This morning, USA Today/Gallup released their latest survey of 12 battleground states. The poll, conducted at the end of June, found Obama and Romney essentially tied in the swing states, with Obama pulling 47% to 45% for Romney. Nationally, Obama leads Romney among all registered voters, 48-44. The paper tried to use today's poll to argue that Obama's attacks on Bain Capitol were hurting Romney. But, the results suggest almost the opposite. 

USAToday/Gallup doesn't make internal poll details readily available. Its hard for us to know whether the sample of battleground states is properly weighted or if the partisan screen on the poll is realistic. However, this poll is an ongoing series, allowing us to compare the poll's findings across time. Even if the sample is biased, it is consistently biased over the series, providing us with a meaningful comparison. The battleground poll released in April, after Romney had effectively secured the GOP nomination, found Obama with a sizable lead in the swing states; 51% to Romney's 42%. So, in the last two months, Obama's "effective" barrage of negative ads on Bain Capital have resulted in his numbers falling 4 points and Romney's climbing 3 points. 

More success like that and Obama will confirm his legacy as this century's first Jimmy Carter.

Keep in mind, since the April poll, the Obama campaign has spent almost $50 million on TV ads, against Romney's $17 million. As my colleague, Joel Pollak, notes this morning, over three-fourths of Obama's ad spending has been on negative ads, chiefly attacks on Romney and his time at Bain Capital. Virtually all of these ads have been run in battleground states. If the attacks were so effective, why has Obama lost ground in the swing states since the start of the barrage and why does he have a slightly larger lead in states where the ads haven't run?  

Indeed, USA Today notes that the Bain attack ads have generally only been effective in bringing Democrats back into the Obama fold:

To be sure, Obama's ads have done more to win back Democrats than to win over independents or Republicans: Thirteen percent of Democrats say their minds have been changed by ads, compared with 9% of independents and 3% of Republicans.

The paper also notes that, while virtually all the swing state voters recall the ads, only around 8% of registered voters say they have had any impact on their voting intentions. Obama has enjoyed an almost 3-1 advertising advantage, an edge he is unlikely to enjoy for the rest of the campaign, and not only has the needle not moved, it has arguably moved against him. It seems the attacks have only worked with the media and the DC GOP mandarins whose favorite parlor game is to wring their hands over others' campaign decisions. 

Several weeks ago, I wrote that Obama has a real problem in Pennsylvania. The lefty twitter-sphere had a grand time making fun of me for this. And yet, last week, where did Obama take his campaign bus? Western Pennsylvania. You don't spend time campaign in states you are confident of winning. 

But, I missed something important about Obama's swing through PA and Northern Ohio that Michael Barone noted. The areas where Obama campaigned are bastions of the blue-collar vote in these states. Walter Mondale beat Reagan in the areas where Obama campaigned. If the Obama campaign is worried about a traditionally democrat area, how are they going to make inroads with the critical independent voters? How would the media report if Romney were campaigning in traditionally Republican areas?

Obama is in serious trouble in the swing states. Don't believe what a campaign says, believe what it does. When an incumbent president, who just four years ago had won GOP states, now has to shore up support within his own party just four months before an election, you know things aren't working according to plan. 

Follow me on Twitter here. 

It may go down as the biggest banking scandal in history, and yet many Americans have not even heard about it.

The LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) scandal is a big deal, and so far no one knows just how deep the ruse ran.   Put simply, the LIBOR rate is the rate at which banks get funds from other banks.  The scandal:  Barclays—and potentially other banks—allegedly tried to rig the rate.  So far, Barclays has paid $455 million in fines to U.S. and U.K. regulators.   

The LIBOR rate is a benchmark interest rate used to set an estimated $800 trillion in financial instruments.  That’s not a typo--$800 trillion.  As Christopher Barker of the Motley Fool financial blog explains:

The LIBOR benchmark rates that are tied to an estimated $800 trillion of securities, the offending banks essentially played with matches in the middle of the world's largest house of leveraged cards. The combined gross domestic product of all the nations of the world is only about $70 trillion, so the towering mountain of LIBOR-connected securities out there climbs into the realm of leveraged derivatives like those that nearly brought the global financial system to its knees at the height of the 2008 credit crisis.

That, says The Economist , would make the LIBOR scandal the biggest in history:

If attempts to manipulate LIBOR were successful—and the regulators think that Barclays did manage it, on occasion—then this would be the biggest securities fraud in history, affecting investors and borrowers around the world. That opens the door to litigation not just by the direct customers of implicated banks, but by anyone with a financial interest in LIBOR.

As the AgainstCronyCapitalism.org blog points out, you know a banking scandal is bad when Bloomberg News calls for bankers to go to jail.   Quoth the editors of Bloomberg News:

We don’t countenance bank bashing. Nor have we ever called on regulators to bust up big banks. But it’s difficult to defend an industry that defrauds the market with fake interest-rate figures, thereby stealing from other banks and customers.

Sadly, the Libor case reveals something rotten in today’s banking culture. We hope the investigations expose the bad actors, lead to jail terms for those who knowingly manipulated the market, and force out the senior managers and board directors who participated in, or overlooked, such conduct.

The worst part is that no one yet knows how deep the scandal ran, or how many bad actors may have been involved.   But as the Motley Fool financial blog ominously observed today:  “If a dozen or more banks can collectively manipulate something as central to the everyday functioning of our economic system as LIBOR, and in the process play games with an $800 trillion mountain of leveraged securities, is there any corner of our financial markets that can be deemed safe from such reckless and deceptive behavior?”

It's a question investors may not know the answer to for some time. 

I'm not a big fan of government conspiracy theories, largely because the people in Washington are too bloody incompetent to do anything effectively. Heck, sometimes they can't even waste money properly even though they have lots of practice.

But it recently crossed my mind that maybe President Obama was born in Denmark. Not in a serious way, of course, but you'll understand my thought process when you read this passage from a report by the government-appointed Danish Economic Council. It doesn't mention the Laffer Curve, but the report openly states that an increase in the top tax rate would lose revenue because of changes in taxpayer behavior.

...increased taxation on high income earners in Denmark at best is revenue neutral, and may even reduce total tax revenue. This result applies whether one considers the top 10, the top 5 or the top 1 per cent income group. ...Using the base estimate of the elasticity of taxable labour income of 0.2, the conclusion is thus that the existing Danish tax system implies an effective tax rate on high income earners that is above - though close to - the tax rate that generates the highest tax revenue. ...As an example, the revenue effect of an increase in the marginal tax rate by 6 percentage points for high-income earners is calculated. Using the base estimate of the behavioural response to taxation, this leads to a revenue loss of about ½ billion DKK. ...Overall, the scope for acquiring extra tax revenue from high income earners in Denmark is very limited.

Yet there are some politicians in Denmark who want to raise tax rates, even though the damage to the economy will be so significant that the government loses revenue!

If you're thinking this sounds familiar, you probably remember President Obama's infamous statement during the 2008 campaign that he wanted to raise the capital gains tax rate for reasons of "fairness" regardless of whether tax revenues decreased (if you think I'm somehow exaggerating or distorting his words, just go to the 4:20 mark of this video).

By the way, the Danish study probably understates how much revenue the government would lose. Their base estimate about the elasticity of taxable labor income (economist jargon for how sensitive labor income is to changes in tax rates) is much lower than Alan Reynolds reported in his recent Wall Street Journal column.

Rich people, unlike the rest of us, have tremendous ability to change the timing, composition, and level of their income, which is a big reason why upper-income taxpayers paid much more to the IRS in the 1980s after President Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent.

I'm constantly amazed - in a bad way - that politicians and bureaucrats have been so successful in resisting the insights of the Laffer Curve. The U.S. Treasury Department, for instance, is to the left of the Danish Economic Council and basically assumes that tax policy has no impact on economic performance. The same can be said about the Joint Committee on Taxation on Capitol Hill.

This has to be a case of leftist ideology trumping reality, because the evidence for the Laffer Curve is quite powerful - some of it even being produced by international bureaucracies.

• Such as this study by economists from the University of Chicago and Federal Reserve.
• Or this study by the IMF, which not only acknowledges the Laffer Curve, but even suggests that the turbo-charged version exists.
• Or this European Central Bank study showing substantial Laffer-Curve effects.
• Or this research from the American Enterprise Institute about the Laffer Curve for the corporate income tax.

None of this is to suggest that "all tax cuts pay for themselves." That only happens in unusual cases where a group of taxpayers - such as wealthy entrepreneurs and investors - have considerable flexibility in their economic affairs.

In most cases, the government will collect more revenue when tax rates increase. This is because the impact of the change in the tax rate is larger than the impact of the change in taxable income.

But the real question is whether it is ever a good idea to reduce private economic output in order to give politicians more money to spend. To sensible people, that's the most important insight of the Laffer Curve.

P.S. While this discussion has focused on the foolishness of setting tax rates so high that the government loses revenue, this does not mean politicians should seek the revenue-maximizing tax rate. The ideal point on the Laffer Curve is the growth-maximizing tax rate.

Another day, another Obama campaign e-mail. Today, they’re pushing the meme that Republicans want to destroy the economy. The e-mail, titled “We crunched the numbers, and …” details the fundraising problems of the Obama campaign. Then it tells the public that should they send cash because Republicans are nasty, brutish people who want to see Americans suffer:

Benjamin --

Well, I've got some good news and some bad news.

Good news first: June was our best fundraising month yet. We exceeded expectations -- more than 706,000 people like you stepped up and pitched in for a grand total of $71 million raised for this campaign and the Democratic Party.

Bravo. That's seriously impressive.

Bad news? We still got beat. Handily. Romney and the RNC pulled in a whopping $106 million.

So, to recap: We had our best fundraising month yet, and we still fell about $35 million short. We can win while being outspent -- but we need to keep it close.

You know what that means. We've got some work to do.

Pitch in $3 or more right now to start closing the gap.

This is no joke. If we can't keep the money race close, it becomes that much harder to win in November.

But this election isn't about how much money our campaigns can raise -- none of us would be fighting this hard just to win a money war. We're here because we believe in something bigger -- because none of us wants to see this country go back to the policies that drove our economy into a ditch, which is exactly what the other side wants to do.

Whatever it is that brings you to this fight, what happens next is up to you. Donate today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/June-Numbers

- Ann Marie

Ann Marie Habershaw

Chief Operating Officer

Obama for America

The implication of this e-mail is clear: Republicans are malicious, wanting to purposefully go “back to the policies that drove our economy into a ditch.” What’s the point of this sort of rhetoric? It all ties in with the Obama campaign’s focus on class warfare. The only real reason Republicans would want to destroy the economy all over again, says the Obama campaign, is to benefit their coterie of super-wealthy donors.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post pushes pieces linking Obama’s middle-class “tax cuts” – which, in fact, are middle-to-upper-class tax increases – to Romney fundraising in rich zip codes. Coincidence? Hardly. It’s all part of a concerted attempt to paint Republicans as the party of the wealthy, unconcerned with ordinary Americans.

The media, frustrated with Obama's struggles in the polls, have recently tried to spin, against most real evidence, that the Romney campaign is "in trouble" and in desperate need of a "staff shake-up." Never mind that Romney, who has been outspent 3-1 the past three months and has been subjected to a withering negative ad barrage is essentially tied with Obama in the battleground states. Or, that he raised $35 million more than Obama last month. The media, and some of their DC GOP allies, simply insist that the Romney campaign is in trouble and seek out any shred of evidence to confirm their view. Their latest "sign" is the return of 08 Romney aide Kevin Madden to the 2012 campaign. 

The New York Times dutifully spun the news on Friday:

Kevin Madden, a Republican communications expert with long ties to Mitt Romney, will become a more frequent and visible spokesman for the presidential campaign, a source close to the decision said on Friday.

The increased responsibilities for Mr. Madden came in the wake of criticism from nervous Republicans about Mr. Romney’s campaign team. The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial that the campaign “looks confused in addition to being politically dumb.”

What The Times reporter, Michael Shear, failed to note, however, is that Madden was a long-time aide to top Hill Republicans and a close aide to Speaker John Boehner when he was Majority Leader. Virtually every "profile" article on Speaker Boehner, in fact, will include a positive quote from Mr. Madden. 

The media may console itself that Madden's hire is a sign of a "staff shake-up" in Team Romney. I think, however, its a sign of deeper ties and closer coordination between the Hill GOP and Romney.  

This weekend The Hill reported on the growing bond between Romney and Boehner:

Mitt Romney and John Boehner have known each other for years, but the bond between the would-be president and the House Speaker has become stronger in recent weeks, according to GOP insiders.

The two men have not appeared many times in public, but sources say they and their staffs are in constant contact.

And yes, that article also quoted Mr. Madden. Romney doesn't need a "staff shake-up," but closer coordination with Congressional GOP could make for a more powerful campaign. That's what the Madden hire was about. 

Follow me on Twitter here.

The Washington Monument, which has been closed to visitors since the August 23, 2011 5.8 earthquake centered 38 mi northwest of Richmond, Virginia, will require huge scaffolding around it during repairs and may be closed until 2014. The earthquake was the largest to have occurred east of the Rocky Mountains since the 5.8 quake on the New York–Ontario border in 1944, and before that, the quake centered in Giles County in western Virginia in 1897.

600,000 people visit the Monument every year. Engineers said the worst damage is between 475 feet and 530 feet on the structure, but panels are damaged from top to bottom. Thus the scaffolding is vital for proper repair.

The park service estimates the repair will cost $15 million and hopes to award a contract and begin work by September.

The scaffolding that will be built for the repair project will be similar to one used for the refurbishment of the monument's exterior in 1999 and 2000. Officials hope to use a decorative cover for the metal scaffolding, similar to a covering used 12 years ago that proved popular with the public when it was lit at night. The $15 million will be derived from two sources: Congress, which will fund $7.5 million, and Carlyle Group co-founder David Rubenstein, who has pledged the other $7.5 million.

Benjamin Jealous, the race-baiting head of the NAACP, tried to follow the Obama administration’s lead and cry racism at every opportunity at the NAACP convention, comparing the NAACP’s “fight” against voter ID laws that have been passed in several states to the civil rights battles of the 1960s, calling the present day "Selma and Montgomery times”:  

"We must overwhelm the rising tide of voting suppression with the high tide of registration and mobilization and motivation and protection. Simply put, the NAACP will never stand by as any state tries to encode discrimination into law.”

The “rising tide of voter suppression”? Because at least 10 states have passed laws requiring people to show a government-issued photo identification card when they vote? Because conservatives don’t want the nation to act like Chicago, where your great-great-great uncle Joe who fought in the Civil War will vote for President Obama?

Cloaking his diatribe in his love for democracy, Jealous continued:

Our democracy is literally under attack from within. We have wealthy interests seeking to buy elections and when that ain't enough, suppress the vote. There is no battle that is more important or urgent to the NAACP right now than the battle to preserve democracy itself. Let me be very clear, our right to vote is the right upon which our ability to defend every other right is leveraged. If you let someone diminish the power of your vote you will already have lost a battle.

So he’s interested in democracy, eh? Let’s take a look at the man whom Andrew Breitbart told to go to hell. From his speech at the 2010 NAACP convention:

One resolution, which was highlighted in my convention speech, created media frenzy: the unanimously passed resolution demanded that the leadership of the Tea Party repudiate its racist elements and make it clear that there is no space in the organization for bigotry …

Like Stormfront.org, a website founded by former KKK leader Don Black, the Council celebrates its allegiance to and influence in the Tea Party. The avowed racist David Duke notes that thousands of Tea Party activists have urged him to run for president. When the Tea Party marches by, Duke thinks it’s his fiesta …  We have all seen the blatantly racist signs portraying President Obama as a monkey. We have seen the press conference with the civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis describing how he was spit on and called the N-word … 

Jealous is a liar, and the left’s attempt to block those of us who believe that a voter should be properly identified should surprise no one who ever studied JFK’s victory over Richard Nixon. If Jealous really believed in democracy, he would bless the Tea Party for its stalwart attempts to defend it, and applaud those who seek to protect its honesty and integrity.

In a stunning blow to the Senatorial hopes of Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), the House Ethics Committee today unanimously voted to open an investigative subcommittee into conflict of interest charges stemming from her alleged attempts to direct cash toward the kidney health care industry – and, in particular, toward her husband, who runs the Kidney Specialists of Southern Nevada. Breitbart News led the charge in demanding investigation into Berkley's activities.

The House Ethics Committee, chaired by Rep. Jo Bonner (R-AL) and ranking member Rep. Linda T. Chavez (D-CA), released the following statement:

In accordance with Clause 3 of House Rule XI and Committee Rules 14(a)(3) and 18, the Committee on Ethics (the Committee) unanimously voted on June 29, 2012, to establish an investigative subcommittee. Pursuant to the Committee’s action, the investigative subcommittee shall have jurisdiction to determine whether Representative Shelley Berkley violated the Code of Official Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or other applicable standard of conduct in the performance of her duties or the discharge of her responsibilities, with respect to alleged communications and activities with or on behalf of entities in which Representative Berkley’s husband had a financial interest.

The Committee has determined to take this action based upon a discretionary review of the allegations, as well as evidence obtained pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), authorized by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee for the 112th Congress. During the course of the Committee’s independent investigation, the Committee received a referral from the Office of Congressional Ethics regarding this same matter. As provided by House Rule X, clause 1(g) and Committee Rule 17A, the Committee has exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation, administration, and enforcement of the Code of Official Conduct. Consistent with the Committee’s rules, it reviews OCE’s report and findings without prejudice or presumptions as to the merit of the allegations.

The Committee notes that the mere fact of establishing an investigative subcommittee does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred.

Representative K. Michael Conaway will serve as the Chair of the investigative subcommittee, and Representative Donna F. Edwards will serve as the Ranking Member. The other two members of the subcommittee are Representative Robert E. Latta and Representative Adam Schiff. No other public comment will be made on this matter except in accordance with Committee rules. Pursuant to House Rule XI, Clause 3(b)(8)(B)(iii), and Committee Rule 17A(f)(1), no documents will be released at this time.

This action, in and of itself, does not guarantee that justice will be done in Berkley’s case – now we await the findings of the investigative subcommittee. But the House Ethics Committee has done the right thing in opening its investigation.

Five people have been charged with the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.  The Department of Justice is offering a $1 million reward for any information that leads to the arrest of four of them.

Agent Terry was shot on December 14, 2010 and passed away the following day.  Guns found at the crime scene were linked to Operation Fast & Furious, which armed the already dangerous Mexican drug cartels.

Manuel Osorio-Arellanes, Jesus Rosario Favela-Astorga, Ivan Soto-Barraza, Heraclio Osorio-Arellanes, and Lionel Portillo-Meza have been charged with first degree murder, second degree murder, conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, attempted interference with commerce by robbery, use and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, assault on a federal officer and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.

“The 11-count third superseding indictment, which was handed up by a federal grand jury in the District of Arizona on Nov. 7, 2011, alleges that on Dec. 14, 2010, five of the defendants engaged in a firefight with Border Patrol agents.   During the exchange of gunfire, Agent Terry was shot and killed.  The indictment alleges that the defendants had illegally entered the United States from Mexico for the purpose of robbing drug traffickers of their contraband.   In addition to the murder of Agent Terry, the indictment also alleges that the five defendants assaulted Border Patrol Agents William Castano, Gabriel Fragoza and Timothy Keller, who were with Agent Terry during the firefight. “ 

Attorney General Eric Holder, who was voted in contempt of Congress last week because he wouldn’t hand over relevant Fast & Furious documents, said this is proof of the DOJ’s commitment to bring those who killed Agent Terry to justice. However, Agent Terry’s family still deserves to know who in the DOJ thought up Fast & Furious, who approved it, and how far up it went on the command chain.

Why now? Manuel Osorio-Arellanos was arrested the night of the murder. This indictment “was handed up by a federal grand jury in the District of Arizona on November 7, 2011.” Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa finds the timing to be suspicious as well.

“It’s clear the timing has to do with the House of Representatives holding Eric Holder in contempt for not turning over information,” said Chairman Issa. “The Terry family should have seen this attempt to go public and try to get the murderers of Brian Terry [before now]. For 18 months they have known and haven’t done everything they could do to capture these individuals. This is another example of using politics over good policy. Again, I applaud the fact that we are going public and we are trying to make it clear that these people are among the USA’s and Mexico’s most wanted. But at the same time, the timing is very dubious.”

Former Governor, Attorney General, and "Client #9" Eliot Spitzer may have had more to hide than the illicit sex that cost him the top job in New York State. That would seem to be the only reason Spitzer's successor as Attorney General is dragging his feet on releasing e-mails sent by Spitzer regarding the state's prosecution of American International Group (AIG) and its former chief executive, Hank Greenberg.

Then-Attorney General Spitzer brought a civil case against Greenberg for alleged accounting errors relating to the company's insurance loss reserves--a case that is ongoing, despite Greenberg's departure from AIG.

In May, a New York appeals panel remanded the case for trial, upholding the trial court’s ruling against summary judgment. But now, it appears, Spitzer’s original case may have been motivated less by evidence than by political ambition.

There was significant speculation at the time that Spitzer brought his case against AIG and Greenberg that the prosecution was politically motivated. As Greenberg’s attorney stated in a court filing, “At that time, Spitzer was planning to run for Governor of the state of New York, and he has since admitted that his high-profile pursuit of Greenberg achieved its intended objective of enhancing his reputation as he pursued higher office. AIG was, at the time, one of the world's most successful companies and Greenberg was the one of the world's most successful business leaders.”

Furthermore, Spitzer may have pursued Greenberg as a form of personal revenge after Greenberg spoke up in defense of Dick Grasso and Kenneth Langone, the former head of the New York Stock Exchange and its compensation committee, respectively, whom Spitzer alleged had received excessive compensation.  

Today, in the ongoing case against Greenberg, former New York Attorney General Dennis Vacco filed an affidavit alleging that at a September 28, 2004 meeting with Spitzer, “Mr. Spitzer gratuitously made several derogatory, deeply personal and highly inappropriate expletive- laden comments about Maurice R. Greenberg and his son Jeffrey W. Greenberg.

“Mr. Spitzer,” the affidavit continues, “was upset over statements Maurice R. Greenberg had recently made concerning the NYAG’s ‘over prosecution’ of minor infractions. Mr. Spitzer was clearly upset by Mr. Greenberg’s comments. Mr. Spitzer did not mention any specific conduct, except the above-referenced comments made by Maurice R. Greenberg, to explain his disdain for Maurice R. Greenberg and his son. It was evident to me that Mr. Spitzer was motivated by some unexplained personal animus."

Vacco says that he was “very uncomfortable with the conversation and viewed it as unprofessional but did not say anything because Mr. Spitzer was very emotional about the topic and I did not want to compromise my client’s position.”

Vacco’s affidavit is an important window into Spitzer’s mind, and provides support for the notion that the Greenberg/AIG prosecution was political and personal for Spitzer. Now the question becomes what Spitzer’s e-mails as Attorney General will show. Howard Smith, a co-defendant in the Greenberg case, filed a petition with a court in Albany County asking for an order compelling the AG’s office to turn over Spitzer’s private emails from an account allegedly maintained by the Democratic National Committee. The judge ruled that the Attorney General’s office had an obligation to review the emails and turn over anything relevant. The Attorney General’s office has appealed the ruling rather than turning over the e-mails.

The emails are thought to exist because Spitzer is known to have used an outside email account during his time as Attorney General. That fact was revealed by Spitzer's immediate successor as Attorney General (and now Governor), Andrew Cuomo. During Cuomo's years as Attorney General, New York state investigated Spitzer's role in "Troopergate," in which state police had been allegedly used to spy on Republican leadership in the state legislature. Cuomo's investigation proves that the email account exists, but the state's prosecutors are still stalling in revealing what could be exculpatory--and highly embarassing--correspondence about the Greenberg case.

The question now is whether Spitzer’s emails will ever see the light of day. As Breitbart News reported two weeks ago, the current prosecutor in the AIG-Greenberg case, David Ellenhorn, has a checkered history when it comes to his former firm’s record of turning over relevant documents to governmental authorities.

Until Spitzer’s emails are made public, with the new testimony provided by Vacco, the assumption must be that Spitzer’s prosecution was anything but objective and apolitical.

Photo credit: Azi Paybarah

“A radical is one who advocates sweeping changes in the existing laws and methods of government.” 

- Hillary Rodham (Clinton) in her 1969 thesis “There Is Only The Fight : An Analysis of the Alinsky Model”

As voters stagger through the long hot summer of the 2012 Presidential campaign, activists who want to defeat President Obama are fighting an uphill battle to help their fellow citizens get an honest assessment of who Barack Obama is and what he believes. The mainstream media are certainly no help in vetting Obama, having proven themselves both as slippery and as shallow as a puddle of bacon grease. 

Obama’s past matters because it isn’t just his past. As author Stanley Kurtz shows in his upcoming book Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, the President’s background past is relevant today because it leads directly to his wealth redistribution policies and other radical plans to reshape America. 

Because of the Fourth Estate Fail, it’s incumbent on conservative activists and citizen journalists to do the job of explaining to voters the truth about Barack Obama. This article is the first in a series that uses Kurtz’s Spreading The Wealth as a jumping off point to lay out in stark detail how President Obama has practiced distinct brand of Chicago-style politics has had implications for every aspect of his policy, from Obamacare to the housing crisis.

The plain truth is that President Barack Obama has operated in a manner completely consistent with his political roots as a Alinsky-style community organizer. That simple assessment is accurate but useless as an explanation. Most voters have no idea who Saul Alinsky was or even what being a "community organizer" means. Ironically, this ignorance is especially acute among liberals.

The good news is that understanding Alinsky and his profound impact on Obama’s policies & political operation can be simple. 

Alinsky’s manifesto Rules For Radicals lays out the principles of community organizing and the blunt, modern language makes it an easy read. Yes, it’s evil--but it’s seldom pedantic. 

However, I think an even better place to start is the astounding, in-depth interview that Playboy magazine did with Alinsky in 1972. The entire interview at the link is from a political website and there isn’t a NSFW photo anywhere. 

The Playboy interview serves as an excellent introduction to Alinksky. There's a Greek saying that you cannot truly judge a man until he's dead. By that standard, the interview is a great way to judge Alinsky because it was conducted literally just a few months before he passed, and he tells you as plain as day what he believes and who he is. 

One thing that’s clear from the interview is that Alinsky was neither an idealist nor an ideologue. This is also an important revelation about Barack Obama; despite all the talk about the morality of social justice, it’s just a whitewash for turning the engine of government into what amounts to a money skimming operation, and gaining power for the sake of power.

The connections between Barack Obama and the methods of Saul Alinsky are clear and well established. The two men never met, of course, but when he arrived in Chicago Obama was trained as a community organizer by people like Michael Kruglik--one of the key figures in Spreading The Wealth--whose online bio says:

(Micheal Kruglik) has been developing grass-roots citizens’ power organizations since 1973 with the (Alinsky founded) Industrial Areas Foundation, the Gamaliel Foundation and Building One America. 

and

From 1984 to 1998, (Kruglik) was co-director of the Calumet Community Religious Conference, the community organization that recruited and hired Barack Obama as a community organizer. Mr. Kruglik’s role as Barack Obama’s mentor has been chronicled in a number of works of history and periodicals.

What did Obama learn from Alinsky? The New Republic said: 

The first and most fundamental lesson Obama learned was to reassess his understanding of power. (Another Obama mentor) says that, when Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: "You want to organize for power!"

and

Obama so mastered the workshops on power that he later taught them himself. On his (2007) campaign website, one can find a photo of Obama in a classroom teaching students Alinskian methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written, "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest," an idea illustrated by a diagram of the flow of money from corporations to the mayor.

Both Obama and Alinsky are flinty nihilist power-mongers at heart, but they grasp the power in portraying themselves as moral figures. Alinsky understood the power of image and realized that by occasionally proclaiming the ethical high ground, he’d be given a free pass by a media eager to attack the free marketand embrace central planning.

This liberal Cloak of Moral Invisibility allowed Alinsky to embrace huge contradictions, something blindingly evident in the Playboy interview. At one point, Alinsky tells a favorite story of his that is designed to give him an air of ethical superiority. As he tells it, when he was a kid he got into a fight with some other neighborhood kids and was brought in front of the local rabbi for discipline, who tells him:

"You think you're a man because you do what everybody does. But I want to tell you something the great Rabbi Hillel said: 'Where there are no men, be thou a man.' I want you to remember it." I've never forgotten it.

This is a great statement of moral courage: do the right thing, even if you must stand up to those around you. In fact, Alinsky used “'Where there are no men, be thou a man” as one of the epigrams for his book Rules for Radicals.

What’s really interesting, though, is that while Alinsky claims he’s "never forgotten it," just a few paragraphs later in the exact same interview, Saul Alinsky regales the interviewer with stories showing that he’s actually lived his life with exactly the opposite ethic. Astonishingly, he brags to Playboy about stealing, lying and consorting to murderers. 

For example, Alinsky discusses his college days during the depression. He says he was "hungry." Not starving, mind you. Hungry. Rather than using his intellect and energy to create value and earn money to feed himself, Alinsky instead figures out an elaborate scheme to defraud cafeterias.

ALINSKY: We got the system down to a science, and for six months all of us were eating free. Then the bastards brought in those serial machines at the door where you pull out a ticket that's only good for that particular cafeteria. That was a low blow. We were the first victims of automation.

When asked by the interviewer if he “any moral qualms about ripping off the cafeterias?”, Alinsky responds:

Are you kidding? I wouldn't have justified, say, conning free gin from a liquor store just so I could have a martini before dinner, but when you're hungry, anything goes -- There's a priority of rights, and the right to eat takes precedence over the right to make a profit -- and just in case you're getting any ideas, let me remind you that the statute of limitations has run out.

So much for "Where there are no men, be thou a man"; Saul Alinsky was actually the one organizing the other students into stealing. Alinsky’s avowed situational ethic won out over the word of Rabbi Hillel which mean that the owners and employees of the cafeteria had no right to profit because Alisnky decided they didn’t--and “to each according to his need” and all that, man.

You could excused for stopping at this point and to draw some parallels to Obama’s domestic policy--but it gets worse.

Alinsky then goes on to boast about his association with the Chicago Mob, including Al Capone and Frank “The Enforcer” Nitti, who Alinsky says he called "The Professor.” Alisnky approached the criminals under the guise of doing student research. Nitti and the other mobsters not only accepted Alisnky but actually revealed everything about their operation to him. This included extortion and murder. 

PLAYBOY: Didn't you have any compunction about consorting with -- if not actually assisting -- murderers?

ALINSKY: None at all, since there was nothing I could do to stop them from murdering, practically all of which was done inside the family. I was a nonparticipating observer in their professional activities, although I joined their social life of food, drink and women: Boy, I sure participated in that side of things -- it was heaven. 

Now there’s a moral precept for you; when there are no men, be thou an observer who shares food, drink and women. 

Alinsky continues:

And let me tell you something, I learned a hell of a lot about the uses and abuses of power from the Mob, lessons that stood me in good stead later on, when I was organizing.

So is revealed the real face of Community Organizing for you: the ethics of Al Capone. 

At this point, it’s worth mentioning that the period when Alinsky was embedded with the Chicago Mob was right around the time that Prohibition was coming to an end. This was a time when organized crime needed to replace illegal booze as a profit center. 

Where did the Mob look for a new business model? The unions. 

If you want to see another reason that the past isn’t really the past, consider this: while Saul Alinsky was observing organized crime, the mob was taking over the modern labor movement, In fact, the SEIU--Obama’s shock troops and the allies of the Occupy movement--grew up in this same era. The tie between criminals and labor is made explicit in the interview.

Alinsky joivially tells a truly appalling story about befriending a criminal youth gang, where he went to a morgue, propped open the eyes of a slain gang member, took a photo and then presented it to the mother of the murdered young man and claimed the dead man had given the photo to Alinsky the week before. It’s a disgusting thing to do, yet Alinsky is clearly still proud of it, decades later. The Playboy interviewer points out the obvious and says the ploy was “cynical and manipulative.” Alinsky’s glee is unabated.

It was a simple example of good organizing. And what's wrong with it? Everybody got what they wanted. Mrs. Massina got something to hold onto in her grief and I got in good with the kids. I got to be good friends with some of them. And some of them I was able to help go straight. One of the members is now a labor organizer and every time things get hot for me somewhere, he calls me up and growls, "Hey, Saul, you want me to send up some muscle to lean on those motherfuckers?"

That’s Saul Alinsky; the man who had profound influence on both of the two leading Democratic politicians in the 2008 presidential primary, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Think that Obama didn’t learn the Alinsky lesson on presenting an ethical image?  He learned it so well that he learned to distance himself publicly from Alinsky. In early 2007, Ryan Lizza wrote this in The New Republic about the long-shot candidate Barack Obama...

Obama presents himself as a post-partisan consensus builder, not a rabble-rouser, and certainly not a disciple of Alinsky, who disdained electoral politics and titled his organizing manifesto Rules for Radicals. On the stump, Obama makes a pitch for "common-sense, practical, nonideological solutions." And, although he's anchored to a center-left worldview, he gives the impression of being above the ideological fray--a fresh face who is a generation removed from the polarizing turmoil of the 1960s. The mirror he holds up is invariably flattering--reflecting back a tolerant, forward-looking electorate ready to unite around his consensus-minded brand of politics. Indeed, if there has been a knock on Obama's campaign in these early days, it's that it may be a bit too idealistic for the realities of a presidential race. ith his lofty rhetoric and careful positioning as above politics, Obama in some ways recalls Bill Bradley, another candidate of moral purity--and one whose unwillingness to engage in the rough-and-tumble of modern politics ultimately proved his undoing.

A year and half before the 2008 elections, Obama was being portrayed as consensus-minded and too idealistic for the rough-and-tumble of modern politics. Hillary Clinton learned in the primaries that that image had nothing to do with reality. Now, the entire country knows it.

“We need more teachers, firefighters, and policemen. We have bridges and roads that need to be fixed!” President Obama exclaimed as he gave a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio. Time and time again we are told we need more spending and more programs to get our economy moving again. Even worse, we are given the perception most Americans want bigger, bulkier, government. The fact is the contrary is true.

A recent poll from Rasmussen Reports shows that 66% of Americans believe there should be cuts in all departments. According to Rasmussen, this is the highest level of support since they started polling for this topic in August 2011.

President Obama has not laid out a vision of transparent government, rather a plan that ignores waste, and calls for more spending. Washington is consistently running trillion dollar deficits, and there’s no reason to believe that the President intends to correct this problem. Why hasn’t President Obama put forward a series of solutions to solve our debt crisis, or even make government work better and more efficiently? Instead, he has gone against his campaign promises of transparent government, when campaigning for President he said, “We need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative. That will demand new thinking and a new sense of responsibility for every dollar that is spent.”

This past month we have seen broken promise after broken promise. Contrary to his guarantee of ‘transparent government’ we have witnessed, “Fast and Furious” become a household name. Papers regarding the operation are being withheld from the American public, only adding to the illusion of secretive and corrupt government.

President Obama promised “to return earmark spending to 1994 levels.” An independent study found that the amount earmarked in 2010 was twice as much in 1994. Furthermore, President Obama told Americans “I will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term.” President Obama has failed miserably to cut spending, and the federal deficit has increased.

To reassure the American public of government secrecy, in 2008 then-Senator Obama promised “he will allow every non-emergency bill 5 days to be reviewed by the American public.” In May of 2009 he signed the “Credit Card Accountability Act” only two days after passed by Congress. He did not allow the American people to “review the bill” breaking another promise.

As we head into November, we will be sure to hear the same promises made by President Obama. He will try and advocate for more spending and more governmental work projects, to “stimulate growth.” He will try and make the case that government has been transparent and efficient. Before we listen to his speeches and watch his commercials; it is important that we look at his record-- a record of broken promises and contradiction.

Charlie Kirk is the founder of Turning Point USA (www.turningpointusa.net) and will be attending Baylor University in the fall.

In 1978, Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote in National Review: “It is almost universally recognized that the West shows all the world a way to successful economic development.” He then added a cautionary note: “Many people living in the West are dissatisfied with their own society.” A statement, sad but seemingly true. The question is: Why?

Charles Murray, in this past weekend’s issue of the Wall Street Journal (“Why Capitalism Has An Image Problem,”) noted an empirical truth – that from the dawn of history until the 18th Century the world was impoverished, with only a thin veneer of wealth on the top. The Industrial Revolution and the emergence of capitalism changed everything. National wealth began to increase and poverty began to recede. In those parts of the world where capitalism did not take root, poverty persisted.

The rise of capitalism, which was concomitant with the Industrial Revolution that began in England around 1750, has been remarkable. James R. Otteson, a professor of economics and philosophy at Yeshiva University, wrote recently for the Manhattan Institute: “Since 1800 the world’s population has increased six-fold; yet despite this enormous increase, real income has increased 16-fold.” In America, he added: “Even while the population increased 58-fold [since 1800], our life expectancy doubled, and our GDP increased almost 36-fold. Such growth is unprecedented in the history of humankind.” That phenomenal growth over two centuries is a manifestation of the positive impact of the free enterprise system. While it is true that some benefit more than others, all benefit.

Yet the term capitalism has taken on negative connotations. There are those, like many West Europeans, who agree that capitalism delivers the goods, but argue that Socialism is morally superior. These people point out that capitalism generates inequality, in allowing some to become wealthier than others, and that it threatens social solidarity, as it permits individuals priority over their communities. Guilty, on both counts.

In every society, there will be winners and losers. What makes a free society different is that dissenters can be vocal in their disagreements. In the United States, while we are born equal in terms of our rights within the State, none of us is equal in terms of intelligence, physical aspects, or aspiration. With globalization, the term “community” has assumed a new definition. In the “community of markets” it may define anyone with whom one trades. And globalization has increased the level of competition. Europeans remain mired in their own version of regional nationalism.

Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute, has laid out what he feels to be the three principles for the moral case for capitalism: Free enterprise safeguards lasting happiness; it promotes real fairness, and it does the most good for the most vulnerable. He argues that earned success, not money, is the foundation of happiness. Examples of “earned success” can vary from owning one’s own business to raising children. “Earned success,” Mr. Brooks writes, “is the belief you are creating value in your life and in the lives of others.”.

In terms of fairness, Mr. Brooks uses the example of school report cards. Should school grades be distributed equally, regardless of performance? Students who work hard and do well inevitably say, no. Why, then, should wealth be any different? In terms of doing good, since 1970, the percentage of the Earth’s population that lives on less than $1 a day has declined by 80%. That improvement was not a result of foreign aid (which too often ends up in the pockets of the country’s leaders); it was due to globalization and the increase in free trade, “fundamental aspects of free enterprise,” as Mr. Brooks points out.

Liberty and capitalism are inextricably intertwined, each dependent on the other. “Excessive government and economic control,” writes John Taylor in First Principles, “will tend to constrain people’s freedom to speak out…” Without private ownership of capital, businesses would become dependent on indulgences from government. “We understand instinctively,” wrote John Hayward, staff writer for “Human Events”, “that the suppression of free speech indicates a dangerous lack of respect for individuals by the State, but we have been conditioned to forget that a lack of respect for property is at least as disturbing.”

The constant condemnation by the President of “millionaires and billionaires” is not only divisive; it is anti-capitalist, and therefore alien to our history. Contrary to the President’s admonitions, the progressive nature of our tax code had, as of 2009, the bottom 50% earning 13% of all income, but paying only two percent of all Federal taxes. In contrast, the top one percent of income filers earned 17% of all income, yet paid 37% of all Federal income taxes.

A problem with a successful democratic capitalist system is that it sows the seeds of its own destruction. The wealth that a democratic capitalist society generates permits government to transfer income, thereby increasing dependency on a growing percentage of the populace. The Scottish history professor, Alexander Tyler (1747-1813) purportedly once wrote: “A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.” From that moment on, Professor Tyler allegedly predicted, democracies collapse over fiscal policies. We are frighteningly close to that point.

Every society produces winners and losers. In a totalitarian, or an allegedly Socialist system, the wealth is controlled by a thin wedge at the top of the societal pyramid. A democratic system provides dissenters a platform from which they can vent their feelings, as we have seen throughout this nation’s history, as we saw a year ago with the Occupy Wall Street movement in Zuccotti Park, and, in fact, as we now see with the President’s demonization of capitalism.

Throughout history, Utopian societies have promised that men and women can live peacefully and equitably in an Eden-like place. However, they are generally promoted to justify iniquities. Max Eastman (1883-1969), a Socialist who became an advocate of free markets, once wrote: “The notion of an earthly paradise in which men shall dwell together in millennial brotherhood is used to justify crimes and depravities surpassing anything the modern world has seen.” Some of the best examples occurred in the last century and arose from civilized countries with long histories of art, music and literature – Nazism in Germany, Fascism in Spain and Italy and  Communism in Russia, China and a host of smaller nations. Today, we see similar signs in places like Venezuela, North Korea and in Islamic nations where political parties like the Muslim Brotherhood promise Shangri-la, but practice hatred and exclusion.

When the President says that they [Republicans] tell us the market will take care of everything, he is either, nicely, using hyperbole to make a point, or, more likely, simply lying. No one believes that the “market” is the sole answer. A capitalist system can only function under a rule of law, and that can only happen with a popularly elected (and respected) government. Among its many requirements, capitalism requires a strong, but limited, central government that enforces property laws and protects consumers, but denies irrational liability laws. It needs a defense system that can ensure the exchange of international commerce. It needs to implement simple, understandable, predictable regulations and then enforce them. And, it needs to provide fiscal and monetary policies that are conducive to economic growth, including a flatter, broader tax rate that does not favor one industry, or one individual, over another.

There will always be those who steal, or in some way take advantage of the system, which is why rules should be known and enforced. Fairness demands it. “Capitalism is not perfect,” James Otteson wrote two months ago. “But no system created by humans is, or ever will be, perfect…The benefits of the free-enterprise society are enormous and unprecedented; they have meant the difference between life and death for hundreds and millions of people…We should wish to extend those benefits rather than to curtail them.”

The moral case for capitalism has always been difficult to explain because it requires an acceptance that outcomes will never be equal. It means that everyone, no matter how small their income, should make some contribution to the national purse. Politicians have long known that people, naturally, prefer to receive, not give, so they play to those behavioral instincts. And, it relies on an understanding of history, a subject too often neglected in our schools.

The alternative to capitalism is the “Road to Serfdom” immortalized by Friedrich Hayek in 1943, who saw first hand what was happening in so-called “civilized” States in Europe. The flip side of Arthur Brooks’ “earned success” is “learned helplessness,” which is what our culture of dependency is creating. To equate “fairness” with redistribution, as the President does, is unfair if one believes success should be rewarded, whether it is a student in class, a hedge fund manager, an Olympian in competition, or a candidate in a Presidential race. The decline in poverty over the past two hundred years – while not by any means complete – is the living manifestation of the virtues of capitalism and why its cessation would doom millions. It is capitalism that has paid for children’s schools in China and for Aid’s victims in Africa.

Faith in capitalism does not demand a blind allegiance to a draconian selfish system, but a belief in the collective wisdom of markets. And markets are comprised of people. The lackluster recovery of our economy has not been because of the “depth of the hole” that Mr. Obama inherited. It is because he has an innate distrust of free markets. He believes that investment decisions are best left to government, rather than individuals and businesses. There is a fundamental difference between the President and Mr. Romney. The President’s way – interventionism, increased regulation, higher taxes on a host of services – has not worked. Despite the fact that GDP has risen – very nominally – for twelve consecutive quarters, there are fewer people working today than when he took office.

Charles Murray ends his note with a reminder to the most successful among us: It is that your “principled stewardship can nurture and restore our heritage of liberty. [Your] indifference to that heritage can destroy it.” Amen. 

Pat Quinn is the Democratic Governor of Illinois. His state currently has $83 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and no plan for dealing with them. Monday, Gov. Quinn called for a special legislative session to address pensions, saying, "This is a crying need of our state. We must act."

Illinois' pension problem is growing by $12.6 million dollars a day. A bill which has passed the State Senate would require workers to contribute more to their own retirement or lose their health insurance. However, that plan, if approved by the Assembly, would only close about one third of the funding gap.

Governor Quinn's plan, which is favored by Democrats, is to force local school districts to take over pension costs from the state. This would likely result in higher property taxes for suburban residents. The city of Chicago already covers its own pensions.

Another option on the table is to cut cost of living increases to retired employees. While that would not solve the problem, it would delay the emergency. This is the option favored by Republicans. As CBS Money Watch reports, it seems unlikely the two sides will be able to reach an agreement during a one day special session in the midst of an election year.

Consumer spending is the engine of the US economy. 70% of GDP is attributable to consumers using their earnings to buy goods and services. Strong consumer spending propped-up growth in the 4th Quarter of 2011 and 1st Quarter of 2012. Even as earnings growth stalled, consumers dipped further into savings to keep buying, as their expectations of economic growth were optimistic. Those days are over.  

The Commerce Department reported today that consumer spending, adjusted for inflation, dipped 0.1% in June. (Of course, the downturn was "unexpected" as economists expected a 0.1% rise in spending.) It's the biggest drop since August last year, and reverses the gains in May, when spending nudged up 0.1%. It is also the third straight month in which retail sales have fallen. 

Interestingly, this pull-back came in the midst of modest income growth,  0.5% from May. The anemic 1st Quarter growth was fueled by consumers dipping into savings, clearly anticipating a brighter economic future. In June, consumers banked their earnings, lifting the savings rate to 4.4%, the highest level in a year. It's as if the entire economy, even down to the consumer, has "gone Galt." 

The media is trying to report that consumer spending was "flat" in June, which isn't remotely true. Consumer spending fell. Today's report suggests more bad economic news ahead. The media may be ignoring the bad economic news, but consumers--and voters--are feeling it every day. 

The American consumer is channeling The Who and "won't be fooled again." The economy's only hope is a change of direction in Washington.

Follow me on Twitter.

If you care about Israel and you live in Ohio, the choice for Senator is clear. On the one hand there is Josh Mandel, the descendant of Holocaust survivors, who served two tours in Iraq (the second when he volunteered after President Bush announced the surge), was married in Jerusalem under the crossed swords of Marines, and is a hawk on Israel. On the other hand there is Sherrod Brown, the senator that J Street, the anti-Israel organization funded by George Soros, endorses; the same man who launched the 2012 campaign of Barack Obama, who has constantly undermined Israel’s national security with leaks – and who refuses to call Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish People, the capital of Israel.

Just how dangerous is Brown for Israel? If one synthesizes the information about Brown, it is clear that he associates with those who hate the Jewish state.

Occupy Wall Street, which was chock-full of leftist-Israel haters, was praised by Brown in October, 2011: “I think the energy coming out of the Wall Street Protesters is always a good thing.” Brown had a fundraiser in May 2012 hosted by rabidly-anti-Israel actor Martin Sheen, who funds the Office of the Americas, a group that consistently attacks the United States and Israel. Sheen has been arrested outside the Israeli Defense Ministry offices when he demonstrated against U.S.-Israel military cooperation.

In June 2011, Brown wrote congratulatory remarks that were read at a CAIR event, but both he and CAIR have refused to release the text of what he said.  One of the speakers was Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, Director of Outreach of Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., which just happens to be the mosque that was attended by two of the 9/11 bombers and also Fort Hood terrorist Nidal Hasan. The mosque has had connections to Hamas for years.

But the most revealing fact in Brown’s dossier is this: from 2007 to 2012, the organization that gave Brown the most money was J Street, which gave him almost $60,000.  J Street is funded in large part by Israel-hater George Soros, and the organization even was caught lying about his funding of them in 2010.

Here is how rabidly anti-Israel J Street is:

• The J Street PAC received funds from the Saudi Arabian embassy’s attorney, Nancy Dutton.
• J Street joined with National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and opposed congressional efforts to impose sanctions on Iran. (J Street Director Ben Ami had the gall to lie in the Knesset and say that J Street had never opposed sanctions against Iran.)
• J Street PAC repeatedly took contributions from Mehmet Celebi, of Chicago. The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign dropped Celebi in 2008 when it learned he produced Valley of the Wolves, a viciously anti-American and anti-Semitic Turkish film.
• J Street joined with Churches for Peace in the Middle East, which supports the boycott, divestment, sanctions (BDS) efforts against Israel's  sponsorship of a visit to Israel in February 2010.
• Morton Halperin, one of five directors of J Street, wrote a letter defending the false Goldstone report which savaged Israel over Operation Cast Lead, and J Street helped set up meetings for Goldstone on Capitol Hill.
• Daniel Levy, Ben-Ami’s partner in the formation of J Street, stated at a conference in Abu Dhabi that “the creation of Israel” was “an act that was wrong.”
• J Street welcomed BDS lobbyists to its national conference, where  BDS ran a session on the boycott of Israeli products.
• J Street lobbied the US Congress against a resolution that condemned the blatant incitement in Palestinian school books and Palestinian media.

So J Street heartily endorses Brown. It’s not surprising, with the company Brown keeps; he’s no friend to the Jewish state. And if the people of Ohio care about Israel at all, they won’t reelect him.

Well, this seems fair -- perfectly in line with Obama's socialist drive to spread the wealth.

After hundreds of innocent Mexicans died as a result of the Obama Administration flooding that country with thousands of guns through the cynical and politically motivated Fast and Furious program, it's only fair for the White House to allow Mexican citizens to wreak havoc and misery here in America:

The Obama administration released illegal immigrants who went on to commit more crimes, including charges of 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the House Judiciary Committee said in a report Tuesday.

All told, the nearly 47,000 illegal immigrants the administration was notified of but declined to deport between 2008 and 2011 under its Secure Communities program had a recidivism rate of 16 percent, the committee said.

They were just part of the nearly 160,000 immigrants — most of them here legally — who were flagged by Secure Communities during the three year period but who were either not eligible to be deported or who the administration decided to release. Those immigrants went on to be charged in nearly 60,000 more crimes, according to the committee and the Congressional Research Service, which issued a report on the matter.

The findings stem from the Obama administration’s Secure Communities program, which was designed to identify immigrants who run afoul of the law and who the administration decides it wants to deport.

Equality, it's a beautiful thing.

By merely enforcing the immigration laws already on the books, every single one of these crimes could've been prevented.

More blood on Obama's hands -- more blood the media will cover up because week seven of whining about Mitt Romney only releasing two years worth of tax returns is much bigger news than 60,000 preventable crimes, you know, if all you care about is reelecting Obama.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has finally responded to the request by five House Republicans for an investigation into the Islamist links to Clinton’s long-time aide Huma Abedin. Clinton tried to take the moral high ground, saying there is “no place in our politics” for such “assaults” and continuing:

“Leaders have to be active in stepping in and sending messages about protecting the diversity within their countries. We did see some of that in our own country. We saw Republicans stepping up and standing up against the kind of assaults that really have no place in our politics.”

State Department spokesman Philippe Reines has hysterically denounced the calls for an investigation as "nothing but vicious and disgusting lies  … anyone who traffics in them should be ashamed of themselves.”

But the House members who called for an investigation, Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) have not capitulated to their critics, and instead have pointed out that their calls for an investigation into Abedin are part of a larger investigation into any Islamist infiltration in the federal government. They justifiably claim that the media has focused on Abedin, and missed the larger point.

Clinton’s claim of Republicans stepping up was a clear reference to John McCain, who called the accusations against Abedin "specious and degrading attacks," as well as House Speaker John Boehner, who also criticized the five House members. 

But there is ample evidence that Abedin is not to be trusted.  As far as Clinton’s assertion that there is no place for an investigation of Islamist influence in the government, that is utter hogwash, and her characterization of the calls for an investigation as “assaults” is simply demagoguing the issue.

Investigations are not assaults, and for the very woman who dismissed the allegations against Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky affair as a “vast right-wing conspiracy” and then revived the phrase in the 2008 campaign to protest a legitimate investigation is laughable.

But Islamist moles in the government are no laughing matter.

Showing no signs of higher intelligence, over 70,000 Penn State students and fans of Penn State "liked" a Facebook comment on the Penn State page that demands ESPN apologize for “dragging Joe Paterno though the dirt.” The comment is directed toward Penn State president Rodney Erickson, and claims that ESPN didn’t treat Paterno or Penn State with justice.

In opposition to their claims is the evidence from the Freeh Report, which states that Paterno acted with “callous and shocking disregard for child victims.”

But don’t hold students to the facts. They are out to right a grievous wrong, according to the post on Facebook:

“Even until the day he passed away, Coach Paterno lived with gracious integrity and still to this day, has been the only staff member to admit he was wrong.

I also ask that ESPN give a sincere and public apology for dragging the school, Joe Pa, the victims, and the fans, alumni, and families of Penn State through the dirt by giving an unfair and completely biased, opinionated report.”

And then, in a hilariously inappropriate analogy, the post goes on to say: “We do not remove the Lincoln Memorial because he started the Civil War, rather we leave it as a reminder of the good he’s done.”

Lincoln: freeing slaves.

Paterno: freeing Sandusky so he can maim young men for life.

Now there’s the kind of thinking that justifies sending your kid to college.