WASHINGTON (AP) – A House investigative committee on Thursday charged New York Rep. Charles Rangel with multiple ethics violations, dealing a serious blow to the former Ways and Means chairman and complicating Democrats’ election-year outlook.

The panel did not immediately specify the charges against the Democrat, who has served in the House for some 40 years and is fourth in seniority. The charges by a four-member panel of the House ethics committee sends the case to a House trial, where a separate eight-member panel of Republicans and Democrats will decide whether the violations can be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

The timing of the announcement ensures that a public airing of Rangel’s ethical woes will stretch into the fall campaign, and Republicans are certain to make it an issue as they try to capture majority control of the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had once promised to “drain the swamp” of ethical misdeeds by lawmakers in arguing that Democrats should be in charge. (more…)

There are many battle fronts in the war for human freedom, but perhaps the least-appreciated of these is the battle over America’s communications and media marketplace and whether free markets or government mandates will ultimately rule them.  This battle takes on added importance since all other public policy debates depend upon an unfettered press and robust, independent channels of communication.

What many on the far Left have long understood, and many defenders of freedom have failed to appreciate, is that the battle for control of media and communications policy is fundamentally tied up with the broader war for control of our economy and society. “Instead of waiting for the revolution to happen, we learned that unless you make significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution,” argues the prolific Marxist media theorist Robert W. McChesney. “While the media is not the single most important issue in the world, it is one of the core issues that any successful Left project needs to integrate into its strategic program.”

Normally we wouldn’t need to pay attention to what unrepentant ‘60’s radicals or neo-Marxist university professors think about media and communications policy. In this case, however, it is essential we pay attention. First, McChesney is right in one sense: history reveals that almost every successful effort to impose sweeping controls over an economy / society was accompanied by government efforts to control press and communication systems. If the State is going to have any luck gaining widespread and far-reaching control of an economy, gaining more control over “the Press” — which means all of us these days — becomes an essential part of the “strategic program” for control. Second, we need to pay attention to these radicals because McChesney and the group that he and John Nichols of The Nation co-founded — the insultingly misnamed Free Press — have given this fight new immediacy with their relentless agitation for media and communications policy “reform.”  And they are not the only ones. (more…)

From TPM Muckraker:

Shirley Sherrod said this morning on CNN that she would like to “get back at” Andrew Breitbart.

Asked if she would consider a defamation suit against Breibart, the conservative blogger who posted the edited clip that got her fired, she said, “I really think I should.”

“I don’t know a lot about the legal profession but that’s one person I’d like to get back at, because he came at me. He didn’t go after the NAACP; he came at me,” she went on.

She agreed with the hosts that it would be a “great thing” if Big Government was shut down. “I don’t see how that advances us in this country.”

“It’s hard for me to understand a person like him, and it’s hard for me to understand what is his purpose, what is he trying to do really,” she said. “He could easily make a decision to destroy me, but in destroying me, what else is he trying to do?”

Sherrod also said on today that she’d like to have a meeting with President Obama.

(more…)

In the Wall Street Journal today, we discuss why the Obamacare mandate is not a tax, and even if it were, it would still be unconstitutional. But there’s much more to the story, which could forever change the reach of federal power.

The Wall Street Journal piece, and what follows, comes from our intensive research for our new book, The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency. Chapter 4 explains why Obamacare is unconstitutional, and how to defeat it in federal court.

In addition to what’s said in WSJ, you need to know why the individual mandate that everyone buy insurance is worse than a tax. In 234 years of American history, we’ve always had taxes. Too many.

But Obamacare’s mandate is not a tax. A tax is where government raises money by taking your money and spending it. The mandate, by contrast, is the government commanding you to give your own money to someone else. It’s the first time in American history that the government is claiming the power to tell you how to spend your own money. It’s authoritarian.

(more…)

Earlier this month, The New York Times ran a front page article that claimed, “an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.”  The thesis of the article was that oil companies are the benefactors of enormous subsides, primarily through complicated maneuvering of offshore assets, “tax breaks,” and “loopholes.”

Unfortunately, the copy of the American tax code that The Times used to conduct their careful analysis appears to have been heavily edited by a cadre of left leaning groups, including ACORN President Maude Hurd, Citizens for Tax Justice, Center for American Progress and the Clean Energy Works campaign.

The smoking gun comes in the form of a leaked memo from CEW communications advisor and former Democratic congressional staffer David Di Martino just days after The New York Times ran it’s wildly misguided assessment of U.S. tax policy.

In the memo, Di Martino outlines a strategy to change America’s perception of increased taxes on energy producers as a tax on consumers by arguing “the American people already have a national energy tax — The Big Oil Welfare Tax — in the form of billions of dollars in subsidies to the wildly profitable big oil companies.”  The same day that Di Martino released his memo, Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) released their own defective and dishonest hit piece, titled “What Oil and Gas Companies Extract from the American Public.”   The tax breaks referred to by Di Martino and the CTJ memo, in reality, are the same credits that every American company receives for taxes paid overseas to foreign governments on income earned abroad.

(more…)

The Hill  reports the latest attempt by the Democrats to deflect the outrage of the American people by blame shifting the cause of the Gulf oil spill disaster to former VP Dick Cheney and the Bush administration:

Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee traded partisan blows Tuesday over whether the Obama administration or the former Bush administration deserves more blame for the catastrophic Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Senior Democrats on the panel — Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) — used a hearing on the Interior Department’s role to trace the disaster back to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy policy task force.

Waxman said that task force — which was assembled early in the Bush administration — set the stage for policies that pushed drilling at the expense of tough safety oversight of rigs and review of environmental risks.

“The cop on the beat was off-duty for nearly a decade and this gave rise to a dangerous culture of permissiveness,” Waxman said. “In many ways this history begins with Vice President Cheney’s secretive energy task force.”

Waxman said that under the Bush-era Interior Department, “the priority was more drilling first and safety second,” although he added that the current administration was also too hands-off before the spill.

Seriously?   Waxman and Markey obviously did not have access to this outstanding timeline and writeup by Kevin McCullough, which details the events dating back to February 13, 2010:

(more…)

Six taxpayers filed a lawsuit this week to invalidate an executive order issued by Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire. The taxpayers believe—with good reason—that the governor violated the doctrine of separation of powers by snatching a failed bill out of the legislative process and issuing it in the form of an executive order. They are being represented by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, an Olympia-based government watchdog group.

Last year, after the Washington state legislature failed to pass a climate change bill championed by the governor, she took matters into her own hands by issuing an executive order directing the Departments of Ecology and Transportation to take action to reduce climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions and increase transportation and fuel-conservation options. At a press conference, Gov. Gregoire stressed that the executive order was intended to replace her failed legislation. “What we’ve done in the executive order is everything that was in that final bill—plus. Plus. There’s more in the executive order than what was in the final bill that did not pass the Legislature,” she told reporters.

It gives one pause to consider that Governor Gregoire should record herself talking for vetting purposes prior to making such admissions in public.

There are strong parallels in this case to what is happening on a national scale. President Obama’s drilling ban end-run around the law, for example, which has signaled his administration’s strategy to push through certain policies notwithstanding any legal restrictions. Or the passage of the so-called “health care reform” bill, which was rammed through in a suspect reconciliation process designed to bypass opposition. Or the arguably abusive use of signing statements by President Bush to tell agencies to ignore certain provisions of bills he disagreed with—1,200 times. President Obama intends to continue the practice, though he claims he will “act with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded.” I’m sure we’ll all sleep  better at night.

(more…)

Despite Vice-President Biden’s claim, the reality shows that, despite costing more than the administration expected, the stimulus still hasn’t created the jobs they promised.

CLAIM:  Democrats assert stimulus failed because Republicans kept it small.

Democrats repeatedly promised their massive 2009 stimulus plan would create over 3 million new jobs.  It hasn’t.  Instead, unemployment climbed to 10 percent as over 2 million more jobs were eliminated.  This weekend Vice President Biden took the extraordinary step of suggesting stimulus failed because Republicans made it “too small”:

TAPPER: Was the stimulus, in retrospect, too small?

BIDEN: Look, there’s a lot of people at the time argued it was too small. Actually, we…

TAPPER: A lot of people in your administration.

BIDEN: — yes. A lot of people in our administration, a lot of — I mean, you know, even some Republican economists and some Nobel laureates like Paul Krugman, who continues to argue it was too small. But, you know, there was a reality. In order to get what we got passed, we had to find Republican votes. And we found three — three. And we finally got it passed. So there is the reality of whether or not the Republicans are willing to play, whether or not the Republicans are just about repeal and repeat the old policies or they’re really wanting to do something. And I — I’m not — I’m not — you know…

TAPPER: So if you didn’t have Republicans that you had — if you didn’t have the legislative reality…

BIDEN: I think what…

TAPPER: — it would have been bigger?

BIDEN: I think it would have been bigger. I think it would have been bigger. In fact, what we offered was slightly bigger than that…

FACTS:  Democrats’ stimulus bill failed on its own merits, not because – at $862 billion or nearly $3,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. – it was “too small.”

(more…)

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to interview Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) for my radio show, “The Ben Shapiro Show,” which broadcasts every Sunday 1-4 PM ET in Orlando, FL. The topic of Shirley Sherrod came up, and in particular, the topic of the so-called Pigford Farms settlement.

For background, the Pigford Farms case is a class-action lawsuit filed against the federal government on behalf of black farmers and black wannabe farmers, who say they were discriminated against in loan proceedings. The federal government settled Pigford Farms for an unbelievable $1.15 billion. An incredibly high percentage of those receiving awards under this settlement have done so fraudulently.

Shirley Sherrod was not only an initiator of the Pigford Farms case, she received a chunk of change for her company, New Communities, Inc. To be accurate, she received the largest chunk of change for New Communities — $13 million. New Communities was a bankrupt commune-type land trust held by Sherrod and her husband. She and her husband personally received $150,000 each to compensate them for “pain and suffering.”

(more…)

Today’s lead story at Politico is one of the finer examples you will find of ideological ax-grinding dressed up as straight-news reporting. The piece, by Ken Vogel and Keach Hagey, uses just about every journalistic trick in the book, assembling a selection of quotes and points to establish a narrative that was set in the authors’ minds long before they sat down at their keyboards. But the piece does so much more too; it flirts with some blurry ethical lines as well. Shouldn’t, for example, a Politico article about Journolist have perhaps mentioned or disclosed that at least some reporters for Politico were, you know, members of Journolist? Perhaps Politico has an incentive to downplay the impact of the listserve? (And, Mr. Vogel, did Andrew Breitbart really not respond to Politico?)

I will leave it to my colleagues at Big Journalism to give the proper attention this article is due. However, in building their ideological case, the authors point to certain “facts” about stories that first appeared here, which necessitates a few words here.

In discussing the recent Shirley Sherrod imbroglio, the authors write that Breitbart,

did not quite own up to the seriousness of the error he committed – posting a video misleadingly edited to make it appear that a black Agriculture Department named Shirley Sherrod was boasting of discriminating against a white farmer.

We did not edit, much less misleadingly edit, any of Ms. Sherrod’s remarks. We posted two excerpts from her speech, representing the sum total of the video we had. We didn’t cut anything out of her speech. Is any news organization in the future who only posts excerpts from a speech vulnerable to the charge that it “misleadingly edited” it?

At the very end of one of the video excerpt’s, Ms. Sherrod begins to explain how she later realized her initial discrimination of the white farmer was wrong. In Andrew’s article about the speech he  noted

Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help.

If we were trying to show that Ms. Sherrod was “boasting” of discrimination and were prone to editing the tape as evidence, wouldn’t we have cut that part out? Wouldn’t we have neglected to mention that she eventually did the right thing? But, the media’s focus on Ms. Sherrod is really an attempt to misdirect attention from the NAACP, who was the real focus of the article and the video excerpts.

As Andrew’s article noted:

Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.

We all now know that Ms. Sherrod’s anecdote was part of a larger point about the need to move beyond racial prejudices. But, the NAACP audience did not know that as they heard the speech. As Ms. Sherrod recounted the first part of her parable, how she declined to do everything she could for the farmer because of his race, the audience responded in approval. By itself, that made the video excerpt newsworthy.

Indeed, the NAACP, who was in possession of the full video for months, even noted in its initial statement condemning Ms. Sherrod:

The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.

This was always the story and it is clearly an uncomfortable one for the NAACP and, obviously, the authors of the Politico article. The media would rather focus on Ms. Sherrod or Andrew Breitbart than report that leaders of a state chapter of the NAACP approved of racial discrimination.

(more…)

Cedra Crenshaw proved to be too quick to be the latest victim of the Chicago Machine.  She’s running for the Illinois state Senate as a Tea Party Republican, and Democrats did their best to keep her off the ballot.

Though the district is reportedly 2-1 Democrat, she’s still making them sweat and they tried their best to find anything to prevent voters from having a choice – even stooping so low to nit-pick about wording on Crenshaw’s petition.

Crenshaw has been fighting, sometimes alone, for public school accountability and parental choice.  It’s those types of leaders that make the power brokers nervous.

If wording on a petition could defeat Crenshaw, then Democrats and power brokers in Chicago and Springfield wouldn’t have to answer to voters for their record.  So sad, Machine: Crenshaw will be given the opportunity to hold the entrentched power to account.

(more…)

On Tuesday, July 21, Rep. Andre Carson released the following statement to CNN’s John King:

“The incident on March 20th happened as I’ve described. It has been reported by numerous media outlets because it is a fact. Andrew Breitbart has tried everything possible to try and rewrite history related to the events of that day—including citing as proof a video that was shot a full hour after the incident happened.

I’ve refused to engage him in some tit-for-tat because he has zero credibility on this issue. He wasn’t even on the Hill the day the incident happened.

If he wants to spend his time inciting people and defending language and actions that the overwhelming majority of Americans find reprehensible, then that’s his prerogative. But it’s not doing this nation—or the Tea Party movement–any favors.”

It’s fascinating that the congressman would lend his advice to the Tea Party movement considering he once referred to them as “one of the largest threats to our internal security“.  I would venture to guess that if it comes time to take advice from Rep. Carson or from Andrew Breitbart, the majority of Tea Party members might be inclined to follow Breitbart’s lead.

That being said, we are thrilled that Rep. Carson has finally come out of self-imposed seclusion and addressed (though disingenuously) the events of March 20th.

We’d like to clear a few misconceptions the good congressman has about our aquisition of video over the months.  We have much more than the one video you refer to.  We now have five videos, from different angles, showing the exact time and place the supposed incident took place.

Here, take a look:

(more…)

Yesterday, Cedra Crenshaw defeated the Chicago Democrat machine and won her rightful spot on the ballot this November. Voters in Illinois’ 43rd Senate District will now get a choice, not a coronation. A white Democrat election board threw her off the ballot and a judge restored her. Through it all, the NAACP was AWOL.

As the mainstream media trips over itself to analyze and re-analyze the Shirley Sherrod controversy, Andrew Breitbart is under fire for ostensibly unethical behavior. Andrew is more than capable of defending himself, but I wanted to offer a few quick thoughts on this imbroglio:

(1) This President often decries the 24-hour, hyper-reactionary media cycle, yet his administration responded with warp-speed to toss Sherrod overboard. Can it now safely be asserted that the Obama administration “acted stupidly”?

(2) The administration’s thoughtless abandonment of Sherrod indicates a hair-trigger climate of paranoia about all issues racial within the West Wing. It seems J. Christian Adams’ whistle-blowing has taken its toll, and Team Obama is nervous about the degree of scrutiny its racially-tinged political machinations have received. On the heels of the New Black Panther kerfuffle, another major race flap just wouldn’t do–thus, a low-level African American female was deemed expendable, and was unceremoniously dumped. The White House now claims they didn’t press for Sherrod’s dismissal, yet is apologizing to her. Hmm.

(3) MSM critics are pouncing on Breitbart & Co. for “smearing” Sherrod by exploiting out-of-context remarks. As others have noted, many of these same critics were remarkably mute as the ACORN videos were revealed, yet eagerly jumped into the fray to prematurely crucify James O’Keefe when he was arrested in Louisiana. These duplicitous observers were also conspicuously subdued as Andrew Breitbart beat back the “N-word” accusations invented by the Congressional Black Caucus. The story selection speaks for itself. (more…)

President Obama signed the financial regulations bill into law today. At the exact time of the signing, leftist agitators from the former Missouri ACORN assaulted a Chase Bank sales branch in Chesterfield, a suburb of St Louis.

The timing was precise – planned to bring further pressure and media attention on the banks just as massive federal regulations, many not yet written, are signed into law. Local reporters from KMOX were tipped off to the protest, ostensibly about renegotiating a mortgage, as was local television affiliate KSDK.

The scene was mayhem as forty protestors, including several children brought in tow, stormed into the offices of the Chase branch and began chanting, shouting with a bullhorn, and demanding meetings with the bank principals (there were no principals, as it was a sales branch), but that didn’t matter to protestors.

The group was professionally organized by former Missouri ACORN Midwest director Jeff Ordower, in addition to Hannah Allison, the paid organizer for Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment, the newly branded spawn of the Missouri ACORN employees. The group had everything set up. The protestors get inside the building, disrupt the operations, ignore the complaints of office staff, and continue until the police arrive. At that point, the two white organizers negotiate with the police, while the mainly black crowd goes out to the lobby. As more police and building security arrive, the group heads outside, where the organizers speak in measured tones to the compliant local media.

(more…)

On July 1, a new cigarette tax hike took effect in New York.   But just three weeks after the state began levying the additional $1.60 per pack, the move is looking likely to prove a bust.  Reports are flowing of more New Yorkers crossing the Empire State’s borders to purchase their smokes.  Meanwhile, the state’s cigarette smuggling sting operations have been all but shut down, with the official responsible for overseeing such efforts having been axed just over a week ago.

Just one day after the hike went into effect, Massachusetts’ Berkshire Eagle reported that an Xtra Mart convenience store and gas station in Great Barrington was already seeing an uptick in purchases from bargain-hunting New Yorkers.  According to the manager of the store, “a lot of people are coming from New York…  We had to order a lot of cigarettes, more than usual, in anticipation of New Yorkers coming down.”

In Jersey City, convenience stores and gas stations have been benefiting from New Yorkers buying their smokes outside the state’s borders for years—and they expect to see more of that.  Phil Hwang, who works at a gas station near the New Jersey end of the Holland Tunnel, was recently reported as saying “People from Manhattan will buy cigarettes here and they’ll buy a carton at a time.”  He added that the last time New York hiked its cigarette tax, sales at his shop increased 20 to 30 percent.

In Pennsylvania, smoke shops were also anticipating a boost in customer numbers before the tax hike went into effect.

(more…)

A few months ago, Attorney General Eric Holder took an important step in ensuring that all men are treated equally under our legal system. In a memorandum to federal prosecutors, he noted that those who commit similar crimes in different jurisdictions “should, to the extent possible, be treated similarly.” He also cautioned against unwarranted disparities in charging decisions, plea agreements and sentencing recommendations.

But while putting these words on paper to guide federal prosecutors is important, the Department of Justice ultimately is to be judged on whether it follows in deeds. Unfortunately, right now the Obama administration is missing a golden opportunity in Iowa to show it supports parity for all.

Sholom Rubashkin was the manager of a highly successful kosher meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa.  He recently was sentenced to 27 years in prison for banking offenses. It was a startlingly long sentence for a first-time, non-violent offender; especially for a man who never intended any loss to the bank from which he borrowed funds to run the meat business. By contrast, Mark Turkcan, the president of a St. Louis bank who knowingly defrauded his company out of nearly $35 million, was sentenced last year to just 366 days in jail.

The details of how prosecutors have handled Rubashkin’s case have raised many eyebrows; and dozens of former Justice Department officials have spoken out on Rubashkin’s behalf. But Holder and his team thus far have refused to investigate the case. How, then, can we take seriously their calls to end disparities of justice?

(more…)

The President is expected to sign the financial overhaul bill today, yet he might want to pause a moment to consider not signing this bill because of the potentially unconstitutional racial and gender preference provisions buried in the massive bill.

Four members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights have signed a letter complaining that Section 324 of the conference report titled the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” “includes a section on race and gender that even those who pride themselves on keeping up with national affairs may have failed to notice.” This provision, which can be found on page 172 of the conference report, may lead to unconstitutional racial and gender preferences being forced on financial institutions covered by the new law.

As the Becker-Posner blog argues, this over 2000-page long bill is “complex, disorderly, politically motivated, and not well thought out reaction to the financial crisis that erupted beginning with the panic of the fall of 2008.” One of the critiques leveled by Gary Becker and Richard Posner is that “the bill adds regulations and rules about many activities that had little or nothing to do with the crisis.” It is clear that the lack of racial and gender preferences had nothing to do with the financial meltdown in the fall of 2008. Section 342 is a special interest provision that has no relevance to financial services reform and may lead to this law being deemed unconstitutional by the courts.

The letter from members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was signed by Commissioners Peter Kirsanow, Ashley Taylor, Gail Heriot, and Todd Gaziano. In the letter these experts in civil rights law explain that the legislation “requires that each covered agency establish an ‘Office of Minority and Women Inclusion’ responsible for ‘all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities.’” This law will empower federal bureaucrats to issue rules and regulations governing the financial sector of the economy, if those businesses are doing any work for the federal government.

(more…)