Hillary Clinton lies for 13 straight minutes in this chilling political video. The video graphically illustrates how consistently and naturally Hillary Clinton lies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

Although this video is comprised of much more recent examples of Hillary Clinton lying, in a 1996 New York Times article entitled Blizzard of Lies, the late great New York Times columnist William Safire famously wrote that then First Lady Hillary Clinton is a congenital liar.

To quote Safire from the article, “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar. Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.”

To quote Safire from the article, “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar. Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.”

That absurd and barbaric Muslim dogma didn’t matter in America. Until now. But now, Muslim terrorists and radicalized Muslims are being empowered and protected by their submissive enablers in the Democratic Party and championed by a president who can’t submit fast enough to every Muslim that comes along.

Democrats Decided To Help Muslims Throw Gays Off Roof

Because the Democratic Party has become nothing more than a disparate collection of victim groups, I have long wondered what happens when the interests of one victim group directly conflict with the interests of another victim group? It turns out there is a hierarchy of victimhood in the Democratic Party, so the outcome is preordained.

I heard conservative, gay journalist Milo Yiannopoulis describe the dilemma his liberal friends would have hosting a party. He said that he couldn’t attend the party because the Muslim guests would throw him off the roof. Democrats are helping Muslims throw gays off of roofs.

Democrats Have Chosen Muslims Over Gays

The mere fact that the Democratic Party so zealously protects their Muslim cohorts makes clear the fact that Democrats now actively side with Muslims against gays in the latest reshuffling of the victimhood hierarchy that defines the modern Democratic Party. In April, I wrote an article describing how Barack Obama is betraying America by protecting Muslim terrorists, and it has not gotten any better.

If you don’t believe the Democratic Party would forsake their pawns in the LGBT community, try this. In the last five days, since a Muslim terrorist deliberately targeted gay men with malice aforethought, not one voice from the Democratic Party has expressed anything resembling condemnation or criticism of Islam, Muslims or Sharia. Not one.

Not one democratic voice will question the vetting process for Muslim immigrants. In fact, they’ll use accusations of racism or xenophobia against anyone who does question Muslims in any way. This week the democrats and their mainstream media echo chamber managed to blame Republicans, Christians, and America for the terror attack, declaring that Republican and Christian hate spurs Muslims to commit terrorist attacks.

Not one Democrat was interested enough in 100 slaughtered gay men to even address Sharia law or the Islamic edict mandating the death of all homosexuals. Not one. After all, Democrats can’t let a crisis go to waste.

Democratic Politicians Are Exploiting Orlando Terror Attack To Push Gun Control

Instead, every Democratic politician in America is busy exploiting the horrific massacre of innocent gay men to advance their long-term progressive agenda of strict gun control laws, the elimination of the second amendment and, ultimately, the disarming of all Americans. Democrats are so fixated on disarming America that they are completely ignoring the innocent victims of this atrocity to pursue political gains.

Democrats have become so disingenuous and dishonest that they are, as American Thinker put it, beneath contempt, selling America out at every chance, determined to destroy our individual freedoms and our right to bear arms.

Gay Conservative Journalist Milo Yiannopoulos Press Conference In Orlando

On Wednesday following the vicious attack in Orlando, Breitbart.com Tech Editor Milo Yiannopoulis, a gay conservative journalist, held a press conference yards from the Pulse nightclub to address what he referred to as Barack Obama’s ‘limp-wristed response’ to the terrorist attack. Here is the video of the press conference.

At the press conference, Milo told the gay community that Democrats were never going to protect them and that there was only one presidential candidate who would do more to protect gays; Donald Trump. He also expressed outrage at the Democrats for politicizing the massacre of innocent gay men to advance their gun control agenda, telling the gay community that it is guns that will keep them safe and they should shoot back.

The primary message Milo delivered at the press conference, and again in an article the following day, is that America does not have a radical Muslim problem, we have an ‘All Muslim’ problem. Referring to a great deal of polling data, Milo proved that #NotAllMuslims is simply a Democratic Party marketing effort to distract from the fact that yes it is all Muslims. Radical Muslims and moderate Muslims are indistinguishable, and neither can peacefully coexist with the gay community or any civilized community.

Liberal Progressive Hypocrisy Knows No Limits (And They Aren’t Even Embarrassed)

The day before his press conference, Twitter suspended Milo’s account for posting messages that were critical of Muslims. Although Twitter succumbed to public pressure and reinstated the account, it is Twitter’s operating strategy to delete content which is unfavorable to Muslims.

To say this is unbelievable is really slow selling it. Two days later, after the press conference, Milo received upwards of 100 death threats from Muslims, all of which he received via Twitter. As best we can determine, Twitter didn’t suspend the accounts of the Muslims who made death threats against Milo. Apparently, one must speak Arabic or Farsi to get along well with Twitter.

I’ll conclude by quoting American Thinker because I don’t think it can be said better. “The Left and the Democratic Party of today is the most dangerous, unprincipled and deceitful clique in this nation’s history.  They are very capable of succeeding in permanently tearing this nation asunder.  Any group that can so callously dismiss Islamic terrorism, consciously pit citizen against citizen, irresponsibly promise Nirvana, exploit various ethnic blocs as sacrificial pawns in their self-serving game and deliberately undermine individual freedom in order to achieve their devious ends are essentially no different than those ultimately responsible for the carnage extant in the mid-20^th century.”

Congressman Hunter is charging the US military unsuccessfully attempted to secure the release of Bowe Bergdahl by making a cash payment earlier this year.

In a letter to the Pentagon released last Wednesday, Representative Hunter said the Obama Administration paid an Afghan intermediary early this year to help secure the May 31 release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was held for nearly five years by the Haqqani Network in Pakistan. The Haqqani Network is, by every measure, a terrorist organization.

Pentagon officials have denied paying cash to secure the release of Bergdahl, who was captured in Afghanistan in 2009. A senior defense official reiterated that denial when asked about Mr. Hunter’s letter.

Bergdahl was freed in a deal mediated by the government of Qatar, after the Obama administration released five Taliban prisoners from the US detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The trade has been criticized by Republicans, who said it created an incentive to take Americans hostage and complained the Obama administration ignored legal provisions that require Congress be notified at least thirty days prior to any release or transfer of detainees from Guantanamo.

In his letter, Mr. Hunter asked Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to make new inquires with the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) about the allegations that the US made the payment.

According to Representative Hunter, a Republican from California, the intermediary took the money but failed to secure Bergdahl’s release. Congressman Hunter didn’t specify how much money was paid to the Afghan intermediary, and didn’t identify the sources of his information.

The US government is prohibited from paying ransom to terror groups, such as the Haqqani Network. The Obama administration clearly broke the law if this information is true. However, it isn’t clear whether a payment to an Afghan intermediary who isn’t a member of a terror group would constitute an illegal ransom.

It will be no surprise when the allegation that the Obama Administration paid ransom for Bergdahl turns out to be true. Nor, will it be surprising when the Obama administration claims that the intermediary who absconded with the money never paid it to terrorists. Therefore, because the Obama administration is incompetent, it’s not guilty of having paid terrorists.

The allegation that the Obama administration paid ransom for Bergdahl, which is illegal, is in addition to the non-partisan Government Accountability Office legal finding that the Bergdahl trade was illegal.

The Republican mid-term election victories last Tuesday will undoubtedly lead to additional congressional investigations into the Bergdahl trade deal. The House Armed Services Committee has been investigating the Bergdahl prisoner swap.

Harry Reid and the democrats try every day to convince voters that the Koch brothers are evil conservatives who are trying to buy American politics. We’ve all heard Reid’s famous proclamation that Republicans are “addicted to Koch.”

Complicit in helping Reid keep the focus on the Koch brothers is the mainstream media bias in midterm election coverage. And democrat candidates across the country have joined Reid in this limitless dishonesty.

With all the focus on the Koch brothers, no one in the mainstream media is paying any attention to the liberal billionaire who really is trying to buy the 2014 midterm election, liberal billionaire Tom Steyer. Steyer, who founded the Nextgen Climate Political Action Committee, is spending hundreds of millions of dollars buying American politics and democrat politicians.

Billionaire Steyer, who made his money in the coal business while pretending to be green, has become the largest benefactor of democrat politicians. He has funded more than 7,000 negative ads and has already spent almost $100 million to buy the 2014 midterm election. You don’t hear this story, because mainstream media bias in midterm election coverage has provided cover for the billionaire democrat who is trying to influence the election results in seven key states.

Steyer and his Nextgen Climate Political Action Committee, together with the democrat politicians who are beholden to him for funding their campaigns, have been unsuccessful in making climate change the key issue on the ballot. Steyer and the democrats have been unable to get voters interested in global warming, largely because the planet is actually cooling. In fact, only 2 percent of Americans rank the false narrative of climate change one of the top non-economic issues facing the nation according to an October Gallup poll.

Steyer’s lack of success in convincing voters to buy into his dishonest climate change agenda hasn’t slowed his efforts to buy the election. On the contrary, Steyer has stated that he will spend whatever it takes to influence election results. Thus, he has changed direction and is now funding dishonest campaign ads about abortion, contraception, Ferguson race riots, Trayvon Martin and more. All, of course, while hiding the fact that he made billions on the fossil fuels he now pretends to hate.

Media Bias In Midterm Election Coverage

ABC, CBS and NBC won’t tell you any of this. Because of mainstream media bias in midterm election coverage, the broadcast networks censor news about Steyer, insuring there is no negative coverage of his radical political agenda or his incredible spending to buy the election. Censoring success of the mainstream media is measurable. In the last three years, the mainstream media has run one story about Steyer’s political funding, devoting just 34 words to the subject.

The mainstream media won’t tell you how Steyer invested millions in Australian coal that he ships to China to avoid environmental standards imposed in the United States. Nor will the mainstream media tell you how Steyer is spending millions to elect democrat politicians to regulate “dirty” energy in the US to benefit his eco-investments. Beholden to his political spending for the very offices they hold, democrats will hurt US companies and the US economy to expand Steyer’s already magnificent wealth.

But the mainstream media won’t cover any of these stories, because Steyer is a prominent liberal who’s been to the White House 13 times since 2010 and because it doesn’t jive with their agenda.

That Steyer and his radical Nextgen Climate Political Action Committee have spent $100 million to buy the 2014 midterm election is a story that deserves a great deal of media attention, but together ABC, CBS and NBC have only been able to muster 34 words for the story.

Mainstream media bias in midterm election coverage couldn’t be more glaring. While obscuring Steyer’s liberal agenda and political spending, ABC, CBS and NBC have devoted 22 negative stories to the Koch brothers who the media have called extremist billionaires who support “very, very conservative causes.”

None of the 22 stories that attacked the Koch brothers was positive. None of them talked about the $350 million David Koch has donated to cancer research, or the millions he gave to other causes like PBS.

The next time the mainstream media run a story about the evil Koch brothers buying American politics, remember how the mainstream media ignores Tom Steyer, his $100 million of negative ads, the Nextgen Climate Action Committee and the dishonest democrats who do his bidding.

Deputy Director Michael Morell participated in rewriting the talking points which are at the core of Obama’s Benghazi cover up. Morell later defended the CIA’s performance over the terrorist attack on the US diplomatic post that claimed four American lives. In defending the CIA Morell was directly contradicting the Obama Administration’s position making the CIA the scapegoat for the Benghazi cover up.

CIA Involvement In Benghazi Cover Up

When former CIA Director David Petraeus resigned over an extramarital affair that became public shortly after the Benghazi attack, it was Deputy Director Morell who managed the resignation. Coupled with length of service with CIA, Morell was the logical choice to replace Petraeus. It was not to be.

Morell defended the Agency’s performance surrounding events related to the Benghazi Scandal. Defending the CIA’s performance insured that Morell would not be Petraeus’ replacement. Morell was passed over for the top CIA spot by Obama in favor of Obama adviser John Brennan. It was Brennan who announced Morell’s departure from CIA Wednesday. Morell will be replaced by Avril Haines, now a deputy assistant to the President and legal adviser at the National Security Council.

Morell also drew Administration criticism for saying the CIA’s interrogation program had produced useful information.

Events That Triggered Benghazi Cover Up

Requests from our diplomatic personnel to beef up security at the Benghazi consulate were refused by the Obama Administration and the State Department prior to the September 11 attack. When the terrorist attack began on September 11, requests for emergency assistance by consulate staff were ignored by the Obama Administration.

Since the start of the Benghazi Scandal last September, Barack Obama has insisted that he issued orders on September 11 to protect American consulate personnel at all costs. Congressional testimony by personnel who were on the ground in Libya does not support Obama’s claim. American personnel in Tripoli have testified that a US military rapid response team in Tripoli attempted to deploy to Benghazi to provide help in response to the cries for emergency assistance from the Benghazi post. The military team in Tripoli was only 400 miles from the American compound and could have brought forces to bear that would likely have saved American lives in Benghazi.

However, the response team was ordered to stand down and remain in Tripoli, and four Americans were left to die in Benghazi. Investigations to date have not yet identified who was responsible for issuing orders that prevented the military team from traveling to Benghazi to save American lives.

Benghazi Cover-Up

Attempts to mislead the American people about what happened in Benghazi on September 11 began while the attack on the consulate was still taking place. We have been able to determine that Barack Obama phoned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the attack on the consulate. The telephone call between Obama and Clinton appears to have resulted in the first Obama Administration Benghazi cover-up. Shortly after the Obama-Clinton telephone conversation, Hillary Clinton held a press conference for the purpose of blaming the Benghazi terrorist attack on demonstrators angered by an anti-muslim YouTube video. It was at that point that Obama and Clinton began lying to the American people.

Benghazi Cover Up Talking Points

A memo of talking points about the Libya attack emerged September 15 in advance of the appearance by then UN Ambassador Susan Rice on the September 16 Sunday talk shows. Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows as the Obama Administration’s representative and advanced the Administration’s Benghazi cover up, stating that a mob of protesters spontaneously attacked the Benghazi consulate because they were angered by an anti-Islamic YouTube video which was produced by an American citizen.

Absent from the Benghazi cover up message delivered by Susan Rice were all references to terrorists, Islamic fundamentalists and Al Qaeda. The message Rice delivered squarely laid blame on protesters who were rightfully angered by a YouTube video. The Administration’s message also did not acknowledge that they had been warned by CIA of a likely attack. At that point, Obama’s Benghazi cover up was in full swing.

The day before Rice delivered the Administration’s Benghazi cover up message, the CIA issued the talking points memo that stated (with high confidence) that it was a terrorist attack carried out by militants and that the CIA had issued warnings well prior to the event. CIA Deputy Director Morell agreed to the State Department’s request to remove a reference to militants in the talking points.

Dozens of emails subsequently released by the White House show Morell’s involvement in revising the talking points. In one email, Morell noted that the State Department had “deep concerns” about referencing prior “warnings.”

Notes written in Morell’s hand showed Morell scratching out mentions of Al Qaeda, the experience of fighters in Libya, Islamic extremists and a warning to the US Embassy in Cairo on the eve of the attacks of calls for a demonstration. All of these items were struck from the talking points. The final version said “extremists” participated, without mentioning prior attacks and warnings in the region.

The rewriting of the CIA prepared memo caused then CIA Director Petraeus to specifically complain about the removal of the line about the warning to Cairo.

Senior Obama Administration officials blamed the rewriting of the talking points on Morell, saying that Morell made the changes to the talking points because of his own concerns that they could prejudge an FBI investigation into the attack that killed US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Obama Involvement In Benghazi Cover Up

Despite having specific knowledge about what had actually taken place, Barack Obama perpetuated the Benghazi cover up for several weeks and in several speeches, such as this one. Obama continues a different version of the Benghazi cover up to this day.

For complete coverage of Obama Administration Cover Ups visit Intelligent US Politics, where you’ll find expanded coverage of the growing list of scandals that Barack Obama claims he knows nothing about. For a man ambitious enough to declare that he is going to fundamentally transform America, he is awfully ignorant about his own Administration. But is he to be believed? One or the other of these statements must be true: he is either the Bystander-in-Chief or the Liar-in-Chief. Which do you think he is?

• Benghazi Cover Up where a terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi left four American’s dead
• IRS Scandal for targeting Obama’s enemies including the Tea Party, the 9-12 Project and other conservative groups
• Justice Department scandals including wiretapping AP reporters, wiretapping Fox News reporter James Rosen and Operation Fast and Furious
• NSA Eavesdropping Scandal where the National Security Agency is secretly gathering telephone records and Internet histories of every American
• Obama’s $100 million vacation, even as the White House remains closed for tours to children’s groups, and more.

Don’t miss complete Intelligent US Politics coverage of other Obama Cover Ups as news breaks. All American politics, no media bias.

Quite simply, the ruling is good for all honest Americans who believe in en-franchising the vote. In what can only be described as a victory for election integrity, district court judge Simpson issued a well-considered, well written ruling which denied a preliminary injunction to stop Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law from going into effect.

Elements of Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law

In March 2012 Pennsylvania passed the law which requires citizens voting in person on Election Day to present valid photo identification to vote. Identification which is valid and acceptable include photo IDs issued by the federal or state government, accredited public or private schools, and care facilities. Citizens who do not present an approved form of ID on Election Day will still be allowed to cast a provisional ballot provided they deliver proof of identification within six days after the election.

The law similarly imposes the ID requirement for those who cast absentee ballots.

Plaintiff’s Claims of Disenfranchisement

The Plaintiffs claimed in their disingenuous lawsuit that too many citizens will be disenfranchised if they are required to have a valid photo ID. Frankly, I do not believe there are that many citizens without some form of identification. If the plaintiffs in this case are to be believed, there are a vast number of Americans who:

• cannot work, because identification is required to get a job;
• cannot drive a car, truck or motorcycle, because identification is required to drive;
• cannot fly, because identification is required in airports;
• cannot board a ship, because identification is required at the dock;
• cannot pay for goods and services with checks, because identification is required with those;
• cannot pay for goods and services with credit cards, because identification is required with those;
• cannot cash a check; because banks require valid identification;
• cannot go to school, because schools require (and issue) identification; and,
• cannot do any number of other things in society.

People who cannot do any of these things and yet, for some inexplicable reason remain deeply committed to voting, but can’t, solely because they don’t have the $20 it would take to procure said ID  are in luck. The Pennsylvania’s Department of Transportation will issue free identification cards. Even those who cannot afford the cost of the supporting documentation which is required to get an approved ID, like a birth certificate, are still in luck because their votes will count if they swear that they cannot afford the cost.

ACLU Experts Not Credible and Demonstrated Bias

The plaintiffs who include the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Association For The Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Homeless Advocacy Project who brought this dishonest lawsuit claimed that the law would disenfranchise 9 percent of the voting populace and they found an expert equally dishonest who testified about the 9%. Judge Simpson, to his credit, rejected the 9 percent representation as “not credible” and added that the so called expert demonstrated bias.

Judge Simpson rejected the ACLU’s’ attempt to “inflate the numbers” of disenfranchised voters—which he estimated were “somewhat more than 1% and significantly less than 9%,” as claimed by the petitioners. This outcome is similar to those in the unsuccessful lawsuits against the voter ID laws of Georgia and Indiana. In all three states, the courts threw out the opinions of the alleged experts hired by the ACLU as “not credible.” Imagine that, the ACLU not credible.

In a motion for a preliminary injunction, those bringing suit must demonstrate their likely success on the merits. The ACLU failed to convince the judge that Pennsylvania’s law is “facially unconstitutional (rather than as applied, which means that the law is unconstitutional only in its application to a particular person under particular circumstances). The challengers provided speculation about hypothetical or imaginary cases, which Judge Simpson correctly observed has no place in a facial challenge.”

Attorney General Holder Jumps Into The Fray

The absurdity of the lawsuit brought by the ACLU was not enough to keep US Attorney General Eric Holder, that champion of the constitution, from jumping into the fray and ordering a Department of Justice investigation into the Pennsylvania voter ID law. Perhaps Attorney General Holder should worry about producing the documents Congress has ordered him to produce, rather than spending his precious time perpetuating voter fraud.

Congratulations to Pennsylvania for trying to maintain some modicum of honesty at the ballot box and kudos to Judge Robert Simpson for quite rightly upholding the law.

Scott Schaefer | IntelligentUSPolitics | August 16, 2012

Cain has never held public office. When he ran for the Senate in Georgia in 2004, he lost the primary by a 52 percent to 26 percent margin. He has zero experience in foreign or defense policy, where presidents have the most leeway to set policy. When questioned about the Middle East earlier this year, he clearly had no idea what the “right of return” is. His solid performance in the Fox News/Google debate Sept. 22 didn’t get pundits to take his chances seriously.

Neither did his 37 percent to 15 percent victory over Rick Perry in the Florida straw poll on Sept. 24. That was taken as a response to Perry’s weak debate performance and a tribute to Cain for showing up and speaking before the 2,657 people who voted.

But Republicans around the nation seem to have responded the same way. The Fox News poll conducted Sept. 25 to 27 showed Cain with 17 percent of the vote — a statistically significant jump from the 5 percent he had been averaging in polls taken in previous weeks.

And a SurveyUSA poll of Florida Republicans conducted Sept. 24 to 27 showed Cain trailing Mitt Romney by only 27 percent to 25 percent — a statistical tie. That’s very different from the Florida polls conducted by Public Policy Polling Sept. 22 to 25 and Quinnipiac Sept. 14 to 19, both of which showed Cain with 7 percent.

We will see whether other national or state polls show Cain with a similar surge. If so, then there’s a real possibility that Cain could win enough primaries and caucuses to be a real contender.

That possibility is already being taken seriously by The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger. Henninger argued in a Sept. 29 column that Cain’s success in business — engineering turnarounds in Burger King’s Philadelphia stores and Godfather’s Pizza nationally — made him a plausible candidate.

“Unlike the incumbent,” Henninger wrote, “Herman Cain has at least twice identified the causes of a large failing enterprise, designed goals, achieved them and by all accounts inspired the people he was supposed to lead.”

Cain’s business success, his “9-9-9” tax plan, his generally conservative stands on issues, the YouTube clip showing him debating Bill Clinton on health care in 1994 — all of these help account for his apparent surge in the polls.

But I suspect there are a couple of other factors. One is likeability. Romney’s attempts at ingratiation are awkward, and Perry’s charm is lost on most non-Texans. But Cain is, as the Atlantic’s liberal analyst Chris Good concedes, “undeniably likeable.”

Another thing going for him is race. White conservatives like to hear black candidates who articulate their views and will vote for them: Check out Rep. Tim Scott of Charleston, S.C.

In this, white conservatives resemble white liberals, who liked hearing Barack Obama articulate their views and were ready to vote for him, too. This is what Joe Biden was getting at with his awkward 2007 comment that Obama was a “clean” black candidate.

White moderates are ready to support black candidates, too, as Obama showed in the 2008 general election.

Cain claims that he could get one-third of the black vote in a general election. There’s no way to rigorously test that.

But it finds some support in Scott Rasmussen’s polls, which have been regularly pitting 10 current or possible candidates against Obama. Rasmussen finds Romney ahead by 2 percent and Chris Christie trailing by 1 percent. The other candidate closest to Obama, trailing by 5 percent, is Cain.

Moreover, Cain holds Obama to the lowest share of the vote, 39 percent, of any of the 10 Republicans. That may be because some black voters desert Obama when Cain is the opponent.

Further support can be found in the Low Country of South Carolina, where Scott won with 65 percent of the vote in 2010 in a district where John McCain won just 56 percent and where 20 percent of the population is black. No other Republican freshmen in the Old South ran so far ahead of McCain.

All this speculation may be getting far ahead of the facts. Cain still has significant liabilities as a candidate and could make a disqualifying mistake any time. But he’s beginning to look like a contender.

By Michael Barone

Copyright 2011, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Republicans saw it as a big win for Governor Scott Walker and a confirmation of his conservative agenda, the hallmark of which was a measure that pared collective bargaining from public employees. The measure proved to be highly polarizing, as labor unions from around the country lined up to battle Governor Walker.

“Republicans are going to continue doing what we promised the people of Wisconsin — improve the economy and get Wisconsin moving back in the right direction,” Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said in a prepared statement after the victory.

Governor Walker attempted to strike a bipartisan tone in victory, saying that he reached out to leaders in both parties. “In the days ahead I look forward to working with legislators of all parties to grow jobs for Wisconsin and move our state forward,” Walker said in a prepared statement.

Democrats and union leaders tried to make the best of the GOP wins. “The fact of the matter remains that, fighting on Republican turf, we have begun the work of stopping the Scott Walker agenda,” said Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate.

Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, said voters sent a message that “there is a growing movement to reclaim the middle class.” He also added an absurd comment, “let’s be clear, anyway you slice it, this is an unprecedented victory,” he said.

How Neuenfeldt and the AFL-CIO claim the loss as “an unprecedented victory” is astonishing. The Unions and Democrats fell far short of what they set out to achieve. End of analysis.

Despite having spent more than $30 million in defeat, the unions and democrats still plan to move ahead with recalling Walker. Realistically speaking, they will have a very difficult time maintaining momentum for the effort which can’t start until November.

Sen. Luther Olsen, one of the four Republicans who won, said he hoped the victories would “take the wind out of the recall for Walker, but I’m not sure.”

Republicans would still hold a narrow 17-16 majority. Four Republican senators held on to their seats in the recall elections. They were Olsen and Senators Sheila Harsdorf of River Falls, Rob Cowles of Allouez, and Alberta Darling of River Hills. Two Republicans — Randy Hopper of Fond du Lac and Dan Kapanke of La Crosse — were defeated. Former deputy mayor of Oshkosh, Jessica King beat Hopper and Democratic state Representative Jennifer Shilling beat Kapanke.

Republican and Democratic strategists were leery of reading too much into the results heading into next year’s campaign in which Wisconsin is expected to be a key swing state. However, Democratic strategist Chris Lehane said the results could provide “some early radar warnings” about the 2012 races. “At a minimum, we already know that the conservatives are providing energy for progressive to fight back like an angry badger that otherwise may not have existed,” he said. Lehane said Wisconsin’s tumultuous year since November’s elections has been a microcosm of the current “rollercoaster” era of U.S. politics.

Lehane largely distorted the truth with his statements. Walker and the Republicans are proceeding with the agenda they ran on last November when the voters of Wisconsin elected them in what was largely a massive repudiation of the big spending progressive agenda. Republicans won control of both houses of the Legislature and the governor’s office in the 2010 election just nine months ago. Since Walker took office the left, fueled by massive spending and protest efforts from the unions, have worked outside the electoral process while all the while claiming their efforts “are what democracy looks like.”

The big spending unions have, to a great extent, caused mixed emotions among Wisconsin voters. Many said they voted for the Republicans not because they entirely agree with everything the Republican Party has done or the governor, but because they’re working toward addressing the state’s problems.

Democrats had hoped enough wins in the recalls would have allowed them to block the Republican agenda, but the GOP held on to the majorities that have allowed them to rapidly pass bills through the Legislature.

The elections were also closely watched in other states undergoing similar partisan battles. A coalition of unions and labor-friendly groups fighting a Wisconsin-style collective bargaining overhaul in Ohio said the outcome of the recall elections will have little bearing on whether Ohio’s law is repealed this fall.

The effort in Wisconsin was about recalling specific Republicans who voted for the anti-union bill while the push in Ohio is about repealing the law itself. That makes it difficult to compare the two states.

Supporters of the Ohio law also are distancing their state from the fight in Wisconsin. “We’re not focused on Wisconsin, and Ohioans aren’t looking to another state to tell them where they should stand,” said Jason Mauk, spokesman for Building a Better Ohio, a group defending the collective bargaining law.

Ohioans will vote November 8 on whether to accept or reject the union-limiting law signed by Republican Governor John Kasich in March that limits bargaining rights for more than 350,000 police, firefighters, teachers and other government employees. Unlike Wisconsin, Ohio’s Constitution makes no provision for recalling elected officials.

Republicans won control of both houses of the Legislature and the Governor’s office in the 2010 election just nine months ago, and the behavior of the unions and the democratic party run the very real risk of pushing voters towards even more widespread Republican victories in 2012. Including the ultimate Republican victory, defeating Barack Obama.

Trumka recently issued an angry and rather direct threat to Democratic politicians across the nation during a speech at the National Press Club. In his speech, he demanded that Democrats show stronger support for unions or face losing their support.

“We will spend the summer holding elected leaders in Congress as well as the states accountable on one measure: Are they improving or degrading life for working families? We are looking hard at how we work in the nation’s political arena,” Trumka said, according to prepared remarks. “We have listened hard, and what workers want is an independent labor movement that builds the power of working people – in the workplace and in political life.”

Trumka went even further than just saying he’ll hold elected leaders accountable. He said Democrats may be “controlling the wrecking ball” that’s crippling unions, too, and that he plans to stand up to either party.

“It doesn’t matter if candidates and parties are controlling the wrecking ball or simply standing aside – the outcome is the same either way,” Trumka said. “If leaders aren’t blocking the wrecking ball and advancing working families’ interests, working people will not support them. This is where our focus will be – now, in 2012 and beyond.”

The Most Pro-Union President in American History: Barack Obama

That Trumka and the unions are in any way disappointed with the support they get from the Obama administration is absurd. Never before in American history has an administration done so much – or hurt so many – to support unions. In fact, Obama has shown that there is nothing he won’t do for the unions.

Time and again, labor unions prove they are never happy, always demanding more, regardless of how unrealistic their expectations may be.

Barack Obama has proven there is nothing he won’t do for unions. He has done everything this side of outlawing capitalism to provide a Socialist Utopia for the Workers of the World Unite crowd. In fact, recent actions by the administration may actually be doing just that.

Since his inauguration, Obama has used various executive branch departments and federal agencies to advance union interests, regardless of how those actions have damaged the economy. At Obama’s behest, cabinet level departments and federal agencies have ignored the law and violated the Constitution in order to benefit unions.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is attacking Boeing for building a new manufacturing facility in South Carolina because it is a right to work state. Just who do they think they are? Where does Boeing get the nerve to expand and hire thousands of workers like that? This is a bad thing in this upside down world. Of course, it’s only a bad thing because South Carolina is a right to work state, and workers cannot be forced into joining a union just to get a job.

The NLRB and Obama apparently just can’t abide a factory staffed by honest, hard working Americans who need jobs; if they aren’t union workers.

The NLRB is also on the attack in Arizona, South Dakota (and likely Utah) challenging validly called and held elections that amend the state’s constitutions. Their offense? The constitutional amendments protect secret ballots in the case of workplace elections to determine unionization. It doesn’t matter in the slightest to Obama that these states called and held valid, lawful elections to amend their respective state constitutions if the result of those amendments isn’t beneficial to the unions.

The Obama administration has trampled the law, trampled the constitution and is now trampling on the American electoral process. With unwavering union support, Barack Obama has become the most corrupt President in US history.

Trumka and the unions will rattle their sabers and make outrageous demands, but in the end, they’ll spend another half billion dollars to buy Obama another election. Just like the last one.

Scott Schaefer | Intelligent US Politics

Wisconsin has for months taken center stage in the much larger battle over union concessions and collective bargaining rights as states all across the country face budget shortfalls.  Wisconsin began drawing national attention when Governor Scott Walker, who took the oath of office in early January, proposed a state budget on February 11 which sought union concessions to help repair the state’s $3.6 billion budget shortfall.  Working closely with Republican state legislators, who have controlled both houses of Wisconsin’s legislature since the 2010 midterm elections, Walker sought concessions from the unions that represent the state’s public employees.

Protesting the budget measures, the unions conceded to some of Walker’s demands, and for the first time agreed to pay for some of their healthcare coverage and pension benefits.  However, Walker pressed further, seeking an end to the collective bargaining powers Wisconsin’s public employee unions have enjoyed for decades.  This drew the attention of every union in the country, all of whom claim collective bargaining as their right and any reduction in collective bargaining powers as the beginning of the end for unions everywhere.  Labor unions across America joined the fray, with tens of thousands of union members descending on the capitol in Madison protesting the proposals.

Despite attacks coordinated by national unions, and mainstream media coverage of the story sympathetic to union causes designed to drive public opinion to support the plight of the workers, Walker continued the fight, proposing legislation which would end collective bargaining for state employees.  Unions nationwide fought back, sending out calls for union members to come to Wisconsin to protest.  Tens of thousands did just that and street protests in Wisconsin reached a peak on February 26 when 70,000 to 100,000 union protesters, many from out of state, descended on Madison.

On February 26, the day which saw the largest number of union protesters, I traveled to Madison to interview union representatives and street protesters, to glean some insight into their beliefs.  Despite  the driving snow and frigid temperatures, tens of thousands of protesters took to the street, claiming that Scott Walker’s attempt to curb union powers was circumventing the democratic process.  They further claimed that the protest I was observing, “is what democracy looks like.”  Representatives of the Wisconsin Teacher’s Union even attempted to persuade me that Walker was illegitimate as he was governing without having received a majority of the vote.  I quickly discovered they were using liberal math by dividing Walker votes by the number of people in Wisconsin, rather than the number of voters who cast votes.  I fully understood the meaning of Collective Bargaining that day because I was unable to find anyone in a crowd of almost 100,000 capable of expressing an independent thought.  I talked with at least 100 protesters that day and took dozens of fantastic photos and, as the day wound down, I was thankful to return to Texas.

Republican legislators pressed on with Walker’s proposed legislation, but could not pass a bill because they did not have a quorum in the Senate required by Wisconsin law to pass legislation containing budgetary matters.  Then on February 20, fourteen Democratic State Senators abandoned their posts and left the state, denying the Republicans a quorum in the Senate preventing passage of the bill.  The group of 14 Democratic State Senators who fled the state remained out of reach in Illinois for three weeks, continuing to block passage of the bill, would eventually become known as Fleebaggers.

Walker and Republican lawmakers navigated around the obstacle, stripping the bill of budgetary measures enabling its passage without a quorum.  The modified legislation, which contained no budgetary provisions, passed the State Senate on March 9, followed almost immediately by passage in the State Assembly on March 10.  Governor Walker signed the bill which would effectively end collective bargaining for unionized public employees into law on March 11.  But passing the bill did not end the fight.

The Democratic Party fought back, accusing Republicans of violating the state’s open meetings law and, marching in lockstep with unions, went to court seeking a restraining order to prevent the bill from becoming law.  Finding a sympathetic Democratic judge, on March 18 Democrats and unions scored a victory when Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi, a Democrat, ruled against Walker and temporarily restrained publication of the bill which is required in Wisconsin for a bill to become law.

Sumi extended her restraining order on March 28.  Both sides in the battle, along with the rest of the country, have waited ever since, expecting the Wisconsin Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiters in the fight.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court did take up the matter, hearing oral arguments on June 6.  Working with uncharacteristic speed, Tuesday the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a 68 page ruling which gives Governor Walker a huge victory and labor unions a resounding defeat.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling provides our state the opportunity to move forward together and focus on getting Wisconsin working again,” Governor Walker said in a prepared statement which came shortly after the ruling was handed down.

This fight isn’t over, but at least the forces of sanity won victory on Tuesday.  Reading the Supreme Court’s decision, I also noticed and was encouraged by language admonishing the lower court judge (Sumi) for interfering in the legislative process.  The ruling quotes the State Constitution stating that “legislative power shall be vested in a senate and assembly.”  How refreshing for judges to remember the constitution.

 In a perfect world, this ruling would curb the propensity of liberal judges to legislate from the bench, but I doubt it.  Read the entire Supreme Court Ruling is as a PDF.

Article first published as Justice Done In Wisconsin As Supreme Court Delivers Victory To Governor Walker on Technorati.