Following Thursday night’s Republican debate-turned-brawl in Florida, Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren read a tweet from President Obama’s right-hand-man, David Axelrod:

Daniel Horowitz, in RedState, has gotten this issue exactly right.

About Rick Santorum’s intense confrontation of Mitt Romney on the subject of Romneycare in Massachusetts, Horowitz says:

He [Romney] has the nerve to feign outrage over Obamacare, even while he touts Romneycare – a carbon copy of Obamacare – as a virtuous success, supported by 90% of Massachusetts residents.  Santorum did his homework, and called him out on the hypocrisy.  Romney was never able to answer why the same market intervention and distortions – mandates, subsidies, and Medicaid – which form the bedrock of Obamacare , supposedly worked so well in Massachusetts.  The reason he couldn’t answer the question is because Romneycare was a complete failure.  It is the canary in the coal mine for Obamacare.

Gov. Romney’s statement that most Massachusetts citizens are happy with Romneycare is ludicrous. In 2010, Massachusetts and Vermont delivered the highest average individual market health insurance premiums–over $400 per person per month, approximately twice the national average. Those in the state who cannot afford these outrageous costs are forced into Medicaid which, in turn, encourages people not to work so that they can meet the eligibility requirements for the federally funded plan. (more…)

David Axelrod, chief political strategist for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign and former White House political adviser, defended Jeremiah Wright on Tuesday evening in a speech in Thousand Oaks, Ca, saying that the news reports depicting the man once called an Obama “confidant” as anti-Semite and racist were “ninety seconds of vitriol plucked from thirty years of sermons by some enterprising opposition researcher.”

Axelrod is lying.

As I wrote in the American Spectator, this wasn’t the first time that the official spin was that Wright was “selectively edited”:

Candidate Obama tried to dismiss his support for Wright, telling Charlie Gibson of ABC News, “It’s as if we took the five dumbest things that I ever said or you ever said…in our lives and compressed them, and put them out there, you know, I think that people’s reaction, would be understandably upset.” And rightly so. In sermon after sermon, Wright’s radical black nationalist ideas were clearly and emphatically stated. They were not an aberration, but the focal point of Pastor Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Obama was an active member for 20 years.

As far as I know, I am the only writer to have read every single one of Jeremiah Wright’s published sermons, so take it from me when I say that they are very racist and very racialist. Here’s just a little bit of what I uncovered:

In [Wright’s] church-associated Kwame Nkrumah Academy, the congregation’s children learned such canards as the claim that “[h]istorically, Europeans tried to build themselves up by tearing down all that Africans had done.” Obama biographer David Remnick notes that Obama approved of this “African-centered” grade school, where Wright’s God loves all people, but black people especially. And why shouldn’t he? Jesus, Wright taught, was “an African Jew,” as were most of the figures of the Bible. As Wright said in Africans Who Shaped Our Faith (1995), “evidence exists within and outside of the Bible to support the notion that the people of Israel…were of African descent!”

Wright believes that the Jews as we know them aren’t really Jews.

(more…)

David Axelrod, chief political strategist for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign and former White House political adviser, defended Jeremiah Wright on Tuesday evening in a speech in Thousand Oaks, CA.

Axelrod described the initial news reports in 2008 on Obama’s long-time family pastor and mentor as “ninety seconds of vitriol plucked from thirty years of sermons by some enterprising opposition researcher.”

The claim that Wright’s sermons were selectively edited by Obama’s political opponents contradicts what is known about Wright’s preaching and the radical, racialist creed of the Trinity United Church of Christ, to which Obama belonged for two decades and to which he contributed a large amount of money.

Axelrod’s claim is also contradicted by Obama himself, who has cited Wright’s enthusiasm for radical politics as the main reason he was attracted to the church.

Axelrod brought up the Wright controversy during a lecture recounting his role as the “architect” of Obama’s rise from the Illinois state senate to the presidency. Axelrod praised Obama’s infamous “race speech,” contrasting his media skills to those of GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

Photo source: Distinguished Speaker Series

The lecture was part of the Distinguished Speaker Series of Southern California, and was delivered before a largely friendly audience.

(more…)

Contrary to popular perception, there were no winners in the Iowa caucuses, but many losers.

Let’s dispense with the obvious losers first:

• Michele Bachmann: Hometown girl did not make good. Bachmann made much of her Iowa roots on the campaign trail and won the Ames Straw poll, but in the end she won barely five percent of the vote. Part of the problem was that she was prone to gaffe and conspiracies. Her argument that vaccines cause autism didn’t wash. Her supporters are now politically homeless, though she might still have some residual effect on the presidential race. She has a choice to make now when it comes to endorsements. Expect her to wait though if she waits too long she risks becoming irrelevant. (more…)

JOE BIDEN:  [handing President phone]  Axelrod calling from Chicago, Boss.  He sounds pissed.

OBAMA:  Hey Axe!  Whassup?

No, I don’t know who leaked our decision to abandon blue collar whites.  Soon’s we find the S.O.B., we’ll dress him up like a banker and drop him into the middle of an OWS protest.

You’re kidding.  We gotta reverse course because word got out?

Okay, I understand: you want me and Joe to be regular people for a while.  Suggestions?

Avoid Camp David.  Fine.  Too rustic for my taste, anyway.  Anything else?

Wait until after the election to eminent domain Lafayette Square and build a White House pitch and putt complex?  No problem.  That it?

What?!  Aw, c’mon, man!  You can’t be serious.  That would demean the office of the Presidency.

All right, all right, I’ll do it.  Yeah, we’ll brainstorm more ideas, too.  Okay, later. [hangs up]

BIDEN:  Chief?

OBAMA:  First thing tomorrow, Joe, you and I begin hanging new drapery in the East Room.

JAY CARNEY:  I’ll alert the networks to have camera crews in place by 10:00 a.m., sir.

BILL DALEY:  Your 9:00 o’clock tee time with Tiger at Congressional, Mr. President?  I’ll call him and canc. …

OBAMA:  Ixnay!  SNL’s Fred Armisen owes me big for resuscitating his career.  Request his presence here at dawn in work clothes and cap.   Jay, don’t give the signal to start taping until Fred and Joe are atop their ladders.  No close ups.

(more…)

It looks as if the Obama Administration has a major “green” problem. The firm responsible for Solyndra, RockPort Capital, and several other major companies directly connected to the Obama Administration have received in excess of $4 billion in government assistance. This cronyism includes millions in tax breaks (one conveniently preceding a $10 million investment from WH Economic Adviser Jeffrey Immelt’s General Electric), stimulus grants, loan guarantees, and government endorsements that gave credibility to a firm’s untested product. With the release of more White House emails, it looks as if the Obama Administration’s problem is more than just a few bad loans.

In 2009, another RockPort investment, Satcon technologies, partnered with SunPower Corporation and Exelon Energy to build a 41-acre solar array in Chicago. SunPower, recently covered here, is the recipient of a controversial $1.2 billion DOE loan guarantee. SunPower also worked with Satcon on another government-funded solar project in Hawai’i.

Meanwhile, the DOE has doubled down on their loan program with a $646 million loan guarantee to Exelon Energy (who own the SunPower/Satcon project in Chicago). Exelon bought out the Antelope Valley Project from First Solar Energy after First Solar missed the DOE’s loan guarantee deadline and was denied an extension. In another interesting appearance, Jeffrey Immelt’s GE Energy Financial just bought out First Solar’s Desert Sunlight project after receiving a DOE guarantee for a portion of their $1.46 billion loan. It’s probably more than a matter of coincidence Exelon arose out of an $8.2 billion merger advised by Rahm Emanuel in 1999 and that White House political strategist David Axelrod is a former consultant for Exelon. Furthermore, Exelon executives were major contributors to Obama’s 2008 campaign, bundling several hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions.

(more…)

“Workers of the World Unite”

Karl Marx, the infamous German political philosopher had a vision.  Marx, together with Joseph Engels, predicted and even called for the dismantling of capitalist economic systems worldwide into a socialist and ultimately classless communist world.  24thState will be asking the question of the late Mr. Marx, “How is that working out for you?”

In a series of columns, we will expose the 5th column in the United States.  We will name names and expose the ties from David Axelrod, who just visited St. Louis referring to some GOP presidential contenders as “nutty folks,” to active Marxists and communist party loyalists in Congress and even the Missouri General Assembly.  We will expose their plans and how even their favorite Republican member of Congress (yes, they have one) works to fulfill them.

If we contemplate for a second, whether it is realistic to assume that the Marxists quit being Marxists, in Russia, China and even the U.S., can we assume that the workers of the world decided to not unite?  Did they pack up their tents and go home?  Are Russian and Chinese leaders relinquishing power and creating new constitutional republics?  Did the Communist Party USA shut their doors or just change their tactics? The answers to these questions are unquestionably obvious but uncomfortable to contemplate.

First published in 1848, the Manifesto had ten very specific goals (briefly examine their progress in the U.S. here).  The most alarming tenet however, may be the assertion that communism will never really work until the entire world is communist.  In other words, the true believers have a duty to spread it.  What then is the duty of those opposed to it?  What is IT?

(more…)

From Crain’s Chicago Business:

President Barack Obama’s Chicago-based re-election campaign has a hometown problem: the donors and volunteers who have lost interest after launching his run for the White House four years ago.

The glow of the epochal election of the nation’s first African-American president has faded amid a dramatic fall in the president’s popularity, a persistently lousy economy and an administration that has been less transformative than promised.

And among Jewish contributors, a bulwark of his local donor base, some have been turned off by Mr. Obama’s call for Israel to give up part of its territory.

(more…)

Gov. Rick Perry’s entrance into the presidential race has changed the complexion of the coming election season for the better in many ways. For one, his juggernaut-like ascent to the lead in the polls has all but guaranteed that moderates like Jon McHuntsman are wasting their time. Secondly, by so quickly drawing criticism from Obama he reminded us that the president is not only vulnerable, but very vulnerable. And lastly, but doing all these things long after others have already gotten into the race he reminded us that it’s still not too late for Gov. Sarah Palin to throw her name into the mix.

And as a matter of fact, even though Palin hasn’t officially entered the race she’s already running third in primary polls in Florida. (Wow – running third although she isn’t even a candidate yet.)

So what happens if she gets in and gets the nomination? What if the race ends up being Palin v. Obama?

If it does, Obama may find out how Walter Mondale felt after running against Reagan in 1984. But he will surely find out how Jimmy Carter felt when he faced Reagan in 1980.

Skeptics notwithstanding, this is so because Palin v. Obama will pit faith in the American people against faith in government. In so doing, it will allow Palin to tell us again and again of how this country is great because of salt-of-the-earth Americans who love their families, their God, and their country, while Obama stands on the other side of a teleprompter telling us everything will be fine if we just pass another stimulus bill, raise taxes, and allow government to reach even further into the private sector via increased regulation and oversight.

(more…)

Recently, David Axelrod announced that President Obama would start targeting would-be Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney via various types of media. The tenor of the announcement made it sound like they were doing the smart thing: going after the presumptive candidate instead of wasting time going after other candidates who might not have a chance of securing the nomination.

This all seemed innocent enough at first, but after I heard Axelrod’s announcement for the 8^th time over the course of a couple days it became evident that he and Obama weren’t picking the presumptive Republican candidate as much as they were picking the candidate they hoped they would get a chance to run against. (Seriously folks, if you’re Obama, what could be better than to run against a candidate who instituted his own form of Obamacare in Massachusetts, who still supports subsidies for ethanol, and who refuses to sign pro-life pledges when presented with them?)

But things don’t always go as planned. And on August 12^th, students of American politics learned this lesson anew when Sarah Palin rolled into the Iowa State Fair unannounced.

People who long ago realized Romney is just John McCain in taller boots flocked to Palin. They crowded around her at the fair and asked the very question the MSM has labeled passé – “Are you running for president?”

The New York Times covered her appearance with this headline: “Palin Spotted – and Swarmed – at Iowa State Fair.”

Reuters said, “Palin Stokes 2012 speculation with Iowa appearance.”

And RealClearPolitics.com reported that Palin’s appearance gave voters a glimpse at “what her campaign would look like.”

Question for Axelrod: Romney who?

(more…)

Just when you thought the Progressive Movement could be more deeply invested in denial, now comes the absurd notion that somehow, the TEA Party Movement, whose pinnacle tenet is fiscal responsibility; which has devoutly insisted that the federal government cease the practice of spending beyond the tax revenue it gleans from taxpayers, that somehow it is the TEA Party Movement and their affiliated members of Congress who are responsible for the downgrade in the US credit rating by S&P and not the glad-handing spendthrifts of the big government, nanny state Progressive Movement.

“Bottom up, top down…inside out.”

Shameless partisan, Chicago Progressive operative and former senior advisor to Pres. Barack Obama, David “Say Anything, Lie, Cheat and Steal to Win” Axelrod is quoted as saying, “The fact of the matter is that this is essentially a Tea Party downgrade.”

US Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who, it was revealed during the 2004 General Election, was fast and loose with the truth about his service in Vietnam, parroted Axelrod’s talking point, saying, Standard & Poor’s decision was “without question the Tea Party downgrade” because Tea Partiers held bipartisan lawmakers back from a bigger deal. This, even though the facts bear out that it was in fact Democrats who refused the deal, demanding almost a half trillion dollars in additional tax revenue be added to the mix.

And Howard Dean, Progressive ideologue extraordinaire, who has devolved into irrelevance since losing both his ill-fated presidential bid and the leadership post of the DNC, said, “I think they’re totally unreasonable and doctrinaire and not founded in reality. I think they’ve been smoking some of that tea, not just drinking it.”

One has to be impressed with the coordination it must take to ensure that all the political operatives in the Progressive Movement are using the exact same talking points during each and every interview almost at exactly at the same time. If one were of a curious mind the question of who is at the helm of the USS Propaganda would come to the forefront. Of course, we shouldn’t expect to find inquisitive minds of this nature within what used to be referred to as the mainstream media…they get their Cliff Notes from the same source.

Only from the minds of the Progressive Movement can we find a converse-reality in thinking so striking, so absurd, that it would condemn as being the cause of repercussions for fiscal irresponsibility those who are demanding that deficit spending come to a halt; that those who are demanding fiscal responsibility are responsible for fiscal irresponsibility.

Night is day and day is a tree.

Yet, even as the cancer of disingenuous, partisan, Progressive ideological madness comes “fast and furious” to the American people via the usual suspects in the alphabet media, it would appear that, increasingly, the American people are beginning to see through the political propaganda of the Far-Left.

A new Gallup poll – and we point out that Gallup leans Left – has concluded:

“Americans’ political ideology at the midyear point of 2011 looks similar to 2009 and 2010, with 41 percent self-identifying as conservative, 36 percent as moderate, and 21 percent as liberal.

“If this pattern continues, 2011 will be the third straight year that conservatives significantly outnumber moderates — the next largest ideological bloc. Liberalism has been holding steady for the past six years, averaging either 21 percent or 22 percent…”

“Among Republicans, conservatives currently outnumber moderates by nearly 3 to 1, 72 percent vs. 24 percent, while very few are liberal (4 percent)…

“Conservatism among independents increased fairly sharply in 2009, from 30 percent to 35 percent, largely explaining the expansion of conservatism nationally at that time, and it has held at that level since then.”

Meanwhile, a new Rasmussen Reports poll indicates that:

“…just 17 percent of likely US voters think the federal government today has the consent of the governed. 69 percent believe the government does not have that consent. 14 percent are undecided.

“The number of voters who feel the government has the consent of the governed — a foundational principle, contained in the Declaration of Independence — is down from 23 percent in early May and has fallen to its lowest level measured yet.

“Perhaps it’s no surprise voters feel this way since only 8 percent believe the average member of Congress listens to his or her constituents more than to their party leaders. That, too, is the lowest level measured to date. 84 percent think the average congressman listens to party leaders more than the voters they represent.”

So, with the Progressives and Democrats holding the Executive Branch, half of the Legislative Branch and just under half of the Judicial Branch (which, in and of itself has become increasingly useless in the eyes of the electorate), and with the overwhelming majority of American voters believing that the federal government does not have the consent of the governed, and with a mass movement of independents toward the Conservative political line of thinking – not to mention a move within the Democrat Party away from their fringe Progressive Left – is it a wise political move to continue jamming the disingenuous stick of non-factual propaganda into the political hornets’ nest that is the TEA Party Movement?

The American people have been awakened to the need to divine fact from fiction where the management of our country is concerned. This truth is self-evident in the results of the 2010 Mid Term Elections. That said, the only ones who seem to be in denial about the realities facing our country appear to be elected Progressive elitist politicians who would rather bankrupt the country while degrading its chances for recovery, all in the name of social engineering and social justice.

In times past, better men would have identified this behavior as treason. Perhaps it is time for those who identify with the principles of the TEA Party to “take the gloves off”; perhaps it is time for the American people to “downgrade” the Progressive Movement to its proper place…the rotting garbage heap of failed political ideology.

What do you think about that, Mr. Kerry? You had better go check with your puppet master for a response. Run along now.

(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…)

There have been reports – here, here, and here– that Barack Obama has approached William M. Daley about becoming the White House Chief of Staff.  If true, these reports are very interesting, indeed.

You see: Bill Daley has a history. On Christmas Eve, 2009 – a few hours after the Democrats in the US Senate shoved through a version of Obamacare adorned with colorful provisions nicknamed the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the Connecticut Compromise, and Gatorade (sometimes called the Florida Flim-Flam) – the gentleman in question published an op-ed in The Washington Post, warning his fellow Democrats that they were in danger of bringing about a realignment in favor of the Republicans.

After alluding to the announced retirements of four centrist Democrats in the House and to Parker Griffith’s switch to the Republican side, Daley argued that “the Democratic Party — my lifelong political home — has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.”

The political dangers of this situation could not be clearer.

(more…)

There is a dangerous trend moving through the top most ranks of the Obama administration, and no I am not talking about Socialism.  Just because this progressive administration believes that government should control industry and our personal lives does not mean that our President is a socialist. And I am not talking about the rumor that the administration is trying to stifle first amendment speech.  Just because they attack every broadcaster that disagrees with their agenda and threaten every business that points out a flaw in their legislation it does not mean that they are trying to stymie an open discussion of the issues. No this trend is much more nefarious than that. Some of the President’s closest advisers, have developed issues with…well beastiality.

That’s right, we have learned for example, that when David Axelrod leaves the White House every night, he finds time to stop at the Washington DC Zoo, and well, lets just say he accepts foreign donations.

I have been asked about these charges, specifically the New York Times looked into Axelrod’s love life specifically and said that Axelrod is not putting any part of himself into foreign objects. He has been spending lots of time at the petting zoo, said the times but the only thing being stroked is his ego. There is no evidence says the Times, that David Axelrod has a “sheep” problem. Bob Schieffer of CBS News says that Axelrod’s animal problem is just peanuts.

(more…)

Has the White House been influenced by a convicted domestic terrorist for its attack on the Chamber of Commerce?

The latest assault on the Chamber has been spear-headed by none other than the President himself and picked up by David Axelrod, MoveOn.org and all the usual Astro-Turfers who receive marching orders from the DNC.  It’s become part of the standard talking points for cable-news pundits and their well-programmed guests and has been the new rallying cry for the left as they try their best to explain the imminent electoral disaster that looms on November 2^nd.

But one group was well ahead of the curve on this movement to stop the Chamber of Commerce.  In fact, they even own the URL “StopTheChamber.com”.  That group is the infamous Velvet Revolution headed by convicted violent criminal and bomber, Brett Kimberlin.  In her extensive and detailed article on Kimberlin and his past violent crimes, Liberty Chick noted that left-wing blogs and main stream media organs routinely site Kimberlin and his partner, Brad Friedman as legitimate sources and as normative “watch-dogs” over-seeing right-wing election shenanigans.  The problem is, Kimberlin is a convicted domestic terrorist who has been described as a habitual liar by those who have looked into his past.

And yet, the mainstream Democrats clinging to any strategy to stop the bleeding over the next two weeks are latching on to the Stop the Chamber narrative that was first hatched at Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution site last year.

(more…)

“Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.”

I’m actually pleased that Obama has gone after the Chamber of Commerce for allegedly funding Republican ads with foreign donations. Set aside that there’s no evidence whatever for it, as even the New York Times and CBS’s Bob Schieffer acknowledge. There’s much more potent ammunition here.

In the Chamber of Commerce, one couldn’t find a more homespun, middle-of-the-road group of Republicans to attack. Going after them shows just how desperate Obama and his henchmen have become in the face of worsening election prospects.

Trying to make Boehner the face of the enemy failed. The “Party of No” meme fell flat, as has every gambit intended to make Republicans look like the reason things are not getting better. Those efforts had to, given the GOP’s minority status (not to mention their leaders’ string-like spines). Republicans in Congress have clearly been able to block nothing the past 20 months.

So, being left with attacking private citizens — and not your typical “Wall Street fat cats” at that — amounts to digging that trench ever deeper. Not only will Obama not crawl out of it by November 2, it could keep him clambering for a foothold long afterward.

Better still, the harder he presses this the more he’ll alienate the middle. That’s a surefire losing tactic. There’s no better way to make the Republican majority even larger than it’s going to be than to press arbitrary charges against millions of small businessmen.

(more…)

Peggy Noonan in today’s Wall Street Journal:

The Democratic Party right now is showing signs of coming apart under the pressure of the election and two years of an unpopular presidency. But it’s not a split in two, with the left versus the establishment. It’s more like a splintering, with left-leaning activists distancing themselves from the party’s politicians, and moderate politicians distancing themselves from Mr. Obama.

And part of what’s driving it is what is driving the evolution of the Republican Party. The Internet changed everything. Everyone has facts now, knows who voted how and why. New thought leaders spring up and lead in new directions. Total transparency leads to party fracturing. Information dings unity. We are in new territory.

(more…)

People on the left are constantly asking Andrew Breitbart who funds his “operation.”  It’s grown to become rather amusing, actually.  For those of us who are bloggers on The Bigs, we know the truth, we see how things operate. We know there’s no giant conservative-leaning lump of cash greasing this machine.  If that were the case, I for one think Andrew would probably be home with his family even more, rather than traveling around, worrying about advertising or other ways of self-funding this little “hobby” of his, as the left often like to refer to it.

But let’s just look for one moment at where some of that line of thinking comes from on the other side.  I’ve written previously about the birth of Media Matters as a spawn of Rob Stein’s Conservative Message Machine Money Matrix road show, from which the Democracy Alliance was born.  It’s through this organization from which much of the organization’s funding had come; in recent years, more has been spread out across other progressive organizations, but the funders often remain the same names in most cases.  For instance, The Tides Foundation gave Media Matters and their Action Network over $175,000 just last year.  In earlier years, groups like Montclair, New Jersey-based (hometown of Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert) Schumann Center for Media & Democracy gave the organization $500,000.

The donors’ list is vast and diverse, and we plan to cover that in detail in the future.  So I’ll focus in on one set of donors to Media Matters, which is the Labor Unions.  More specifically, in light of some recent posts regarding the Kenneth Gladney incident, I thought it appropriate to revisit donations made to Media Matters specifically by the Service Employees International Union.

When you look at the timeline of events and the media calendar in general leading up to the Gladney incident last August, it’s difficult not to conclude that there was collaboration amongst White House staff, components of Big Labor, and certain liberal media outlets.  However, we know that all will continue to deny it.

Further, just as the flurry of media activity finally starts to wind down a bit around October last year, this is when SEIU makes three separate donations to Media Matters totaling $50,000, under the classification of “Communications”, according to the SEIU LM-2 report. (In reviewing other LM-2s for several previous years, this appears at least to be the first time that SEIU has donated to Media Matters, and there does not seem to have been another donation recorded since these.)

This is the type of funding that I would question in return to Media Matters.  With their membership being so low and their unfunded pension expenses so high, can the SEIU really afford to be randomly donating funds to an organization like Media Matters?  Perhaps SEIU purchased advertising on Media Matters’ website, but then I’d think it would be categorized as such, as others ad expenses in the LM-2 were.  If not advertising, if not random donations,  then what’s the reason for SEIU having donated these funds?  One could logically conclude that Media Matters performed a service in return.  Only they can answer that.

(more…)