(continued from Part 2)

It should come as no surprise that on the campaign trail, President Obama refused to be interviewed about Saul Alinsky, the community organizing guru who wrote Rules for Radicals, a how-to guide for destroying American capitalism and democracy.

Presumably Obama, who taught courses on Alinsky’s brutal, sometimes violent organizing techniques, declined to speak to reporters about the late guru. He must have realized that such an interview would throw an unwanted spotlight on Alinsky’s radicalism, and by extension, his own. Such counterproductive publicity would also have undermined the candidate’s efforts to reinvent himself as a moderate. Alinsky’s adherents now dominate the modern Democratic Party establishment. Apart from President Obama himself, they include Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett, Federal Communications Commission diversity chief Mark Lloyd, Obama’s ex-green jobs czar Van Jones, former DNC trainer Heather Booth, Children’s Defense Fund founder Marian Wright Edelman, former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to name just a few. “Who the hell isn’t [an Alinskyite] in this administration?” asks conservative author David Horowitz.

And President Obama hasn’t been the only longtime ACORN operative working in the White House. There’s also the low-profile Patrick Gaspard who, until recently, was White House political affairs director, one of the titles Karl Rove held in President Bush’s White House.

In a move that ought to disturb anyone who cares about the integrity of the democratic process, earlier this year Gaspard took over the reins of the Democratic National Committee as its executive director—just in time to begin initial preparations for President Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.

Gaspard hails from the same world of radical left-wing community organizing that made Barack Obama who he is today. Gaspard is an expert in the harsh, street-smart organizing tactics taught by Alinsky. He’s the hatchet man Obama sent to New York over a year ago to strong-arm then-Gov. David Paterson into dropping his reelection campaign. As executive director running the DNC’s day-to-day operations, Gaspard will oversee Organizing for America, a project of the DNC supposedly modeled on Alinskyite organizing principles.

(more…)

So Hamas and Fatah have reconciled just as the summer push gets underway to have the United Nations, when it convenes in September, recognize Palestine as the 193^rd member of this august world body.  How nice.

The usual pontificators who find Israel to be a nuisance that would serve the world best by going away will wax eloquently about this historic moment that will, at long last, create the two-state solution and accomplish what the parties themselves have not been able to accomplish.  Some, no doubt, will support this initiative because they hope it will bring peace to the region.  Color them naïve…or just ignorant. Some will support this initiative because they have despaired of any other solution. Color them defeatist.  And, finally, some (more than we like to think) will support this initiative because they believe it will commence the demise of Israel. Color them honest.

The leaders of Fatah and Hamas, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the head of Hamas’ political bureau, Khaled Meshal, signed their reconciliation accord in Cairo last Wednesday.

According to Meshal, Hamas is interested in “closing ranks in order to create one entity, one organization and one decision, in order to realize the shared national aim of a sovereign, independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza − without one settler and without giving up even one piece of land or the right of return.” He called for forging a unified strategy that would force Israel to withdraw from what he and his European fellow travelers refer to as Palestinian land.  Just what Hamas really considers to be Palestinian land is the critical issue. Accepting a two-state solution in which Israel agrees to abide by the borders, as they existed forty-four years ago before the ’67 War, while the new Palestinian state covets the remainder of Israel does not augur well for peace in the region. That isn’t really a two-state solution. That’s a two-step maneuver toward a one-state solution.

Meshal has said in the past that Hamas is willing to pay any price for reconciliation with Fatah, and that its only battle is with Israel. And though he noted that many years have passed since negotiations with Israel began, he said that Hamas is prepared to give negotiations another chance.  But exactly what is it that Meshal is prepared to negotiate? More on that further down in this essay.

(more…)

Today, in 1997, IBM supercomputer Deep Blue defeated Chess Master Gary Kasparov. It was the first time a computer had defeated a human chess-master. Shudder.

All the talk of spending cuts in Washington is fictitious. Even the House Republican Study Committee budget allows spending to increase, on average, by 1.7 percent each year for the next decade. The Ryan budget, which critics deride for its “savage” cuts, allows spending to rise by an average of 2.8 percent each year. And Obama’s budget allows spending to climb, on average, by 4.7 percent each year – which is more than twice the projected rate of inflation.

Too bad American policymakers can’t copy the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Like the United States, these nations got in fiscal trouble, thanks to the combination of excessive spending and an economic downturn triggered by falling real estate prices.

But unlike the United States, these nations didn’t follow the Keynesian policy of more deficit spending. Lawmakers in the Baltic nations recognized, to borrow the words of Dan Hannan, that “you cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt.”

So they reduced spending. Not in the Washington sense, where politicians get to increase spending and call it a cut because outlays didn’t rise even faster. The Baltic nations imposed real cuts. And not just for one year, but in both 2009 and 2010. Here’s the data from the European Union for the Baltic nations.

Interestingly, it appears that fiscal restraint has been very successful for the Baltic nations. After suffering a steep downturn, economic growth has returned. Amazingly, Estonia is even back to having a budget surplus.

(more…)

From the Associated Press:

Delving anew into an explosive issue, President Barack Obama stood near the border with Mexico on Tuesday and declared it more secure than ever, trying to build pressure on Republicans to take on a comprehensive immigration overhaul—and eagerly working to show vital Hispanic voters that he is not the one standing in the way.

Countering Republican calls to focus on border security before moving to a comprehensive overhaul, Obama said their demands have been more than met by his administration but “they’ll never be satisfied.”

He boasted of increasing border patrol agents, nearing completion of a border fence, and screening more cargo.

(more…)

This Wednesday, Congress will have its first chance to look under the hood of the proposed $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T. The Senate will hold a hearing on the deal, featuring representatives from AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Cellular South, the Communications Workers of America, and Public Knowledge.

The hearing is a kabuki dance of sorts because, though the Congress plays an important oversight role, it has no formal part in approving (or not) the acquisition.  That job rests with the FCC and DoJ.

While no one knows if, when, or in what form the resulting approval will look like (if approval in fact occurs), the hearing will help all sides begin to put forward their best PR case to the American public.

I believe that the acquisition – though complex and challenging for policymakers – will benefit the public interest.  Yes, it will pare the market down by one, resulting in three major nationwide providers.  But the market will remain effectively competitive.  Consumers will benefit through the roll out of new and better mobile broadband services from a stronger AT&T.  And this will in turn spur direct competition from the major and regional wireless players, as well as in services that are considered substitutes.

But, as the existence of the hearing reveals, the acquisition is not a done deal.  Many questions abound, which Congress and the American public have a right to know about.

So, if I were a Senator sitting up on the dais – one who could see consumer benefit as a result of this acquisition – what top five questions would I want answered?

(more…)

When I hear this famous Texas saying, I immediately think of President Obama and how he feels about Texas.  All talk.  No action.  Then again, the action of denying Texas federal disaster aid for wildfires raging over million acres speaks volumes.

Last month, President Obama spoke with a Dallas reporter about the federal budget and denied politics were in play against Texas when shuttles were awarded to other states.  Our President says he loves Texas, despite losing by approximately 10 points in the last presidential election and even professes “You better believe I’m not going not going to write off Texas … we’re going to compete” when discussing his reelection campaign for 2012.

So, riddle me this: Why was Texas’ federal disaster aid declaration request denied?

Wildfires have raged since November 2010 with over 2.3 million acres charred igniting 9,000+ wildfires across our great state. Two people have been killed and hundreds of homes burned to the ground. Texas families are losing their homes and their businesses and yet federal disaster aid is denied that could help citizens obtain low-interest loans and tax breaks to help with rebuilding.

Yes, everything is bigger in Texas and we are loud and proud on how we can take care of our own, but let’s put things in perspective. The Texas Forest Service says this of the current wildfire situation:

• Red flag warnings have been issued across much of West Texas today with critical fire weather conditions predicted.
• Texas Forest Service responded to two (2) large fires yesterday.
• We are currently working on seven (7) major fires that span 586,624 acres.
• 207 of the 254 Texas counties are reporting burn bans.

That’s 81% of Texas under a burn ban.

(more…)

The key to winning the future in America, according to President Obama, Vice-President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, is High Speed Rail.  According to the President, China is “cleaning our clock” when it comes to infrastructure. Why is this Administration wasting so much time trying to waste our money on something we do not want?

The existing rail systems in this country are heavily subsidized by all of us through gas taxes. The light rail lines in Portland, Phoenix and Charlotte are in deep debt, behind schedule in construction, and causing the local governments to raise sales taxes and cut back on bus service schedules and other vital services. The United States is not unique in this administration’s obsession with mass transportation. This report from The Telegraph establishes that the progressive agenda, in this case in the pursuit of high speed rail, is worldwide.

According to the report, “cars will be banned from London and all other cities across Europe under a draconian EU master plan to cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 40 years.”  It states further that “Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto “alternative” means of transport.”

It is apparent that the high speed rail mania our federal government has been relentlessly pursuing is not unique to the United States.  An article dated February 28, 2011 in the UK Independent describes that “Transport Secretary Philip Hammond today launched a consultation on Government plans to “redraw” Britain’s economic map by building a £32 billion high-speed rail network.”  The words used by Hammond are eerily familiar, as he states “We must invest in Britain’s future” and “We cannot afford to be left behind – investing in high speed rail now is vital to the prosperity of future generations.”  These identical talking points were heard repeatedly from local officials in Tampa during the elections in November 2010.

The British lifestyle is quite similar to ours.

(more…)

The objective of having community colleges is to provide low-cost education to those who, for whatever reason, find four-year universities inaccessible. The idea behind supporting and subsidizing non-profit community colleges seems to be to give opportunity specifically to low-income students, those who require flexibility in education and those looking to acquire real world skills without the protracted course of study offered by full-time four year universities.

Beyond that, these schools are most-definitely not for profit, which should take them off the government’s radar when it comes to budget cuts and federal loan determinations. They are nearly the perfect fit for the administration’s alleged commitment to bettering the quality of life for all Americans, since they eat up taxpayer funds and require intense oversight, yet their non-profit status allows them to function outside of the market, allowing the ranks of teachers to become permeated with the unqualified and, more importantly, the Democratic, without fear of backlash from consumers. In short, their format and existence is beloved by the Department of Education.

And yet, they, too, live in fear of the administration’s heavy hand.

More than one million community college students in 31 states do not have access to federal student loans because their institutions choose not to offer them, according to a new report by the Project on Student Debt. (The report is a followup to a 2008 study by the group, and finds modest changes since then.) Many community college administrators fear that participation in the federal loan program would put their students at risk of losing federal financial aid if too many students at the institutions do not repay their loans. The report notes that there are “persistent racial and ethnic disparities,” with nearly one in five Native American students and one in six African-American students attending community colleges that do not participate in the federal loan program.

That fear stems from the administration’s recent and ongoing attack on for-profit colleges. Looking to run the institutions out of business, officials in the Department of Education, their cronies in Congress and a host of characters from Wall Street and beyond have been looking for ways to destroy the institutions’ student body. Their most effective weapon? The so-called “Gainful Employment” rule, which ties available federal funding directly to the success for-profit college graduates have in finding a job. Never mind that four-year institutions, which as of late have had miserable job-placement rates, have seen federal student loan increase even as the economy has declined, or that for-profit colleges tend to serve the under-privileged, lower-income and minority communities, they’ve continued with their attacks unabated. Now, community colleges, who face the same hurdles as for-profits, fear that the administration will respond to their rates of success with a similar backhand.

(more…)

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

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Josh Trevino to discuss Barack Obama’s trip to El Paso, Texas, immigration reform and the rise of conservatism among many of America’s Hispanics.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Obama to deliver speech on immigration Tuesday in El Paso
Wildfire Politics Grip State as Disasters Hit Elsewhere
Peña: Texas Democrats Face Decades in the Wilderness
Jeb to GOP: How to Appeal to Hispanics
Josh Trevino at the Texas Public Policy Foundation

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Josh on Twitter

Did Wisconsin Secretary of State Doug La Follette lie to the Associated Press, the MacIver Institute, the public, or some combination of the three?

On February 11, Wisconsin Scott Walker introduced his budget repair bill, which aimed to close a $137 million gap in state finances for the current fiscal year. One component of the plan included provisions that would alter the powers of government employee unions, effectively eliminating their ability to collectively bargain for anything other than wages.

You kn0w the chaos that ensued.

After much gnashing of the teeth, a three week impromptu vacation by Wisconsin Senate Democrats, the actual occupation of the State Capitol Building in Madison and endless protests organized by the Democratic Party, their union allies and other liberal interest groups, the bill passed both houses of the Wisconsin legislature and was signed into law by Walker on March 11th. The bill was thertofore to be known as 2011 Wisconsin Act 10.

Walker then requested that La Follette, who by law had 10 business days by which he needed to publish the bill, to do so on Monday, March 14.

On March 14^th the Associated Press reported: “La Follette said he heard from many schools, cities and counties urging him to delay enactment of the law as long as possible.”

That day, La Follette announced he would wait the full 10 business days and not publish the Act until March 25^th.

(more…)

Of all the states currently working on serious education reform, Indiana may deserve the gold medal.

Gov. Mitch Daniels and state Superintendent Tony Bennett fearlessly led the charge to dramatically reform the state’s education system.

“Are we about funding the education of children or funding the education system,” Bennett often said.

To that end, perhaps the most incredible of the reforms was the establishment of the broadest school voucher program in the country.  Within the next few years, the vast majority of Indiana students will be able to go to the school of their choice and the state-allotted funding will follow them.  Among other reforms includes increasing the number of charter schools, creating a performance pay system for teachers and restricting collective bargaining to pay and benefits.

Restricting collective bargaining was a major component of the reform effort. As Education Action Group has chronicled many times, union collective bargaining agreements have become ridiculous, with numerous provisions that cost schools millions of dollars and cumbersome rules that prevent schools from innovating and improving.

Daniels’ reforms do away with all of that nonsense and allow school officials to make decisions that prioritize students and their needs.

Daniels and Bennett, along with many state legislators, withstood the attacks from unions, school administrators and others in the educational establishment.  They fought back against “misinformation” campaigns.

(more…)

(continued from Part 1)

Amazingly, ACORN’s 40 years of lawlessness have been heavily subsidized by taxpayers. From the federal government alone, the ACORN network has received at least $79 million in federal taxpayer funding. No one knows how many millions of dollars ACORN has taken in from states and localities. Yet as of November 2009, ACORN was a tax deadbeat, owing more than $2.3 million in back taxes to all levels of government.

Bertha Lewis

You don’t have to take my word that ACORN will soon arise from the ashes. Nathan Henderson-James, longtime director of the group’s online campaigns, confirmed in a leaked February 2010 e-mail that ACORN plans to come back. America’s most notorious nonprofit felt it needed to perform this trick because its employees were caught red-handed repeatedly counseling a fake pimp and prostitute on the finer points of establishing a brothel for pedophiles. ACORN calculated that people would forget the transgressions of the taxpayer-subsidized nonprofit best known for its voter fraud efforts.

In the e-mail that came five months after conservative activist-journalists James O’Keefe III and Hannah Giles punked ACORN with their “pimp and pro” routine, Henderson-James explained the group’s ongoing hoax that consists of its state chapters separately incorporating under new, innocuous-sounding names. “It is definitely true that over the next week or so we should see a dozen or more organizations launched on the state level by staff who used to work for ACORN and leaders who developed their skills as ACORN members,” he wrote. “These are not just simple name changes, but reimaginings of how best to organize” low and moderate income constituencies “without any of the legal problems and funding issues dogging ACORN, not to mention the brand damage.” Stepping out of the spotlight for a while is a “tactically smart … reaction to the global situation that helps the work of building power for poor people to continue,” he wrote.

The secret operation was already underway when Henderson-James bragged about the effort to his radical and liberal friends on Townhouse, an invitation only left-wingers’ online discussion forum run by Matt Stoller, who was senior policy adviser to colorful former Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla. In late 2009 and early 2010, ACORN staffers across America created a plethora of separate organizations aimed at carrying on ACORN’s corrupt affairs.

(more…)

There’s been a lot of ink spilled of late over the union-controlled National Labor Relations Board’s decision to prosecute Boeing for allegedly locating its second 787 assembly plant in South Carolina in retaliation for the Machinists’ union employees engaging in past strikes.

Despite the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon’s statement that there is “nothing remarkable or unprecedented” about his prosecution of Boeing, his basing his decision to prosecute Boeing on the logic that “[a] worker’s right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act” is a selective use of the National Labor Relations Act’s Section Seven Rights.

Solomon’s logic is also a double-edged sword that, if they so desire, Boeing’s union-free employees in South Carolina can use to try to help save their jobs.

The Law Protects Union and Union-Free Employees Alike

The foundation of the 1935 National Labor Relations Act is ostensibly the preservation of employees’ Section Seven Rights which are as follows:

Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title]. [Emphasis added.]

While the National Labor Relations Act clearly protects employees’ rights to unionize and to engage in concerted activity (such as the right to strike), the Act also protects the rights of employees who wish to refrain from those activities—and this is where Boeing’s union-free employees in South Carolina can use the law to their advantage. (more…)

Today, in 1940, Winston Churchill was appointed Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It was the beginning of the end of the Nazis.

How serious can the Democrats be about deficit reduction?

From the Associated press:

Amtrak and rail projects in 15 states are being awarded the $2 billion that Florida lost after the governor canceled plans for high-speed train service.

(more…)

On Friday, we all woke up to the happy news that gas prices might go down a teensy little bit after Memorial Day. Even though that “teensy bit” might just mean “down to $3.50, that news was welcome in a slow economic climate that an administration pre-occupied with it’s own image seems unwilling to acknowledge. But Americans should make no mistake: the tiny decline in gas prices has little to do with the administration’s energy policies, and this week, they’re going to demonstrate that to the nation as they put “Big Oil” on the chopping block in a new round of finance committee hearings chaired by that perennial failure at basic economics, Chairman Max Baucus.

From Politico:

Senate Democrats are looking to bring to the floor next week a plan to strike billions of dollars in annual tax incentives for the five biggest oil companies.

“That’s what we’re thinking,” a Senate Democratic leadership aide told POLITICO Thursday evening, adding there won’t likely be a vote on the measure next week.

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) will also hold a hearing next Thursday on gas prices and oil tax incentives for the biggest oil companies — including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips.

One major question for the Senate leaders: how any money saved from reducing the tax incentives would ultimately be used. Many Democrats are pushing for the money to go toward deficit reduction, the leadership aide said.

Now this all might sound well and good, using money that we pour into domestic industry to pay down the deficit…but that’s merely a sound bite being used by Democrats to sway a public they think will respond to lip service and key words, and won’t dig deeper into their nefarious plans. The truth is, oil companies, like other companies, rely on tax breaks to be competitive in the world market and to spur on a thriving American industry in times of economic recession, like now.

(more…)

My name is Philip Christofanelli. I was a student in the University of Missouri’s “Introduction to Labor Studies” course.  The class was taught simultaneously by Professor Don Giljum of University of Missouri-Saint Louis (UMSL) and Professor Judy Ancel of University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) through the use of a live video feed that linked the two classrooms. The class met every other Saturday for seven hours, including breaks. All of the classes were recorded and put on the class website.

Class slide by Prof. Judy Ancel instructing students on how to "re-frame" messages for "State Battles" against right-to-work legislation in Missouri and elsewhere

Since that time, an organization known as Insurgent Visuals has released videos of the class, which have gained considerable media attention.  To be clear, I am not Insurgent Visuals, nor am I associated with them.  I did not edit any videos or put them online. I did, however, download the original videos off of the class website and give them out in their entirety to a number of my friends in order to obtain other opinions on the propriety of what occurred in the class, and of the steps I should take moving forward.

In this post, I will try to describe, with careful attention to context and accuracy, what occurred in these public classrooms over the course of the semester.  I believe that any reasonable person who takes the time to read this post in full will come to the same conclusion that I did: Professors Giljum and Ancel used a public university class to promote their own radical political opinions and organizations, and to train students and union members in negotiating tactics that are apparently illegal, and profoundly unethical.  Their behavior was highly unprofessional and inappropriate, and the University of Missouri should simply admit that fact and take steps to ensure that classes are not taught in that way ever again.

(more…)

The University of Missouri-Saint Louis (UMSL) has released the following statement about its review of lecture videos from the “Introduction to Labor Studies” course taught at UMSL and at the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC). Today, BigGovernment.com will publish the first-hand account of a student who participated in the UMSL course and who has, in the face of threats and intimidation, come forward to describe in full what went on in the classroom.

Dear Colleagues,

We have finally completed viewing the videos originating at the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) from the UMSL course Introduction to Labor Studies. The excerpts that were made public showing the University of Missouri-St. Louis (UMSL) instructor Don Giljum and students as well as the UMKC instructor and students were definitely taken out of context, with their meaning highly distorted through splicing and editing from different times within a class period and across multiple class periods.

As stated previously, our campus supports academic freedom, civility, diversity, open discourse and the pursuit of knowledge. We support the academic freedom of faculty, staff and students at UMSL. Contrary to some reports, Don Giljum has not been fired from the campus faculty, and in fact, is completing the course; he remains eligible to teach at UMSL. We sincerely regret the distress to him and others that has been caused by the unauthorized copying, editing and distribution of the course videos.

During the past two weeks, we have received communications over a wide spectrum of viewpoints, and we appreciate people letting us know what they think. We have learned more about video and Internet technologies that can be beneficial or detrimental to positive, civil discourse, and security issues related to the use of such media. We shall explore ways to improve security in the use of electronic media for instruction, research and other activities.

Sincerely,
Tom George
Chancellor
Professor of Chemistry and Physics

Glen Cope
Provost
Professor of Political Science and Public Policy Administration