Breitbart Feed

AP Purposely Confuses Readers About Warren's False Cherokee Heritage

Sun, 27 May 2012 09:01:00 -0700

The Associated Press had a blockbuster quote about Elizabeth Warren, the embattled Democrat running for senate in Massachusetts who has not been able to prove her Native American ancestry despite having claimed it throughout her past, presumably to gain a professional advantage.

"I'm proud of my heritage," Warren told the Associated Press, whose stories get picked up by all national and regional outlets and is thus instrumental in setting the narrative. When the wire service asked her "how she knew it included Native Americans,” Warren said, "Because my mother told me so."

AP could have used this quote, which the article is built around, to build a case, as Breitbart News has been doing for three weeks, that “because my mother told me so” is nowhere near sufficient enough for Warren to be able to claim Native American ancestry on official documents and forms and professional directories.

Instead, for the national audience which may not be familiar with the Warren case because the mainstream media has ignored and obfuscated the issue to protect their liberal darling, the AP decided, even with this mockable quote, to run even more interference for Warren.

Before introducing the nearly self-incriminating quote from Warren, the AP reporter conditions the reader to give Warren the benefit of the doubt.

“What, exactly, makes someone American Indian?” the AP writer asks. “Even Indians themselves don't agree as they debate the case of Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, whose disputed claim of Native American identity is shining a rare spotlight on the malleable nature of Indian heritage and the long history of murky claims to such ancestry.”

This is not true.

Soon after stories emerged about Warren’s genealogy, Twila Barnes, a Cherokee, who is also a Cherokee genealogist, wrote a blistering post that denounced Warren:

You see, Ms. Warren, some of us have independently done our own research and we know you have no documentation supporting your claim of Cherokee ancestry.* We wonder why you believe you have the right to claim Cherokee ancestry and to call yourself a Native American when you have no evidence to support your claim.

And yet, the AP writes, in the article, “among Native Americans, the varying opinions demonstrate that Indian identity is subjective even among Indians themselves.”

Further, the AP quotes an essay in which the writer says, "An Indian identity is something someone claims for oneself; it is a matter of choice” and then adds “there are 566 federally recognized Native American tribes, each with its own rules for membership” and “some tribes require a ‘blood quantum’ measurement of as much as one-half or one-quarter Indian ancestry; others require a certain place of birth or residence.”

Then the AP quotes a professor who is married to a Najavo; the professor is quoted as saying, “I've asked them what defines a Navajo ... One said you have to speak the language. Another said you have to live within our sacred mountains. Another said no, you have to take part in ceremonial life. All this in one family!”

Except Warren claimed she was a member of the Cherokee Nation, not the Najavo Nation. But the AP writer is hoping his readers forget that convenient fact in trying to conflate what may be requirements for being a Najavo with those for being considered a Cherokee.

Confused, yet?

The article then does even more to befuddle the reader.

The reporter writes that though “Warren does not claim official Cherokee membership,” “many people have legitimate Cherokee ancestry but are not eligible for membership because their ancestors were not among those counted.”

The writer then quotes someone who says "some people falsely claim Native heritage simply out of ignorance ... They've been told for years that they had a great-grandmother (or something similar) who was a Cherokee princess and assume that it's true."

This quote serves to defend Warren’s statement that she is Native American because her mother told her so and her previous statements that she could also be Native American because her grandparents, as her Aunt Bea told her, had “high cheekbones" as all other Indians do.

Then the AP writer says, “even President Barack Obama has an Indian story, about his maternal grandmother, who was nicknamed ‘Toot.’”

Except, as Breitbart News reported, the president notoriously known and mocked for having creating fictional, composite characters, has also never shown prof that he has Native American heritage.

The AP then, if its readers were not confused enough already, then quotes people saying that even if someone were not an official member of a Native American tribe, they could become de-facto members if they give back to the Native American community. The quote serves to point out that Warren, as Breitbart News also reported, never did any work on behalf of Native American communities but it also, snidely, has a dual purpose of further confusing the reader as to what qualities can be used by someone to claim Native American status.

The purportedly objective AP could have written a story that objectively laid out all of the holes in Warren’s story about her Native American ancestry and used Warren’s quote about how she was a Native American “because my mother told me so” as another piece of evidence to cast doubt on her claims.

Instead, it just served to cast doubt on what properly is a Native American, leaving its readers enough reason to give Warren the benefit of the doubt she in no way deserves on this story.

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.

Running: Warren Slams Door On Reporter's Inquiry

Sun, 27 May 2012 07:52:00 -0700

Dishonest Dave: Letterman Claims Non-Partisan Joker Teller

Sun, 27 May 2012 07:29:00 -0700

David Letterman isn't a partisan comic by choice. He simply follows the political material.

Yes, and when Letterman affixed himself to a wall via a velcro suit he was engaging in an intellectual exercise meant to deconstruct modern humor.

Letterman pretended to open up about political humor during a recent chat with old pal Regis Philbin.

LETTERMAN: Well – you – I know what your point is, and I have been guilty of appearing to be playing partisan politics. However, I'd just like to say that for the record, I am a registered independent. You go where the material takes you. Poor Bill Clinton. No president that I'm aware of got hammered harder than Bill – President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky situation. We beat up on him. We still use him as a reference. And then we were desperate. We thought, well this was so easy and then we got George Bush, and within a matter of days we realized our prayers had been answered, he's just as good in terms of material.

PHILBIN: (Laughing)

LETTERMAN: So we – it may appear that we have a slant one way or the other, but if a guy drops his dog, or a guy straps his dog to the roof of a car, or if a guy gets a shoe thrown at him, well this is where the material is going to be.

Interesting. Does Letterman know President Barack Obama once ate a dog and recounted the experience dispassionately in one of his two memoirs? Or that Obama's team inserted the former senator into the online biographies of past presidents? Or that Obama claimed he was Kenyan in his literary biography for years? Or that Obama's passion for pot rivaled Bob Marley's?

The list, sadly, is endless. But Letterman has no interest in perusing said list. He's a dedicated partisan who makes foolish statements like saying he pretends to follow the material.

Instead, he's simply using his media platform as an in-kind contribution to the re-election of Obama. The fact that he isn't honest about that simple truth is a stain on his broadcast legacy.

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.

World View: IMF to Greece: 'Drop Dead!'

Sun, 27 May 2012 04:43:00 -0700

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com.

International Monetary Fund to Greece: Drop Dead!
IMF's Lagarde softens her remarks about Greece after backlash
UK to block immigration into UK if Greece leaves euro
Israel's attitude towards West Bank becomes increasingly nationalistic
Dozens dead in biggest one-day massacre by Syria's Assad regime

International Monetary Fund to Greece: Drop Dead!

International Monetary Fund managing director, Christine Lagarde, has ratcheted up the hostility between European officials and Greeks with blunt warnings that it's "payback time" for the Greeks. Lagarde indicated that there will be no softening of the terms of Greece's austerity package:

"I think more of the little kids from a school in a little village in Niger who get teaching two hours a day, sharing one chair for three of them, and who are very keen to get an education. I have them in my mind all the time. Because I think they need even more help than the people in Athens. ...

Do you know what? As far as Athens is concerned, I also think about all those people who are trying to escape tax all the time. All these people in Greece who are trying to escape tax. I think they should also help themselves collectively. ... By all paying their tax."

Lagarde's remarks come after the release of figures indicating a sharp fall in tax revenues – down by a third in a year. Under the terms of the country's bailout, Athens has agreed to improve Greece's poor record for tax collection in order to reduce its budget deficit, and Lagarde's remarks are evidence of a growing impatience in the international community. Reports surfaced in Germany and France of preparations being made to cope with Greece's possible departure from the single currency after its election on 17 June. Guardian

IMF's Lagarde softens her remarks about Greece after backlash

In a statement late on Saturday, the IMF's Christine Lagarde expressed sympathy for Greeks “and the challenges they are facing” and said that her comments regarding tax evasion were in reference to the “most privileged." She issued the statement after furious responses from Greeks, some suggesting that Lagarde was racist. Evangelos Venizelos, leader of the left-of-center PASOK party, said:

"Nobody should humiliate a people during a crisis and I call on Mrs Lagarde, who insulted the Greek people with her attitude, to rethink what she wanted to say."

The Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA), the party leading in the polls for the June 16 election, and whose leader Alexis Tsipras has said he would terminate the austerity measures and has indicated that he thought that the EU and IMF have been bluffing when they said that Greece would receive no more aid in that case, issued a statement:

"The Lagarde comments reveal the cynicism and true role of the International Monetary Fund, which is responsible for the destruction of whole societies. PASOK and New Democracy bear huge responsibility for submitting the country to an IMF program, which leads to bankruptcy and poverty."

Kathimerini

UK to block immigration into UK if Greece leaves euro

Britain's Home Secretary, Theresa May, says that "work is ongoing" to implement emergency immigration controls to restrict an influx of Greeks and other European Union residents into Britain if Greece leaves the eurozone. However, there are growing concerns that if Greece was forced to leave the euro, it would effectively go bankrupt and millions could lose their jobs and consider looking for work abroad. The crisis could spread quickly to other vulnerable countries such as Spain, Ireland and Portugal, although Britain is regarded as a safe haven because it is outside the single currency. Telegraph

Israel's attitude towards West Bank becomes increasingly nationalistic

We recently reported that nationalist political parties are gaining strength in Israel. This increase in nationalism is also being reflected in attitudes towards settlements in the West Bank, according to the left-wing Peace Now activist group:

"Without us noticing, the Right is creating a real revolution in public opinion regarding the territories. A bloated right-wing network is working on a few fronts: tours for the media, bloggers and influential figures in [the West Bank], a complete takeover when it comes to explaining diplomacy in pre-army programs..."

However, from the point of view of Generational Dynamics, this increased nationalism is not being "created" by right wing media or politicians. Rather, increased nationalism is a feature of every country during a generational Crisis era, and it leads inevitably to a major crisis war. Israel National News

Dozens dead in biggest one-day massacre by Syria's Assad regime

When the Kofi Annan "peace plan" was announced in March, I called it "farcical", and time has shown that criticism to be, if anything, an understatement. The peace plan has proven to be a fig leaf behind which the United Nations could pretend that nothing was going, while the regime of Syria's president Bashar al-Assad could claim that he was the victim of terrorist violence, and have those claims parroted by the BBC and al-Jazeera. But what happened on Saturday was so horrific that the fig leaf has been blown away, if only for one day. In one of the bloodiest single incidents in the 14-month-old protest against Assad's rule, Syrian regime forces slaughtered over 90 people, including dozens of children, and wounded hundreds other, by attacks on unarmed residential neighborhoods. According to the statement issued by the United Nations:

"The Secretary-General and the Joint Special Envoy condemn in the strongest possible terms the killing, confirmed by United Nations observers, of dozens of men, women and children and the wounding of hundreds more in the village of El-Houleh, near Homs. Observers from the UN Supervision Mission in Syria have viewed the bodies of the dead and confirmed from an examination of ordnance that artillery and tank shells were fired at a residential neighbourhood.

This appalling and brutal crime involving indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force is a flagrant violation of international law and of the commitments of the Syrian Government to cease the use of heavy weapons in population centres and violence in all its forms. Those responsible for perpetrating this crime must be held to account."

Unlike typical U.N. statements, this one clearly and unequivocally blames the Assad regime, based on an examination of the artillery and tank shells fired at a residential neighborhood. As shocking as this is, it's not going to change anything for more than a day. By Monday, the BBC and other mainstream media will be back to parroting the lines about the Kofi Annan peace plan. Washington Post and Day Press News

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.

Happy Anniversary: Obama Praises Solyndra As 'True Engine Of Economic Growth'

Sun, 27 May 2012 02:00:00 -0700

NBC's David Gregory: VP Biden, Cory Booker Said Exactly What They Wanted To Say

Sun, 27 May 2012 02:00:00 -0700

Dozens Of Children Killed In Syria Attack

Sun, 27 May 2012 02:00:00 -0700

Pre-Teen Raises Money To Build Normandy Memorial For World War II Veterans

Sun, 27 May 2012 02:00:00 -0700

Obama Uses Justice Sotomayor To Promote 'Latinos For Obama'

Sun, 27 May 2012 02:00:00 -0700

Levin To Obama Admin Over Jailed Pakistan Doc: Do You 'Have A Conscience?'

Sat, 26 May 2012 18:48:00 -0700

RUSH: Left Panicking Over Bain Backfire

Sat, 26 May 2012 18:34:00 -0700

Sharpton: Republicans Want To 'Wipe Out Innocent People' Like 'Hitler's Germany'

Sat, 26 May 2012 18:30:00 -0700

Libtalker: 'Limbaugh Is A Child Molester'

Sat, 26 May 2012 18:17:00 -0700

Is Youtube Stifling Conservative Speech?

Sat, 26 May 2012 16:15:00 -0700

Sixteen-year-old Madeleine McAulay recently made a video wherein she politely discussed her thoughts on same sex marriage from the perspective of her Christian faith. The video received over 22,000 hits and landed her on Fox and Friends one morning last week due to the threats she received as a result of posting it. Progressives continued to attack her, called her video "hate speech," and Youtube finally pulled it.

Says Youtube, according to Ms. McAulay:

Thank you for submitting your video appeal to YouTube.

After further review of the content, we've determined that your video does violate our Community Guidelines and have upheld our original decision. We appreciate your understanding.

Sincerely,

— The YouTube Team

They hope McAulay understands that her respectful presentation of diverse opinion must be banned, but videos made in response to hers in which she's called a "whore" and a "pig" (among other gems) is allowed.

Youtube has a history of such decisions.

Unlike the left, conservatives fully support a private company's decision to operate how it sees fit. If Youtube wants to teach kids about free speech by banning the respectful videos of teenage girls while allowing men to savage them in misogynistic attacks in still-standing videos, that's their choice.

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.

Daily Beast: Warren Story a 'Foolish Witch Hunt'

Sat, 26 May 2012 15:02:00 -0700

Elizabeth Warren—the Democratic contender challenging Republican Scott Brown for his Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat—was apparently proud of her so-called Cherokee heritage when she started teaching law at Harvard back in the early 1990s. In fact, she was so proud that she allowed the university to list her as a "minority professor" because she believed she was 1/32 Cherokee.

Well, if that doesn’t seem ridiculous, here’s something even better—Warren’s sympathizers in the mainstream media would like to convince the American public that it’s a “foolish witch-hunt” to question her sincerity for having labeled herself a minority with 1/32 Native American heritage.

That’s what Michael Tomasky (pictured above), a Newsweek and Daily Beast correspondent contends. In fact, he’s even stated that the story is the “biggest media manufactured story since the Lewinsky scandal nearly brought down a president.”

First of all, let’s get something straight.

I was an intern in the Clinton White House at the same time Monica Lewinsky was during the Spring of 1996, and although I felt the story cruelly and unjustifiably vilified Ms. Lewinsky, the facts about the President of the United States having an affair with an intern inside the Oval Office turned out to be true.

That story wasn’t manufactured—and guess what? This story isn’t either. It turned out that the purported 1894 marriage license application that Warren’s supporters were depending on to prove her Native American heritage status doesn’t exist.

Despite Mr. Tomasky’s pleas for the American public to write Professor Warren a hall pass on this one, she most likely was the one to list herself as a minority with Harvard, and now it’s a perfectly legitimate story because it goes to the very heart of her honesty as a candidate for a major political office.

There are three very important questions the media should consider here:

(1) Why did Warren think that having 1/32 heritage of any group qualified her to list herself as a minority?

(2) Is it true that she’s a Cherokee in the first place?

(3) Did Warren get any hiring preferences or special advantages by listing herself as a minority?

Tomasky dismisses the first question because, apparently, the Cherokee rules dictate that if you’re 1/32 Cherokee they consider you a a member of the tribe. That may be the case, but that doesn’t necessarily qualify her as a “minority” when it comes to her legal status. After all, she’s still 31/32 white. It would be interesting to know how Warren listed herself on applications for her voter registration, driver’s license, and U.S. income tax returns.

It’s an important issue because voters have the right to know if Warren exploited this sliver of her (supposed) heritage to get special consideration or attention, and that goes to the heart of her morality and her judgment—which leads us to the second question.

Tomasky dismisses the issue of Warren proving her Native American heritage because, “You have to go back five generations to get to 1/32. It’s entirely possible such a thing can’t even be proven.”

That’s a good point.

If it was that long ago and it’s probably not provable, why was it relevant for then-Professor Warren to list it in the first place? What made her so confident in this family lore that, for years, she would use it to obtain real-world advantages which could and would have gone to educators with verifiable minority status? To quote Mr. Braddock from the film "The Graduate," “This whole idea sounds pretty half-baked.”

Finally, there’s the issue of whether or not Warren received any kind of special hiring preference or advantage when she got hired by Harvard in 1992 amidst public pressure for greater faculty diversity. As Warren’s opponent Scott Brown said, “Only she and Harvard can answer any of these questions.”

And, sure enough, in a 1999 Affirmative Action Plan for an EEOC report, Harvard boasted having one female Native American professor on their law school staff. Guess who?

This is important because it goes to the heart of everything we Americans keep complaining about when it comes to electing politicians who take advantage and exploit the system.

After all, the idea is to “throw the rascals out,” not push more of them in. If Ms. Warren used this 1/32 so-called minority status to get hiring preference over someone potentially more qualified or even to help Harvard bolster its minority staff statistics, that says a lot about her honesty—and it doesn’t say anything good.

Today, the Los Angeles Times joined the Warren defense effort, criticizing those who have asked questions about this issue despite the fact that they admit no documentation turned up to prove her 1/32 Cherokee claim.

Like Tomasky, however, their position is wrong. The Fourth Estate has every right to investigate Elizabeth Warren’s claim and expose the truth about it, and they should do just that. The truth of this story will be found with more information, not less.

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.

Airlines To Charge New Fees For Water, Carry-Ons

Sat, 26 May 2012 11:08:00 -0700

Canada Passes Anti-Protest Law