As we head into this Memorial Day weekend, Americans will be paying more at the pump than they were even a year ago. According to a recent survey by AAA, gas prices have increased by $1.06 in the past year. But while Americans are busy feeling the pinch and demanding solutions to higher prices, the Obama Administration has little to offer but excuses.

The Heritage Foundation’s newest video takes on several of President Obama’s favorite myths and puts them to rest.

(more…)

Trump is drowning in e-mails, letters and phone calls from disappointed supporters who wanted him to make the 2012 Race.

Trump spent $100K on lawyers and accountants who would prepared the disclosure forms to show Trump is worth $7.5 B and has $350M of cash on hand.

Perot an eccentric businessman got out of the 96 race and back in……..and was on all 50 ballots

Trumps’s deal with NBC leaves him free on June 1 of next year.

Trump spoke to Richard Winger Editor and Publisher of the Ballot Access News–a nerd expert on how to get on the legal ballot in all 50 states.

Winger told Trump a late blooming Independent bid could be begun as late a June 1 and get on the ballot in all 50 States- 5 states are hard but doable and one state, Texas would be resolved by litigation.

(more…)

It’s quite possible that, for all of their “Mediscare” tactics, like ads depicting a Paul Ryan look-alike throwing a wheelchair-bound senior off a cliff, the left has not done nearly as much damage to Congressman Ryan’s budget and Medicare plan as some of his own colleagues on the Republican side.

We have seen former House Speaker, and newly announced presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, begin his campaign by criticizing Congressman Ryan’s proposal as “right wing social engineering.”

Now, Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown has announced, in an op-ed in Politico, that he will vote to defeat Ryan’s proposal to overhaul Medicare. Despite the fact that Senator Brown has had weeks to review his Republican colleague’s plan, he just now takes issue with the House Budget chairman on several curious points.

First, Senator Brown has adopted the position that Medicare, as it is now, needs to remain as is for those who have been counting on it. That’s an odd conclusion to draw when Medicare’s own trustees announced, last week, that the program will likely go broke about five years sooner than previously thought. According to the trustees, many seniors currently using Medicare as their health insurance plan, and those approaching the age of eligibility, will find themselves out of funds in about 12 years.

Second, Senator Brown asserts that a plan to change Medicare should “phase changes in over time.” But, isn’t that what Congressman Ryan’s plan does? Those currently over age 55 would be able to keep the current Medicare program in Mr. Ryan’s budget.

Third, the senator expresses concern that inflation will erode the “premium support” sums that Mr. Ryan’s proposal would provide to future seniors who are currently under age 55. However, doesn’t the senator acknowledge that most current younger and middle-aged Americans would be planning ahead for their healthcare, if they knew they had responsibility for their futures, and not simply waiting to turn 65 to have the government move in on their lives?

(more…)

Last week, I told you about an Indiana teacher who compared the state’s new education reform initiatives to the Holocaust.

My organization, the Education Action Group, responded to this teacher’s email, and told him in no uncertain terms that he was a “dope” for comparing charter schools and vouchers to the Nazi ovens and gas chambers.

Charter schools and vouchers equal this? Yes, says Indiana teacher.

That teacher wrote back to defended his Holocaust comparison this way:

“The reason that this is a holocaust is that it is attacking innocent and in this case defenseless people just because someone or some group can push their own agenda through the political system and those most affected by it cannot do anything about it.  I really do not like to reflect upon the atrocities that were done to my family members.  However, I must admit that extermination is finite, whereby, suppressing a generation that will be generational does not help them or any of us. (emphasis added)

“My true feelings are that I want the best for the children I teach, my own children and all of the children not only of Indiana but of the world.  The actions of the governor are highly offensive to me.  I have always taken my job seriously and aforementioned want the best for them.  As a lifetime Republican, I am offended and embarrassed by this last political session.  Obviously, someone must like what is happening.  I have talked to several people that mirror my feelings that they will really scrutinize who they will vote for in the future.

“Now that you have responded to my e-mail and insulted me and I hope that you feel better for that. Perhaps now you can put aside our differences and stop the mud slinging….”

This teacher (who identifies himself as an agriscience and agribusiness instructor, a Future Farmers of America advisor, and an assistant track and field coach) has clarified his position on why Gov. Mitch Daniels is perpetuating a “holocaust” over in Indiana, and it is this: the Holocaust was bad, but the damage was limited, whereas giving kids vouchers will cause generational damage.

(more…)

Paying a USDA fine of $90,463 by close of business Monday would have allowed John and Judy Dollarhite on Nixa, Mo., to put their “crime” of selling too many rabbits in a single calendar year in their proverbial “rear-view mirror.” Instead of paying an exorbitant fine for violating an obscure USDA regulation (not a law), the couple whose plight was highlighted on BigGovernment.com May 20 decided to fight back.

John Dollarhite told me by phone Tuesday morning that he had his attorney, Richard L. Anderson of Branson West, Mo., write a letter Thursday and deliver it overnite to Roxanne Folk, a senior USDA officials in Riverdale, Md. In the letter, Anderson conveyed in no uncertain terms that his client would not be paying the fine:

My client rejects that proposal. I note that a descriptive pamphlet enclosed with your letter states, under “Who We Are”, that IES investigates cases received by referral from APHIS’ program clients and cooperators, and that IES “now conducts more than 6,000 cases and collects approximately $ 2 million in civil penalties annually.” That averages a penalty of $ 333.33 per case, and yet you contend it would be appropriate my client tender a penalty of $ 90,643.00.

Near the end of the letter, he added the following:

I cannot imagine that the actions of Mr. Dollarhite would merit a fine or penalty that would be 272 times larger than what the “average” fine ($ 333) collected by the USDA, IES, APHIS would be, under the circumstances of this case, and would certainly hope that a reasonable hearing examiner would agree.

It appears a lot of Americans are siding with the Dollarhites in this fight.

(more…)

We’re defining “here” in the headline above as the hard realities that exist on the ground, as well as some of the apparent conditions laid down by President Obama last Thursday during his speech on the Middle East. We hasten to add that there were strong and welcome elements in the President’s remarks that should have appealed to serious peace seekers on both sides of this seemingly intractable dispute. The President declared that the Palestinians must accept and recognize Israel as a Jewish state with which they must peacefully live side by side in their own demilitarized state, and that Israel, to have peace, must end its occupation of what he referred to as Palestinian land and cease all settlement activity.

Nonetheless, Henry Kissinger’s warning in his 2001 book, “Does America Need a Foreign Policy?: Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century” seems more relevant today than ever. Kissinger wrote that the time was fast approaching when leaders would emerge who had no historical memory of the issues with which they would have to deal, and that such a time could result in great instability in the world.

The historical memory that this White House (and a succession of prior White Houses) seems to lack is that the Middle East has been plagued by war and violence ever since the Arab side rejected a two-state solution sixty-five years ago, and that the reasons they rejected such a solution then still motivates their leadership today.  Until that changes there can be no fruitful peace negotiations.

Many have praised the President’s speech because of his reaffirmation of our commitment to the security of Israel.  While that may, indeed, be reassuring to some Israelis, we think that that reaffirmation qualifies as a rather minimum statement of support from one ally to another.  And, yes, many in the United States have cheered the President’s assertion that Israel must be recognized and accepted as a Jewish state along side a new Palestinian state, but isn’t that the arrangement the United Nations established (and the Arabs rejected) 64 years ago. What is noteworthy is that these affirmations are hailed as a great show of support for Israel rather than as the simple statements of fact that they really are.

(more…)

It seems 2011 will be known as the year of the tornado.

The Washington Post had a story on Sunday titled, in its print edition, “Obama’s return to Europe in a changed world”. It chronicled how “the dominant themes of the president’s European tour, set to begin Monday, highlight how much the world has changed over that time. As he enters the second half of his term, security issues, in South Asia and the broader Middle East, have replaced the economy as the chief shared interests of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful allies.”

Er…what? The absence of a certain ‘greatest threat facing mankind’ is a bit of a red-flag for someone who has chronicled the establishment press having thrown in completely with (selective) political hysteria over the climate issue, and the havoc that ’skeptics’ of the computer model projections and the policies have allegedly caused. And, incidentally, with no interest in the havoc the actual models have caused here in the real world through policies premised in them.

I scanned the full-page article for mention of Obama’s swift reversal of Bush’s alleged recklessness or, barring that, of the now surely worsened climate crisis and the stalled Kyoto process, that Obama didn’t, in fact, rush to ’sign the Kyoto Protocol’ as Bush supposedly neglected per the media for eight years (Clinton signed it; Bush never unsigned it), comfortable I would find no such cheerleading, or keening.

That is of course because of the uncomfortable truth that political realities led Obama to continue the Bush policy of continuing the Clinton-Gore policy of not seeking ratification of Kyoto. And, further, he continued the Bush rejection of the Kyoto model, agreed to by Clinton-Gore to the great foreign policy and otherwise political detriment to the U.S. in ensuing years.

And, on cue, a story in a trade press outlet yesterday writes:

(more…)

Much is being made of the applause that Obama received at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). I think this needs to be explained, or at least put into some context.

AIPAC is generally an orgy of applause and cheering for anyone and everyone who addresses the appreciative audience. It is the one place where Jews can congregate and hear wonderful, exultant praise of Israel (outside of the constant campaign of anti-Israel propaganda). And the AIPAC rank and file love the respite from the lies and the smears. They will cheer anything. Seriously. Mention that grilled chicken will be served in the cafe downstairs and you’ll get a huge round of applause. 25,000 carrots had to be brought to garnish the salads to feed 10,000 attendees. That, too, gets a hand. This is a happy group.

Case in point: Monday morning, the functionary Howard Kohr, AIPAC’s Executive Director, received a standing ovation. Need I say more? When the janitor comes in to clear away the tables, he’ll get a hand, too.

A number of AIPAC notables were warmly received despite the idiocy of what they said. Steny Hoyer was the first politician to speak Sunday, and while strongly supportive of Israel, his idiotic insistence on a two-state solution was only met by more idiocy: a round of rousing applause. What delusional mental acrobatics must be engaged in to imagine a Philistine state living in peace and harmony with Israel. Hoyer talked out of both sides of his mouth. No support or tolerance for extremists or terrorists, but let’s give the savages a state.

Nevertheless, the response to Obama’s appearance was tempered. (My take on his speech is here.) Obama was not cheered. Yes, they applauded and they stood when he backpedaled on his borders comment (he said it, but “I didn’t mean that”). But I will tell you that it was nothing like the response that George W. Bush got, or that John Bolton and Dick Cheney received in previous years. The people never sat down during those rousing speeches. They raised the roof. When Eric Cantor spoke the hall shook. Literally, the applause was thunderous, clearly reflecting what AIPAC’s members are really thinking.

(more…)

According to a nonprofit watchdog organization, Corporate Accountability International, Ronald McDonald is an enemy of the state. The grassroots group has assembled 550 health professionals and organizations to denounce the famous clown, the icon of not only the restaurant corporation, but also numerous children’s charities such as Ronald McDonald House.

Ronald McDonald is under fire over a claim that his existence is marketing poor eating habits to children. The organization charges that the fast food giant the clown represents is driving a health epidemic. This accusation comes only months after a mother filed a lawsuit against McDonald’s, asserting that the corporation was “…getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.” This parent, and we might use that term loosely, was supported by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which has been involved in the mandates to add calorie labeling on menus and to remove soda and snack foods from school cafeteria menus. The mother claimed that Happy Meals with toys inside them were too inviting for her kids. This suggests that she could not manage to actually say, “NO,” to them, or take the car keys away from them, when they told her they wanted to eat at McDonald’s. Her goal in her lawsuit: “…I want McDonald’s to stop interfering with my family.” So, let’s get this straight: Ronald McDonald is controlling your kids’ thoughts? Neil Cavuto couldn’t understand this either.

In the mid 1950’s, a social psychology concept called “locus of control” was identified as an important topic in the field of understanding behavior. “Locus of control” concerns the extent to which individuals believe they can control circumstances that affect them. Those with internal locus of control generally believe that events in their lives come about primarily by their own actions, while those with external locus of control tend to attribute their behavior to people, situations, and entities outside of themselves.

(more…)

Media Trackers conducted an open records request investigation of election day registrations in 15 Milwaukee and Dane County wards for the April 5 election. With just a small sampling of election-day registrations, Media Trackers uncovered significant potential abuses of the same-day registration system and numerous cases of incomplete voter registrations.

Potential Voter Registration Abuses

• In City of Madison Ward 48, one person corroborated (vouched) for three consecutive voters. When asked to write in the corroborator’s address, this person listed two different address, that in each case matches the residence of the individual trying to vote.
• In City of Madison Ward 46, two instances were recorded where an individual required corroboration for his proof of residence, and then was permitted to corroborate for someone else using the residence they could not prove.
• Maura Tracy, formerly employed by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in a number of capacities, corroborated for seven individuals who were unable to provide proof of residence in City of Madison Ward 44.
• One individual used an “acceptance letter to the University of Minnesota” as his proof of residence. This would not fall under any of the acceptable proofs of residence as spelled out by the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB).
• 126 voters in just 15 wards required corroboration because they couldn’t provide of residency, despite the 12 different acceptable proofs of residence accepted by the Wisconsin GAB.

Incomplete Voter Registrations

(more…)

Since President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board announced its prosecution of the Boeing Company last month, there has been much commentary around the topic and its possible effects. Some have stated that the attack on Boeing is an attack on Right-to-Work states (even though it applies to companies in all states), others have correctly stated that the NLRB wants to make unions an ‘equal partner’ in the running of business. Some also add that the NLRB’s actions will create further incentive for businesses to avoid union-heavy blue states as well as raise the possibility of sending more U.S. jobs overseas. What has not been addressed until now is just how the legal theories behind the NLRB’s dangerous prosecution of Boeing, if successful, could apply to companies without unions, as well.

It should be noted that, prior to laying this theory out for you, it was important to verify it as legally plausible first–informally, through friends in the legal community. While not universally in agreement, several attorneys who specialize in labor law verified that what you are about to read could eventually be what’s in store for the U.S. down the road—if the union-backed NLRB succeeds in its prosecution of Boeing.

How the NLRB’s Logic Could Open Pandora’s Box

The 1935 National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”) is a law that affects both unionized and union-free employees and employers. Written during the New Deal, the Act is intended to regulate the private-sector labor relations between employers and their employees with regard to unions and other protected rights—known as Section Seven Rights. (more…)

NOTE: Due to a technical problem, most of the videos that were supposed to be part of this article were not visible. These videos are a crucial part of this piece because they constitute the proof of every statement made in video. These videos are now functional.

***

What drove Glenn Beck to tell an increasingly large series of lies about his participation in the Shirley Sherrod story that broke back in July, 2010?

Why would he tell both TV and live audiences things like this….

Shirley Sherrod, is the next example. We didn’t rush to condemn her. This is another seemingly “redistribution of wealth” woman — who I would bet that I vehemently disagree with on probably everything. But she asked for the rest of the tape to be heard, the farmers in the story backed her up. It was a turning point story. We defended her and said her side of the story demanded to be heard — because context matters…

or this?

I have a story I want to share with you that I haven’t shared yet. Do you know why I didn’t do the Shirley Sherrod story? Did anyone think that story was uncommon for the people that we have in the White House? That there might be some prejudice that is happening? No. I stood in my office with my entire team, and I said, “something’s wrong, don’t do this story.”That’s what saved me: the Sword of the Spirit.

As you’ll see, both of those statements are totally false. Glenn Beck not only didn’t initially defend Sherrod but he actually dropped the entire context that Sherrod’s video clip was originally presented in. Close to a year later, Beck still hasn’t been honest about his initial context dropping attacks on Sherrod.

So – why? Did Beck start spinning a story and was unable to discern truth from fiction? Did he enjoy the praise he got from left wing sources, who believed his spin?

(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 and Ben Domenech are joined by Ishmail Khaldi, Israel’s Advisor for Arab Affairs to discuss his beginnings as a Bedouin living in a tent until he was 8, the Arab Spring, and how the upheaval in the Middle East may effect Israel.

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:

Ishmail Khaldi
A Shepherd’s Journey: the story of Israel’s first bedouin diplomat
Israeli Bedouin questions American-Jewish apathy
Coffee & Markets: Will the Arab Spring Lead to a War Against Israel?

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Ishmail on Twitter

Hitler represents of one of the most atrocious periods in the history of the entire world.  His twelve year reign had a profound impact on the lives of many.  Throughout the years of 1933 and 1945, Hitler invaded ten countries , including Poland, where one side of my stepfather’s family lived until 1940, when they were forcefully removed and put into concentration camps.  The first husband of his mother was a Polish officer, and shortly after Hitler and Stalin signed the Nazi Soviet Non-Aggression pact, he and other Polish officers were taken from their families, brought into the Katyn Forest, and summarily executed – simply for being Polish officers.

Under the Nazi regime, it is estimated that as many as between 11 million and 17 million civilians were killed – nearly 6 million of those exterminated solely for being Jewish.  It’s been only 78 years since Hitler and the Nazi regime’s rise to power, and their reign remains an open wound  – in the context of history, this is still a very recent occurrence.  Survivors of this period are still with us today, as are first and second generation family members , many of whom are right here in the United States.

That’s why on May 18^{th ,} when I saw a post in the Guardian titled Andrew Breitbart’s ‘Electronic Brownshirts’, my hair stood on end.  Who could write such a title?  The author turned out to be none other than Amy Goodman, who hosts the famously popular daily progressive news program “Democracy Now“, and is also frequently referred to as a respected “progressive journalist“, investigative reporter and peace advocate.  It was a post in defense of the controversial labor studies course that was the recent focus of a BigGovernment expose.

As someone who writes and conducts research for Andrew Breitbart, I could not immediately move past that title.  Here, it brought back conversations I’d had with family members about this period in history, people who lived through that time.  And reading the title back, it just seemed so repulsive, so disrespectful – as though I too was just smeared as a “Brownshirt”.  Granted, I have no connection to the story about the labor studies course, but if Andrew is associated as a Brownshirt, we’re all associated as Brownshirts. At least, that’s how the title alone read.

Why would someone like Goodman, who is supposedly respected in her profession, go to such extremes to draw a modern day comparison to such horrors ––she is obviously intelligent enough to know that her actions and words demean the experiences lived by real victims and remaining survivors.

As I trudged through her post, I realized that the headline was not just selected by Ms. Goodman, but that the phrase “electronic brownshirts” was actually muttered by Judy Ancel, director of the University of Missouri-Kansas City’s institute for labor studies.

(more…)

One of the biggest threats against global prosperity is the anti-tax competition project of a Paris-based international bureaucracy known as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The OECD, acting at the behest of the European welfare states that dominate its membership, wants the power to tell nations (including the United States!) what is acceptable tax policy.

I’ve previously explained why the OECD is a problematic institution – especially since American taxpayers are forced to squander about $100 million per year to support the parasitic bureaucracy.

For all intents and purposes, high-tax nations want to create a global tax cartel, sort of an “OPEC for politicians.” This issue is increasingly important since politicians from those countries realize that all their overspending has created a fiscal crisis and they are desperate to figure out new ways of imposing higher tax rates. I don’t exaggerate when I say that stopping this sinister scheme is absolutely necessary for the future of liberty.

Along with Brian Garst of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, I just wrote a paper about these issues. The timing is especially important because of an upcoming “Global Forum” where the OECD will try to advance its mission to prop up uncompetitive welfare states. Here’s the executive summary, but I encourage you to peruse the entire paper for lots of additional important info.

The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has an ongoing anti-tax competition project. This effort is designed to prop up inefficient welfare states in the industrialized world, thus enabling those governments to impose heavier tax burdens without having to fear that labor and capital will migrate to jurisdictions with better tax law. This project received a boost a few years ago when the Obama Administration joined forces with countries such as France and Germany, which resulted in all low-tax jurisdictions agreeing to erode their human rights policies regarding financial privacy. The tide is now turning against high-tax nations – particularly as more people understand that ever-increasing fiscal burdens inevitably lead to Greek-style fiscal collapse. Political changes in the United States further complicate the OECD’s ability to impose bad policy. Because of these developments, low-tax jurisdictions should be especially resistant to new anti-tax competition initiatives at the Bermuda Global Forum.

To understand why this issue is so important, here’s a video I narrated for the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.

(more…)

If you were stuck reading just the mainstream media, you would probably have no idea that there is a growing movement among doctors to oppose President Barack Obama’s health care plan.  Dr. Adam Dorin, who practices medicine in southern California, has helped co-found an offshoot of the Tea Party known as The Doctors National TEA Party.

The group is helping make the case to patients across the country about why Obamacare might be bad for their health.  Rather than spin, these doctors are offering facts born from their decades of practicing medicine on America’s frontlines.  They know the consequences for the quality of care when the government gets involved and the folly of many of the reckless assumptions the Obama plan makes.

Dr. Dorin recently appeared on my show and has been kind enough to share some of his personal insights.  As the townhalls of two summers ago showed us, the best way to fight Obamacare is at the grassroots level with cold-hard facts.

Here is what Dr. Dorin and his colleagues wanted to share with us.

An Open Letter Debate Challenge On Obamacare

It is my duty as an American to question any orders or directives from a superior ‘officer’, even the President of the United States, if those orders conflict with my responsibility to uphold the principles and Constitution of the United States, and if they impede my work to preserve the sanctity, safety, and security of its citizens.  Further, I am concerned that there has not been an honest, open and transparent discussion on the true merits of ObamaCare, which the public fully understands.

To this end, I hereby challenge any top leading expert in America who is a supporter of the President’s vision for our national medical system to a fair and open public debate.

(more…)

He doesn’t really stand out in a crowd – in fact, he looks like a regular guy, the kind of guy who would own a construction business.  What Gary Johnson doesn’t look like is the great green hope, the stoner white knight coming to make America safe for the herbally inclined.  Yet legalizing pot seems to be about 80% of what everyone thinks of when the former New Mexico governor’s name comes up.  That’s too bad, in that a good chunk of what he says – the best thought-out parts – are the reddest of red meat for the kind of Republicans who wouldn’t know a bong from a bongo drum.

Johnson is a friendly guy, with an easy smile and a welcome normality that distinguishes him from the typical Stepford Spouse politician who is focus-tested and consultant-approved right down to the dead trout handshake.  But you can see in his eyes, as he starts talking to the small crowds of Republicans at party meetings across the country, that he likes to shake things up.  He starts out with straight-up Republican porn – talking about his 750 vetoes as governor and how he never, ever, raised taxes, and how he never will once he becomes President.

The crowd, initially polite but reserved, leans in, rapt – it likes what it hears.  And there’s more.  Now he’s doling out big slabs of GOP prime beef, hot and fresh from the grill.  He moves on to the Johnson Plan for cutting the deficit that makes up 43% of the federal budget , which is essentially employing the simple expedient of cutting the federal budget by 43% tomorrow.  Mainstream Republican candidates take note – these are California conservatives, which pretty much means borderline Marxists compared to our Midwestern and Southern allies, and they ate it up.  There’s a huge appetite out there in conservative-land for a guy who will not only talk about shuttering the Departments of Education and Commerce but has a crazy glint in his eyes that say he’s just nuts enough to actually do it.

And he would too – Johnson is clearly absolutely dedicated to doing what he thinks is right.

(more…)