing to award delegates to John Wolfe, a Tennessee attorney who was on the ballot challenging President Obama (Wolfe is also on the May 29 ballot in the upcoming Texas primary). Yesterday, Wolfe filed suit against the Arkansas Democrat Party in the Federal District Court in Little Rock:

Arkansas Democratic Party spokesman Candace Martin had originally indicated that, while Wolfe had neglected to file the same documents in Arkansas, the party would wait until after the primary to consult with counsel and the National Democratic Party about whether he was nonetheless eligible for any delegates won in the primary. However, Martin subsequently announced, before the primary, that Wolfe would not be awarded any delegates regardless of the outcome of the vote.

In her May 17 statement, Martin explained that, "Mr. Wolfe has been completely non-compliant with Arkansas's Delegate Selection Plan therefore, the National Democratic Party has informed us that Mr. Wolfe is not a candidate participating in good faith and any delegates for Mr. Wolfe would not be recognized at the National Convention. We want to ensure that delegates elected to represent Arkansas have the opportunity to fully participate in the national convention."

What Wolfe failed to file was a document indicating "steps the candidate will take to encourage full participation in the delegate selection process."

In his [suit], Wolfe said that would include efforts, under party rules, "to aid the inclusion of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender persons; the handicapped; women; veterans; and various racial minorities, into the political process," but that there is no evidence that either he or the Arkansas Democratic Party has a record of discriminating against those groups."

"In truth," he writes in the suit, "Wolfe has been, in demonstrable ways, solicitous of the concerns of these groups throughout his personal and professional life."

And, he said in the lawsuit, there is no provision in the rules that would require him to forfeit his delegates for failure to file a delegate selection plan or name a representative.

Tuesday night Wolfe embarrassed Obama by winning 42% of the Arkansas vote, and the rumors that he would not be awarded delegates prior to election night were obviously designed to suppress any turnout in his favor. Democrats know they can count on their media allies to pretty much dismiss a 42% showing, but had Wolfe come within a few points or actually won the state, even Obama's Media Palace Guards would not have been able to avoid the kind of "loser" narrative that would only pile on the President's already very bad no good week.

This, however, is what Democrats do. Whether it's disenfranchising 68,108 of their own voters and declaring them all racist, the ends always justify the means -- which is only made possible when you can count on the sycophant media to cover up or downplay your misdeeds.

Moreover, Democrats do not want Wolfe coming out of Arkansas and heading into Texas with a head of steam. The last thing Obama needs now is a bunch of stories written about how a relatively unknown attorney who doesn't even live in these states is giving him a run for his money. If the media is ever forced to report the truth -- and that's that the President is suffering an enthusiasm problem -- those narratives have a way of sticking. In an election likely to turn on turnout, this can't be allowed to happen.

The media remembers 1992 and how effectively they turned Pat Buchanan's 37% showing against George H. W. Bush into a "loser" narrative, so that's something they are loath to repeat with Their Precious One. Can you imagine the media uproar had state Republicans even hinted at not awarding Buchanan his delegates?

Wolfe also suspects, and not without cause, that these efforts to disenfranchise his supporters are coming directly from the national party (he's also been robbed of delegates in Louisiana and might file suit there, as well), something a media worth its salt would at least question. But we have to remember that the only time "every vote counts" is when that policy is the last hope Al Gore has of winning the presidency.

I interviewed Wolfe last week. He's a serious and thoughtful candidate, not a quack. He deserves respect from his fellow Democrats, some attention from the national media, and every single one of his delegates.

Most importantly, though, the 68,108 people who voted for Wolfe deserve to have their votes count and their voices represented at the Democrat National Convention.

This is America not Venezuela. Obama is a man, not a god.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

Breitbart Is Here: Late Conservative Hero Admired Ted Cruz's Fighting Spirit

Sat, 26 May 2012 08:18:00 -0700

The late Andrew Breitbart saw in Ted Cruz the future of the conservative movement.

On paper, Cruz seems like someone out of central casting, perfectly put together to represent conservatism’s future. His father fled oppression in Cuba for freedom in America. He grew up immersing himself in the works of Frederick Bastiat, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman, earning scholarships by giving speeches about their ideas. He went to Princeton and Harvard law without losing the common touch. He racked up legal victories that helped defend the Second Amendment and America’s sovereignty against the World Court.

But while Breitbart admired these things about Cruz, they were not why, after speaking with the conservative GOP Texas senate candidate (Texas's primary is on Tuesday) at what would be his last Conservative Political Action Conference, Breitbart told close friends and associates that Cruz represented conservatism’s future.

It was because Breitbart saw in Cruz, first and foremost, a fighter who was fierce, principled, uncompromising, and relentless. These were the characteristics Breitbart first looked for and those who were a part of the “Army of Davids” had in spades.

Stephen K. Bannon, the filmmaker who was one of Breitbart’s closest friends and whose movies have captured the fierce and patriotic spirit of Jacksonian Tea Partiers, always remembered how effusively Andrew Breitbart “admired the fact that Ted Cruz was a fighter and came from a family of fighters.” Breitbart also knew, when he learned how Cruz had been “preaching the gospel of constitutional limited government since he was a teenager all across Texas,” that fighting for constitutional conservatism was in Cruz’s bones. He knew Cruz was the real deal and not a poseur.

Cruz told Breitbart News how proud he was “to call Andrew a friend” and recounted the hours they spent at the last CPAC of Breitbart's life.

“One of my favorite pastimes is scheming to defeat leftists, so understandably I'll always deeply appreciate the hours I spent with Andrew at CPAC this year engaging in what he did best,” Cruz told Breitbart News. “Andrew was fearless in speaking truth to power. He had the vision and mastery to use cutting-edge tools to share conversations with the world to help advance the cause of liberty."

Other conservative leaders have also seen what Breitbart saw in Cruz. In fact, three of the fiercest conservatives are among his most enthusiastic supporters.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, when endorsing Cruz, wrote, “Your conservative principles, passionate defense of our Constitution and our free market system come at a time when these cornerstones of our freedom and prosperity are under attack. Our shared goal isn’t just to change the majority in control of the Senate, but to assure principled conservatives like you are there to fight for us.”

Talk radio host Mark Levin, when he endorsed Cruz in 2011, said he would “fight profligate spending,” “only appoint originalists to the court,” and, most importantly, “do it without prodding.”

And Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who has almost single-handedly willed the Senate to become more conservative, came on board early. His conservative brigade in the Senate -- Mike Lee (R-Utah), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) -- enthusiastically got on board too.

Three particular things stand out in Cruz’s background that make conservatives feel comfortable that he is a conservative before a Republican. Cruz, as Texas’s Solicitor General, “stood up against 90 nations to guarantee the right for Texas and the United States to carry out justice for a brutal murderer and rapist, without being subject to the laws of the World Court” by representing “Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court in Medellin v. Texas, which upheld U.S. sovereignty and held that the World Court cannot bind the U.S. justice system and the President cannot order the state courts to obey the World Court.”

He also, in the landmark Second Amendment case that overturned the unconstitutional ban on gun rights in Washington, D.C., led a coalition of 31 states in filing a brief. He also “sued the federal government, on behalf of Texas and four other States, to strike down portions of the Medicare Prescription Drug program as an unconstitutional intrusion in the sovereign authority of the States.”

These accomplishments are highly touted by his campaign and website -- and rightfully so. To conservatives who were dismayed by domestic programs enacted by the Republican Congress -- and George W. Bush -- during the 2000s, Cruz directly took on Republicans and the Bush Administration.

Most notable about Cruz's Campaign, though, has been the supporters he has drawn. His fiercest supporters are those who would feel at home in Breitbart’s anti-establishment “Army of Davids.”

One such supporter is Texas Tea Party leader Katrina Pierson, who has fiercely and relentlessly advocated on Cruz’s behalf on Twitter and all throughout Texas, often driving to candidate forums and debates.

Texan Michelle McCormick (@TexMex817) referred to Pierson (@KatrinaPierson) as a Twitter “ninja” andtweeted, “A candidate who has @KatrinaPierson in his corner is much happier than the candidates who [don’t]...”

This was quite the compliment coming from McCormick, a fierce citizen activist who trekked from Texas to Iowa on the weekends -- and then took a leave from her job to temporarily plant herself in Iowa -- to lay the groundwork for a potential Sarah Palin presidential candidacy in 2012 even though she had no assurances or guarantees that Palin would run.

McCormick, who many consider to be one of the best newcomers into the political arena -- she was drawn into it by Palin and the Tea Party movement -- knows a fighter when she sees one.

Pierson first met Cruz nearly two years ago at a fundraiser, but Cruz earned her fierce support, which she does not give lightly, over a series of forums and events. Pierson adds that Dewhurst skipped 35 events over the course of the campaign put on by conservative, grassroots groups across Texas who, as she said, are “in the weeds” of local government.

“I have met Ted, his courageous father Rafael, and his charming wife Heidi,” Pierson told Breitbart News. “Ted and his family have achieved the American dream in a manner of which most Americans have only read about.”

Pierson said “most of us spend our days working in our American office environments and tending to our families in a free country” but Cruz’s father, Rafael, “fled communist Cuba after fighting in the war, being beaten and tortured in prison, bribed out by his father and fled to the United States with a one hundred dollar bill in his underwear.” Pierson said she was struck when she heard Cruz’s father say, “I fled from Cuba; there is nowhere to flee from here.”

“This is not the kind of appreciation that most people have for liberty,” Pierson said. “Tyranny is not just some illusion that exists on cable news. The Cruz family has an understanding of the importance of preserving freedom.”

Pierson said Cruz appealed to her and conservatives and Tea Partiers across Texas because he has “fought and won in the U.S. Supreme Court,” and “fought and won Texas's sovereignty.”

“We need someone who has fought and won for our state and our nation against foreign attempts to change our laws,” Pierson said, and, while acknowledging that lawyers are maligned, added, “conservatives need lawyers too.”

Pierson told Breitbart News that the government needs a massive overhaul, and “it is time for constitutional conservatism to be reintroduced to American society.”

“It is time to elect senators that fight on the floor instead of phoning it in,” Pierson said. “We need statesmen who has achieved the American dream and not an elitist who has never had to work a real job, writing laws that create separate classes of citizens, exempting themselves from policies, and enforcing only the laws that are politically expedient for their future.”

“What Texas needs is a Constitutional Conservative fighter,” Pierson said. “Every problem facing this country can be solved by electing people who will create laws based on the Constitution, and governing accordingly.”

Upon learning of Breitbart’s tragic passing, Cruz tweeted, “@AndrewBreitbart was a friend, and best way we can honor his inspirational & unique legacy is by continuing to carry the torch of freedom.”

What Cruz may not have fully known was that he was one of the people Breitbart hoped would carry the torch of freedom for conservatives.

The Vetting: Obama Decried 'Spread of Militarism,' Lauded Anti-Selective Service Group at Columbia

Sat, 26 May 2012 06:17:00 -0700

In late 2008—long after the election—the media revealed a long-forgotten article written by Barack Obama while at Columbia. Obama wrote the March 1983 article, “Breaking the War Mentality,” about two campus groups, Arms Race Alternatives (ARA) and Student Against Militarism (SAM). Ben Smith of Politico (now at Buzzfeed) told readers that Obama’s views reflected the “very conventional campus liberalism of the time.”

Wrong. Smith and the media failed to investigate what the activists at SAM were actually doing: encouraging students to break the law by not registering for the Selective Service and harassing military recruiters.

Obama wrote that SAM “was formed in response to the passage of the registration laws in 1980.” Obama noted that the activists had “fostered awareness and practical action necessary to counter the growing threat of war.” That “awareness” and “practical action” went beyond mere protest, or encouraging students to break the law. SAM also wanted to break the military itself by sapping it of support—as Obama must have known from contemporaneous articles in the Columbia Spectator and from campus politics.

On March 11, 1982, the Spectator’s John Jay Tilsen wrote:

About twenty demonstrated from the Students Against Militarism stage a protest outside the building to condemn what, they said, is a national shift of job opportunities from human services industries to military industries.

The students walked in the snow, carrying placards that said, ‘Marine Corps Not Welcome Here We Want Peace Jobs,” as they distributed leaflets calling for a new type of recruitment program that would list only organizations and companies that had no connections with the military.

As few jobs become available in the private sector, job-seekers ‘see few alternatives to the military, which is always hiring,’ Rob Kahn of SAM said, ‘All of this adds up to increased militarization of the campus.’

On April 2, 1982, SAM protested against both the Air Force and the Fairchild Republican Corporation, a military contractor. The Spectator quoted an organizer who argued that the “technical training Columbia offers ‘should be used for a peaceful society rather than a militarized society.’” Protesters handed out leaflets claiming: “The duties of a weapons employee are in conflict with any sense of ethics; there is a direct link between military employment and violent human death.” (Paul Getzels, “Student Protest Recruiting on Campus for Defense Jobs,” Columbia Spectator, April 2, 1982).

In April 1982, Columbia considered allowing the U.S. Navy’s Reserve Officer Training Corps (NROTC) back on campus after a ten-year hiatus. “The university is ‘unofficially’ considering the [Navy’s] request, but no plans to bring the NROTC back to campus will be made before student opinion is measured, according to Philip Benson, deputy to the president for student affairs,” the Spectator reported (Douglas Hill, “CU considering NROTC offer,” Columbia Spectator, April 5, 1982). SAM challenged the proposal and helped rally student opinion against NROTC.

John Foucek, CC ’81, the founder of SAM, hoped that the pressure exerted by groups like SAM and ARA might be enough to “set forth a political and economic program for the reversal of the arms race” (John Foucek, “Forced to Think About the ‘Unthinkable’ Again,” Columbia Spectator, May 19, 1982). Foucek later worked for the Institute for a World Order, which organized students throughout the country against nuclear weapons.

SAM’s most serious form of political activism, however, was encouraging students not to register for the Selective Service. Refusing to register for the Selective Service could mean arrest, imprisonment, and—most importantly—denial of federal student aid. SAM counseled Columbia’s estimated 400 non-registrants and tried to form them into a political force on campus. The non-registrant’s “refusal to register seems to reflect more of an abstract repulsion to war and violence than any political opposition to the American political system,” wrote Julius Genachowski for the Spectator on November 29, 1982 (later Obama’s classmate at Harvard Law School, and his appointee to lead the Federal Communications Commission). “But they are nevertheless acutely aware that a peaceful world would require a restructuring of that system—and that such a change could only be furthered by the public declaration of their opposition to draft registration.”

SAM hosted an event encouraging students to do just that. It even formed a support group for law-breakers.

Matt Meyer, a public non-registrant, from the War Resisters League, spoke to about 30 students in a speech sponsored by SAM about the legitimacy of resisting draft registration, the important of being outspoken in that dissent, and the need for resisters to reinforce each other’s beliefs. (Julius Genachowski, “Draft Law Violators to Resist Together,” Columbia Spectator, December 2, 1982)

Former Democratic Congressman Bella Abzug joined Sister Anne Montgomery and Father Paul Dinter at the rally, denouncing President Ronald Reagan and the “militaristic and adventuristic [sic] attitudes of the current administration.” When student athletes joined the counter-protest, the left-wing rally fizzled. However, SAM successfully promoted its ideas by distributing flyers calling for the following policy steps:

Financial Aid for Non-Registrants [those who refused to register for the Selective Service]
No to the Solomon Amendment! [which took away federal aid from those who refused to register]
No Draft or Registration!
No to Militarism in Our Schools and In Our Country!

While Obama did register for the draft in Honolulu, Hawaii on September 4, 1980, far out of sight of his fellow student radicals at Occidental or Columbia, he backed SAM’s program.

SAM, Obama wrote in Sundial, works “by educating and organizing the Columbia community” and “lay[ing] the foundation for future mobilization against the relentless, often silent spread of militarism in the country.” Indeed, Obama applauded SAM’s members for “adding their energy and effort to enhance the possibility of a decent world.” In so doing, “they may help deprive us of a spectacular event—that of war.” Yet by encouraging students to refuse to register for the Selective Service, SAM made it more likely that if America were ever attacked, there would be fewer men to defend her.

Today, as Barack Obama cuts military spending and advertises to the Russians that he will have more “flexibility” on American defense after the election, it appears that old lessons die hard.

Obama's 'Favorite Professor': Poor and Minorities Receive 'Little Benefit' from America

Sat, 26 May 2012 02:53:00 -0700

“I had a wonderful political science class,” Obama told YouTube’s Steve Grove on January 27, 2011. “It sparked my general interest in politics. And he still teaches there and was just a wonderful, wonderful professor.” That professor was Roger Boesche. Obama took two classes from Boesche—one on Nietzsche, the other on American history—and they apparently left quite an impression.

But Obama’s “wonderful professor” had some rather odious views about the United States military, which contemporaneous accounts in the student newspaper of Occidental confirm.

In a February 1980 article, Boesche took to the pages of The Occidental to explain why it was that America’s foreign policy in the Middle East, and in the Cold War, had failed, Boesche listed his recommendations. They included:

“Oppose the war fever and militarism that is capturing the country”;
“Oppose the American political, military, and business elite that continues to generate militarism and stands to benefit from it”;
“Oppose the present method of recruitment into the armed forces, since it ensures that, in case of war, those who are poor, black, or Hispanic will be the ones who fight for a country from which they have derived little benefit”;
“Oh, yes, yes—oppose the current registration [Selective Service] and draft, because stopping the draft is the most immediate way to calm our war hysteria.” (Roger Boesche, “The Draft: New Cold War Mentality Critique,” The Occidental, February 10, 1980, p. 4)

President Obama certainly learned a lot from Roger Boesche. One might even suspect that Obama’s views on the military were deeply shaped by Boesche. As we know, Boesche was merely one of Obama’s early mentors who believed America to be both racist and militarist.

Cruz: 'Desperate' Dewhurst Attack Ad a 'Lie'

Fri, 25 May 2012 15:24:00 -0700

In response to a last-minute attack ad by establishment Texas GOP senate candidate David Dewhurst, Ted Cruz and his campaign fired back to discredit the ad and highlight Dewhurst’s own record on immigration. The Dewhurst ad claims Cruz is pro-amnesty, and the campaign is firing on all cylinders to contest that charge.

The Cruz campaign immediately released a video attacking Dewhurst’s immigration record. Dewhurst, in the past, has “supported sanctuary cities, was against e-verify, has said on record 'it would not be practical’ to deport illegal immigrants, is for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, and has not taken a clear position on a border fence.”

According to the Dallas Morning News, Cruz then held a press conference where he called Dewhurst’s ad "the act of a desperate man clinging to power.” He continued, Dewhurst’s “lies are getting more and more ridiculous."

The campaign also released a statement from George P. Bush that denounced Dewhurst’s attack ad:

It’s very disappointing to see David Dewhurst resort to blatantly false attack ads charging that Ted Cruz supports amnesty. Ted has always categorically opposed amnesty. The only basis for Dewhurst’s fraudulent claim is that Ted serves on the ‘advisory board’ of a Hispanic civic organization that seeks to empower Hispanics economically by promoting entrepreneurship.

When I first heard this false attack ad, I was offended not only as a Hispanic but as a Republican. We are a party of inclusion that welcomes the fastest growing demographic in our State that largely shares our conservative values of limited government, strengthening the family and supporting small business. This is the type of divisive racial politics used by President Obama and the Democrats. It has no place in the Republican party.

Obama Campaign Organizes Occupy-Style Protests Against Romney

Fri, 25 May 2012 12:30:00 -0700

Buried deep in yesterday's Washington Post article about presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney being heckled during a visit to an inner-city school in Philadelphia, is the extraordinary news that a portion of those hecklers were organized by the Obama campaign:

Outside, meanwhile, some brick row houses across from the school were boarded up. Police had cordoned off a full city block to protect Romney and his entourage. Residents, some of them organized by Obama’s campaign, stood on their porches and gathered at a sidewalk corner to shout angrily at Romney. Some held signs saying, “We are the 99%.” One man’s placard trumpeted an often-referenced Romney gaffe: “I am not concerned about the very poor.”

Madaline G. Dunn, 78, who said she has lived here for 50 years and volunteers at the school, said she is “personally offended” that Romney would visit her neighborhood.

“It’s not appreciated here,” she said. “It is absolutely denigrating for him to come in here and speak his garbage.”

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter (D) addressed protesters and the media, quipping that Romney “suddenly somehow found West Philadelphia.”

I'm not sure which is more offensive: the President of the United States community organizing private citizens to artificially undermine an opponent's visit to an inner-city school with Occupy Wall Street sloganeering, or the Washington Post' s Philip Rucker not only burying this news but also allowing themselves to be willingly duped into covering the story in the way the Obama campaign desired.

Obviously, what the Obama campaign wanted was a headline exactly like the one the Post gave them:

Hecklers mar Romney’s visit to inner-city charter school in Philadelphia

The last thing Team Obama wanted this week were stories about Mitt Romney reaching out to this community, so they manufactured a situation that would allow the media to write stories about how the rich, white, out-of-touch guy isn't welcome there. But even though they got caught manufacturing the situation, the White House still got the coverage they desired from their Palace Guards.

Remember when the Post opposed and exposed campaign dirty tricks? Good times. Good times.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

Elizabeth Warren ditches the BMW to look plebeian

Fri, 25 May 2012 11:48:00 -0700

Elizabeth Warren, faux Native American, is a master manipulator of her biography. Now news comes that just prior to announcing her candidacy for the Senate, she jettisoned her BMW for a Ford hybrid in order to improve her image as a plebeian, rather than an elitist.

This follows the revelation that she lied about her heritage, claiming she was part Cherokee. Professor Todd Zywicki has pointed out that Warren’s lying goes back much farther than that; in her work on medical bankruptcy and her book “The Two Income Trap," which launched her to fame, she lied with her data, claiming that middle-class families were hit harder by factors other than taxes. She surmised that household expenses were increased by mortgages by 76 percent; cars, 52 percent; health insurance, 74 percent; and taxes, 25 percent. The trick was that for all other factors except taxes, she spoke in terms of increased dollars; for taxes, she changed the metric to percentage of income. If she had used the standard of increased dollars for taxes, they actually increased 140 percent, not the 25 percent she claimed.

And dealing with medical expenses in bankruptcy? Here’s Zywicki on that:

“Consider Ms. Warren's much-ballyhooed study on the alleged link among health problems, medical expenses and personal bankruptcy filings. Published in the February 2005 issue of Health Affairs, the report was timed to head off bipartisan bankruptcy legislation that was enacted later that year. Ms. Warren and her co-authors claimed that ‘at least’ 46% of personal bankruptcy filings in 2001 (the year from they collected the data) were the result of ‘medical causes,’ and that this represented a 23-fold increase over 20 years."

Both conclusions are extremely suspect. First, the study provided an implausibly broad definition of ‘medical bankruptcy’—including any filer who reported uncontrolled gambling, drug or alcohol addiction, or the birth or adoption of a child.

The claim of a 23-fold increase in medical bankruptcies was based on a comparison of their 2001 data with Ms. Warren's research in a 1981 study—which appears to count only those who self-reported as having filed bankruptcy for medical reasons. This is a completely different and much narrower definition of ‘medical bankruptcy’ than the one she used 20 years later, and obviously inflates the increase.”

Elizabeth really belongs in the BMW, not the Ford Hybrid. Her only connection to middle class families is in exploiting them for her own political gain.

Kimberlin: Orrin Hatch Weighs In

Fri, 25 May 2012 11:39:00 -0700

Kerry Pickett of the Washington Times reports that Sen Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has commented on Brett Kimberlin's pattern of harassment--having been a victim of it himself.

A spokesperson for Sen. Hatch released the following statement:

Senator Hatch has had run ins with Brett Kimberlin before and they weren't pleasant. So it's certainly no surprise that Mr. Kimberlin has now taken to harassing and targeting conservative bloggers. Needless to say, efforts to silence and chill political speech are contrary to the values of our Constitution and First Amendment.

The Unbearable Ingratitude of Meghan McCain

Fri, 25 May 2012 11:17:00 -0700

In the basement of his home the day after Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States, the late Andrew Breitbart launched his Big empire with Big Hollywood, and one of the first people he invited to join our merry little team as a contributor was Meghan McCain. I know this for a fact because I traded emails with Ms. McCain so she could join our live-blog of that year's Academy Awards. -- which she did. This reality doesn’t quite compute with her inference last night on MSNBC that hateful extremists like Andrew Breitbart are part of the reason she feels unwelcome in the Republican party.

Andrew not only welcomed Ms. McCain, he admired the fact that she was a young, engaged right-of-center person who "got" popular culture. This is why he tried to bring her into the Big Hollywood fold from the start. Not only that, but it's important to remember that this invitation came in the wake of John McCain's 2008 loss, before his daughter's status in the media was amplified by her perches at the Daily Beast and MSNBC.

Is Ms. McCain seriously suggesting that this Andrew Breitbart would marginalize anyone over same-sex marriage?

Moreover, because Andrew loathed in-fighting (unless he was attacked), and while many other conservatives hit back at Ms. McCain for her regular undermining insults directed towards the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, and conservatives in general -- the Bigs pretty much left her alone. It was important to Andrew that we keep, as he put it, the waters warm for all right-of-center types. That's the opposite of exclusionary and intolerance.

Maybe Ms, McCain forgot this. Maybe she didn't but was looking for a hot talking point to shout out on MSNBC. Either way, she owes Andrew, and by extension, his family, an apology.

On a personal note, I don't dislike Megan McCain because of her politics, I simply choose to dislike her back. There's a difference between the two, and I trust I'm not alone. She's the one who fired the first shots at her own on the pages of the Daily Beast and on MSNBC, and in many cases in the most selfish way imaginable: by feeding and encouraging the media's dishonest narratives about the right -- especially when it came to Sarah Palin and a burgeoning Tea Party.

As she did last night, Ms. McCain can cry on MSNBC's shoulders about being a martyr to moderate Republicanism all she wants, even as she ignores the fact that there are plenty of moderate Republicans secure in the fold -- including the new leader of our party, Mitt Romney.

Like many conservatives, I have plenty of affection for people who share Ms. McCain's politics and even those who are to the left of her.

Ms. McCain's problem isn't her politics or her stance on same-sex marriage, her problem is that she's not a very nice person.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

Kimberlin Funders Stunned to Discover they Fund Kimberlin

Fri, 25 May 2012 10:31:00 -0700

A Breitbart News investigation has revealed that many of the funders of the Justice Through Music Project (JTMP), a tax-exempt 501(c)3 organization of which convicted “Speedway bomber” Brett Kimberlin is a director, do not know about his criminal past. Those foundations and funds listed as donors that responded to request for comment also indicated that they had not been contacted by media other than Breitbart News.

A spokesperson for Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift, which is listed by JTMP over several years, explained to Breitbart News that the fund is donor-advised, meaning that it does not have discretion over donations made by individuals or organizations with accounts at the fund. Donors merely park their funds at Fidelity to receive an immediate charitable tax deduction, and direct those funds over time, as they wish, to any 501(c)3.

Five percent of donations through Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift are anonymous, according to the fund’s spokesperson, who could not say whether donations received by JTMP were actually anonymous, or were simply reported as being from the fund rather than the donor in question. Some recipients, the spokesperson indicated, occasionally list Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift as the donor rather than the original source.

Another source of donor funds to JTMP in 2009, the Schwab Charitable Fund, responded to Breitbart News by releasing the following statement:

National donor advised funds like Schwab Charitable Fund are cause-neutral, and exist to facilitate the charitable giving of their clients. Grants do not in any way reflect the views or perspectives of Schwab, Schwab Charitable or the management of either organization.

Grant recommendations are approved for any qualified 501c3 charity and our charter requires us to rely on the IRS judgment of tax exempt status. If and when an organization loses its 501c3 status, we immediately stop approving grants and inform any of our clients who are affected.

Other past JTMP donors, such as the Silicon Valley Community Foundation and the Barbara Streisand Foundation, refused to comment. Unlike Fidelity and Schwab, both have discretion over where their funds are directed.

Few of the funds and organizations responding to inquiries by Breitbart News seemed to have known about Kimberlin’s criminal past--though the spokesperson for Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift indicated that they had been aware of the online buzz this week, and a spokesperson at another fund was stunned to learn about Kimberlin’s past, when she asked about the purpose and context of Breitbart News’ inquiry about the gift.

The Fairview Foundation, which is reported to have donated to JTMP in 2005 and 2006, could not confirm any requests about its gift, because the foundation has since changed its rules and reorganized its records. A spokesperson said that Fairview no longer gives to outside organizations, and raises funds exclusively for its own health care projects.

Neither the Tides Foundation nor the Threshold Foundation returned Breitbart News’ requests for comment; other donor organizations either refused to comment or could not return comment in time for publication. There is no known precedent for disqualifying an individual from being director of a 501(c)3 on the bases of prior felony convictions. Breitbart News has determined that JTMP could likely continue to shield its donors through the use of donor-advised funds--much as Media Matters for America has done.

Obama’s EEOC Targets Restaurant For Using Pretty Baristas

Fri, 25 May 2012 10:24:00 -0700

The Obama Administration, which harps on its “War on Women” meme, has a war on women of its own: the EEOC is now investigating the coffee chain Marylou’s because the chain hires pretty young women dressed in pink to hawk its product. The investigators have been asking the female clerks about their co-workers’ gender, age, race and body type for over a year.

The company’s founder, Marylou Sandry wrote state Sen. John F. Keenan (D-Quincy): “We have never had a complaint against us for age discrimination or any kind of discrimination. We feel that the EEOC is on a witch hunt.” Keenan said he wouldn’t get involved, and EEOC officials would not comment.

Katherine J. Michon, a Boston lawyer who handles discrimination cases, said that the government is going after the coffee chain hard:

“It sounds like they’re trying to explore every possible protected category to see if there is a race-discrimination case, a sex-discrimination case or an age-discrimination case ... whether people are being chosen for the position because they’re white, young and female.”

Marylou’s said the investigation was triggered by Marylou’s local TV ads, where pretty young baristas danced and sang Marylou’s bluesy jingle.

Sandry defended her company’s actions:

“Attractive is in the eye of the beholder. They’re just all fun, upbeat girls,” It’s the personality. It’s the way you’re treated. That’s what we reach out for. It’s all shapes and sizes and colors.”

Another politician was more friendly to Marylou’s. State Sen. Robert L. Hedlund, who is planning to contact the local congressmen, blasted the EEOC as “a meddlesome, overblown, intrusive federal agency.” He questioned the EEOC’s attitude regarding Marylou’s: “Why, because they haven’t hired old overweight men who want to wear a pink T-shirt and serve coffee? The federal government has better things to do with my tax dollars than to harass a legitimate business.”

Apparently not. The Obama Administration has targeted business on virtually every account, including letting businesses sell their product the most effective way possible. But the cynical question really is, why doesn’t Barack Obama target all the major businesses that feature nubile young women to sell their product -- like every major sports organization that uses cheerleaders -- and instead target a small business?

Pick on the little guy. That’s the Obama way. And he whines about bullies?

Tea Party Wave Could Carry Texas Senate Seat for Ted Cruz

Fri, 25 May 2012 09:59:05 -0700

Constantly underestimated by the Republican establishment, the Tea Party continues to prove its power in GOP primaries. First Indiana, then Nebraska. And now new polls show rising conservative star Ted Cruz potentially poised to beat ultra-wealthy Lt. Governor David Dewhurst for the open U.S. Senate seat in Texas in a classic David v. Goliath match-up.

Ted Cruz’s bio looks like he’s a character from a script for an “only in America” movie story. A Hispanic, he was born to a Cuban father who was imprisoned by Fidel Castro for opposing the communist dictator’s tyranny, who escaped when Ted’s grandfather bribed a guard to release him. Ted’s grandmother sewed $300 into his father’s underwear and he sailed for Florida. Ted’s dad was a dishwasher who worked seven days a week and married Ted’s mother. They started a business and later Ted’s father became a Baptist pastor where he continues to labor today.

This story defines Ted’s core. There was passion in his face as he told me, “My father would always say, ‘When we lost our freedom in Cuba, I had somewhere to flee to. If we lose it in America, we have nowhere to go.’ ” At age 41, you hear the concern in his voice when he speaks about his two young daughters born to his wife Heidi, when he talks about what kind of future they will have in America and the need for his generation to make things right.

Then he has a résumé that’s ridiculously overloaded. He graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School, where he was editor of Harvard Law Review. He clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for one of the most prestigious federal judges on the bench, then clerked for no one less than Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court. In fact, Cruz is qualified to be appointed as a justice on the Supreme Court himself.

After other impressive jobs, Ted was appointed Texas Solicitor General by the Lone Star State’s Attorney General Greg Abbott. In addition to cases before federal appeals courts and Texas’ highest courts, Cruz argued nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, racking up some of the most impressive wins in modern history in major constitutional cases concerning make-or-break issues for Republicans. He saved the Ten Commandments display outside the Texas State Capitol in Van Orden v. Perry (one of the rare Establishment Clause wins in recent years), then beat both the United Nations and his former governor, President George W. Bush, in a 6−3 decision protecting state sovereignty against international pressure and federal power in Medellin v. Texas. He was also instrumental in protecting the Pledge of Allegiance (imperiled by the words “one nation under God”) in 2004, and the Second Amendment in the 2008 case D.C. v. Heller.

Ted Cruz’s opponent David Dewhurst is an extraordinarily-wealthy individual, worth over $200 million, who is a stereotypical establishment Republican. While a “typical” Texas Republican is not egregiously problematic by national standards, the current disaster in the Senate (and sometimes still the House) highlight how establishment Republicans are often every bit as much part of the problem for what ails America. This race is a choice between a constitutional conservative Republican and a country club Republican.

Dewhurt has spent $10 million against Cruz, millions of it from his own pocket. Cruz has been outspent 5-to-1, yet he continues to close in on Dewhurst, with a new statewide poll showing Cruz has closed the gap to single digits. In a 9-person primary, Dewhurst leads with 40, and Cruz is second at 31. The primary is next Tuesday, May 29. If Dewhurst fails to break 50%, the top two contenders go to a runoff on July 31 where many experts believe Cruz could pull an upset.

Constitutional conservatives are enthusiastic about Cruz’s chances, comparing his race to the recent Tea Party upset where Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock—another constitutional conservative—defeated long-term Senator Dick Lugar, a GOP moderate. And the recent victory of Tea Party favorite Debra Fischer over two other conservative Republicans in Nebraska enhances those hopes.

The most common comparison, however, is when Marco Rubio defeated Charlie Crist in Florida in 2010. Like Rubio, Cruz is a young Hispanic (age 41) with a charming wife and beautiful children. They’re both seen as leaders of a new generation of Republicans, both have inspiring personal stories, and both talk about returning to the Constitution to take on decades of business-as-usual policies. And they’re both taking on a major establishment figures that many talking heads considered unbeatable.

And constitutional conservative leaders across the country have lined up behind Cruz, endorsing him over Dewhurst. Senators Jim DeMint, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, and Tom Coburn have all endorsed Cruz, as has Governor Sarah Palin. Among conservative media, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity have thrown their support behind Cruz. And just today Rick Santorum also weighed in to endorse Cruz.

A Princeton and Harvard Law grad, Cruz is supported by the conservative intelligencia and glitterati, many of whom are perfectly content to make decisions for ordinary Americans—they just happen to be market-friendly decisions. Many of them are completely fine with the status quo because they are the status quo.

So when Ted Cruz promises to fight the elite and topple the status quo, he’s in part promising to fight some of his friends and take on a system that supports him. But the grassroots are looking to Cruz to do exactly that, and he gives every indication that he means to do so.

And organizations across the country believe him. He’s supported by economic organizations such as the Club for Growth as well as social organizations such as FRC Action, the political affiliate of the Family Research Council. He’s also been endorsed by a host of Texas and national grassroots organizations such as Tea Party Express.

We won’t know until he’s sworn in whether he’s able to deliver such results by taking on Republicans as well as Democrats, but it looks like conservatives believe he deserves the chance. If Ted Cruz is as good as advertised, then he could be an extraordinary new force for constitutional conservatism in the halls of power of Washington, D.C., for many years to come.

The Conservative Blogosphere Introduces Kimberlin 2012

Fri, 25 May 2012 09:35:00 -0700

The conservative blogosphere today launched a version of the Kony 2012 tactic, introducing readers to a man named Brett Kimberlin and his fellow far-leftists. The movement was sparked by several incidents, most recently the reported intimidation of Aaron Worthing and RS McCain, and the sensational story of the "SWATting" of Patterico.

There is an organizational effort by the institutional left--of which Kimberlin is a well-connected part--to silence conservatives, both in the "real" world and through social networks like Twitter. As these bloggers note, the best disinfectant is sunlight.

The story is complex and required reading. Settle in and check out the links below, including the fantastic work done by Breitbart.com's Liberty Chick.

COLIN POWELL EMBRACES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Fri, 25 May 2012 09:24:28 -0700

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said in 1993, one month before he retired, “I don't want to spend the rest of my life giving speeches.” Powell is now getting $100,000- 200,000 a speech, and has decided to speak out once again. This past Wednesday, he told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that he’s in favor of same-sex marriage:

“As I've thought about gay marriage, I know a lot of friends who are individually gay but are in partnerships with loved ones. And they are stable a family as my family is. And they raise children. And so I don't see any reason not to say that they should be able to get married under the laws of their state or the laws of the country, however that turns out. It seems to be the laws of the state… I hope everybody will just carefully look at this, and I understand the religious objections to it. But at the same time, we are a country that is open to diversity and change. And my experience with many of my gay and lesbian friends is that they form unions as strong as any other unions I've seen and raise children that are good, strong children.”

Powell has never been known for taking a strong stand; he has advanced his career by moderating his views to suit the occasion. In a classic Powell statement that reflects his lack of strong conviction while wrapping himself in the flag, he told “Face the Nation” in February 2010:

“But just as they did in Philadelphia when they were writing the constitution, sooner or later, you've got to compromise.”

It’s no accident that Powell only announced his support for same-sex marriage once he felt the idea had gained enough sway that he wasn’t standing alone. And it’s also no accident that once Barack Obama’s endorsement of the idea went public, Powell, who supports him and is regarded as a moderate, would echo Obama to provide him political cover.

Scott Brown: Harvard Lied to the Feds About Warren's Cherokee Ancestry

Fri, 25 May 2012 08:27:00 -0700

Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) called on Harvard University today to correct the record on Elizabeth Warren’s false claims of Cherokee ancestry. Harvard claimed for years to have a Native American woman on the faculty in federally mandated diversity statistics, based on Warren’s claims about her own heritage – claims that have fallen apart under scrutiny.

“She falsely describes herself as a minority and some of the schools where she worked relied on that information to misrepresent the diversity of their faculty,” Brown said to the Boston Globe. “I call on Harvard President [Drew] Faust to immediately correct the record with the relevant federal agencies and uphold Harvard’s 400-year-old tradition of abiding by the truth.”

Despite Brown’s prior demands that Harvard come clean about its use of Warren for federal diversity purposes, Harvard has stonewalled.

Warren, for her part, complains that Brown is somehow attacking “my family.” Brown responded today, “I’m highly offended that Elizabeth Warren would accuse me of attacking her family when I have done nothing of the kind. To make that kind of wild and baseless charge is disturbing.”

Illinois Republicans May Support Tax Hike to Plug Medicaid Hole

Fri, 25 May 2012 08:22:00 -0700

As Illinois faces a $2.7 billion hole in its Medicaid budget, the AP reports that legislators have voted to cut benefits in an effort to bring program costs under control:

Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, D-Chicago, said the Medicaid program will fall apart without fast action. Helping the state's poor in the long run requires cutting back now, she said.

"I know it seems ironic, but this is the only way we can accomplish that," Feigenholtz said.

The measure passed 94-22 and went to the Senate, where it was approved on a 44-13 vote. The next stop is Gov. Pat Quinn, who supports the proposal.

Critics of efforts to rein in Medicaid spending however charge that the volume of meaningful cuts approved by the legislature is insufficient, with the Illinois Policy Institute saying this morning that only $1.6 billion in "material cuts" were achieved.

Meanwhile, Illinois Democrats continue to look to a cigarette tax increase to cover Medicaid costs, with the AP report indicating that some Illinois Republicans may be willing to support the measure:

House Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego, said Thursday evening that the depth of Medicaid cuts had convinced some of his colleagues to agree to the cigarette tax increase. "I think you'll see a complete package pass," Cross said.

This is despite indications that already-noticeable levels of cigarette smuggling from lower-tax states into Illinois, and gradual reductions in the rate of smoking amongst the general population, make revenue estimates associated with the proposed tax hike intended to fund the Medicaid shortfall shaky.

As noted by Reason Magazine's Peter Suderman writing for The Daily:

Illinois already shows signs of both high smuggling and rapid declines in smoking. A 2010 study by the University of Chicago at Illinois sampled littered cigarette packs throughout the Windy City and found that 75 percent came from outside locales — a figure that potentially represents a lost $120 million a year in tax revenue for the city. Meanwhile, state smoking rates have dropped from nearly 25 percent in 1996 to a little less than 17 percent in 2010.

Furthermore, Gov. Quinn-- the main proponent of the proposed cigarette tax increase-- has been touting a revenue projection that does not tally with previous estimates of what revenue would be derived from the $1 per pack boost that is currently being considered. According to Suderman:

The anti-smoking advocacy group Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids recently estimated that a $1 increase in the state smoking tax would raise a little less than $300 million — leaving the governor’s office at least $37 million short.

Cigarette tax increases generally have a poor track record of delivering the revenue estimated by advocates. According to the National Taxpayers Union, fewer than a quarter of all increases between 2003 and 2007 ultimately met revenue projections.

If the cigarette tax increase that Gov. Quinn is proposing fails to pass, legislators may need to take a closer look at Medicaid reforms.

WI Recall: Absentee Voting Begins; Don't Forget the Undercard

Fri, 25 May 2012 07:00:00 -0700

While most of the attention surrounding the June 5 recall election in my beloved home state of Wisconsin rightfully swirls around that state's governor and rising GOP star, Scott Walker, it's important to remember that there are five other Republican seats on the recall ballot: four State Senate seats and the state's dynamic Lt. Governor, Rebecca Kleefisch.

For the sake of sending a message to the entire country and most especially to the crybaby public unions we support with our tax dollars -- that anarchy, lawlessness and lame drum circles do not win elections -- this defeat must be total and absolute … for America.

Absentee voting has already begun in Wisconsin. Early signs are good, good enough that a pro-Barrett group cancelled a $112,000 ad buy. This is all well and good, but we can't take our eyes off the other races, especially the Lt. Governor, who is up against a well-financed opponent and whose defeat would be a symbolic victory for spoiled crybabies everywhere.

Kleefisch's opponent is Mahlon Mitchell, the head of Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin, a statewide public union. Mitchell is also a bit of ingrate and hypocrite. Not only were firefighter and police unions exempt from Walker's reforms involving collective bargaining, but until craven political opportunity came knocking, Mitchell publicly praised Walker in a statement released referring directly to the bill that caused all of this controversy, the Budget Repair Bill.

By all accounts, Kleefisch, is a rising star. She's not only won Sarah Palin's support but like Governor Palin, epitomizes the citizen politician; a mother, wife, and cancer survivor who points to her daughters when asked why she chose to step into the public arena. She's also faced what all effective, attractive female conservatives face: the very worst kind of sexually degrading taunts that never get the media attention they deserve. But what's most important about Kleefisch is a public record of not only being a loyal ally to Walker, but also as the state's "jobs ambassador," which has shown results.

Also on the recall ballot are four State Senate seats, all of them currently held by Republican incumbents. The only victory the crybaby unions have enjoyed in what has otherwise been the most expensive campaign of self-humiliation in electoral history, was the pick-up of two State Senate in last summer's recall. As a result, Republican control of the State Senate now hangs by a precarious 17-16 majority, which means that on June 5, Republicans must win four-for-four.

The most recent polls I could find show that these smaller races are tightening, and with everyone distracted by the big prize, Walker, my fear is that these highly important undercard races might get lost in the shuffle.

So if you don't live in Wisconsin, what can you do? We still have a long slog still to June 5, and money matters. You can also, from anywhere in the world, volunteer to help with Get Out The Vote campaigns via telephone.

Please visit the links below and get engaged. What happens in Wisconsin will have a ripple effect straight through to November's presidential election. What happens in Wisconsin matters in too many ways to count, and this includes my personal desire to endlessly ridicule #WIUnion on Twitter after the results come in.

Please visit and support…

Governor Scott Walker.

Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch.

State Senator Scott Fitzgerald.

Jerry Petrowski (running for a State Senate seat vacated by a Republican incumbent due to illness).

State Senator Wanggaard.

State Senator Terry Moulton.

Do whatever you can, whatever you are able to when it comes to time, money or both.

What you can't do is nothing.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

Sherrod Brown's ObamaCare Problem

Fri, 25 May 2012 06:01:00 -0700

Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown has a problem: he was the deciding Senate vote for Obamacare, and six months ago Ohio voters approved a constitutional amendment to block Obamacare. But that's only the beginning, considering the multitude of speeches and MSNBC appearances where Sherrod championed one of the few ideas that would've made Obamacare even worse:

As icing on a bitter Progressive cake, read this interview with Ezra Klein where Sherrod complains that Republicans of old would have let the Democrats pass an even bigger stepping stone towards single-payer socialized medicine:

They don't have the right wing wackos blowing in their ear. Anybody with any decency and perspective watching this saw how the right wing so overreached by out-and-out lying and scaring people.

I leave to the reader to determine whether Sherrod Brown is in any position to judge another human's decency or perspective.

How will Sherrod's cheerleading for a public option in Obamacare be his undoing? Last November, the Tea Party-driven Ohio Healthcare Freedom Amendment -- which blocks Obamacare's individual mandate in Ohio -- passed with 2,268,470 votes, 66%/34%. In November 2006, Sherrod Brown won his Senate race 56%/44%,receiving 2,257,485 votes.

Despite the $41 million Big Labor smear campaign against an adjacent issue, the anti-Obamacare ballot measure drew more "Yes" votes in an off year than Sherrod's anti-war campaign could manage in a year marked by Iraq fatigue, Dubya fatigue, and an Ohio Republican Party almost too embroiled in scandal to hold a circular firing squad. With fewer registered voters, lower turnout, and an extremely limited budget, the Healthcare Freedom Amendment beat Sherrod's 2006 numbers by nearly 11,000 votes.

Think Sherrod Brown regrets spending several months of his endless MSNBC circuit fighting to make Obamacare even bigger?

With a little research, you don't have to trust Breitbart.com, the National Taxpayers Union (Sherrod scored an F in their 2011 report card), Club for Growth (Sherrod's lifetime score is 3%), or the American Conservative Union (Sherrod scored 0% each of the last three years) to realize Sherrod's voting record is far left of Ohio's electorate. The landslide passage of the Healthcare Freedom Amendment suggests Ohio's electorate is likely to realize it, too.

Sherrod Brown's embrace of socialized medicine plays well in northeast Ohio. As for the rest of the state... let's just say it's no wonder Sherrod is already running attack ads!

Follow Jason on Twitter: @jasonahart

You can see the entire C-SPAN2 clip of Sherrod's May 21, 2009 Senate floor speechcourtesy of our pals at SEIU. The 09/01/2009 Organizing for America rally in Columbus is the same event where Sherrod encouraged the crowd to support socialized medicine in honor of Ted Kennedy. The MSNBC clips from The Ed Show, CNN clip from State of the Union, and both Maddow segments are also from YouTube, as is the recorded statement from Sherrod to the fringe-left cranks at ProgressOhio.

I can't track down the source for the first clip on YouTube, but leftist radio hostThom Hartmann has a photo of Sherrod at the podium with Bernie Sanders seated next to him.

Slaves to the Government Class

Fri, 25 May 2012 05:54:00 -0700

Over the past year, a lot of people have been talking about “the 1%” versus “the 99%.” But if you’re concerned about one class exploiting another for economic gain, that’s the wrong way to look at the problem.

The protesters are right about one thing: there are gross class inequities in America.

There is one class that works more hours per day, more days per year, for more years of their lives. They have less job security, they pay more for health coverage, and their retirements are not guaranteed. Their incomes are determined by their performance, limited by economic reality, and tied to the fortunes of their employers. This is the private-sector producer class.

Part of what private-sector workers produce is taken for the benefit of another class, the government class.

The government class plays by a different set of rules, dictated by unions and implemented by the politicians they help elect. For government union members, income is not determined by job performance, but by how many years they’ve managed to stick around. They’ll work fewer hours, get more vacation time, and make more money than their producer class colleagues.

They’ll get better health coverage, and it’ll cost them less. The government class will retire at an earlier age and with a pension providing a guaranteed income, something fewer than 1 in 10 producer-class workers enjoy.

In Wisconsin, the government class makes up 14% of the population, exploiting the other 86%, the producer class.

The average Wisconsin state employee makes about $70,000 annually in salary and benefits, while the private-sector workers whose taxes pay for it earn about $15,000-a-year less. Talk about income disparity!

The government class is powerful because government employees are members of unions that contribute heavily to political campaigns. And in Wisconsin, no single group funnels more money into politics than teachers unions.

As the producer class struggled with a sluggish economy, Milwaukee public school teachers were rewarded for their political support by getting a 5% pay increase for the current school year.

Compared to the producer class, Milwaukee’s teachers are getting a pretty sweet deal. When school is in session, teachers work almost 4 hours less each week than the standard private sector employee does. And instead of getting the usual two weeks off each year, Milwaukee teachers enjoy nearly 14 weeks vacation. All told, the typical producer-class employee works well over 600 hours a year more than the typical government school employee.

You would think with this workload, total compensation for government teachers would be a lot less than for private-sector workers. But when you add salary, retirement and health benefits, a first-year teacher’s total compensation is almost $56 per contracted hour worked. For a fifth-year teacher, it’s over $60 an hour. A tenth year teacher, more than $66 an hour. And teachers can retire sooner, too, at age 57.

If that sounds generous to you, you’re not alone. Producer-class workers earn less than $735 a week. For a typical 40-hour week, that works out to just over $18 an hour.

Of course, there’s a cost to all this generosity. If you’re in the producer class, you’re working harder than ever to pay for it all. And yet, mobs of government workers have besieged the capital for months, complaining that you’re not working hard enough, that you need to pay even more.

Government employees make up a small sliver of Wisconsin’s workforce, just 14%, and it’s time they stopped pushing the other 86% of us around.

Next time you see government employees demanding that you sacrifice even more for them, remind them that a public servant is supposed to serve the public, not turn the public into their servants.

Exclusive: Elizabeth Warren Listed as 'Woman of Color' by Harvard Journal in 1993

Fri, 25 May 2012 05:44:00 -0700

Breitbart News has uncovered exclusive new evidence that in the spring of 1993, three years before Harvard Law School first publicly stated she was “a woman of color,” Elizabeth Warren likely made that claim while teaching at Harvard, and at approximately the same time the faculty was considering her for a tenured position. Warren, now running for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, told Politico as recently as May 15 that she had “no idea” why a Harvard Law School spokesman called her a “woman of color” in a 1996 Harvard Crimson article and a 1997 Fordham Law Review article. However, a 1993 issue of the Harvard Women’s Law Journal suggests that she knew very well indeed.

An article, “Women of Color in Legal Academia: A Biographic and Bibliographic Guide,” which was published by the Harvard Women’s Law Journal (since renamed the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender) in its Spring 1993 edition (Volume 16), lists Warren as one of approximately 250 “women of color” in legal academia.

It was written by the editors and staff of the journal, comprised of Harvard Law students. Peggy R. Smith, now a professor at Washington University Law School, was that year’s Editor, and Jennifer Taub, now a professor at Vermont Law School, was that year’s Recent Developments Editor. You can see the entire edition below.

16HarvWomensLJi -

Washington University Law Professor Peggy Smith

Vermont Law School Professor Jennifer Taub

It is clear from the introduction that the editors intended the article for use as a tool to apply political pressure to force law schools--and Harvard in particular--to hire some of the scholars listed as “women of color”:

This compilation was produced as part of the Journal's commitment to the goal of meaningful faculty diversity in law schools. More specifically, the editors of the Journal hope that this guide will advance the struggle to achieve a system of legal education that reflects the realities of a multicultural society. Law, we believe, should be interpreted and taught from a range of perspectives, including those offered by women of color.

By now, the "pool problem" has become a familiar argument in the debate over faculty diversity. According to the view put forth by many law schools, most notably Harvard, the absence of women of color on their faculties stems from a lack of "qualified" candidates. As this compilation demonstrates, such a position is simply untenable. [emphasis added]

The methodology the editors used in preparing the article for final publication indicates that it is likely that Warren provided the information which identified her as a “woman of color,” and that she actively consented to her listing as a “woman of color":

Once the initial compilation of biographical and bibliographical material was completed, we attempted to verify our data by sending each of the more than 250 women listed a facsimile of the information pertaining to her. Approximately sixty-five percent of the women responded. We were pleased that several women helped to improve our list by putting us in touch with their colleagues whose names did not appear in the AALS [Association of American Law Schools] directory.

In a final verification effort, we attempted to telephone those women who failed to respond to our initial inquiry to clear up discrepancies in our data. We should also note that because we thought it important to allow each woman to decide whether to be included under the rubric of "women of color currently teaching law," those who so requested were deleted from this guide. [emphasis added]

Warren was on campus at the time. She had accepted a one year appointment as the 1992-1993 Robert Braucher Visiting Professor of Commercial Law at Harvard Law School in the fall of 1992, the approximate time that the editors of the Harvard Women’s Law Journal began their study. The previous year, her former colleague from the University of Texas, Jay Westbrook, with whom she had co-authored several of her original studies, served in the same position. Unlike Warren, he did not receive an offer of tenure midway through his one-year visiting professorship.

University of Texas Law School Professor Jay Westbrook

Warren was hired at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1987 in part, reportedly, because her husband, Professor Bruce H. Mann, could not be lured away from his post at Washington University unless his wife, at the time a Professor of Law at the University of Texas, came with him. Professor Mann’s stellar academic background is a stark contrast to his wife’s journeyman pedigree. A 1972 graduate of Brown, Professor Mann holds a Ph.D. and J.D. from Yale. In contrast, Ms. Warren’s undergraduate degree is from the University of Houston and her J.D. is from Rutgers University-Newark, a rather less prestigious law school. At the time, Professor Mann was one of the most highly sought experts in the country on American legal history.

There is no evidence to suggest Warren’s newly-made claims of Native American ancestry (which included her 1985 listing as a self-identified minority in the 1985 AALS Directory, and her 1984 submission of recipes to the Pow Wow Chow cookbook with the attribution “Elizabeth Warren-Cherokee”) played a role in her hiring by the University of Pennsylvania.

There is, however, evidence to support the notion that she fostered a “Native American persona” which she later used to secure employment at Harvard Law School--the most prestigious law school in the country.

Five and a half years after being hired as the “trailing spouse” at the University of Pennsylvania, she was offered a tenured position during the spring semester of her professorship at Harvard on February 5, 1993, where students and members of the faculty and administration were well aware that she called herself a “woman of color.” Family circumstances prohibited her from accepting Harvard’s standing offer until the fall of 1995. Then, two years later, having used her undocumented claims of Native American ancestry to secure the golden ring at Harvard, she quietly stopped listing herself as a minority after the 1997 AALS directory.

In a reversal of fortune, her husband Bruce H. Mann was now the “trailing spouse.” It would be eleven years until he himself was named a Professor at Harvard Law School in 2006.

Harvard Law School Professor Bruce Mann

Five years of aggressive self-promotion as a woman of Native American ancestry at Penn from 1987 to 1992 laid the groundwork for her ultimate affirmative action coup--the standing offer of a tenured position made to her by Harvard in February 1993.

Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, who has been a vocal critic in the past of what he calls Warren’s academic fraud, elaborated on this pattern of behavior when he wrote recently at the Volokh Conspiracy, a well-known legal blog:

I have known from highly-credible sources for a decade that in the past Warren identified herself as a Native American in order to put herself in a position to benefit from hiring preferences…She was quite outspoken about it at times in the past and, as her current defenses have suggested, she believed that she was entitled to claim it.

Warren’s former colleague at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Professor Charles Mooney, had an office across the hall from her during her entire time there. As he recalls, “She mentioned that she had Native American heritage. She didn’t keep that a secret, but I don’t remember any particular context where she raised it.” Other Penn faculty members agree. Her frequent claims of Native American heritage were well known and common knowledge.

Despite recent denials by members of the 1993 Harvard Law Schools Appointment Committee that hired Warren, an odd convergence of unusual circumstances suggests quite a different story: that Warren was likely offered tenure because the Harvard Law School administration was under significant political pressure from faculty members and an angry student body to check off the “woman of color” box.

In addition to the likely communication between Warren and the editors of the 1993 Harvard Women’s Law Journal, who publicly reported her claimed “woman of color” status, and the highly volatile political situation at the time, there is what appears to be an unusual degree of cooperation between then-Dean Robert C. Clark and a group of Harvard Law School students protesting for more hiring diversity at Harvard.

Former Harvard Law School Dean Robert C. Clark

On February 6, 1993, the Harvard Crimson reported:

The Law School faculty voted yesterday to offer a tenured position to Visiting Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, a member of the Appointments Committee said last night.

Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence Charles Fried said Warren received strong support from the faculty, including a unanimous endorsement from the Appointments Committee.

The vote marks an advance in the student and faculty effort to improve faculty diversity, according to several of the approximately 65 students participating in a silent vigil outside the faculty meeting in Pound Hall yesterday….

"Everyone at CCR [Coalition for Civil Rights] is totally elated that Professor Warren received tenure," said third-year law student Lucy H. Koh. "CCR just wants to see some gender diversity on the faculty." … Yesterday's vigil was prompted by a tip from [Dean Robert C.]Clark, some students said.

"The rumor is that [Clark] asked a member of CCR to organize the vigil and that the dean told her they are voting on a woman today," said third year student Elizabeth G. Moreno.

"If the rumor is true, I'm surprised that Dean Clark would suggest a vigil," Moreno said.

Warren’s successful apparent ploy to use her “Native American persona” to secure tenured employment at Harvard Law School has angered members of the Cherokee Nation, the tribe to which Warren has attached her undocumented claims. Many of them are furious that Warren has used them so blatantly.

Twila Barnes, a registered member of the Cherokee Nation and amateur genealogist, has expressed anger at growing documentary evidence that Ms. Warren benefited from claiming a heritage that was not hers to claim.

Twila Barnes, Cherokee Geneaologist

Barnes told Breitbart News that she called the Warren campaign office on Wednesday afternoon and was rebuffed.

I called Ms. Warren’s Campaign office Wednesday afternoon. I told them I was Twila Barnes, a Cherokee registered with the Cherokee Nation and that I wanted to ask some questions about why Elizabeth Warren had still failed to acknowledge she had no evidence of Cherokee ancestry and why she felt it was a non-issue. I tried to give them suggestions on how to save face by asking certain questions like "why hasn't she said she was sorry for this?" The young man said he believed she has said she meant no harm, but I kept thinking, "No. No she hasn't because that would mean she admitted she did something wrong and she hasn't admitted that."

Yesterday, Warren once more doubled down on her claims of Native American ancestry when a local television news reporter asked her direct questions about whether she considered herself a "minority". Warren seemed desperate to talk about anything but that topic, and filibustered until the reporter relented.

Barnes, who watched the clip, was not impressed.

“Ms. Warren apparently thinks Cherokee heritage is a decoration we put on our resumes or a pretty little ribbon we wear when it might make a difference," she stated. "I think it is disrespectful to the Cherokee people. She continues to blame this on her opponent, failing to see that the people she stepped on and used to get where she is today want an answer too."

Calls and e-mails to former Harvard Law School Dean Robert C. Clark, former Harvard Women’s Law Journal Editor Peggy R. Smith, former Harvard Women’s Law Journal Recent Developments Editor Jennifer Taub, and the Warren campaign for comment on this story remain unreturned.

Michael Patrick Leahy is a Breitbart News contributor, Editor of Broadside Books’ Voices of the Tea Party e-book series, and author of Covenant of Liberty: The Ideological Origins of the Tea Party Movement.

Judge Not The 9th Circuit? A Billion Dollar Courthouse We Don't Need

Fri, 25 May 2012 05:33:00 -0700

Following up on a Breitbart News exclusive, the report of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' planned plush vacation in Maui, additional research paints an image of self-satisfied government employees and politicians capable of spending millions, if not billions, of U.S. taxpayer dollars, while repeatedly ignoring facts and evidence demonstrating no real need for it beyond self-satisfaction and perhaps politics, all while America continues to sink further and further into massive debt well into the trillions of dollars.

Looking in through just one small window, framed by two extravagant and unnecessary taxpayer sponsored trips, rests a court house, ironically enough, within the same Ninth Circuit dealt with in the original Breitbart exclusive. Back in November, 2011, per a previous report, Rep. Jeff Denham, (R-CA), said of the court house, "Ten years ago, $400 million was appropriated for a building that still doesn’t exist, to house federal judges that don’t exist. This vacant lot in downtown LA could be sold and used for private sector growth to create jobs."

Through news reports and document requests, Breitbart News has confirmed that the new court house would create a situation where more court rooms than federal judges exists, as projections of the future number of federal judges who would preside there did not pan out. Some tout it as a jobs project, though when first set to go forward, a lack of contractor interest was at least one factor attributed to previous delays. Additionally, no one seems to have taken into account the loss, in productivity, or potential tax revenue, the idle land has already accrued - and the estimated cost for the project ballooned upwards to close to a billion dollars, before finally being scaled back.

Finally, in January, it was reported that, "despite scrutiny from congressional Republicans looking for ways to cut the federal budget deficit" the project would go forward. The news was celebrated by local politicians and D.C. Democrats who have made the court house a priority and don't seem open to an alternative that might allow private industry to buy the land, so that it might actually generate tax revenues, rather than drain them to operate. Presumably, any buildings, or portions of them currently housing judges who might ultimately sit there would be padlocked, or partially closed, for however many years it takes for action in that regard.

For his part, Denham continued to make clear his opposition at the time, “I think we should save $400 million and then actually sell the property.... Both parties need to come together and say, ‘Enough is enough.’” The latest news and threat to the court house being built is contained in a May 12 report, indicating that "the Republican-controlled House voted Wednesday night to prevent the Justice Department from spending money to staff the building." It also suggests that effort may not survive the Senate, where California's senate Democrats continue to insist it's a priority.

In a final bit of irony, the court house drew the attention of Breitbart News when we began looking into the conference and travel habits of government officials in the wake of our Maui wowie! exclusive on an expensive Hawaian excursion planned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite most other circuits cutting back, or canceling their annual conferences due to cost cutting concerns.

The allegedly must have new court house Democrats are demanding be built will be located within the same Ninth Circuit and was announced by former General Services Administration (GSA) head, Martha Johnson, who was expressly brought in by Barack Obama to help keep his commitment to end excessive, wasteful and out of control spending by Washington. Unfortunately, she's now a "former" GSA head, as it seems she had some rather expensive conference travel habits of her own.

The report is jaw-dropping. It details page after page of over-the-top spending by the GSA. For instance, more than $100,000 just to plan a four-day Las Vegas conference for 300 people. Twenty-four bikes for a team-building exercise cost the agency $75,000.One reception cost $31,000 -- more than $100 a person. The entertainment at the conference included a mind reader who was paid several thousand dollars. There was a GSA employee dressed in a rented clown suit and, by some accounts, a comedian. All-told, the conference cost $822,000. Taxpayer watchdog groups are appalled.

Given that the very same person who so grandly announced the now intended building of a court house within the Ninth Circuit was ousted for her own high flying, high spending travel habits on the taxpayer's dime, one would think the Ninth Circuit would have had even more reason to curtail its conference plans in light of its own acknowledgement of government spending issues, as opposed to the other circuits who have actually done so.

Unfortunately, all this little look through a window at government spending as regards one allegedly unnecessary court house, framed by two extravagant pseudo-vacations dressed up as work trips to justify being paid for by taxpayers, is likely to cause your average citizen to do is look away in disgust at a seemingly smug, out of control government unable to control itself, or the impulse to spend taxpayer's hard-earned dollars simply because it can and is empowered to do so by an increasingly failed Obama administration.

Happy Weinerversary: The Lessons of WeinerGate

Fri, 25 May 2012 04:39:00 -0700

A year ago I was up late packing for Puerto Rico, having given notice that I'd be offline for seven days' vacation. My phone rang. It was The Boss, the late Andrew Breitbart. When he called, you answered, and a late night call was the meatspace equivalent of the Drudge siren.

"Oh my God," he shouted as a hello. "Did you see it?"

I replied that I hadn't seen whatever it was and he told me to check my email and Twitter. My mentions column was just a trickle: some of them were yfrog links, some of them included both our handles, @dloesch and @andrewbreitbart, along with the usernames of other media folk. I had one email from Andrew: a screenshot of a yfrog page which included a photo of gray material. I had no idea what I was supposed to be looking at but the longer I stared the weirder it got.

"Do you know what that is?" he shouted gleefully. The realization was like the final scene from "The Usual Suspects": the Twitter links from individuals that went to Congressman Anthony Weiner's yfrog account with the crotch shot still live, Andrew manically shouting at me to take more screenshots, email the other editors, he couldn't believe anyone could be so stupid ("It's his name, Dana, his name!"), was it Weiner, was it a fake account? I vaguely asked on Twitter whether or not yfrog could be hacked, whether it was possible for photos to accidentally end up on other accounts. "No," came a succession of Tweets. "Why?"

"This has to be him, it's him," Andrew shouted (still) to us as we assembled for the oddest conference call in the history of the company. It was close to midnight my time, Mike Flynn was roused from bed, and we were all talking about Anthony Weiner's boner shot on a Memorial Day weekend. After concluding that there existed no possible way for it to be faked (our suspicions were mostly confirmed when Wiener finally pulled the photo from yfrog himself), I drafted the story using the multi-use Breitbart editorial byline and included hyperactive dictation from Andrew and input from the other Bigs editors. I hit "publish," went to bed, and flew to Puerto Rico the next morning. I thought it would get a Drudge link, maybe.

Andrew Breitbart and the pre-Breitbart.com sites were all over every television screen in Puerto Rico. During the entire week images of a pursed-mouth Anthony Weiner, various pixelated screenshots, and muted interviews with Andrew filled the television screens at the bar by the beach, the hotel lobby; I heard the name "Andrew Breitbart" with a Spanish accent on the radio while drinking a pina colada in old San Juan. The sites churned out a plethora of stories: new photos were uncovered, people came forward. Andrew and I were accused of being hackers (a charge for which some have never fully apologized; Andrew was later falsely accused of leaking more photos to the media) which is where Weiner and his surrogates messed up: it began as a simple story about a congressman who mistakenly unveiled behavior unfit for a married man. It became a blockbuster when he deflected from accepting responsibility by blaming others for his actions. The lesson is that the cover-up is always greater than the crime itself.

By the time my family and I flew home a week later, the story had crescendoed to an amazing denouement: we de-boarded in Charlotte and the moment I turned on my phone it exploded. "Find a television, find a television" screamed the messages and texts. There, on live television, was Andrew Breitbart crashing Anthony Weiner's press conference. He was in NYC for a television appearance and staying blocks away from the presser's location. Andrew being Andrew, he thought he'd walk over and watch from the back of the room. Members of the press saw him and Tweeted about his presence alerting the rest of the assembled media; all of the cameras and lights that were focused on the podium swung around and trained on Andrew. They asked him to field questions from the stage. That's how Andrew Breitbart came to set the story straight in an unparalleled new media moment.

I shouted in the airport and fist-pumped my arm like a piston. New media had once again bested traditional media and forced them to examine the story with honest eyes. Business Insider called it "Andrew Breitbart's most famous moment."

Weiner's arrogance--as demonstrated by his hostility towards CNN's Dana Bash--only contributed to the speed with which he fell. In the weeks that followed there was much speculation from conspiracy theorists who, in their irrational anger and political prejudice, thought us hackers--despite Wiener admitting that he uploaded all the photos himself, conversed with a woman in Seattle, was sorry he did it, sorry he falsely accused others, and sorry for what he'd done to his wife.

The story proved how the left refused to hold themselves to the same standard they'd set for conservatives. We refused them the yoke of zero accountability. We didn't go to the mainstream press to break the story; we bypassed them to break it ourselves. Citizen journalists made it news to the point where the mainstream press was forced to cover it.

That's the legacy of Andrew Breitbart.

Wisconsin School Officials: Public Shouldn't Learn About Teacher Compensation

Thu, 24 May 2012 18:34:00 -0700

JANESVILLE, Wis. – Education officials in a rural Wisconsin school district find it "disturbing" and "upsetting" that someone had the nerve to spread public information to the public.

A flier distributed last weekend reportedly contained salary figures for hundreds of teachers in the Janesville school district. The salary information was obtained through a legal freedom of information request, then distributed to the public by the Milwaukee-based Citizens for Responsible Government.

The flier also contained a "parents rights protection form," which was designed to be detached and sent to Janesville Superintendent Karen Schulte (pictured above). The form requests that "my child be assigned to a classroom taught by a non-radical teacher during the 2012-13 school year."

Schulte told the newspaper that if she receives any of the forms, "they're going in the trash."

School and union officials acknowledge that the salary information contained on the fliers is public information. People have an absolute right to know compensation figures for all public employees, from President Obama all the way down to the kindergarten teacher who lives down the street.

Yet the education establishment in Janesville found the flier deeply offensive.

"It's disturbing, it's upsetting," Janesville Education Association President Dave Parr told Channel3000.com.

"I feel like it's vindictive against teachers," Schulte was quoted as saying.

Janesville union has been nothing but greedy

School spending has become a topic of great public concern in recent years, as tax revenues have slowed and school budgets have shrunk.

Citizens who previously knew little about school spending are suddenly starting to ask questions. And they are learning that roughly 75% of a typical school's general fund is spent on salaries and benefits for union employees.

Given that fact, a growing number of people believe school unions should accept some concessions to help their districts get through the recession without making budget cuts that negatively impact students.

In most school districts in Wisconsin, a new state law (Act 10) has taken away most collective bargaining privileges from teachers unions. That means most school boards are free to manage their budgets (including labor costs) without union interference.

Recent reports indicate that Act 10 has saved Wisconsin schools millions of dollars, and state taxpayers more than $1 billion.

But the Janesville teachers union signed a new contract with the district about a year before Act 10 became law. Janesville teachers can sidestep Act 10 and keep the full salaries and benefits mandated by their contract until it expires in 2013.

Over the past year the school board has repeatedly asked the union for some type of concessions to help erase a $9 million deficit, but the union, protected by its contract, has repeatedly refused. Their refusal led to the layoffs of 100 employees last fall, including 70 low-seniority teachers, and larger class sizes.

More layoffs and program cuts are anticipated for the 2012-13 school year, according to officials.

At one point the school board offered the union a deal. It guaranteed no layoffs and no increases in the small amount that teachers pay toward their insurance costs, if the union would allow members to pay more toward pension costs over the next few years.

The union again said "no" so it's no surprise that there's a sudden interest in the amount of compensation going to Janesville teachers. A debate over local school spending priorities is not only proper, but long overdue in Janesville and the rest of Wisconsin.

For more details about the Janesville standoff, and similar union-created dilemmas across Wisconsin, check out our report, " The Bad Old Days of Collective Bargaining: Why Act 10 Was Necessary for Wisconsin Schools."

Parents have a right to demand non-political teachers

Wisconsin parents have every reason to be concerned about politically zealous teachers. Since the adoption of Act 10, the state has been awash with reports of teachers using class time to rail on Gov. Scott Walker and other Republicans who passed the new law.

In Racine, several radical teachers recently helped a group of teens write a "Student Bill of Rights," which was presented to the local school board. Somehow this list of proposed student rights included a demand to reinstate full collective bargaining for union teachers.

When a former Racine school board member accused the teachers of coaching the students, he was threatened with a lawsuit by the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state's largest teachers union.

There are plenty of other examples. Bob Peterson, president of the Milwaukee Teachers Education Association, is a major contributor to "Rethinking Schools," a national publication that promotes the teaching of the left-wing interpretation of "social justice" in public school classrooms.

One of Peterson's readers is Kate Lyman, a Madison third-grade teacher who spent hours of classtime leading a discussion of Act 10, all from a pro-union point of view. At one point she showed students a PowerPoint presentation, with photos from the Madison Act 10 protests next to photos from the 1960s civil rights movement.

"We talked extensively about rights, in the context of both the civil rights movement and the capitol protests," Lyman wrote in an article for Rethinking Schools. Of course the third-graders were given no opportunity to hear the other side of the story from an Act 10 supporter.

If school administrators won't stop this type of nonsense, parents have every right to request - or even demand - that their children be assigned to non-political classrooms. If Schulte refuses to respect those demands, the school board should closely reconsider her fitness for the job.

Dewhurst Releases False Attack Ad Against Ted Cruz

Thu, 24 May 2012 18:03:00 -0700

Establishment Texas GOP senate candidate David Dewhurst has a record on immigration and border security most conservatives would find execrable. He has supported sanctuary cities, was against e-verify, has said on record “it would not be practical” to deport illegal immigrants, is for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, and has not taken a clear position on a border fence.

And today the Dewhurst campaign released a radio ad that claims opponent Ted Cruz supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, right before the Texas senate primary on Tuesday. "Cruz helps run two national organizations that have been leading the push to give amnesty to illegal immigrants," a voice actress states.

Yet Cruz, who has been endorsed by the likes of Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Pat Toomey, has said he “categorically opposes amnesty” on more than one occasion. He successfully defended Texas’s and the nation’s sovereignty against the World Court and 90 nations who sought to prevent Texas from executing an illegal immigrant who had raped and murdered two Texas teenagers. He also authored a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of 10 states in Lopez v. Gonzales, urging the strictest enforcement of laws punishing those with prior felony convictions who entered the country illegally.

The Dewhurst campaign is all hat and no cattle, and this ad is an example of his campaign, as they say in Texas, pissing on people's boots and telling them it's raining.

Walker Challenger Barrett Touts False Crime Stats

Thu, 24 May 2012 17:03:00 -0700

Tom Barrett isn't just Wisconsin's worst jobs mayor, he's apparently the worst on crimes, as well. So bad, in fact, that he's resorted to campaigning on what seem to be cooked crime statistics.

In his February 2012 State of the City address, Barrett cheerfully claimed:

I’m extremely pleased to report that in the last four years, we’ve seen dramatic declines in both violent and property crime. Between 2007 and 2011, total crime decreased 21.1 percent. This number translates into 25,508 fewer crime victims. The hard work of the Milwaukee Police Department is having a profound impact on our neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, the facts don't support Barrett's assertions, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

State and local leaders on Wednesday called for independent audits of the Milwaukee Police Department's crime numbers, citing a Journal Sentinel investigation that found more than 500 cases in which serious assaults were misclassified as lesser offenses.

The Journal Sentinel review discovered an additional 800 cases since 2009 that follow the same pattern but couldn't be verified with available public records. Copies of those incident reports have been sought from police through an open records request.

The Journal Sentinel found enough misreported cases in 2011 alone that violent crime would have increased 1.1% instead of falling 2.3% from the reported 2010 figures, which had their own errors.

Dozens of misclassified assaults were sent to FBI crime reporting experts, who confirmed that they should have been marked as aggravated assaults, which are counted in the city's violent crime rate. Police officials agreed that a sample of assault cases shared by the Journal Sentinel were misreported.

Large numbers of criminal cases misclassified to present a reduction in crime? Not sure that sounds like a simple system error. As the mayor of Milwaukee and labor challenger to Governor Scott Walker in the June 5th recall, Barrett may want to make sure his talking points are more than false statistics.

Romney: Obama's Bain Ads Sound Like an Attack on Capitalism

Thu, 24 May 2012 15:56:00 -0700

In an appearance on Fox News this morning, Mitt Romney was asked if he agreed with Rush Limbaugh that Obama seemed ready to run a campaign against capitalism. Romney responded that it "certainly sounds like that's what he's doing."

Romney has spent the past week responding to White House attacks on his work at Bain Capital. Bain was a private equity company that bought up troubled businesses and refurbished them. As Romney pointed out today, Bain was successful about 80% of the time. The White House's focus on the minority of occasions when Bain was not successful seems to cross a line between attacking Romney and attacking the system itself.

It's not just conservative bloggers who've taken a dim view of the President's attacks. A number of Democrats, including Mayor Cory Booker, Former Rep. Harold Ford, Lanny Davis, ex-Car Czar Steve Rattner, Former Gov. Ed Rendell, and Gov. Deval Patrick have all taken issue with the tone of the ads. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein of California seems eager for the White House to move on.

The media has been somewhat confused by the Bain attacks, too. Washington Post fact Checker Glenn Kessler pointed out, "The big question, for us at least, is whether the story of one company — or a few — in some of Bain’s bad deals should negate a largely positive record of building businesses, sometimes in challenging economic climates." In other words, what's the alternative system from which we can judge Bain a failure?

The attacks on Bain are a critique of capitalism writ small. At some point, the White House needs to explain how it can judge Bain a failure without that judgment applying, implicitly, to every business which fires people when the bottom line isn't adding up.

Elizabeth Warren Stonewalls Reporter on Why She Claimed Minority Status

Thu, 24 May 2012 15:37:00 -0700

Appearing in Brookline, Massachusetts for a Senate campaign event, Elizabeth Warren stonewalled questions about her supposed Cherokee ancestry. She has maintained that she does have Cherokee ancestry despite all evidence to the contrary.

This was her first public appearance in a week. She was accosted by a reporter, and consistently attempted to redirect the questioner to another topic.

REPORTER: Elizabeth, can you put this issue to bed and tell us whether or not you are in fact a member of a minority group?

Warren stutters for a moment, then answers:

WARREN: Middle class families are getting hammered. I’ve been out talking to people about this all across the commonwealth. And what they care about is what Washington is going to do about that. My Republican opponent has made it clear what he will do –

REPORTER: Members of the Cherokee nation want to know. They say you should come clean.

WARREN: I have made the facts clear, and what I’m trying to do is talk about in this Senate race what matters to America’s families, what matters to the families of the Commonwealth of the Massachusetts. Scott Brown has hammered on my family at the same time that now middle class families are also getting hammered. This is the issue, and it’s my job in this campaign to talk about this issue. This is what matters –

REPORTER: Well, why did you claim you were a minority, and then stop?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN (gesturing to reporter): I can’t stop her when she’s in this sequence.

REPORTER: Why did you claim you were a minority, and then stop?

WARREN: I have told you. I have answered these questions. I am going to talk about what’s happening to America’s families. It’s what people across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts tell me is important to them, and it’s what I’m going to continue to do.

REPORTER: Don’t you think it’s an important issue to address?

WARREN: I have talked about the issues that are most important to the families of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The families themselves have made this clear. I have answered the questions about my background, about my family, and I am talking about what matters to the people of Massachusetts. They have said what they care about is that middle class families are getting hammered. This election will be decided based on whose side you stand on. Scott Brown has hammered those families harder, he just voted to double the interest rate on student loans, and I have worked for middle class families for all of my life. I’ve spent the last thirty years out there advocating on behalf of America’s middle class. And that’s what I’m going to talk about.

REPORTER: You’re not answering the question.

Warren continues to refuse to answer the question. This is a very simple question. And Warren refused to give any answer at all.

Anti-Walmart NV Dem Senate Candidate Owns $35K in Walmart Stock

Thu, 24 May 2012 14:26:00 -0700

Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), the liberal Senate candidate challenging Senator Dean Heller (R-NV), is an ardent friend to Big Labor. At least that’s a centerpiece of her campaign against Heller – and with good reason, since Nevada is heavily unionized.

Union support will be critical to Berkley’s campaign. And Berkley has spent the last few years backing their agenda. One of her preferred targets has been Wal-Mart, the retail giant Big Labor hates for its frequent use of part-time workers to avoid unionization issues. In 2006, Berkley publicly associated with the “Change Wal-Mart, Change America” campaign to get the company to amend its hiring practices.

But while Berkley talks a good game with regard to the pro-union agenda, her financial records show that her husband’s trust owns approximately $35,000 worth of stock in Wal-Mart. In fact, the stock was purchased after Berkley associated with the “Change Wal-Mart, Change America” campaign – it was bought in May 2008. So while Berkley maintains that union tactics aren’t harming the economy, and while she has specifically targeted supposedly anti-union companies, her husband is busy investing in companies that won’t deal with unions. Clearly, Berkley isn’t quite as pro-union in her personal life as she is in her legislative career.

This isn’t the first time Berkley’s and her husband’s finances have created a mess for the Congresswoman to clean up. In March, the House Ethics Committee launched an investigation into her alleged attempts to strong-arm federal regulators to help the business interests of her husband, who is involved with a kidney transplant program in Nevada.

This latest revelation about Wal-Mart shouldn’t be surprising. Berkley is not new to the union pandering game. Back when she was casino magnate Sheldon Adelson’s highest-ranking political deputy, she played bad cop to the unions on a routine basis. When Adelson started spending money on Republicans, however, she bucked – and Adelson fired her.

Is Berkley a hypocrite? It’s borderline, but the assets hit close enough to home that she had to include them in her Congressional personal financial disclosure forms. She will surely be answering some difficult questions from her union supporters in upcoming days.

Unfavorable: Poll Shows California Voters Turning Against Jerry Brown

Thu, 24 May 2012 13:59:00 -0700

The California media is abuzz with reports that for the first time, more California voters view Gov. Jerry Brown (D) unfavorably (43%) than favorably (42%). The news comes on the heels of Brown's recent announcement that the state's budget shortfall would be $16 billion--almost twice what was expected, and likely an underestimate.

The Sacramento Bee reports on the Public Policy Institute of California poll, which sampled likely voters:

Brown's declining job approval rating is less a plunge than a shift. Among all adults in California – not just likely voters – Brown's approval rating remains positive, 39 percent to 36 percent, according to the poll.

"It's not surprising," said Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College. "The economic news is middling, at best, and the state fiscal news is bad."

He said, "In his early months, Californians were willing to give Brown the benefit of the doubt. But his grace period has ended."

(See Breitbart News' Mike Flynn on the perils of polling "adults" versus "likely voters.")

There is no serious recall effort in California, as of right now. However, Brown's failure to rein in public spending--when he was responsible, in his first tenure as governor in the 1970s, for many of the policies now dragging California into the red--is not exactly a shock. Neither party has mustered the courage to confront California's vociferous public unions, its well-funded radical lobbies, or its staggering economic reality.

Obama A Budgethawk? Not So Fast Rex Nutting

Thu, 24 May 2012 13:46:00 -0700

A Rex Nutting article in Marketwatch claiming the President has been a budget hawk has generated a lot of comment, much of it mistaken. Due to what I call The Lesser-Known Law of Large Numbers, most people’s brains go on the fritz when they deal with numbers much larger than a bar bill. Because of this effect, most commentators have gotten the facts wrong. I’m immune to this law, and so I’d like to address the flaws in Mr. Nutting's data.

The White House is promoting the column to prove their fiscal probity, so his opponents need to get their facts straight in order to demonstrate just how profligate his spending has really been. Nutting claims that Obama has held the line on spending since sending up his first budget for the fiscal year 2010. The claim is based on the truism that all budgets are written the year before, so that Fiscal 2009 must have been written and signed by Bush before he left office with his tail between his legs. This is Mistake Number One. Having been thoroughly embarrassed, Bush had no interest in sending up a budget. The Democrats won a landslide? Fine, let them write the 2009 budget. Which they did.

Next, recall that Bush had pushed through TARP before leaving, which was $750 Billion in deficit spending. Nutting, like most commentators, adds this to Bush's deficit in 2008, when it passed. Mistake Number Two. In fact, Bush spent $400 Billion of TARP. He left $350 Billion for his successor.

Finally, the new President pushed through the Stimulus in Feb. 2009. This was $800+ Billion added to the regular budget, which in itself was increased by $425 Billion year-over-year by Reid, Pelosi, et al. Again, this being 2009, it falls to reason that this was Bush's spending, But as we saw, Bush left no budget and of course had no hand in the Stimulus. Altogether, spending increased at least $1.5 Trillion from Fiscal 2008 to 2009. The actual Bush deficit in 2008 was approximately $850 Billion (including the $400 Billion from TARP), and the Obama deficit in 2009 was actually $1.75 Trillion, including the remainder of TARP.

Nutting claims, in fine, that the 2009 $1.4 Trillion deficit was Bush's, and that since then Obama has merely maintained the status quo. To set the record straight, Obama more than doubled the deficit his first year, and has fiddled around the margins of debt in the two years since.

To put Obama's largesse in context, I'd like to make two contrasts. First, the total deficit for the eight Bush years was 2.2 trillion dollars. The total deficit for Obama’s first two years was $2.75 trillion dollars, even if you leave out TARP. Second, the last deficit of an all-GOP Capitol Hill, Fiscal 2007, was $162 billion dollars. The first deficit of an all-Democrat Capitol Hill, Fiscal 2009, was $1.4 Trillion dollars — nearly 10 times higher.

So if the Obama campaign wants to start claiming fiscal restraint, his opponents should welcome it. But they need to get their facts right. If the President asks voters to focus on numbers like these, his days in office are numbered indeed.

Adbusters Endorses Occupy's Violent 'Black Bloc' Faction

Thu, 24 May 2012 13:23:00 -0700

In a piece that must be read to be believed, the radical publication Adbusters, which first suggested the tactic of occupying Wall Street, has now officially endorsed the Black Bloc anarchists as the next phase of the now-flaccid Occupy movement.

This endorsement is especially interesting, since many involved with Occupy publicly deny that the Black Bloc is actually affiliated with Occupy. Many have instead claimed that the Black Bloc are actually undercover police. Don't tell that to Adbusters, though: they give full-throated approval the Black Bloc and their violent May Day tactics in an article entitled, "Battle for the Soul of OccupyRound 7 - The Black Bloc Anarchist Turn."

Occupy’s May Day General Strike was a surprising and bold success for the visceral side of the movement. While most of Occupy put its energy into building coalitions with “legacy progressive groups”, labor unions and immigrant rights organizations, these efforts did not yield the anticipated results. In New York, for example, despite amassing a coalition of over a hundred organizations and rallying a crowd of more than 30,000, occupiers were thwarted in their attempts to shut down banks or re-occupy Wall Street. And some Zuccottis have complained that union representatives actively blocked an attempt to lead the crowd toward direct action at the end of the night. Meanwhile in Seattle, Oakland, San Francisco, New Orleans and elsewhere, anarchists using Black Bloc tactics stole the show.

On websites and forums, anarchists are rejoicing the spectacular showing of Black Bloc. “American anarchists haven’t experienced this much positive public attention since the euphoria and aftermath of N30 in Seattle,” writes one commentator. For many, the Black Bloc represents a tactical innovation that suggests the future of Occupy. “Occupy is dead, long live the Black Bloc,” writes another.

This is frightening and yet completely unsurprising for anyone following the trajectory of the far-left movements behind Occupy. A battle in the streets is something they are both itching for and trained to do. The piece ends by saying:

Anarchist occupiers are energized and their visceral tactics are attracting members. Now, the power of the Black Bloc is growing within Occupy and pushing the movement in unexpected directions.

Round 7 goes to the Black Bloc – now let’s see what we can do for the rest of May!

As the recent arrests at the Chicago NATO protests seem to show, perhaps the authorities are finally starting to stop the visceral tactics.

Waking The Sleeping Giant: Book Offers Solutions To Put Liberals On Defense In Politics and Culture

Thu, 24 May 2012 12:37:00 -0700

The late Andrew Breitbart knew that in order to defeat the left, Americans had to first take back the cultural institutions used by the left to advance liberalism.

In their new book, Waking The Sleeping Giant: How Mainstream Americans Can Beat Liberals At Their Own Game, authors Timothy Daughtry and Gary Casselman offer everyday “mainstream” Americans a valuable and important playbook for taking back the broader culture.

“We cannot count on politicians to put America back on a sound course,” the authors write. “Unless mainstream citizens, the sleeping giant of American politics, wake up and take the helm of this country soon, the current generation will be the last to live in freedom.”

Although a plurality of mainstream Americans are conservative and “vastly outnumber the far left” the authors ask, “why do they allow themselves to be outflanked in the cultural institutions and even bullied by the left-wing fringe?”

Daughtry and Casselman write that a bully “cannot terrorize an entire playground, and 20 percent of the population cannot impose their views and policies on the rest of us—unless the majority allows them to do so.”

The book describes how shrewdly -- and viciously -- liberals have used the government, schools, universities, news media, entertainment, medicine and science to advance their agenda to the unsuspecting masses.

Waking The Sleeping Giant does a good job describing the “power players” who use liberal institutions for their ends.

The authors write that liberal power players “learn ways of manipulating others into those provider and comforter roles” and, “because of their dependency on others, Power Players tend to see others as objects to be manipulated rather than as fellow human beings with needs and rights of their own.”

Thus, when power players are threatened they “experience visceral fears of weakness, inadequacy, and being unimportant.”

“The air of moral and intellectual superiority of liberalism soothes the inner fears and frustrations of the Power Players,” they write. “And the denial of the Judeo-Christian worldview offers an even more tempting benefit in that it allows them to justify their behavior with an appeal to moral relativism. Power Players are desperately struggling to become the center of a universe that stubbornly refuses to revolve around them.”

And yet, the authors argue, mainstream Americans allow these liberal power players to manipulate them and fall into what they call the appeasement cycle.

In order to break the appeasement cycle, the authors argue that “mainstream America will have to confront our fear of conflict and disapproval.”

Two points Daughtry and Casselman make are particularly relevant for conservatives.

They urge Americans not to be on the defensive when there is nothing against which to defend. For example, when arguing for sensible immigration policies, do not start off by saying, “I don’t have anything against Mexicans.” By saying this, conservatives fall into the trap of playing into “conservatives are racist” stereotype the left uses to advance their agenda and discredit conservatives.

The authors also point out the difference between anger and righteous indignation.

“There is a difference between righteous indignation and anger as a manipulative tool,” they note. “When taxpayers are trying to address a $15 trillion debt and they hear liberals referring to the Tea Party as “terrorists,” those taxpayers feel righteous indignation. Leftists, on the other hand, use anger to manipulate their followers for the purpose of giving liberals the power that they so desperately crave.”

This is a message conservatives must heed.

Waking The Sleeping Giant also makes the important point that “much of the political narrative occurs in casual conversations in the office, at work, at church, around the dinner table, and at other informal gatherings” and “it will take much longer for our strategy to affect the formal cultural institutions such as schools and news media, but we can begin to change the direction and tone of the political narrative outside of those institutions.” The authors give good solutions for how to inoculate children from liberal indoctrination and build up local institutions and government.

This fight is worth it, the authors note, and they ask readers to imagine this scenario in the future:

Dream with us just a little longer. Imagine motion pictures in which the villains were multibillionaires pushing the global warm- ing scam as a cover for a worldwide power grab, and the hero was a maverick scientist who exposed them. Or the villain was a thuggish union organizer in a factory and the hero a woman who stood up to the union. Or the villain was a corrupt left-wing president and the heroes two mainstream reporters whose work forced that president to resign.

This is the culture for which the late Andrew Breitbart fought.

Bill Clinton Throws Smelly, Rotten Party

Thu, 24 May 2012 12:35:43 -0700

Bill Clinton threw a star-studded fundraising party in England, and the guests, who were charged up to £1,000 for a ticket, hated it. With celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow, Joan Collins, supermodel Lily Cole, Princess Beatrice and will.i.am. as bait, Clinton’s party benefiting his own Foundation’s Millennium Network failed to impress.

Held at The Old Vic Tunnels in Waterloo, the event featured Clinton speaking for two minutes about climate change. And to top it off, the guests, who said the venue smelled badly, got a real-life demonstration of climate change: one guest said, “We arrived, there was perspiration dripping off the walls …” Good thing Clinton wasn’t speaking on teenage pregnancy.

The guest also added, “… the place absolutely stank. It was like walking into a cave. We left at 9.15pm with a number of other people as the place was too crowded, too unpleasant and nothing had happened.'

Marie Phillips, author of Gods Behaving Badly, tweeted:

I'm in! There is literally damp dripping from the ceiling. Clinton talked about climate change for 30 secs. Now chugging cocktails. And now! An exclusive performance from Black Eyed Peas! Or, in tonight's incarnation: some guy pressing play on a laptop. WORST. PARTY. EVER. The queue was the highlight. Unbelievable.

Clinton’s guests may have thought that this was his worst party ever. Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Willey beg to differ. But it was probably his second-worst party ever.

Democrats Run Fundraiser Celebrating Barney Frank's Coming Out Anniversary

Thu, 24 May 2012 12:11:00 -0700

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is holding a very special campaign event for Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) on May 30. It’s an important 25^th anniversary that deserves celebration, according to the DCCC. What happened 25 years ago? He came out of the closet as gay. “Barney is an inspiration to all of us as one of the first openly gay Congressmen to serve in the House,” writes Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), another openly gay Congressman. “This event will be particularly moving for me as it will be one of our last events with him before he retires this year.”

But it isn’t just a celebration for Frank letting the world know about his sexual orientation. It’s an opportunity for the DCCC to fundraise: “Leader Nancy Pelosi, DCCC Chairman Steve Israel, and I would love for you to join us as we pay tribute to his service. To purchase tickets to the event, please click here.”

It is worth remembering just how Frank came out of the closet. In 1985, after entering Congress, Frank was not openly gay. He was, however, hiring a male prostitute for sex and housing him in his apartment, from which location the prostitute was running a prostitution ring. Only after the scandal broke did Frank come out of the closet. Now that’s cause for celebration – being caught with a male prostitute living in your apartment, then having to come out to quash the scandal.

No word on whether the DCCC will throw a fundraiser on the upcoming 10^th anniversary of former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey coming out in 2014.