A Christian pundit, Dawn Eden, thinks my daughter Hannah Giles and her partner James O’Keefe should not have used Saul Alinsky’s deceptive tactics against ACORN because Saul was “evil,” his methods sneaky, and he dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to Lucifer.

In addition, Eden took a swipe at Lila Rose, Planned Parenthood’s main pain in the butt, for being deceptive in her undercover vids which exposed Planned Parenthood’s illegal activity. Oh, and I almost forgot: Dawn also busted on Hannah for being un-Christlike for wearing a miniskirt and dressing like a hooker.  Sounds a little catty to me—and a wee bit like Dana Carvey’s Church Lady—but I digress.

First off, Ms. Eden, if you ever drum up the nerve to expose a scandalous multimillion dollar Obama-backed, taxpayer-funded organization for doing illegal crap and then undergo death threats (versus sitting on the sidelines and simply critiquing those who have the cojones to do so) you will find that the lawbreakers are rather reticent in telling journalists, who are intent on exposing and destroying their world, exactly how they’re breaking the law.  Yeah, I know.  It’s weird, eh?

You’d think that nefarious organizations would just spill their guts, throw up their hands, give up their hard drives, refrain from dumping tens of thousands of documents in a dumpster, and just cooperate to the fullest extent with the FBI and the DOJ, but alas, they don’t because they’re criminals, and criminals, generally speaking, aren’t known for truthfulness, contrition and full disclosure with cops.

(more…)

Tonight, Hollywood holds its Prom, aka The Academy Awards. We’re curious how smug they will be this year. Politically, things are…well…different. Be sure to stay tuned to our sister site, Big Hollywood, who will be live-blogging the awards.

By Tom McGillvray, Cary Smith, and Gary MacLaren

As state legislators, we are used to the federal government treating the states like its red-headed stepchild. Washington dictates, and we are expected to follow. Whether it’s transportation, health care, or education, federal money comes with federal strings—and more often than not, the strings outlast the money and the states end up picking up the tab. And the current debate over health care reform is no exception.

We were willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt when he called for more discussion and debate. He certainly seemed willing to reach across the aisle to include his political opponents in his recent health care summit. But, given just how much of any health care reform bill is bound to fall on the shoulders of the states to implement and fund, he should have included us—a point which House Minority Leader John Boehner made in a letter to Rahm Emanuel.

But this new era of “bipartisanship” was short lived indeed. Just ask Congressional leaders like Jon Tester and Max Baucus if they support the so-called nuclear option of passing a health care bill Americans don’t want through a questionable legislative maneuver. If Congress does manage to pass the President’s health care reform proposal it is sure to include a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance.

However, being forced to buy health insurance, or being forced to buy a particular health plan, just doesn’t sit right with independent-minded Montanans, or the rest of Americans judging by recent polls. This is why we plan to introduce the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, a state constitutional amendment that protects individuals, employers, and health care providers from being forced to participate in any health care system and preserves individuals’ right to pay directly for care.

(more…)

One way that leftists have managed to keep alive their dead, defeated, bankrupting theories on issues like so-called health care is by perverting the definition of very basic terms.

The word “right” is one of the most glaring examples of a definition that’s been distorted by the intellectual house-of-horrors mirror that is leftist theory.

Image: CATO Institute

Every American has the “right” to health care they argue.

They’re right. Every American does have a right to health care. In fact, they have that “right” right now. They have the right to buy insurance. They have the right to not buy insurance. They have the right to pay out of pocket. They have the right get a second opinion. They have the right to rub a little dirt on it and suck it up. They have a right to help out  a friend in need.

What they don’t have is the “right” to health care in the perverted leftist sense of the word.

A “right,” in the traditional American lexicon laid out by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, is something that exists by virtue of our humanity. It is “inalienable” and we are endowed with these rights by our creator. No government or institution has the power to take away these rights. You exist, therefore these rights exist.

In the leftist sense of the word, though, a “right” is something very different. In fact, it’s not a “right” at all: it’s a handout provided to you by government, often at exorbitant costs to society.

“I have the ‘right’ to health care!” the leftists demand angrily. “Therefore, the government must provide it for me!”

(more…)

In an interesting turn of events this week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was forced by her caucus to pry Rep. Charlie Rangel’s (D-NY) Ways and Means gavel out of his hands and throw Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) under the bus. Then,  she cut Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) loose late Friday afternoon, pressuring Massa to step down just days after allegations surfaced against the one-term Congressman. Rep. Massa will resign his House seat effective Monday, March 9 at 5pm.

Through all of the months of drama of Rangel’s ethics violations, tax evasion, and abuses, Pelosi has stood by Rangel–up to the very end–even being quoted as saying:

After huddling with Rangel for 45 minutes, Pelosi initially said, “No comment” when asked if Rangel remains panel chairman.

She later added, “I guess he is still chair of Ways and Means…”

Although Rep. Rangel has been forced to “temporarily” step down as chair, there have been just about no calls for him to resign his seat. So, what triggered Peolsi’s intolerance to Massa? It appears that she was capitalizing on an event to banish Massa from the House. Could it be that Massa had the audacity to actually represent his constituents and vote Nay on the House healthcare takeover bill?

(more…)

Last Thursday, February 25th, the Obama Administration staged a ‘Health Care Summit’ at Blair House. It was to be the President’s President “Moses Moment,” when e would part the seas and bring the Republicans, Democrats and Our country together and get everyone on board his “much maligned” Federally Run Health Care Program. (ObamaCare 2.0). His approach would be to “Listen,” particularly to The Republicans and Independents, and then part the Seas of Conflict and pass through to the Promised Land of a compromise. Well, it was over, finally over, after 7 hours of heavy winds. The event showed Obama less like a Moses parting the Red Sea, and more like a deadly tsunami poised to wreak havoc on American shores.

On his walk from The White House to The Blair House earlier in the morning, Mr. Obama declared he was going “to listen.” He listened, but not so much. When the meeting was over it turned out that his soliloquy lasted over 122 minutes, The Democrats spoke 135 minutes, and The Republicans were “allowed” to speak for 111 minutes (30% of the entire meeting). So it is official, he is not The Listener in Chief. When asked about his lack of listening ability and his penchant for wanting to listen to his own voice, Mr. Obama responded, “I don’t count my time because I am…The President.” This is the official 2010 version of “Let Them Eat Cake.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, the week’s health care rollout did not start off well, when on Monday he posted a new ObamaCare 2.0 on The White House website. This Plan was eerily similar to a “worst of” compilation of excerpts from the House and Senate Health Care Plans. This Plan did not have any input from Republicans or Independents. Isn’t it odd that ObamaCare 2.0 was posted on the site — without a Press Conference? This Administration has a Press Conference when he sneezes, but no such fanfare for what the Administration claims is the most important domestic issue. The teleprompter must have developed Swine Flu, or maybe Mr. Obama held off on the press event because he would have to answer questions on HIS health care plan from that pesky press.

(more…)

Today, in 1836, the Alamo fell after a 13 day siege.

President Obama is proposing a series of major tax increases. His budget envisions higher tax rates on personal income, increased double taxation of dividends and capital gains, and a big increase in the death tax. His health care plan includes significant tax hikes, including the imposition of the Medicare payroll tax on capital income – thus exacerbating the tax code’s bias against saving and investment. It is unclear why the White House is pursuing these punitive policies. The President said during the 2008 campaign that he favored soak-the-rich taxes even if they did not raise revenue, but his budget predicts the proposals will raise lots of additional money.

Because of Laffer Curve reasons, it is highly unlikely that all of this additional revenue will materialize if the President’s budget is approved. The core insight of the Laffer Curve is not that all tax increases lose money and that all tax cuts raise revenues. That only happens in rare circumstances. Instead, the Laffer Curve simply reveals that higher tax rates will lead to less taxable income (or that lower tax rates will lead to more taxable income) and that it is an empirical matter to figure out the degree to which the change in tax revenue resulting from the shift in the tax rate is offset by the change in tax revenue caused by the shift in the other direction for taxable income. This should be an uncontroversial proposition, and was explained in the video from this post. But since many comments and emails expressed disbelief, this video looks at the real world evidence.

(more…)

The recent ruling of the House Ethics committee against Charlie Rangel has attracted a tremendous amount of attention and has put substantial pressure on House Democrats, especially Nancy Pelosi. The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder even reported one Democratic strategist claiming that it “loses us the House.” The basics of the story are that Rangel and his staff failed to disclose a series of facts about corporate sponsored trips about Caribbean policy.

However, there’s another Caribbean scandal that could burn Democrats. In February, Pro Publica’s Marcus Stern reported that Congress and the Virgin Islands will give British alcohol conglomerate Diageo a $3b subsidy if they shift production from Puerto Rico to the US Virgin Islands. Previously, I had written about this issue, including Rangel’s threats against the Puerto Rican health system.

But now an ad, pictured here, is running in Montana asking Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus why he is putting up with this. That’s turning up the heat a little.

Another rum producer told the Billings Gazette that the subsidy “is so large it’s twice the cost of production.”  That is, if Diageo spends $100 making rum in the Virgin Islands, they get $200 from the federal government. Then Diageo gets to sell the rum too! Diageo’s 2008 operating profit was £2.2 billion and 2009 sales were $20 billion.

Now, I understand — disagree but understand — US taxpayers giving struggling American farmers a subsidy to make ethanol. (rum is also ethanol) I don’t understand why US taxpayers are giving billions to an already highly profitable, publicly traded British booze company.

(more…)

In the midst of the radical social atmosphere of the 1960s, a group of Chicagoans, Ron Grzywinski, Milton Davis, James Fletcher, and Mary Houghton, came together to found South Shore Bank in the 1973 with a goal to provide loans to minority owned small businesses.

Ron Grzywinski had banking experience with Hyde Park Bank. Milton Davis was a University of Chicago employee and the Chicago leader of the Congress of Radical Equality (CORE).  James Fletcher had previously worked in President Johnson’s administration as part of the internal transition team and with the Citizen’s Action Program in the Office of Economic Opportunity.  Mary Houghton, at that time, was running a daycare program for low income families.

These four individuals had often met to discuss ways in which they could help the needs of urban society by becoming a financial intermediary for social development and community actions. These discussions led to the creation of a minority lending program at Hyde Park Bank. With the influence of Al Raby, a Chicago black rights leader, they looked for the next step to continue their goals of providing loans to small businesses in neighborhood development. Grzywinski stated, ” community-based organizations appeared to be the only organizations in society that cared about the broad range of needs that exist in urban communities”.

(more…)

Here’s budget director Peter Orszag writing on his White House blog yesterday:

Recently, a lot of attention has been paid to a claim that this deficit reduction is achieved only through a business-as-usual Washington budget gimmick: paying for just a few years of costs with many more years of savings.

This charge is simply false—and let’s get the facts straight.

• First, it’s true that loading savings up front and costs in later years is a time-honored budget gimmick. It has a single purpose—to hide the ball and make programs look paid for in the near term that will in fact substantially add to the deficit over the long-term.

• Second, it’s also true that some of savings under the health plan start sooner than the major costs in the legislation. We can move quickly to begin identifying waste and improving quality in the current health care system, as well as make certain reforms to rebalance the tax code. But, the major coverage expansion does not occur until 2014, in part because we need to take time to establish a system of state-based exchanges through which private insurance companies will provide quality insurance to those not getting it through their employer. Still, it is important to note that the vast majority of the savings in the next ten years occur in 2014 and thereafter.

• Third, this is not a budget gimmick. The purpose the tried-and-true gimmick described above is to make a proposal that adds to long-term deficits appear fiscally responsible. But if that were the course we were taking, we would expect to see a large fiscal hole at the end of the first decade and larger and larger deficits in the second decade. Instead, over the long-term, the savings under the President’s plan are expected to grow faster than the costs. So, when the Congressional Budget Office is done with its scoring, we expect it will find that the President’s plan reduces deficits by roughly $100 billion in the first 10 years and roughly $1 trillion in the decade after that. In other words, health reform should reduce the deficit by growing amounts over the long-term.

Put simply: Health reform will reduce the deficit in this decade, and it will reduce the deficit by even more thereafter. There’s no gimmick in that.

(more…)

This week (March 3, 2010) was the deadline Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) set for Mark Crisson, President and CEO of the American Public Power Association (APPA), to explain why APPA is urging Senators to support Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s Congressional Review Act resolution to veto the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. The Senate may vote on the Murkowski resolution as soon as next week.

Now, aside from the merits of the issue, which I’ll get into in a moment, Waxman and Markey’s behavior is out of line. Waxman and Markey (W/M) are Members of the House of Representatives. What business is it of theirs if the APPA lobbies Senators about a bill pending in the Senate? Senators can conduct their own inquiries without any assistance from W/M. And why didn’t W/M copy Sen. Murkowski or at least Senate Energy Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) on their Feb. 25 letter to Mr. Crisson? Failure to “cc” any of the principals in the Senate flouts one of the most basic rules of legislative courtesy.

Besides being busybodies, Waxman and Markey are bullies.

(more…)

Not enough people know about the Tides Foundation, which is one of the original “philanthropic” donation launderers for donors who don’t want to be tied to fringe activist groups. Frankly, there’s too much to tell, but they’re the sugar daddy for ACORN (whose founder, Wade Rathke, is intricately linked within Tides official leadership).

[I'm including some grants of note below -- What will you find?]

Tides 990 2008

A look at their 2008 tax return, 160-plus pages, reads like a directory of the New Left. I’ve pulled out the donations to ACORN groups and Big Labor’s Working America Education Fund (not many people know unions take in ostensibly charitable donations) and one theme is clear: “general support” seems to be a popular phrase. Another theme: notice that states receiving money are critical to election-year success for Democrats. And finally, notice just how much money is being thrown around.

ACORN, Inc – 100,000 Latino voter registration and engagement canvass

ACORN International – 100,00 general support

ACORN Institute
49,500 – general support
25,293 – general support
10,000 – general support

(more…)

A study released Tuesday by the American Consumer Institute contains some bad news for proponents of net neutrality. Whereas advocates of “open internet” rules often argue that the institution of the policy is necessary to preserve innovation and would benefit consumers, the study finds that “new Internet regulations, including those now under consideration by the FCC, would restrict technology advances, innovation and job growth.”

The study further notes that “broadband network providers are a leading source of both innovation and new investment in Internet infrastructures.” Innovation and investment are often seen by tech policy observers as integral efforts that will help ensure that a broader base of consumers benefits from high-quality broadband service.

Study co-author Larry F. Darby explicitly tied proposed net neutrality regulations to a likely diminution in “motive” that would, under present circumstances, propel Internet companies to innovate and invest. Said Darby, “All indications are that these well intended regulations would dampen both incentives and opportunities for firms in the Internet ecosystem to continue to invest and to embed new technologies in core networks on which downstream applications and content providers depend.”

(more…)

It’s time for your weekly dose of Coffee and Markets, featuring The New Ledger’s Francis Cianfrocca, a podcast brought to you by the fine folks at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com and LibertyPundits.com, your home for conservative podcasts. In this week’s edition, we’ll talk about the unemployment numbers released this morning and the debate about America’s jobs problem in the context of declines in education.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

You can subscribe to the podcast by following the links above, and if you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

American Spectator: 36,000 Jobs Lost in February
Tom Friedman on Intel and Jobs
Abe Greenwald on LAX
TNL: The End of Easy Fixes

My late father had a phrase to describe the arrogant intellectuals unacquainted with real life who foist their insane ideas on the “unenlightened” rest of us: The phrase was “educated idiots.”

Sadly, today his words ring ever truer. To witless:

(In what is rarely a good sign) a New York Times blog reports the Harvard-based Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs has determined fuel prices must rise significantly to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.  Thus, in the name of discredited Leftist psuedo-science, your gas prices could reach $7 a gallon.

In this tepid spat of Think Tanks vs. Gas Tanks, we glean two things: these researchers have recession-proof jobs; and they are unconcerned you don’t.

How else to explain these researchers’ cavalier demand that your shrinking family budget must get smaller and your job must become more tenuous all so Goddess Gaia can keep her cool?

In our real world, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2009 annual summary reports that unemployment rates rose last year in all regions, divisions, and states.  And nowhere is the pain of this recessed economy deeper than in my Michigan, which had the largest increase in unemployment percentage from last year (5.3%); and has held the nation’s highest unemployment rate since this recession began (at times exceeding 15%).

(more…)

Instapundit points to this video interview of a Berkeley student representative explaining why it’s okay for students to riot in the streets in the name of their cause.

We posted the raw video of the rioting here.

What’s so interesting about this interview is that during two separate moments, the student representative displays an astounding level of liberal-Progressive hypocrisy.

We have taken the liberty of transcribing these two sections below.

Moment number 1 – (2:00)

HOST: Describe to me what exactly what you guys are going through that just absolutely causes this outrage.

STUDENT: Absolutely. Well um in the fall the UC regents voted in a %32 fee increase to over 10000 a year for in-state tuition. This at a time that they are cutting classes, letting in fewer student from in-state and more students from out of state. Um, so effectively we are closing off the campus, making it less accessible to people, and those who are here are getting less out of their education.

That complaint doesn’t sound too immigrant friendly. Is she saying that Berkeley students only want immigrants from other states and countries just as long as they go to private schools?

(more…)

Let’s be clear, the creation of a federal Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) is a liberal’s dream.  The agency would have the power to regulate businesses of any size. The House passed legislation, authored by Barney Frank, would as Rep Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) put it in remarks before the House Financial Services Committee “create a brand new, large draconian federal agency with new sweeping powers.”

The bill came to the Senate where Senator Shelby stood strong on principle and won. Negotiations broke down and the Democrats’ big government dream was all but dead. No new agency and (on this issue at least) no new vast government powers.

Then Sen. Corker entered the fray and took it upon himself to negotiate a deal to revive the CFPA with the master of the financial crisis Sen. Dodd.

Before Corker got started, Shelby spokesperson Jonathan Graffeo warned that “Republicans on the committee have several principles upon which they’ve tried to negotiate with Dodd, to no avail” and that “If (Corker) adheres to those principles, he will likely find himself at an impasse as well.”

(more…)