NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland -- On Thursday, conservatives were offered a rare treat while attending the CPAC conference at the Gaylord Resort, settled above the Potomac River in National Harbor, Maryland. Mark Levin, aNew York Times bestselling author, firebrand conservative radio talk show host, and extraordinary legal scholar, was honored with the inaugural Citizens United Andrew Breitbart Defender of the First Amendment Award.

The afternoon event combined a tribute to Levin with a thoughtful remembrance of the late Andrew Breitbart, who died two years ago this month. Breitbart Editor-In-Chief Alexander Marlow recounted that when he first met Andrew at a Young America's Foundation (YAF) conference in Santa Barbara, “You wouldn’t say his talk had what I would call a structure. And his language, I would say, was... salty.” Marlow explained that although Breitbart was a nonconformist, he had a “thesis, and that thesis was pure genius. He said it is not enough for conservatives to talk about culture, we need to become the culture.”

Marlow said that Breitbart was well aware that the left controlled the mainstream media, academia, and Hollywood. Marlow contends this triumvirate of left wing domination “dumps their sewage into family living rooms, where not even the family dog is safe.” He described his educational path, including his college years at "UC… Berkeley." This drew a round of boos from the audience. "I know, I know... I graduated there five years ago, and just last week I finally got the pot smell out of my hair.” Marlow said that Andrew wanted to reach those potheads: “He was the only one on the right that had that idea. These are all people that, if we reach out to them when they are young, then we can capture their hearts and minds when they are older.”

Also speaking at the award presentation was Larry Solov, Breitbart News Network CEO. He first thanked Citizens United and Dave Bossie in particular for keeping “Andrew’s legacy alive.” Solov also thanked Mark Levin for being there in person to accept the inaugural award. He said that Levin is a “patriot and a champion of real conservative values." Moreover, he said Mark has something that “is missing too often... common sense. And I can’t think of a more deserving recipient.” 

Solov, a Stanford Law School graduate, added that “the First Amendment is so critical and our right to even discuss ideas is so critical.” He recalled that Andrew Breitbart had told him countless times: “'What I want is more voices not less.' He wanted an even playing field. He wanted to take on the media, Hollywood, and academia, who are bound and determined to put conservatives on the defensive and make it an uneven playing field.”

According to Solov, that is “what Andrew fought hardest for – for Conservatives to have the right to simply express their views.” Solov ended his tribute to Levin and his remembrance of Andrew by quoting Jon David Khan, a musician, songwriter, “Minister of Culture” for Breitbart News, and a dear friend of Mr. Breitbart: “My sadness today is overcome only by my pride in what we have done to carry on this great man’s legacy.” 

On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the unemployment rate for Americans with disabilities jumped to 14.3% in February. This is a 16% increase over last year, when the unemployment rate for the disabled was just 12.3%.

This spike in the disabled unemployment rate came in spite of the fact that the number of disabled Americans in the labor force declined since last year. This decline in labor force participation was offset by almost half a million fewer disabled Americans with jobs. The number of disabled out of work also jumped by 60 thousand since last February. 

For the first two months of 2014, the average number of disabled Americans with a job is the lowest in at least 5 years. The number of disabled Americans who have left the labor force is also the highest in at least 5 years. At the start of the economic "recovery" in 2009, almost 600,000 more disabled workers had jobs than today. 

States that want to opt out of the Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) and/or the tests aligned to or based on its standards are being threatened by a toothless tiger that doesn’t want the states to know the tiger has no claws.

States are hearing, “It’s too late to back out”; “You’ll waste all the money you’ve spent on implementing the [low-level Common Core] standards your state board of education adopted three years ago”; “You’ll waste all the money you’ve spent on [self-described] Common Core consultants who have given [very costly] professional development to your teachers and told them what to change in their classroom curriculum to address Common Core”; “You will have to pay back all the money you got under Race to the Top (RttT)”; or, “You will lose your waiver and not get your Title I money.”

Can the U.S. Department of Education (USED) demand repayment from states that got RttT funds? Can it withhold Title I money from a state that loses its waiver? It is important to recall that Congress didn’t pass legislation requiring Common Core’s standards or tests. All it authorized in 2001 was a re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) called No Child Left Behind (NCLB). ESEA hasn’t been re-authorized since then, so there are no new or different education policies passed by Congress. A variety of conditions have been attached to the recent waivers issued by USED, but they may have no constitutional legitimacy since Congress didn’t approve them. States can certainly raise that objection.

At the national level:

If a state received RttT money and spent it, it most likely doesn’t have to pay it back if it now seeks to opt out of using Common Core’s standards (by any name) and any tests aligned to or based on these standards. Neither the RttT application nor the grant award from USED contained a repayment penalty for withdrawing from a commitment. Moreover, the Grant Award Notification from USED implied withholding of future RttT funds, not repayment of RttT funds already expended. 

In other words, there seem to be no likely penalties if a state accepted a USED award of RttT funds and now chooses to withdraw from the agreement. States can justify their withdrawal on the grounds that the Common Core standards do not meet the original requirements of “common standards” outlined in the RttT application. These standards were supposed to be “supported by evidence that they are internationally benchmarked.” But they are not. The Common Core Validation Committee never received any evidence.  

Nor has evidence been provided by two post hoc attempts to provide such evidence: the 2011 report by David Conley at the University of Oregonand the 2012 report by William Schmidt and a colleague at Michigan State University, Richard Houang. Conley’s report, funded by the Gates Foundation, contradicted the findings in his 2003 pre-Common Core report on college-readiness standards, while Schmidt and Houang’s report has been severely criticized on methodological grounds. It is unclear who funded it.

Moreover, RttT was a three-year program extended to last four years. It expires in the fall of 2014. Whatever changes states make after 2014 cannot affect the grant. In addition, no state committed itself explicitly to maintain forever the new policies required by RttT. Once RttT grants expire, it is unclear how the USED could demand repayment for an expired program.

If a state obtained a waiver from some aspects of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and now seeks to opt out of using Common Core’s standards and tests aligned to or based on them, it is highly unlikely to lose Title I money. Title I is implicated in the Common Core issue only because the state committed to the CCLS to obtain the waiver.

If the state applies for an extension of the waiver through the 2015-2016 school year, it would need to replace its commitment to implement the Common Core with a commitment to implement alternative standards approved by its institutions of higher education (IHEs). IHE approval of more demanding “college- and career-ready” standards would allow the state to retain the waiver, without penalty. Legislators need to ask their public IHEs to approve standards that enable mathematically and scientifically ambitious high school students to take STEM-preparatory coursework while in high school, not in transition courses elsewhere after high school graduation or after passing a GED test.

If the US Department of Education (USED) decided to be punitive, it could withhold at most only 5%-10% of the 1% of Title I funds set aside for state administrative functions. For example, if a state received $200 million under Title I, the administrative set-aside is $2 million. The most severe federal punishment would be 5-10% of that, or a maximum of $200K.

If the state chose to give up its waiver, the state would be under the NCLB mandate again to get all students to proficiency by 2014. NCLB has a range of sanctions for persistently failing schools and districts, ranging from conversion to charter schools, closing the school down altogether, replacing a large percentage of the school’s staff, to carrying out turnaround plans. If states give up their USED waivers from NCLB requirements, they would still have to assess their state’s standards annually with tests that, by law, must be based on these standards, and NCLB’s sanctions would again apply for failing schools and districts. It is not clear what the sanction would be for failing to get all students to proficiency by 2014, that is, if most schools failed to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for all subgroups. 

The primary financial consequence of relinquishing the waiver would involve flexibility, not amount, of funding. Under NCLB, failing schools must allocate 20% of their Title I funding to Supplemental Education Services, typically outside tutoring. The waiver doesn’t change the amount of funding those schools receive but allows them to redirect 20% of it to other Title I uses. These districts would lose flexibility, not money.

USED would find it politically difficult to impose financial penalties on waiver cancellation when Common Core is not, in theory, a federal program. Or so we are regularly told.

At the state level:

Districts can select their own curricula and, in some states, their own standards. What they cannot do easily is avoid state testing. State tests operate under state laws which force all districts to participate, although sanctions vary by state. Typically, the results of these tests are used to rank or grade schools publicly, and they serve to label the schools as meeting or not meeting NCLB's requirement of proficiency.

A district with a stronger curriculum than one addressing Common Core’s standards is betting implicitly that its results will be better on the state test. If schools choosing to address more demanding standards than Common Core’s are ranked low on a Common Core-aligned test for several years, they may face state department of education sanctions, which can range from the state managing the district to reshuffling school administrators. Legislators can address this power play by withholding funding of the state’s department of education if it seeks to prevent schools with low scores on a Common Core-aligned test from addressing more demanding standards than Common Core’s. All the district should be required to do is produce evidence of evaluations showing that its standards are more demanding than Common Core's.

A future post will further address districts that want better standards and tests than their state board and department of education are imposing on them.  

Sandra Stotsky, Ed.D. is Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas.

Job creation in the US rose modestly in February, posting a better-than-expected gain of 175,000 despite expectations that weather would keep the count low. 

The unemployment rate moved higher to 6.7 percent, according to the latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A rising unemployment rate is often seen as a good indicator to the extent that more people may be looking for jobs. But the reality behind these numbers is far more complex and should be the focus of attention for conservatives who want to win this November.

The higher jobs number was above the expectations of most economists but still reflects an economy that is creating half as many jobs as there are people entering the workforce. “Economists had forecast nonfarm payrolls rising 149,000 and the unemployment rate to hold steady at 6.6 percent,” Reuters reports.

The employment report is the result of two separate surveys conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The household survey is a survey of roughly 60,000 households. This survey produces the unemployment rate. The establishment survey is a survey of 375,000 businesses. This survey produces the nonfarm payrolls, average workweek, and average hourly earnings figures, to name a few. Both surveys cover the payroll period which includes the 12th of each month.

“It’s a pretty good report, given the weather,” said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group Inc. in Pittsburgh, who correctly predicted the gain in payrolls. “You had a pretty good rise in average hourly earnings, you had some good gains in jobs in a couple of different sectors,” Bloomberg News reports.

The total unemployment rate, which includes discouraged and underemployed workers, moved lower to 12.6 percent from 12.7 percent. This measure better describes the overall state of the U.S. economy, where roughly 300,000 new workers are entering the job market each month. Roughly 10,000 baby boomers are retiring and leaving the workforce every month, but overall the number of people looking for work in the U.S. continues to grow.

What the unemployment situation tells investors and policy makers is that the US economy is still growing at far too slow a rate to offer all of the Americans who want to work gainful employment.  One big reason for the poor performance is the sluggish performance of the housing sector, which is running at a fraction of pre-2008 levels in terms of employment, new housing construction and lending.

The National Association of Realtors just reported that one third of all home sales in the US in January were for cash – that is, investors.  “Approximately 33 percent of respondents reported cash sales in January,” the NAR reports. “About 13 percent of reported sales made by a first-time buyer were cash sales compared to about 50 to 70 percent for investors and international buyers.”

Even with the anemic job growth rate, officials at the Federal Reserve Board have indicated that they will continue to reduce the amount of direct intervention in the bond market, known as “Quantitative Easing.”  Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen reiterated the 6.5 percent unemployment threshold in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, but other Fed officials have made clear that it would take a serious economic reversal before the Fed would change current policy.

In fact, during the February 27 meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee debated “the reliability of the unemployment rate as an indicator of overall labor-market conditions,” minutes of Fed officials’ discussion showed.    

“The February jobs report doesn’t change the strong likelihood that the Federal Reserve will cut monthly bond purchases by another $10 billion later this month,” notes Nelson Schwartz at The New York Times.  “The numbers were decent. The economy shook off the snow and added jobs. Fed officials won’t be concerned that the unemployment rate ticked up to 6.7 percent.”

But more than worries about which economic indicators matter, Fed officials and other policy makers ought to be worried about the fact that the US economy is still not creating enough jobs to drive consumption and thus GDP growth.  Until we start to focus more attention on fixing the housing market, first and foremost, the outlook for job growth is unlikely to change.  Conservatives need to focus on the poor performance of the US economy if they want to win power in November 2014.

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland--Jorge Bonilla, a Republican candidate challenging Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson (FL), says new allegations that Grayson shoved his wife as part of a bitter divorce spat are “unfortunate” and something voters will “have to weigh when it comes to deciding whether Mr. Grayson is fit for another term in Congress.”

Grayson has firmly denied he shoved his wife, Lolita Grayson. He also released a video of part of the incident in which his wife appears to punch him in the face. A Grayson aide and one of Grayson's children, both of whom witnessed the altercation, said Grayson did not shove her.

“Let me just say this. I detest domestic violence in all its forms. I think there’s no place for it in civilized society—especially when you’re dealing with kids. With regard to Mr. Grayson’s particular case, it’s going to open up before a judge shortly and at that time they will weigh the facts,” Bonilla told Breitbart News. 

"They will weigh the evidence and the judge will ultimately issue a final ruling," he added. "But it is unfortunate and that is something that the voters of the 9th will have to weigh when it comes to deciding whether Mr. Grayson is fit for another term in Congress.”

Bonilla, a military veteran with Puerto Rican parents, still has a primary race against GOP opponents Carol Platt and Peter Vivaldi to face. Platt has gained the endorsement of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, while Bonilla has picked up an endorsement from Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX). That primary is on August 26. 

In a previous campaign, Grayson raised details from a divorce proceeding against a candidate he was running against, the Orlando Sentinel reported. 

There were no solo women speakers on day one of CPAC, and the only major female speaker on the schedule for the conference is former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

One of the left’s favorite arguing points to voters is the supposed war on women waged by the right, but how can the right fight this when the majority of the speakers at a major gathering of conservative minds are white males? There are many women, including minority women, to choose from on the right.

Representative Michele Bachmann and Jenny Beth Martin are scheduled to speak, but the only woman expected to have any impact on the 2016 election is Palin. CPAC could have invited South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley or New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez. These women are not only in a position of power, but they are also minorities. Martinez can reach out to women and the Latino vote, which leans to the left. 

They did not even bring in Condoleezza Rice, who would have also been a great choice. Her speech at the RNC in 2012 was one of the best, and she is respected on both sides of the aisle. CPAC also left out Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.

CPAC is the biggest gathering of conservatives and a great place to fight back against the left. How can they convince voters, including independents, that the GOP is not the party of old white males when the majority of the speakers at CPAC are just that?

Friday's report from the Labor Department that the economy added 175,000 jobs in February was better than economists expected. After two very weak reports in December and January, expectations had been lowered for job creation in the month. While the overall number of jobs added was good news, details in the report give caution for future job growth. For the month, average weekly wages grew at their slowest pace in 5 years, suggesting no real future growth in the economy. 

Average weekly earnings for production and non-supervisory employees actually fell in the month to $682.65 from just over $683 in January. For all employees, average weekly earnings inched up about 60 cents to $831.40. Those earnings are up just 1.3% since last February, the slowest annual growth since the recovery began in 2009.

Annual growth in average weekly earnings has been declining since 2010. In that year, average earnings grew 2.9%. Growth in the next three years dropped to 2.3%, 2.1% and 1.6% respectively. February's increase in average wages was just 1.3% higher than the year before. 

Part of the slowdown in wage growth is likely attributable to the drop in hours worked each week. In the past year, 17 of 19 industry sectors tracked by the Labor Department experienced a decline in the average number of hours worked each week. 

With wage growth generally stagnant, it is hard to envision a pick-up in economic activity as we enter Spring. Consumer spending accounts for around three-quarters of economic activity. With wages growing slower than consumer inflation, it is hard to see a sharp uptick in consumer spending. 

President Barack Obama believes in the central argument of modern progressivism, according to Dinesh D'Souza.

Speaking at CPAC on Friday, the star of 2016: Obama's America said that Obama did not create American progressivism, but was instead deeply shaped by it and its "moral attack on capitalism." And that is why it is a mistake to brush him off as a bumbling amateur. 

Obama, he said, knows exactly what he is doing. 

"The point about Obama is that he is someone who wants to shrink America's footprint in the world," he said. "He wants to remake America."

Modern progressives like Obama, D'Souza said, believe that "America and the wealth of America is based on theft." He said they fundamentally believe that America stole land from Native Americans, took the labor of Africans, stole a part of Mexico, and is currently taking oil from the Middle East. 

"This is what we are up against," D'Souza said of the "moral attack against capitalism." 

D'Souza, who has accused the Obama administration of targeting him by charging him with campaign finance violations, said Obama's response to the "threats on the horizon" and "new emerging empires," including the consolidation of the Islamic empire and the emergence of Russia, has been shocking. 

D'Souza said that he predicted that in his 2016: Obama's America movie and was not happy that his predictions have come true. He said Obama is like an actor who is "playing out our script."

"He reminds me a bit of a toy soldier who walks into the wall and keeps going," he said. 

D'Souza said that Obama was upset at 2016 and then declared, "Wait until he sees the new one." 

He unveiled the new trailer for his next film, America, and said that it will make the "moral case for America and for the free market system." The trailer featured both iconic images of America-President John F. Kennedy, Jackie Robinson rushing toward home plate and Mt. Rushmore to name a few.

"Decline is a choice, but so is liberty," D'Souza said. "Let us resolve ... that liberty is our choice."

America hits theaters July 4, 2014.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told the editorial board of the Cincinnati Enquirer he doesn't believe in global warming.

McConnell: 'I don't buy' that climate is changing. In 1970s 'we were all concerned about the ice age coming.'

— Carl Weiser (@cweiser) March 7, 2014

McConnell has raised doubts about climate change science before, but never so directly. McConnell's quotes on the issue were tweeted by an Enquirer reporter in the meeting. 

McConnell to @Enquirer: Climate change - 'pick your period' and data will support your 'bias.'

— Carl Weiser (@cweiser) March 7, 2014

McConnell to @Enquirer: 'For everyone who thinks it's warming I can find someone who says it isn't.' Cites winter. 'I don't buy it.'

— Carl Weiser (@cweiser) March 7, 2014

McConnell also said Speaker John Boehner will definitely be returning the next Congress.

McConnell: 'There's zero chance Boehner's not going to be Speaker next time.' Same thing @SpeakerBoehner told @enquirer Monday himself.

— Carl Weiser (@cweiser) March 7, 2014

Sen. Rand Paul is helping Florida GOP candidate David Jolly thwart a Libertarian rival polling at four to seven percent, recording a robocall that touts Jolly as someone who wants to “ensure you, not the government, are making decisions for you and your family.”

The call, funded by American Crossroads, a group former Bush aide Karl Rove helped found, will go out to about 20,000 households. The targets of the call are potential supporters of Lucas Overby, a Libertarian candidate who could take votes from GOP candidate Jolly.

“We need to make sure that Lucas Overby does not become a spoiler that gives Nancy Pelosi one more vote in the House. And no one in the center right has more gravitas to help here than Senator Rand Paul,” Steven Law, president and CEO of American Crossroads, said in a written statement to Breitbart News.

The special election on Tuesday is seen as a potential bellwether for how potent a political issue Obamacare will be in the midterm elections.

Paul's father Ron Paul recently campaigned for Ken Cuccinelli in the Virgina governors race, upsetting some libertarians who wanted him to back the Libertarian candidate there, Rob Sarvis. Ron Paul said it would be "insane" to vote for Sarvis. 

The script from the call:

Narrator: Please listen to the following message from Senator Rand Paul on behalf of American Crossroads.

Rand Paul: Hi this is Senator Rand Paul. I'm calling to urge you to vote on Tuesday for David Jolly in the race for Congress. David believes in smaller government. He thinks it's the way to protect our liberty, and I agree, that's why I'm supporting him. He will go to Congress to ensure you, not the government, are making decisions for you and your family. Please remember to vote on Tuesday for David Jolly. Thank you.

Narrator: Paid for by American Crossroads and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.  

It’s that time of year again: the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. Every year there are squabbles over who is invited and who is not, which politicians are cheered and which are jeered, and which Republican presidential prospect will finish second in the straw poll to a member of the Paul family. 

This year, thankfully, we have been spared the usual drama about whether the gays would be here, partly because the atheists seized that particular spotlight.

Yet another reason the gay issue has not come up at CPAC this year is because the national debate has shifted in a fundamental way. The argument is no longer just whether gay marriages should be legal, but whether the state should be able to compel an individual to participate. 

That latter step has united conservatives – libertarians and social conservative, for and against gay marriage – on the same side of the issue. In that way, activist judges have done CPAC a favor.

It is also true that CPAC has become more tolerant than it once was. That reflects the increasing tolerance of American culture generally, but it also reflects the legacy of Andrew Breitbart, who did more than any other individual to bring gays and other “non-traditional” conservatives into the fold. He did it by speaking up to defend gay conservatives against open bigotry – and also by criticizing gay conservative leaders when they used aggressive tactics or divisive language.

For Andrew, tolerance was a two-way street. And in his own irreplaceable way, he reconciled the various CPAC factions.

In 2011, for example, Andrew and GOProud threw an after-hours bash at the 18th Street Lounge, headlined by rocker Sophie B. Hawkins. Something remarkable took place that night. Nobody came out of the closet, but everybody there came out of their shells, sharing aspects of themselves that did not quite fit the buttoned-down conservative stereotype.

If it was all right for gays and lesbians to be who they were, and yet preserve their political convictions, then maybe it was possible for the rest of us, too.

And in addition to enjoying the music and the beer and the lights, we all seemed to enjoy a sense of relief. 

I think that gay culture, at its rainbow best, fosters that atmosphere of tolerance. And conservatism, at least in its American form, protects the idiosyncratic individual against conformity and identity politics.

“The truth is that it is liberals in America who are bent on dividing people, on forcing people into ideological boxes based merely on their race, religion, sex or sexual orientation,” Andrew had said in promoting the party. 

And he made it his personal mission to prove that conservatism was the antidote, by celebrating black conservatives, Jewish conservatives, Hispanic conservatives, gay conservatives, apostates and punks who dared challenge their assigned political roles.

This year, for the second time, Breitbart News has hosted “The Uninvited,” a gathering that provides a platform at CPAC for those voices, themes and ideas not included in – or excluded from – the main conference. 

I have no doubt that Andrew would have enjoyed it. He loved challenging the establishment – even, and sometimes especially, the conservative one. He believed that in the end, conservatism was robust enough to endure debate, and grow from it.

Yet in his final address to CPAC, just weeks before his death in 2012, Andrew stressed unity. He did so because he believed that what conservatives shared was more important than what divided us, and too fragile to risk. 

And people listened. It is worth noting that the moderate, “establishment,” socially conservative Mitt Romney earned more of the libertarian vote than any prior GOP nominee.

Today, despite the rancor of CPAC, Andrew’s message endures.

Washington has been described as Hollywood for ugly people, and actor and former Sen. Fred Thompson said that films with conservative themes are tough to greenlight in Hollywood because its "movers and shakers" are captive to the same herd mentality that infects Washington.

"They operate and do their jobs for the praise and benefit of each other more than anybody else," Thompson said on a Friday panel at CPAC.

He also said Hollywood largely markets to a "mostly foreign market," which impacts the number of "pro-American" movies depicting FBI, CIA, and businessmen in a good light. 

Thompson stated that good movies with pro-American themes that families can go see because they show the "triumph of good values" do well at the box office, but not enough get made. 

"There's not that many people who know how to do that or are willing to do that to the possible scorn of their colleagues," Thompson said. 

John Sullivan, the co-director of 2016: Obama's America, moderated the panel and said there was a "double currency" in Hollywood. One deals with the bottom line, while the other is what he called the "cocktail currency."

"They can't be the person who funded 'that' movie or directed 'that' movie," Sullivan explained.

He told the story of a president of a movie studio jumping up and down in excitement as he talked to him about President Ronald Reagan behind closed doors, but then he suddenly started whispering in the hallway, even though he was in charge of the studio.

Sullivan said that was the moment he realized the uphill battle conservatives in Hollywood would always have to fight.

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland–"Do we really accept the fact that there are classes in America?" Rick Santorum brought an offbeat message of economic equality to the stage of CPAC Friday, foregoing much of the social-conservative rhetoric that made him famous for a populist approach to engaging America's underemployed lower classes.

Santorum began his speech with an approach familiar to many others on the stage, challenging the idea that Republicans have to win by losing "those currently unfashionable stances on culture and limited government issues." "I'm not out here fighting just to elect Republican candidates to win – I'm here to see America win," the 2012 presidential runner-up told the audience to applause.

Santorum did not dwell too much on social issues, though he did emphasize the importance of the "true, beautiful institution of marriage" to the economy. He did not define what he thought that "true" meaning was, but instead called for valuing the marriage contract as a function of the economy. And the economy was center stage today, as Santorum railed against economic inequality.

He noted that he focused as a candidate on "working Americans," not the "middle class." He urged the audience not to adopt "a class-envy, leftist language that divides Americans against themselves," and instead actively recruit America's poor to the Republican side. In order to do that, Santorum argued, Republicans had to abandon talk of "cut[ting] taxes for higher class people" because it "doesn't connect emotionally." Republicans need to address the problems related to "you, not the employer who might hire you" and engage those who "are most vulnerable."

Instead of the wealthy, Santorum suggested, Republicans should talk about "tax cuts, but for manufacturing." The line received tepid applause.

The classic Santorum lines were delivered with a finesse that almost hid their social-conservative background. "The first economy is the home, and when the home breaks down, the economy breaks down," he told the crowd, calling for Republicans to stand "with that underemployed person working two jobs, stand with the unemployed, stand with the single mom, stand with the people who are fearful because fear is powerful and overcoming fear is what makes America the greatest country in the world."

Santorum concluded by praising Pope Francis, calling for Republicans to "talk about the Good News for a hurting world," and praise more than condemn, be for things rather than against them.

The speech was a surprising one. It served to distinguish Santorum from the rest of the amorphous pack of Republicans who may or may not resurface in 2016. Santorum might not be holding public office right now or showing up strongly in polls, but he remains the runner-up to Mitt Romney in 2012, and that position always carries weight in the Republican Party. He is also offering voters something no Republican is offering: a sensibility for the proletariat, a soft spot for the poor, and a desire to engage in the economic debate that other Republicans deem "class warfare." Santorum might be calling for the abandonment of a "leftist" language, but he is speaking Democrat in economics, and doing so in a way that makes him unique in the field. 

He also seems to have learned his lesson about social issues, using language that could even be mistaken for pro-gay marriage: after all, if marriage is a true, beautiful, and necessary institution, every American should be able and encouraged to participate in it – if only for the improvement of the economy. His audience knows enough about Santorum not to misinterpret his statements, but they were nonetheless sufficiently inclusive to make that interpretation possible – a prodigious leap in ambiguity for the former Pennsylvania senator.

Watch Santorum speak live at CPAC below:

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland—On Friday, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) addressed the CPAC conference at the Gaylord Resort on the Potomac River. Cornyn asserted that Texas proves “conservative policies do lead to growth and prosperity, compared to the failed experiment of big government during the last five years under President Obama.”

Cornyn’s main thrust was the importance of accountability in our government. The Texas senator believes that the Obama administration has abandoned accountability to a “shocking” degree. Historically, some of America’s greatest leaders derived their success by being accountable for their actions, the senator reminded the audience, from George Washington “who couldn’t tell a lie” to one of the founders of the Republican party who was known as “honest Abe.” Cornyn emphasized that the “entire experiment in self government” depends on accountability. The Texas Republican quoted Thomas Paine, who said, “a body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not be trusted by anybody.”

According to Cornyn, “unaccountability has always been the refuge of autocrats, scandal makers, and stubbornly bad government policy.” He said that for the last five years – “five long years” – under the Obama administration, accountability has been jettisoned and replaced by cover ups and misrepresentations. Cornyn reminded the audience, when Eric Holder’s justice department had knowingly allowed weapons to be smuggled into the hands of Mexican cartel members, “Did we get accountability?” The enthusiastic audience answered in unison, “No!” The refrain of “no” continued throughout the segment as Cornyn continued to ask questions designed to reveal Obama’s failure of accountability. “When one of those weapons showed up at the murder scene of border patrol agent Brian Terry, I’ll ask you, did we get accountability?”

Cornyn continued his attack on the President. He recounted Obama's failures of accountability, citing the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and the IRS scandal which targeted conservative non-profit groups. “And then, of course, there is Obamacare. Where do we even begin?” he asked. He targeted the website failures of HealthCare.gov, which Americans were forced to use because of government-mandated healthcare. Cornyn asserted that we did not get accountability, “we were told the errors were great problems to have.” Moreover, Cornyn pointed out that the navigators who were hired to help assist enrollees did not undergo criminal background checks. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius“told me herself that convicted felons could be hired as navigators,” Cornyn claimed. 

According to Cornyn, Republicans predicted that higher premiums would prevail and that a multitude of problems would come to fruition if we as a nation adopted a national healthcare system. The senator argued that we have gotten no accountability from Obama and the Democrats, “but instead we have gotten waivers and delays and minced words over exactly what the president meant when he said if you like what you have you can keep it.”

Senator Cornyn posits that the future of our great country will be determined by a “new era of accountability, and conservatives must lead in this new culture of accountability.” The way to achieve this new era of accountability is to maintain the House of Representatives and “take back the Senate.” From there Cornyn hopes that Republicans will take back the White House in 2016.

A panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Thursday criticized the Common Core standards as a top-down, centralized system of government intervention that threatens state and local school autonomy, student privacy, and the continued expansion of more school options for parents and children.

In a standing-room-only venue, moderated by the Heritage Foundation’s Lindsey Burke, the panel included Robert Enlow, president and CEO of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice; Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum; and Jim Stergios, executive director of the Pioneer Institute.

“After 50 years of failed initiatives in education, conservatives aren’t exactly sold on this notion that this time Washington will get it right,” said Burke.

As Heritage.org reports, Enlow provided the central theme that the Common Core standards are growing increasingly controversial as more parents are pushing back, letting Washington elites know that parents are in charge of their children’s education, not politicians.

Noting the various iterations of federal involvement in education, beginning with the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, then later national standards, and now Common Core, Schlafly said all of them have in common an emphasis on government control rather than student-centered learning.

In an interview with The Christian Post, Schlafly said the Common Core debate is “the hottest issue at the grassroots.”

“Every place I went people were showing up and talking about it,” said Schlafly. “I think it was a very good panel and very valuable to have people talking about it.”

Enlow observed that conservatives are gaining ground in the area of school choice, citing that, in 1996, only five school choice programs operated in only five states. Today, 48 school choice programs are operating in 26 states and Washington D.C.

Noting that conservatives were gaining momentum on the issue of the Common Core standards “because they are finally starting to make their voices heard in meaningful ways at the grassroots level,” Enlow added, “The same thing... has been happening with school choice in the last ten years, and that’s why we have over a million families using school choice – because parents are making their voices heard.”

According to Stergios, the Common Core initiative is more about “compliance” than education. He noted, “There are friends among us who say this is truly conservative. That is ludicrous.”

As observed by The American Conservative, both Schlafly and Stergios criticized the emphasis of the English Language Arts standards on informational texts rather than literature.

“Reading between the lines of literature teaches kids about meaning,” Stergios said, noting that such analysis teaches essential lessons about irony and nuance.

“When’s the last time you read a textbook and laughed?” he asked.

Stergios added that the pushback against Common Core has only just begun.

WASHINGTON, DC -- Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) warns that California’s water crisis will continue until there are major changes in state government, and until Republicans win the U.S. Senate. 

“We are being governed by people who are out of their minds,” McClintock said, referring to the inability of state and federal authorities to manage California’s water supply.

“Droughts are inevitable--they are nature’s fault. Water shortages are our fault,” he said. 

Speaking to Breitbart News in his Capitol Hill office, McClintock outlined what he believes would be necessary to prevent future shortages: resuming construction on existing dam projects, some of which were abandoned during Gov. Jerry Brown’s first administration in the 1970s.

The Auburn Dam project, for example, would create a reservoir two-and-a-half times the size of the ailing Folsom Lake, he said. In addition, McClintock suggested raising the height of the Shasta Dam from the current 600 feet to 800 feet, as originally designed. That, he said, would add nine million acre-feet to its existing storage capacity--double its present volume.

McClintock also criticized Brown’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta tunnel project, which will cost billions but would offer no water storage capacity and no hydroelectric power. He noted that state water projects in the mid-twentieth century spent comparable amounts in current dollars, yet also included storage and generated electricity, and paid for themselves over time.

“It’s only in the last several decades that the state has issued general bonds for these projects, which leave taxpayers on the hook. It’s insane,” McClintock said. 

Environmentalists have opposed the construction of new dams, partly because of habitat and scenery destroyed by reservoirs, and because of the physical obstacle dams often pose to annual fish migrations.

Yet McClintock sees dams as a critical part of addressing California’s chronic water shortages. He and his Republican colleagues have also passed several measures aimed at changing the distribution of water to favor struggling Central Valley farmers, and he intends to hold hearings to investigate the release of large amounts of water from existing dams just before winter.

McClintock has championed solutions such as allowing one-stop permitting for federal water reclamation projects. Many of his legislative efforts, however, have stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid has blocked them, and where California’s two Democratic Senators have resisted Republican changes to federal water policy. 

Broader change will await Republican victories in 2014 and 2016. “The voters are everything,” he says. 

McClintock believes taking the U.S. Senate in 2014 is the key, because he believes that the lame-duck Obama administration would not be able to withstand pressure from both houses of Congress to make changes if the severe water crisis persists.

Illinois Democratic Governor Pat Quinn has been under pressure for wasting over $50 million in taxes on an anti-violence program that employed gang members, and now Quinn faces more criticism because one of his hires was charged with murder.

Quinn has been criticized for hiring gang members at $8.50 an hour to hand out anti-violence pamphlets in African American sections of the Windy City. In particular he hired gang members Jermalle Brown and Douglas Bufford to work for his $54.5 million Neighborhood Recovery Initiative. During a robbery, Brown later murdered Bufford – likely by accident – and now the murder is making news again after a report by the state auditor criticized Quinn for the wasteful anti-violence program.

The two gang members and a third man broke into a Grand Crossing home in July of 2012 to commit a robbery. Chicago Police believe that the crime was gang-related.

The robbery ended in disaster when Bufford was hit in the back of the head by a shotgun blast. Brown was arrested for the incident.

Now the murder is making news again after a new report criticized Gov. Quinn for having paid tax dollars to these two thugs who were paid to advertise his anti-violence message.

Quinn was slammed by Auditor General William Holland for the wasteful program. He called the Neighborhood Recovery Initiative "hastily implemented."

"Our audit of the NRI program found pervasive deficiencies in [the program's] planning, implementation and management," he said in his recent report.

The auditor said that Quinn's office didn't "adequately monitor" how the state funds were being spent, and with the tale of Brown and Bufford resurfacing, it seems that Holland's claim has been vindicated.

Quinn has been criticized for "hastily" launching the program only 30 days prior to his 2010 election, with critics saying it smells of a payoff to voting constituencies.

Several state legislators have called for a criminal probe into the Governor's anti-violence program.

A new CNN poll has found that more than half of Americans believe abortion should be restricted, and a majority of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortions.

According to CNN, 27 percent of those surveyed said abortion should be legal in all circumstances, while 13 percent said the practice should be legal in most circumstances. However, 38 percent of those polled said abortion should be legal in few circumstances and 20 percent said it should always be illegal, leaving a total of 58 percent who said abortion should be restricted to few situations or always illegal.

Most Americans have never supported taxpayer funding of abortion and, according to this survey, 56 percent remain opposed and only 39 percent favor taxpayer funding of the practice of abortion.

However, the poll also found that 49 percent of Americans say women who receive government subsidies for health insurance should be able to obtain a health insurance plan that covers the practice of abortion, while 49 percent disagreed.

The eugenicist nature of the practice of abortion has been in the news recently, as a New York City report demonstrated that more black babies were aborted than born in 2012 in that city.

In addition, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has revealed that 71.67 percent of babies aborted in Mississippi are black, while 26.6 percent are white. In addition, 53.6 percent of babies aborted in Georgia are black.

ORC International conducted the telephone poll for CNN, with 1,010 adults participating. The poll’s overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

Speaking to a standing ovation at CPAC, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said that the Fourth Amendment is as important as the Second Amendment in the fight for liberty and conservatives cannot forget that.

The potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate cited abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, who vowed not to sit quietly when liberties were being taken away, and said that the Sons of Liberty who fought against British soldiers "writing their own warrants would today make a bonfire of secret orders." Paul said they would say, "We will not be detained, spied upon... We will not trade liberty for security; not now, not ever."

Yet as Americans protest the National Security Agency's spying programs, Paul said that the federal government still monitors everyone's cell phone activity.

"I believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their damn business," Paul said. "I believe this is a profound Constitutional question: can a single warrant be applied to millions of Americans' phone records, emails, credit cards?"

Paul said that though the government maintains that Americans do not own their records and credit card statements, he disagreed because the Fourth Amendment is "very clear" that a single warrant for "millions of Americans' phone records hardly sounds specific to an individual."

Paul said that issuing "generalized warrants that don't name an individual and seek the records of millions of individuals goes against the very fabric of the Fourth Amendment." He recalled that John Adams said that James Otis's revolt against generalized warrants was the "spark" that started the American Revolution.

He said in the "great battle for the heart and soul of America," the Fourth Amendment is "equally as important as the Second Amendment, and conservatives cannot forget this."

He also said that anybody who has been a minority, whether because of the "color of your skin or the shade of your ideology," or been persecuted or "paddled upstream" should be afraid that the government might imprison Americans without a trial. He said those who have been minorities because of thought or religion or anyone who has taught children at home or prayed to God without permission should also be alarmed that a government could "presume to imprison without trial." He slammed Obama for authorizing the imprisonment of American citizens without a trial and said that "our rights are inherent" and they are "inseparable from person."

"They are innate," Paul said of the rights given to man by God. "And no government can take them away from us."

Paul then said that Obama is setting a precedent for lawlessness and destroying future checks on tyranny.

"We must stop this president from shredding the Constitution," Paul said after citing Montesquieu's declaration that if the executive branch usurps the legislative authority, "a tyranny will ensue."

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, American conservative and founder of Media Research Center, Brent Bozell, asserted that, from the standpoint of ideas, conservatives have, "allowed themselves to engage in philosophical discussions that have nothing to do with the conservative movement." In fact, he says conservatives are entertaining ideas that are “anathema” to what conservatives traditionally believe. We have to keep in mind, says Bozell, “ Ronald Reagan wasn’t a success because he was a Republican. Ronald Reagan was a success because he was a conservative.”

“We have people who are, in the name of conservatism, pushing what they call ‘Big Government Conservatism,’ which is a contradiction.” Bozell says that there are  conservatives that call themselves “national defense hawks” who want to deplete military spending. Moreover, according to Bozell, there are conservatives that say that they are “pro-life,” but they want to abandon social issues form the conservative conversation. “Basically you got ideas that are being presented as conservative but are anti-conservative.”

From a standpoint of technology, Brent does not think the internet has helped the conservative cause. Although he feels it’s a wonderful vehicle to project good ideas, it is also a vehicle to project bad ideas. A bad idea for Bozell is the notion that social issues should not be part of the conservative first principles. According to Bozell, the first principles of conservatism consist of limited government, strong national defense, and an adherence to traditional American values. Bozell clarified the three principles by offering, “to put it another way: Freedom, Strength and Virtue.”

Bozell explained that many conservatives believe that abortion or traditional marriage should not be discussed because they think it is bad politics and thus bad policy. The conservative spokesman insists that, just because a principle that you hold true “is not popular this week, if it’s a cornerstone principle” it should be communicated.

Significantly, Bozell feels that we could have ended Obamacare already. The only thing we need was the “will of the House. They just had to say we are not going to fund it. But, that will isn’t there. And in the Senate that will isn’t there.” Brent also contends that even if Republicans can capture the senate in 2014, they will not try to defund Obamacare. He says that Republicans always give a reason for why it can’t be done. They are “like Wimpy with the hamburgers. I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” We are continually being told “not this time,” but sometime in the future we are going to fight. Moreover, it has been the same story for the debt ceiling, Bozell maintains.

Bozell has been impressed with the voices of Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) and he maintains that they embrace  the “first principles of conservatism.” However, Brent says that when they realized “the clock was running out and they made a stand against Obamacare, the Republican leadership turned on them.” According to Bozell, there hasn’t been a single serious effort yet to fight Obamacare. “They don’t like it but they don’t want to fight against it.”

What’s more, Bozell makes the point that the reason Republicans have a majority in the House is a result of their  “solemn commitment” to end  Obamacare, which they made during the 2010 midterm elections.  From the standpoint of the conservative movement, Bozell argues that, “when one piece of legislation nationalized one-seventh of the American economy, then small government conservatives should go ballistic.” Furthermore, Brent says that any republican who calls himself a fiscal conservative, “which is to say every single Republican in congress should be fighting tooth and nail. And, if he doesn’t, then stop using the term fiscal conservative.”

On a more optimistic note, Bozell does feel that there is a new generation of conservative leaders that make him hopeful for the movement. “Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul are great examples of “bright, bright conservative minds” that are emerging. Bozell insists the conservative movement is going to have to “wrap themselves around them. And not worry about power. We have got to focus on principles.”