Big Government

Today, on MSNBC’s Hardball, Chris Matthews acknowledged (and appears to be the first member of the mainstream media to acknowledge) that the video Andrew Breitbart posted in his July 19th Big Government article about an NAACP audience’s reaction to a particular moment in Shirley Sherrod’s speech, does in fact include Ms. Sherrod discussing her redemptive revelation (transcript from Newsbusters):

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, there you go. [Quoting Ms. Sherrod] “I opened my eyes. I realized it wasn’t about black and white. It was, but it was about other things, about poverty.” So … that part, that part in there about redemptive revelation was actually in the initial tape.

This then prompts Mr. Matthews to ask his guests, Governor Howard Dean and Joan Walsh, a question that answers itself:

Yeah, but why do you think if this was a complete slime job, why do you think Breitbart kept that in there, Governor? Why did he keep in that part – let me let the Governor in here. Why did he put the redemptive part in here at all?

Dean admits he has never even viewed that 2:36 video in its entirety! Nor has he even read Andrew Breitbart’s original article, which states:

Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

Of course that has not stopped Dean from appearing on multiple networks and ripping Fox News as being racist for having played the video of Shirley Sherrod released on BigGovernment.com (yes, the same 2:36 video he has not watched all — any? — of).

It’s reasonable to assume Dean isn’t the only member of the media or punditry guilty of this negligence. While the Democrat Media Complex rushes to condemn Breitbart for not offering adequate context in his multimedia presentation, how many actually stopped to read and watch the context that was given in the first place. (Hint: The over/under is Chris Matthews.)

Will the rest of the MSM follow Matthews’ lead, take a breather from their feeding frenzy, and follow suit? Or will they continue to mischaracterize and misinform?

Like a game of three card monte, the FDA, the mainstream media and liberal bloggers have joined together to deny life extending options for victims of breast cancer – sacrificing life on the rationing altar of budgetary constraints. Once you understand how the game is played, you will see that patients will always lose.

Three card monte is a street card game where a dealer uses two shills to con unsuspecting observers to bet money. In this case the dealer is the FDA and the two shills are the Associated Press and the left-wing blog, TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Understanding the game is the key to understanding how ObamaCare and it’s rationing scheme will work. It’s time to learn the rules.

The FDA is tasked to determine the safety and efficacy of drugs. They are not charged to determine drug pricing; just safety. Avastin was originally labeled for treatment of breast cancer patients in an expedited fashion based on initial studies that showed the drug produced on average nearly 6 months without tumor progression. So the FDA is now looking a follow-up study that shows an average of about 3 months without tumor progression. These are average time frames, meaning that many in the studies got more than 6 months or 3 months in the respective studies. The FDA also looked for new adverse events (side effects) and determined that there are no new safety concerns raised in the trials for breast cancer applications for the drug Avastin.

Despite the determination that the drug was safe and effective, the FDA is trying to de-label the drug for use with late stage breast cancer patients by changing the evaluation rules to use the price of the drug to determine its effectiveness. That is rationing. Period. The FDA created a subjective standard they call “clinically meaningful.” Sounds impressive but what does that mean? In the case of Avastin, which has been shown to actually work, the FDA is just saying that the average extension of life of 6 months just isn’t meaningful enough. That is the new rules of the game. The dealer always wins.

Once the rules have been changed, the shills move in. The Associated Press takes the new subjective language intended to lead people to believe the drug is being de-labled because it doesn’t work and in turns that into actually false information saying that “recent studies finding that the drug did not extend patients’ life spans and also increased the incidence of side effects and other complications.” Patently false.

Then when US Senator Vitter expresses concerns about the decision, the Associated Press blatantly and falsely attacks him and attempts to discredit him. Associated Press, reporting on efforts by Sen. David Vitter to ensure doctors had the option of offering Avastin, proclaimed incorrectly that — and this is a direct quote — “While he did not use the term “death panels,” his complaint mirrors false allegations raised last year by Republicans such as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who claimed the Democratic health care bill included “death panels” that would decide who deserves treatment and who doesn’t.” Talk about bias and the basis for a smear. That is where shill number two comes in.

The Talking Points Memo takes the death panel claim and runs with it. Declaring Vitter’s objections “VitterCare,” the blog quotes generously from the false, bias and misleading implications of the Associated Press story calling Vitter’s actions a “smear.”

Both shills defending the dealer using subjective standards with hazy labels that get turned into patently false information in a compliant and willing media. That is the way the game will be played and patients lose.

The “appearance of impropriety” is often considered the Washington standard for corruption and misbehavior. With that in mind, alarm bells began ringing in my head when I read this Washington Times report about Jacob Lew, Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Management and Budget.

Why did Citigroup decide to hire a career DC political operator for $1.1 million? As a former political aide, lobbyist, lawyer, and political appointee, what particular talents did he have to justify that salary to manage an investment division? Did the presence of Lew (as well as other Washington insiders such as Robert Rubin) help Citigroup get a big bucket of money from taxpayers as part of the TARP bailout? Did Lew’s big $900K in 2009 have anything to do with the money the bank got from taxpayers?

Is it a bit suspicious that he received his big windfall bonus four days after filing a financial disclosure? Read this blurb from the Washington Times and see if you can draw any conclusion other than this was a typical example of the sleazy relationship of big government and big business.

President Obama’s choice to be the government’s chief budget officer received a bonus of more than $900,000 from Citigroup Inc. last year — after the Wall Street firm for which he worked received a massive taxpayer bailout. The money was paid to Jacob Lew in January 2009, about two weeks before he joined the State Department as deputy secretary of state, according to a newly filed ethics form. The payout came on top of the already hefty $1.1 million Citigroup compensation package for 2008 that he reported last year.

Administration officials and members of Congress last year expressed outrage that executives at other bailed-out firms, such as American International Group Inc., awarded bonuses to top executives. State Department officials at the time steadfastly refused to say if Mr. Lew received a post-bailout bonus from Citigroup in response to inquiries from The Washington Times. But Mr. Lew’s latest financial disclosure report, provided by the State Department on Wednesday, makes clear that he did receive a significant windfall. …The records show that Mr. Lew received the $944,578 payment four days after he filed his 2008 ethics disclosure.

Lest anyone think I’m being partisan, let’s now look at another story featuring Senator Richard Shelby. The Alabama Republican and his former aides have a nice incestuous relationship that means more campaign cash for him, lucrative fees for them, and lots of our tax dollars being diverted to moochers such as the state’s university system. Here are some of the sordid details.

Since 2008, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby has steered more than $250 million in earmarks to beneficiaries whose lobbyists used to work in his Senate office — including millions for Alabama universities represented by a former top staffer. In a mix of revolving-door and campaign finance politics, the same organizations that have enjoyed Shelby’s earmarks have seen their lobbyists and employees contribute nearly $1 million to Shelby’s campaign and political action committee since 1999, according to federal records. …Shelby’s earmarking doesn’t appear to run afoul of Senate rules or federal ethics laws. But critics said his tactics are part of a Washington culture in which lawmakers direct money back home to narrow interests, which, in turn, hire well-connected lobbyists — often former congressional aides — who enjoy special access on Capitol Hill.

Some people think the answer to these stories is more ethics laws, corruption laws, and campaign-finance laws, but that’s like putting a band-aid on a compound fracture. Besides, it is quite likely that no laws were broken, either by Lew, Citigroup, Shelby, or his former aides. This is just the way Washington works, and the beneficiaries are the insiders who know how to milk the system. The only way to actually reduce both legal and illegal corruption in Washington is to shrink the size of government. The sleaze will not go away until politicians have less ability to steer our money to special interests – whether they are Wall Street Banks or Alabama universities. This video elaborates.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski continues his persistent push to dramatically increase his Commission’s regulatory authority over the Internet.

He remains just as persistent in refusing to offer a substantive legal authority for doing it.

This could be because there really isn’t one.  And it’s not just me saying it.  It’s also a unanimous D.C. Circuit Court (in the Comcast-BitTorrent case), 282 members of Congress – including 74 House Democrats, and even seventeen minority groups who almost NEVER line up against any Democrat anywhere.

The consensus being that legislation is required to better delineate FCC authority over the Internet.

Way back on May 27, Michigan Democrat John Dingell sent Genachowski one of his famous “Dingell-grams” requesting an explanation.  On July 26 – nearly two months later – Genachowski finally responded.  Dingell was underwhelmed.

So much so that he yesterday publicly released a letter, in which he clearly expresses his under whelmed-ness.

“Unfortunately, the paucity of substantive responses to my aforementioned questions in your recent letter has served only to substantiate my fear that the Commission’s proposed path with respect to the regulation of broadband is based on unsound reasoning and an incomplete record,…”

Them’s harsh words.  From a Democrat, to a Democrat.

Dingell went on to express his substantial concern for the debilitative effect the Commission’s move to regulate would have on future Internet successes and investment.

“I worry that hurried action by the Commission to complete a rulemaking or issue a declaratory ruling concerning the classification of broadband Internet access services in the absence of a clear statutory mandate from the Congress will result in poor policy and protracted litigation, which itself will confound the Congress’ and the Commission’s efforts to encourage further investment in broadband infrastructure, create new jobs, and stimulate broadband adoption as we seek to implement network neutrality rules.

“With this in mind, I reiterate my suggestion that the Commission abandon the classification effort it has set in motion and instead seek the authority it requires by asking the Congress to enact a statute that clearly delegates such authority.  In this way, the Congress and Commission may ensure the steadfast legal foundation for an open internet.”

Congressman Dingell gets a little sideways with his contradictory desires to “implement network neutrality rules” and “ensure the steadfast legal foundation for an open internet.”  But his letter is a good and thorough whacking of the overreaching course currently charted by the FCC.

Congressman Dingell is just another in a LOOONG line of public officials – from both the legislative and judicial branches – telling the executive branch’s FCC that they do not have the regulatory authority to do what they are currently trying to do – commandeer control of the Internet.

It’s time for Chairman Genachowski to acknowledge this obviousness, and defer to Congress to do what it has always done with the FCC – decide whether or not to pass laws that give the Commission the authority it foolishly wishes to exercise all by it’s lonesome.

Wednesday’s federal court decision on Arizona’s immigration law is being rightly criticized for a number of reasons. But there are three silver linings to this situation, which may result in the rule of law prevailing in the end.

On July 28, Judge Susan Bolton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued a preliminary injunction—meaning she stopped from going into effect—most of the key provisions in Arizona’s new law. As I’ve written previously, this law should be held constitutional because it’s not an immigration law; it doesn’t determine who can become a citizen or who can be on American soil. Instead it’s a police-power law, where Arizona says that if you’re not permitted to be in this country, then you’re trespassing if you enter Arizona, and if you have a run-in with the cops for some other reason, then those cops can ask if you’re in this country illegally.

This is not an immigration law. It’s also not racist. It’s not racial profiling. And it’s not usurping the role of the federal government (which has abysmally failed here).

Instead, it’s an employment law and property law. That authority arises from Arizona’s police power to make laws for public safety, health, and societal welfare—which the Constitution reserves to the states through the Tenth Amendment.

But as bad as the federal court’s decision is, there are three silver linings to it that could see the rule of law prevail in the end, to the benefit of everyone—including foreigners who want to work here.

First, with Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court looming, this highlights the need for judges who faithfully interpret the Constitution and federal laws according to their original meaning, without any regard for politics or policy preferences. This Arizona case will go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Goodwin Liu, who believes in constitutional rights to healthcare and housing, and who says any judicial nominee who believes judges are bound by the words of the Constitution should be filibustered because they’re unfit for the bench—is President Obama’s nominee for the Ninth Circuit. This case highlights Liu’s radicalism, and draws the public’s attention to the extremists that the president seeks to put on the courts to rubber-stamp his agenda.

That this law has been put on hold by a federal judge is unfortunate. While Congress has overriding power to make immigration laws, states retain police power under the Tenth Amendment to make laws like Arizona’s. This case will focus America’s judicial debate on faithfulness to the Constitution and the limits of federal power, with implications for everything from Obamacare, to free speech, to gun rights.

Second, this spotlights the need for enforcement in immigration policy. America desperately needs an effective immigration policy that will fulfill our labor needs while upholding the rule of law. (Labor needs that can be met without granting citizenship.) But as Senator Jon Kyl explained, President Obama is holding border enforcement hostage to force amnesty. That’s no way to make policy, and this case focuses the frustration of the American people to secure the border first, and then we can all have a calm and thoughtful debate on how to deal with the broad questions of labor needs, citizenship, and the millions of illegals currently here.

And third, there’s a good chance that this decision will be reversed on appeal. Although the Ninth Circuit is the most liberal federal appellate court in the country (more so if Liu is confirmed), there are a number of originalist judges on that court, so depending on the judges Arizona draws for its three-judge panel, things could go well. Either way the U.S. Supreme Court likely will take this case after the Ninth Circuit reviews it, where the odds are good that Arizona’s law will be upheld.

So Wednesday was a bad day for the rule of law, but those cheering this decision may not be celebrating in the end. It reminds millions of Americans about what we expect from our government—and our courts.

From CBS News:

New York Congressman Charles Rangel has reportedly cut a deal to admit to ethical wrongdoing and avoid a potentially humiliating public trial.

Harlem friends of Rangel tell CBS 2 they have been told that the details could be unveiled when the House Ethics Committee meets Thursday afternoon.

“Sixty years ago I survived a Chinese attack in North Korea and as a result I wrote a book saying that I hadn’t had a bad day since,” Rangel said. “Today I have to reassess that statement.” In a sense, Thursday is Charlie Rangel’s war. He is battling to preserve his legacy of 40 years of congressional service in the face of ethics charges that, at the very least, will subject him to a humiliating process of having to admit ethical wrong doing.

Just what he will admit to and how he will do it remains to be seen. The punishment remains to be seen as well, but sources tell CBS 2 that at the end of the day, Rangel is not expected to be thrown out of Congress and that he is expected to run for reelection to a 21st term.

Earlier in the week, he told CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer that he feels his constituents will forgive him for anything that happens in the midst of the scandal.

“I’m confident that I’m going to win reelection,” he said.

Continue reading here.

As the August 6th bailout deadline approaches, when the federal government must either give ShoreBank $75 million or take it over entirely, new evidence is emerging about ShoreBank’s connections to Chicago politicians.

The latest revelations raise new questions about the possible role of Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, who is also the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in the upcoming November election.

Alexi Giannoulias (D) - Source: Crain's Chicago Business

Shortly after Giannoulias took office in 2007, the Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC), a state-run college fund, invested $12.7 million in ShoreBank. Some of ISAC’s funds came from parents who invested in Bright Start, a program to help them save for their children’s college tuition.

As of this week, according to Crain’s Chicago Business, ISAC’s ShoreBank stake has lost over 80% of its value–which not even a bailout will restore.

The $12.7 million investment was ISAC’s “first and only direct investment in a privately held company,” according to Daniels. Furthermore, ISAC’s investment made the tuition program the single largest shareholder in ShoreBank.

That same year, 2007, marked the beginning of ShoreBank’s financial decline, which we now know resulted from investments far outside the bank’s “traditional” market in poor communities on Chicago’s South Side.

As state treasurer, Giannoulias was responsible for ISAC, even though the decision to invest in ShoreBank was taken by ISAC’s executive director. His role in Bright Start, in particular, has been questioned before. On Giannoulias’s watch, Bright Start lost $150 million in a fund that invested in sub-prime mortgages. Giannoulias also bought an SUV for his office using $26,000 of Bright Start’s management fees.

Giannoulias has spun his record as a success. But there is no way to spin ISAC’s ShoreBank investment. No reasonable investor–not even one working for the government–would choose to buy the largest stake in a business specializing in risky loans as their first investment in a privately held company.

The only reasonable conclusion is that ISAC invested in ShoreBank for political, not financial, reasons.

The timing is especially suspicious. ISAC only invested in ShoreBank in 2007, after Giannoulias arrived in Springfield, and at a time when Giannoulias was actively involved in management changes at Bright Start.

Giannoulias should be asked about why ISAC chose to invest in ShoreBank, and about his role in the decision. He should also be asked whether the state participated in ShoreBank’s management decisions through ISAC.

There is much more to the ShoreBank story. Its patrons are running out of excuses, and running out of time.

From the Associated Press:

Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted an edited video of her making racially tinged remarks last week.

Sherrod made the announcement in San Diego at the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention.

The edited video posted by Andrew Breitbart led Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to ask her to resign, a decision he reconsidered after seeing the entire video of her March speech to a local NAACP group. In the full speech, Sherrod spoke of racial reconciliation and lessons she learned after initially hesitating to help a white farmer save his home.

Vilsack and President Barack Obama later called Sherrod to apologize for her hasty ouster. Vilsack has offered her a new job at the department, which she is still considering.

Obama said Thursday morning on ABC’s daytime talk show “The View” that the incident shows racial tensions still exist in America.

Continue reading here.

From the Orlando Sentinel:

If U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson were a rock star, his latest PR blitz — a DVD sent to tens of thousands of Central Florida residents — would be called Grayson’s Greatest Hits.

The 90-minute disc features video highlights from his first term in office, including one of him grilling Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and another in which the Orlando Democrat preaches on the need to teach schoolchildren about the U.S. Constitution.

The DVD comes wrapped inside a mailer covered with promotional slogans: “Congressman Alan Grayson, Hard at Work for You,” “He works hard. He pays attention. He gets things done,” and “Video DVD Inside: Watch Congressman Grayson in Action!”

In many ways, it’s the perfect campaign video — with one key difference.

Thanks to perks given to all members of Congress, it’s not Grayson’s campaign but taxpayers who footed the nearly $73,000 bill to produce and mail the DVD to 100,000 homes in Grayson’s district of Lake, Marion, Orange and Osceola counties.

It’s a stunt that drew howls from Republicans, who complained that Grayson was abusing the congressional privilege of franking that allows lawmakers to send taxpayer-paid newsletters and other mail to residents.

“This is an outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars, and it goes to show that Alan Grayson is completely out of touch with Central Florida,” said state Rep. Kurt Kelly of Ocala, one of seven Republicans looking to unseat Grayson this fall.

“This is just ridiculous behavior. What congressman would do this in the face of a huge budget deficit?” he asked.

Continue reading here. Color us unsurprised.

Between February 27, 2009, and today we learned something.

We learned that this administration is bent on subverting republican government. Article IV of the Constitution — and its guarantee of a republican form of government — means nothing to Obama, the Congressional majority, and Obama’s Supreme Court appointees. Obama rules by decree. Elena Kagan’s okay with banning books.

November 2 is our last chance to stop the free fall into tyranny.

In many states, including my home state of Missouri, passions rage in advance of the August 3 primary. I understand. To a degree, I helped enflame those passions by launching a tea party in February of last year.  But that was before we fully understood what’s going on in Washington—before we realized that Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats (not to mention Woody Allen and Ed Schultz) believe in tyranny.

On August 3 and November 2, I will follow the advice of the wisest man I every met, William F. Buckley Jr. Buckley’s rule for picking a candidate was simple: “Always support the rightward-most, viable candidate.” I would ask the same of everyone whose advanced the cause of liberty in the past seventeen months or longer.

Some good, sincere people want to tear down candidates they believe are less than ideal.  In some election years, I’m inclined to do the same.  But not this year. Not with what we know.

In 2010, we have a choice between liberty and tyranny.  The candidates of one party will vote with the President on every issue on which he demands their loyalty.  We saw this in healthcare. We saw it in finance “reform.” We saw it on stimulus. We saw it on budget reconciliation. The President’s party would vote for human extinction if Obama asked them to.

In such a perverted environment, I believe we have a duty to stop the descent into tyranny, even if that means supporting a candidate who falls short of our ideal. To tear down the rightward-most, viable candidate is to tear down the last the defense against tyranny. If that’s why we started the Tea Party movement, then I wish it had been still-born.

Put another way, between Hamilton and Jefferson, I’d choose Jefferson.  But I wouldn’t destroy one to elect the other.

Thursday morning at 12:01 a.m. local time, Arizona’s well publicized anti-illegal-immigration law will  finally go into effect.  Or at least parts of it will.  U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled today to block several provisions of the law that some consider controversial (even though these mimic federal law).   However, the judge has allowed the remainder of the law to move forward as planned while the case is being litigated.  This includes allowing the state of Arizona to stop rogue state officials from implementing “sanctuary city” policies, and allowing the state to pursue civil lawsuits over sanctuary cities.  In addition, Arizona will still be permitted to implement the portion of the law that makes it a crime to pick up day laborers, an issue that law enforcement and officials say has become a major problem in the state.

While yesterday’s ruling is being praised by opponents of the law, it won’t stop their protests, it will prolong them.  For years.  In fact, hordes of angry protesters are scheduled to descend upon the state first thing Thursday morning.  And the propaganda machine on the left continues to run at full speed, cranking out intentionally misleading statements, disinformation, and outright lies.  We’ve watched the boycotts.  We’ve watched as the protests have erupted into hate events, directed not from the right against illegal immigrants as the left portrays them, but from the left and illegal immigrants against peaceful people on the right (and many in the center!).

Meanwhile, as the left continues their manufactured barrage of anger at Andrew Breitbart for supposedly taking things out of context in the Shirley Sherrod story, they fabricate their own version of context propaganda on video in examples like this one from the SEIU:

The video’s description reads in part:

“This means that while the law will still take effect on July 29th, police will NOT be able to use racial profiling to inquire into a person’s immigration status.  But SB1070 doesn’t stop with racial profiling. Further militarizing the border with land mines and machine guns, and shutting off utilities are all policy “solutions” that extreme politicians are considering.  If we don’t stand up, these types of extreme laws may come to your state.  Watch this video to see the type of America that Republicans want to create for us.”

The video then proceeds with one of the most irresponsible pieces of manufactured propaganda that I’ve seen in some time.  Here’s the script that SEIU is feeding to illegal immigrants and to uninformed sympathizers on the left who are unable to think or to read the law for themselves.

As seen in this video a frame at a time,

If they [the Republicans] get everything they want, here’s what it’ll look like.

First they’ll cut the power.

Then they’ll round them up.

They’ll build a wall.  (Video cuts to clips of Nazi Germany building the Berlin Wall)

They’ll turn our border into a war zone and mine field. (Video cuts to clips of bombs exploding)

And then, finally, they’ll intern undocumented workers in camps – or tent cities.

Haven’t we seen this before?  (Video cuts to old video and edited news footage depicting interned Japanese after Pearl Harbor)

These bad ideas are coming to a state near you.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

This is disgusting.

Let’s pause for a moment.  Consider the importance of context with as much emphasis as was placed on it with respect to the Sherrod story.  Also consider the significance of some of the historical events that are depicted in the video alongside said “context”, and how drastically such history has been degraded by the insinuation that this is the case today.  Lastly, think about the portrayal of the images and of the information in the video – much like the insurance companies were chided by the left during the health care debate for cooking up “fishy information”, the SEIU projects a blatantly false portrayal of what the Arizona law really represents.

Where is the Reality Check from Linda Douglass in the White House today?  Where is the government snitch program through flag@whitehouse.gov?  Where is Media Matters for America on this one?

As if this video wasn’t enough to demonstrate the irresponsible nature of the SEIU’s “information” distribution, there is also this gem the SEIU has been peddling.

“A Nation of Immigrants”,  “The Story of Immigration is the Story of America.”  Well, surprisingly for the SEIU, those are actually correct statements.  Unfortunately, the context around the information in the video is not.  You see, the SEIU intentionally misleads viewers of the video by omitting any reference of the word “illegal” or anything like it.  The video attempts to convince the viewer that those who oppose the left’s plan for “comprehensive immigration reform,” which includes amnesty for all illegals in the country, oppose immigration.  This is simply not the case.  The SEIU and so many others on the left, including much of the liberal media, have repeatedly positioned the argument in this fashion, all the while portraying good Americans as “racist” and “full of hate”.

Let me refer to some of my own background for a moment to provide a little “context” for our friends on the left.

I have an interesting family history.  My great-grandparents immigrated to the US in the early 1900’s from Syria and Lebanon.  They waited years to become citizens; my great-grandmother, with whom I was close as a child, used to tell me their stories.  My great-grandfather and his brother had to make several trips back and forth between Lebanon and the US over a period of many years before they finally made their way through Ellis Island for the last time.  It took years to get all of their family members all over here in the US, back together again as one family.  Perhaps that appreciation for family is what keeps us meeting for family reunions every year, still to this very day.

On the other side, I also have my stepfather’s family history.  My mother was remarried when I was about 12 years old.  My stepfather’s parents immigrated here from Iran, as did several others from his family.  His father was a high-level decorated officer in the Iranian military.  His mother was a Polish citizen who was eventually removed from Poland and sent to a labor camp in Iran after the Nazis murdered her first  husband, leaving her alone with a small child, my stepfather’s oldest sister.  My stepfather’s parents met while his father was guarding the labor camp where his mother and sister were interned.  When his sister became gravely ill and the camp had no penicillin to save her life, it was his Iranian father who went to extremes to obtain penicillin, which was like gold at that time.  He rode great distances by horse to retrieve the medicine and bring it into the camp and save that child’s life.  Years later, the two married, and his father made his way to the US to make a home for them embraced by the freedom of our country.  She joined him here years later, and they’d had several more children, including my stepfather.

Despite their dire situations, their hardships, and their lack of financial means, all of my family members came into this country legally.  They all went through painstaking efforts to earn that entry.  They all loved this country immensely and often voiced this appreciation aloud.  I could tell story after story about my family members’ journeys, and about their lives as legal US citizens.  I summarize this background merely to demonstrate that there is a difference between those who are here illegally, and those who played by the rules and patiently made their way here legally.  It is an insult to all of the legal immigrants in this great country to act as though the rules don’t matter and should simply be tossed away.  It would hurt my great-grandparents and my step-grandparents to see the propaganda and hear the false rhetoric of the left on this issue.

As Americans, we all recognize that immigration is a difficult and complex issue that has no simple solution.  But before we can really address a realistic solution of any sort, the propaganda and the race-baiting and immigrant-baiting must stop.  Insincere and irresponsible videos such as these only harm the debate, and create unnecessary conflict and fear in communities where it need not exist.  These policies of fear are not at all the policies that the other side has been proposing.

It’s all about the context.

Yes, we are a nation of immigrants.  And my own family is very proud of their legal immigration to the US.  If only all of our great-grandparents were still alive today – if others were anything like mine were, I think we’d see a tremendous amount of respect, dignity and sincerity brought to this debate.  Most importantly, I know they’d have brought plenty of honesty.  And that’s something I haven’t seen a lot of in the agit-prop coming from the likes of the SEIU.  I know my great-grandparents would have been ashamed to see such treachery.

Liberals have always taken the long view to government control. Most understand that getting Obamacare passed was just the first step. Now that they have control of the nation’s healthcare the real change can be brought about.

Speaking at the Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas, Reid promised the left wing bloggers that “we will have a public option. Its just a matter of when.”

For those who think that the healthcare battle is over, this should be a wake up call. Until the most onerous portions of Obamacare are repealed, they will keep chipping away until they get what they really want—British style single payer government run healthcare.

This week, we’ve been reporting on the FDA’s attempt to de-label the drug Avastin for late stage breast cancer patients. This case provides valuable insights into how things are going to work.

With absolute control over every process, the government will be free to replace the judgments of patients and doctors with the whims of bureaucrats and government bean counters.

Something ominous is happening within the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama will soon have to start paying attention. For weeks now, James Carville has been railing against the Obama administration’s handling of the oil spill in the Gulf. On Tuesday, Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania, added further fuel to the flames by issuing a warning. If Obama did not start pulling troops out of Afghanistan in July, 2011 as promised, he predicted that there would be a political insurrection within the party and that the President might face a primary challenge. It is in no way surprising that the Republicans have revived Hillary Clinton’s famous “3 a.m.” political advertisement and have given it a new spin, for they smell blood in the water. “Hillary was right,” they say. After the oil spill, the proverbial telephone rang and rang and rang, and the President . . . golfed, partied with celebrities, and went on vacation again and again.

Carville and Rendell have this in common. They are Democrats; they are fiercely partisan; and they were strong supporters of Hillary Clinton during the primaries back in 2008. Their maneuvers should perhaps be read in light of an op-ed piece that Leslie Gelb published in The Wall Street Journal back in the middle of June, suggesting that, when Robert Gates retires, Hillary be made the first female Secretary of Defense; that, in 2012, she be put on the ticket in place of Joe Biden; and that Biden be awarded the booby prize and be named Secretary of State.

I have no idea whether Gelb ran his piece past the Clintons before publishing it. But I would not be surprised. He, too, is a restless, frustrated, critical Democrat on the outs, and the scenario that he paints is by no means ridiculous. Joe Biden is not an asset, and Barack Obama views him with obvious disdain. Bill Clinton is a talented campaigner and a master in the art of staging comebacks, and in 2012 Hillary might be able to turn out a host of white women to vote for Obama who would otherwise sit on their hands.

As it happens, on Saturday, President Obama will have a priceless opportunity that he would be ill-advised to pass up. On that fateful day, in Rhinebeck, New York, on the estate of John Jacob Astor IV, if the rumors are borne out, Chelsea Clinton will marry Marc Mezvinsky in the presence of 400 of their parents’ best friends. And, although Bill Clinton is not a Sicilian, he would certainly be hard-pressed on so auspicious a day to deny anyone who asked of him a favor – least of all a sitting President of the United States who came to him, saying, May their first child be a masculine child!

For such an interchange, the circumstances should be ideal. Apart from former Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards and former Democratic Presidential nominee Al Gore – who are, not to put too fine a point on it, indisposed, and whose recent difficulties might have the unfortunate effect of reminding attendees and the general public of past indiscretions on the part of the father of the bride – virtually everybody who is anybody in the Democratic establishment is likely to be in attendance.

The atmosphere should be just right. Chelsea’s intended is also connected. His mother, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinksy, represented Pennsylvania in Congress from 1993 to 1995 and was the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor there in 1998. His father, Ed Mezvinsky, represented Iowa in Congress from 1973 to 1977, chaired the Pennsylvania State Democratic Committee, and was the Democratic nominee for Attorney General in that state in 1988. Moreover, shortly after the beginning of the new millennium, the groom’s father, who is known in law-enforcement circles as Fast-Talkin’ Eddie, was convicted on 31 counts of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud, and two years ago he was released from prison. Upon request, I am sure that Fast-Talkin’ Eddie would be willing to arrange a meeting with the goodfella affectionately known to one and all as Slick Willie.

Of former President Clinton could we not say something like what Mario Puzo once wrote concerning another powerful individual?

Don Vito Corleone was a man to whom everybody came for help, and never were they disappointed. He made no empty promises, nor the craven excuse that his hands were tied by more powerful forces in the world than himself. It was not necessary that he be your friend, it was not even important that you had no means with which to repay him. Only one thing was required. That you, you yourself, proclaim your friendship. And then, no matter how poor or powerless the supplicant, Don Corleone would take that man’s troubles to his heart. And he would let nothing stand in the way to a solution of that man’s woe. His reward? Friendship, the respectful title of ‘Don,’ and sometimes the more affectionate salutation of ‘God father.’ And perhaps, to show respect only, never for profit, some humble gift – a gallon of homemade wine or a basket of peppered taralles specially baked to grace his Christmas table. It was understood, it was mere good manners, to proclaim that you were in his debt and that he had the right to call upon you at any time to redeem your debt by some small service.

I should think that Marc Rich and many another figure in debt to Barack Obama’s prospective benefactor could testify to the truth of such a claim. William Jefferson Clinton is known to everybody as a generous man, and he, too, has a taste for peppered taralles . . . of one sort or another.

Of course, in these propitious circumstances, should President Obama come hat in hand to speak with former President Clinton in the library at the Astor estate in Rhinebeck, one could easily imagine the latter asking the former, Why didn’t you come to me at the beginning of this affair? One can even imagine him speaking in a voice like cold death and saying something like the following: We have known each other many years, you and I, but until this day you never came to me for counsel or help. I can’t remember the last time you invited me to your house for coffee though my wife is your Secretary of State. Let us be frank. You spurned my friendship.  You feared to be in my debt. The Democratic Party’s capo di tutti capi might even bring the conversation to a temporary halt with a single question: Why do you fear giving your first allegiance to me?

I cannot imagine Barack Obama enjoying such an exchange any more than the appropriately named Amerigo Bonasera enjoyed the interview with Don Corleone depicted in the opening scene to Godfather I. But to something of the sort he may soon have to submit. He might have saved himself a great deal of trouble had he taken the advice I offered him in a post on this site back in January and consulted the Comeback Kid at that time. Of course, even then, as I made clear, it was doubtful whether our President could have saved many of his associates in Congress. But neither he nor his predecessor cares one whit for the Democratic Party.

In any case, by now, both surely have their eyes on 2012, and in the two years that follow the thumping that the Democrats are going to get this November Bill Clinton and his minions could do a great deal for Barack Obama if they were willing. To start with, were our current President to give his first allegiance to his predecessor, I am confident that Carville, Rendell, and Gelb would start singing a different tune.

And who knows? On Monday, Dick Morris might get a call.

UPDATE: Something more ominous seems to be in the offing. Michael Barone reports that President Obama has not even been invited to the wedding. Could this mean that Slick Willie, Fast-Talkin’ Eddie, and the Ragin’ Cajun are planning to go to the mattresses?

Today, President Barack Obama takes time out of his schedule to appear on “The View.” It will be like softball played with sugar-coated bon-bons. In another dimension, this might be funny.

So after this whole Shirley Sherrod thing, I’m thinking, Andrew Breitbart has a point.

Let’s review:

1. The Tea Party was born, causing a frightened media to drum up accusations of racism
2. Later, Congressman John Lewis claims Tea Partiers shouted the “N-word” at him. The press runs with it. Breitbart posts a $100K reward for evidence. None comes.
3. The NAACP creates a race-baiting resolution to smear the Tea Party.
4. Breitbart responds with the Sherrod video – becoming the first conservative to use leftist tactics on the left.
5. It works: the White House and the NAACP look stupid.

Moving on, from the Powerline blog, New York Times reporter Matt Bai writes this of the Tea Party movement on July 17th:

There have been scattered reports around the country of racially charged rhetoric within the [Tea Party] movement, most notably just before the vote on the new health care law last March, when Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, the legendary civil rights leader, was showered with hateful epithets outside the Capitol.

And then last Sunday, the Times ran this correction:

The Political Times column last Sunday…erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members.

So while the media goes nuts over Sherrod, they completely ignore the fact that the most racially charged accusation one could ever make, never happened.

What…no apologies?

See, race politics only works one way – as a method to disarm Obama critics. As the former head of the Civil Rights Commission, Mary Frances Berry said, it’s “a means of diverting attention away from other issues.” Dem pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen point out in the Wall Street Journal that while youth unemployment among whites is 23.2%, among blacks it’s nearly 40%.

Guess that’s Breitbart’s fault too. (Racist!)

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist, homophobic bedbug.

Tonight, we’ve got…

the lovely Lauren Sivan!

comedian Paul Mecurio!

commentator Steven Crowder!

and maybe a robot or two!

In an interview with Politico, Mary Frances Berry — a former chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights last reappointed by President Bill Clinton — called the progressive tactic of trying to smear the tea party movement as racist an “effective strategy” that she chose not to denounce.

Berry’s cynical remarks are drawing rebukes for members of the Project 21 black leadership network.

“As an active participant in the tea party movement, I know the movement’s motivation is about Obama’s policies and not his race,” said Deneen Borelli, a Project 21. “Race card politics is the last-ditch effort to shift the debate away from President Obama’s harmful policies such as the government’s takeover of health care and his failure to create jobs — both of which are having an impact on his popularity. This diversion may also help Obama to try to jam through cap-and-trade legislation through Congress. It’s a grand distraction from policies and may unfortunately increase racial tensions.”

In an interview posted on the Politico web site, Berry — now the Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought and History at the University of Pennsylvania — was asked the question “[W]ill branding the tea party ‘racist’ work?” Berry replied:

Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.

“This is exactly the kind of thing that has irked me all of my adult life, to put it mildly,” said Project 21 member R. Dozier Gray. “This willful and purposeful use of the race card for nothing more than political gain is toxic to race relations, and Mary Frances Berry must know that. But she evidently does not care. Based on her comment, political posturing takes primacy over whatever real issues regarding race that she might pretend are her calling cards. I have seen this all before. I find it shameful.

Project 21 member Bob Parks added: “What’s most disturbing about this very public quote? Not only is Mary Frances Berry making this comment without fear of admonishment, and that progressives have apparently embraced and are employing these very shameful, race-baiting tactics — but Berry is likely teaching this “social thought” hate to children.”

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives since 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org).

From the Associated Press:

A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona’s immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation’s toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge’s order overturned.

But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places—a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

“Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,” Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.

She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

Continue reading here.

Last year, President Obama promised to focus “every single day” on getting Americans back to work:

“My commitment to you, the American people, is that I will focus every single day on how we can get people back to work, and how we can build an economy that continues to make real the promise of America for generations to come.”

Of course, today the President seemed to take a mulligan on his jobs’ vigil, opting instead to do a taping of “The View” and attending a few fundraisers in NYC.  But not to worry, just yesterday, one of the President’s staunchest allies, Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) introduced legislation to amend the Stimulus legislation to promote an obviously important component of sustained economic growth:

By Mr. CLYBURN:

H.R. 5878. A bill to amend the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make funds and tax benefit available to assist job creation and workforce diversification in the golf industry, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Of course, in a certain way, this makes perfect sense.

From the blog White House Dossier:

President Barack Obama has played a remarkable 41 rounds of golf since becoming president, easily outpacing his predecessor and possibly damaging his ability to portray himself in 2012 as a populist advocate of average folks.

With the excursions lasting on average at least five hours, the president has devoted a total of more than 200 hours to golf, not counting time spent on the White House putting green. That’s the equivalent of twenty five eight-hour work days, or five work weeks spent smacking golf balls.

The former community organizer’s 41 trips around the links – a standard of recreational activity well beyond the budgets of most Americans – compares to only 24 total outings for former President George W. Bush, according to statistics compiled by White House chronicler Mark Knoller of CBS News. Bush, whose golf outings were used to help deride him as a callow, lazy, rich boy, played his 24th and last round on Oct. 13, 2003, saying he was ending the practice out of respect for the families of Americans killed in Iraq.

Since the April 20 explosion that killed 11 rig workers and started the Gulf oil spill, Obama has teed up seven times, according to White House Dossier’s count. This includes back to back sessions April 23 and 24 while on vacation at the Grove Park Resort & Spa in Asheville, NC, just days after the crisis began.

Now, here I had thought these golf outings were simply a little recreational break for the First Golfer. It looks like there were actually some kind of economic fact-finding missions. Having immersed himself in the nation’s golfing sector, he’s ready to mobilize the federal government and do whatever it is that sector needs. I guess Obama really meant it when he said he would focus “every single day” on creating jobs… even while golfing!

When I realized that this week is the 30th Anniversary of this, well…let’s just say I bow to the One’s brilliance.

Politicians on the losing side of an issue or argument tend to look for a way to change the subject or redirect the debate to put their opponent on the defensive.

In today’s politically correct world, liberals invariably try to change the subject by charging as loudly and as widely as possible that their opponents are racists. Thus, opponents of ObamaCare were racists, the Tea Partiers are racists, Andrew Breitbart is a racist, and Fox News or anyone to the right of, say, Nancy Pelosi is a racist.

It is possible that a few of the folks who throw such charges around actually believe that everyone who differs with them is racially motivated, but most play the race card because it seems to work. This cynical willingness to exploit racial hatred for political or ideological purposes comes through most clearly in the e-mail traffic among the liberal journalists who frequented and perhaps plotted strategy on Journolist, the now happily defunct listserv e-mail discussion group recently outed by Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller.

Ezra Klein, a former Howard Dean campaign walker currently employed by The Washington Post, had hosted an e-mail discussion group among as many as 400 liberal journalists, hacks and academics who during the course of the 2008 presidential campaign actively discussed how to promote Barack Obama and smear his critics.

Those who were a part of Journolist are today attacking Carlson for publishing “off-the-record” conversations among friends that were never intended to see the light of day. It’s a curious defense from men and women who in the course of their daily employment regularly violate the privacy of those about whom they write, but even a cursory reading of what Carlson has thus far published explains why they are so upset.

Whether the published material “proves” the 400 participants were involved in an active conspiracy to distort news coverage to benefit Obama is not as surprising as the way some suggested maligning the motives and personal character of Obama’s critics as a legitimate way to advance their position without any real pushback from others on the list.

Thus, when the Jeremiah Wright story surfaced and seemed to threaten Obama’s momentum, Journolist participants were outraged and dogged in pursuing ways to neutralize the story, defend Wright and Obama or change the subject. Some were willing to ignore the Wright-Obama connection and hope the story would die; others suggested more active measures. Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent believed he knew just how to change the subject. What liberal journalists should do, he wrote, was to pick out one of Obama’s harshest critics and target him as a racist. To Ackerman, it didn’t matter whom they chose to defame: “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares  — and call him a racist.”

Think for a minute about what he was suggesting. To protect their candidate and change the subject, Ackerman seriously suggested to as many as 400 of his colleagues that they make a concerted effort to destroy the reputation, and perhaps the career, of a journalist with whom they disagreed. Let’s call him a racist, Ackerman argued, not because he is and not because we have any evidence to support such a charge, but because doing so will change the subject and intimidate his colleagues.

One would expect outrage in response, but there apparently wasn’t any. Even those on the list who wouldn’t consider following such cynical advice or who shied away from the idea of rhetorically convicting an innocent man of racism weren’t outraged enough to expose Ackerman as a modern-day McCarthyite for whom the ends would clearly justify any means.

Ackerman’s colleagues didn’t march out en masse to follow his suggestion, but many of them obviously share his penchant for cavalierly exploiting racial tensions to advance their agenda. No mainstream journalist covering the protests at the Capitol prior to the passage of the Obama healthcare bill questioned the claim that Tea Partiers hurled racial epithets and spit on minority members of Congress working their way through the crowd, though no tape or independent verification of these allegations has ever come to light. And now these same people are outraged over what they saw as Andrew Breitbart’s failure to exercise sufficient “due diligence” in the Shirley Sherrod case.

These folks aren’t just biased; they’re willing to condone or cover up lying and recklessness in the effort to achieve the results they favor.

And they dare call themselves journalists.

This column originally appeared in The Hill.

How bad is the fallout over the NAACP’s and Obama Administration’s handling of the Shirley Sherrod affair? This bad.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c Lost in Race www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party