Unless voter integrity efforts take root this year, the notion
of free and fair elections could become a relic of American
history, Catherine Engelbrecht warned listeners during the “True the Vote National Summit in
Houston, Texas yesterday. Engelbrecht, who is the president and
founder of the organization, cited specific instances throughout
the country where the number of voters listed on registration rolls
exceeded the actual number of eligible voters. She also said it was
far too easy for non-citizens to obtain voter registration
“The next few months are critical to the telling of our story,”
she said. “Our goal is the make the 2012 elections the freest and
fairest the country has ever seen.” Engelbrecht acknowledged this
is a tall order. The various pressure groups opposed to photo
identification requirements are very well funded and well
organized. But they are not on the side of public opinion.
latest survey from Rasmussen finds that 64 percent of likely
U.S. voters see voter fraud as a serious problem. The same survey
also reports that 73 percent of Americans do not view photo ID laws
as being discriminatory.
Other speakers included Anita MonCrief, a former ACORN/Project
Vote employee, turned conservative activist.
“I was very sheltered until I met the Tea Party people,” she
said. “We were all black Catholics, we liked Jesus and JFK.”
MonCrief recalled a meeting in Little Rock, Arkansas, where
ACORN activists outlined a “socialist wish list” that included
universal health care and environmental justice. It was at this
point that MonCrief began to have misgivings about the ACORN
network that were further cemented when she became privy to the
close connection between the 2008 Obama campaign and the Project
Vote affiliate, she explained.
The collusion between President Obama’s Department of Justice
and far left pressure groups that are out to block voter fraud
investigations and intimidate state officials was a major theme of
“Our country is under attack from the inside,” she said. “The
Department of Justice has gone wild; it is not working on behalf of
the American people. It is working for these pressure groups.”
MonCrief also described how ACORN activists exploited loose
voting standards throughout the country in the past few election
cycles. Phone calls were made to the offices of secretaries of
state throughout the country to identify where it would easiest to
manipulate and exploit provisional ballots; these are the ballots
used when question are raised about a voter’s eligibility.
Other speakers included Pat Caddell, a Fox News Contributor, and
Democratic political strategist. Caddell discussed how the disputed
Bush-Gore 2000 presidential race has impacted subsequent elections.
The George Soros funded, Secretary of State Project (SOS), for
instance, has successfully positioned key figures into office who
are sympathetic toward ACORN, and other pressure groups, Caddell
Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, who was elected with
support from Soros and ACORN, oversaw the recount that ultimately
resulted in election of Al Franken as that state’s Democratic U.S.
Senator. Franken had been behind Republican Norm Coleman before the
“Every stolen election is a bullet in the heart of what this
country is about,” Caddell said.
Franken provided the 60th vote needed to pass Obamacare.
Former big league first baseman Bill “Moose” Skowron
died today of congestive heart failure following a long battle
with lung cancer. He was 81.
14 seasons in the bigs, nine of them with the New York Yankees.
He also spent time with the Los Angeles Dodgers, Washington
Senators, Chicago White Sox and California Angels. Between 1955 and
1963, Skowron played in every World Series except for one (1959).
He earned four World Series rings with the Bronx Bombers (1956,
1958, 1961 and 1962) and one with Dodgers in 1963 when they swept
the Yankees in four. Skowron was also named to six American League
All-Star teams. He was selected in five consecutive years for the
Yankees from 1957 to 1961 and once with the Chisox in 1965. Skowron
finished his career with 1,566 hits, a respectable .281 lifetime
batting average, 211 homeruns and 888 RBI.
In recent years, Skowron worked for the White Sox in community
relations. Here is Skowron letting
his hair down in an interview at a golf tournament organized by
former White Sox slugger Ron Kittle a few years back.
Over at NRO, Peter Robinson did a week long interview segment
with Pat Buchanan. In today’s final
installment, Buchanan discussed his abrupt departure from MSNBC
earlier this year following the publication of his latest book
Suicide of a Superpower:
What do all of these terms racist, sexist and
homophobic(inaudible)? They’re all the same thing. They’re
synonyms for heretic and what I am is a heretic to the conventional
wisdom as it moves further and further left.
Well, Buchanan was no heretic at MSNBC during the Bush bashing
days and loved Obama every bit as much as Rachel Maddow. He was a
useful idiot and performed this
function well. In fact, Buchanan told Robinson that he had “a
very good tenure at MSNBC.” But once Obama got elected, Buchanan
outlived his usefulness and it was only a matter of time before he
did something that would result in his dismissal. MSNBC has been an
overtly ultra left-wing entity for most of the time Buchanan was in
its employ. Buchanan knew full well the environment he was in,
chose to stay in it and cashed their checks. He doesn’t get any
sympathy from me.
This is turning absurdist. Six full days after the mob beating
in Mobile involving 20 people or so (with two reports now calling
it as many as 40), with ALL those involved supposedly living on the
same street, Mobile police still have arrested only one man and
said they doubt they will ever arrest more than three others. But
it gets worse: The man arrested is already out on bond, despite a
lengthy criminal record.
Meanwhile, police are now casting doubt on the story of the
man’s family, claiming they have changed their story, even though
nothing they are saying is really a change from what they have told
others for days.
I live in Mobile. I don’t want to believe what I am about to
say. But I am now suspecting that officials in Mobile are trying to
sweep this all under the rug in order to avoid more national
attention of an unwanted sort. At first I thought it was innocent
wishful thinking on their part in denying that this was a bigger
incident than it was; now, unless I see otherwise, I am suspecting
something more obstinately, willfully blind.
We should not sit back and let a man be beaten by 20 people, or
beaten by several while a dozen or more incited them to continue
the beating, and accept some bogus contention that only three or
four deserve arrests and that this was all just nothing to worry
much about because it was the continuation of an ongoing personal
dispute (with no racial connotations, supposedly, although in the
end that is only slightly material).
What the police report comports not at all with my own, fairly
brief personal on-scene investigation, nor with more extensive
on-scene investigations by several other mainstream news
This smells like a bit of a cover-up.
It is a cover-up that would never occur if the race of the
people involved were reversed.
We must all be dedicated to color-blind justice, and a
color-blind society. This is anything but.
I don’t care what the races are that are involved. I don’t care
if the skin color is magenta with chartreuse freckles. I want
justice. I want accuracy. I want truth.
This is NOT racial rabble-rousing. This is an insistence that
the truth come out and put in full context: The context is
something in between a “revenge for Trayvon” thing and a mere,
totally non-racial personal dispute. I truly believe that the
overwhelming majority of American blacks and whites are not racist.
But I also believe the media applies horrendous double-standards
that excuse some racism while seeing other racism where it doesn’t
Without the full story, all sides will believe the worst, and
nobody will learn anything.
I am not interested in seeing some wort of bogus “hate crimes”
prosecution. I just want prosecutions, period. And not just three
or four, much less the pitiful single arrest that we’ve seen so
far. Worse, for the man arrested to already be out on bond is
absurd, considering that he has such a long rap sheet. Usually, if
somebody has been sentenced to long terms, but had part of those
terms suspended, the suspensions carry with them a probationary
period as well. it defies belief to think that none of the several
suspended sentences carries a probation through which the older
charges are reinstated upn further arrest, or at least with some
stipulation that bond be higher, or impossible, to get if the
subsequent arrest is for a serious violent crime.
This just smells to high heaven.
There is no excuse for us to be sitting here today with not a
single person in jail, six days after a mob beating. Meanwhile, the
Mobile police darn well ought to be patrolling Delmar Drive, and
providing protection for all its residents, black and white
Detroit Tigers outfielder Delmon Young was
arrested in front of a hotel on Sixth Avenue in New York City
this morning for allegedly assaulting a man while shouting
anti-Semitic slurs and has been charged with an aggravated
harassment hate crime, a misdemeanor. Young, 26, was apparently
intoxicated at the time of the incident.
The Tigers are in New York to play a three game series against
the Yankees starting tonight. As of this writing, the Tigers nor
MLB have taken any disciplinary action against Young. However, I
would be shocked if Young were in the lineup tonight especially in
front of a crowd with more than its share of Jewish fans.
This isn’t the first time Young’s temper has got the better of
him. In April 2006 (in fact, it was six years ago yesterday), when
Young was playing with the Durham Bulls (the Triple A team for the
Tampa Bay Devil Rays as they were then known), he was suspended for
50 games for throwing his bat at a
the home plate umpire after being ejected for arguing balls and
strikes after he was called on out strikes during a game against
the Pawtucket Red Sox.
Young was brought up to the bigs later that season and had his
first full season with the Devil Rays in 2007. Despite finishing
up in the AL Rookie of the Year balloting behind Dustin Pedroia
of the Boston Red Sox, the rechristened Rays dealt Young along with
infielder Brendan Harris and outfielder Jason Pridie to the
Minnesota Twins for pitcher Matt Garza and infielder Jason
Bartlett. Garza and Bartlett, of course, were key members of the
Rays’ 2008 AL championship team.
After adequate seasons in 2008 and 2009, Young had a breakout
season with the Twins in 2010 hitting .298 with 21 homeruns and 112
10th in the AL MVP balloting. However, Young (along with almost
every other Twin) took a step back in 2011. Last August, the Twins
dealt Young to the Detroit Tigers for minor league pitcher Cole
Nelson. Young helped the Tigers win the AL Central and played well
in the post-season.
However, Phil Mackey, an ESPN reporter based in the Twin Cities,
was relieved the Twins had dealt him because he and his fellow
reporters never knew what they were going to get with Young. Mackey
summed up Young this way, “Sometimes surly. Sometimes charming
Well, it would appear that Delmon Young’s surly side
was on full display this morning.
Naturally, I am disturbed about these accusations of
anti-Semitism. Are they true? If it is true then how long has he
harbored these feelings? Does his older brother Dmitri, himself a
former big leaguer, also afflicted with the world’s oldest hatred?
I am hardly the one who is bothered by this development. Consider
thoughts of Rabbi Jason Miller, who is also a loyal Tigers
When I read the news about Young, my heart sank to the floor. My
oldest son is 8. In the past year he has become a die hard Detroit
Tigers fan. He knows all the players by name. He knows their
uniform number and their statistics (just like I did when I was a
Tigers fan at that age). How am I supposed to explain to my son
that Delmon Young was drunk, got into a street fight, yelled
an anti-Semitic slur and got arrested? To my son, Delmon Young is a
hero. He cheers for him. He prays that Young will hit a home run
when he comes up to bat. I don’t think that it ever occurred to my
son (or to me for that matter) that Delmon Young hates Jews in an
inebbriated, full-of-rage Mel Gibson sort of way.
I know there’s a lot left to be desired about humanity and human
beings. But when Delmon Young or anyone steps up to the plate the
last thing I ask myself, “Is he an anti-Semite?” But consider the
numbers. At any given moment, there are 750 men who are on the
rosters of a major league team. If you took 750 random men between
the ages of 18 to 49 there would be invariably be a few bigots
amongst them. So chances are there’s someone in a big league
clubhouse who doesn’t like Jews or other religious, racial or
ethnic groups, drunk or sober. Like poverty, hatred will always be
amongst us. However, that doesn’t make it any less
disappointing when that hatred comes to the surface in all its
UPDATE: The Tigers have
removed Young from their active roster and have placed him on
the restricted list pending further information.
In response to the frenzied anticipation for David Frum’s debut
novel Patriots (available in paperback May 7, so start
pitching your tents outside Borders!) the Huffington
Post has been serializing Frum’s cheeky Washington satire
online. Today HuffPo
features, on its exclusive left-hand column, part 5 of Mr.
Frum’s entry into the arts and letters, and one of the
characters seems surprisingly familiar. While devoted Frum-philes
obsess over the similarities between the artist and his
central literary creation “Walter” (a moderate Republican opinion
blogger for mainstream news sites, or something) a colorful
supporting character named “Freddy Catesby” caught my
“So you are probably wondering: Why has Freddy Catesby invited
me to lunch? Freddy Catesby, the founder of the Constitutional
Review, Patriot News guest host, and bestselling author!
Freddy Catesby: who has known U.S. presidents, who has entertained
a British prime minister in his home, and who — people say — once
dated the Princess of Wales. And it’s this same Freddy Catesby who
is taking me out to lunch. Why? It’s the most natural question in
the world! It’s exactly what I’d be wondering if I were
sitting in your chair.”
The waiter filled Catesby’s wine glass, then looked
questioningly at me. What the hell. I nodded yes.
“To understand why I invited you, you have to understand me. I’m
not only the founder of Constitutional Review, although
I’m proud of my role in launching the magazine. You know that
Time magazine called us the most influential political
magazine in the country on our 10th anniversary? I’ll put you on
the list for our 30th anniversary dinner next month as my guest,
I’ll put you at my table.
No, no, don’t thank me — it’s my pleasure.
“All those things I’ve accomplished, all the awards and
accolades — they mean nothing to me. I live for my principles, not
for recognition. What I care about is fighting the
Kultursmog. You know I coined the term?”
Quite the honor. As the late Dorothy Kilgallen once quipped,
“You’re nobody in this town until you’ve been skewered by
Just as it was gaining momentum and attracting attention,
Twitter shut down and silenced an account that promoted a free
market vision for environmentalism timed with Earth Day. Special
credit here belongs to Eric Bolling, who used his own twitter account and his
program “The Five” on Fox News to bring attention the cause.
The account, @FreeMarket_US, a project of Americans
for Limited Government (ALG), went live a few days before Earth Day
and proceeded to pick up considerable steam. On Earth Day, the
official website for Free Market America was launched and its
Facebook and Twitter components started to come to life as well.
The first video
put out by Free Market America, “If I wanted America to
fail,” got over 120,000 hits in less than 36 hours —
that’s not too shabby.
Adam Bitely, an editor for Net Right Daily, the official
website for ALG, described what happened after the Twitter account
was suspended mid-way through Earth Day.
“After numerous attempts to contact Twitter and see what the
story was behind the suspension, ALG launched a twitter campaign
against twitter,” he wrote. “Urging all of our followers to contact
@twitter to ask why the Free Market America site has
been suspended, thousands came to our defense.”
Bolling and others including Michelle Malkin
(@michellemalkin) who tweeted to her more than 270,000
followers multiple times, talk radio host Neal Boortz
and Glenn Beck’s
The Blaze, for bringing pressure on Twitter.
The account was eventually restored. But the lesson here is for
free market activists to remain and vigilant at a time when green
pressure groups, and their allies in old and new media, are out to
stifle dissenting views.
For latest please follow @freemarket_us, @billwilsonalg,
@netrightdaily and @limitgovt.
You might recall that Chicago White Sox pitcher Philip Humber
threw a perfect game against the Seattle Mariners last Saturday
Tonight, Humber was
far from perfect against the Boston Red Sox. In five innings,
Humber gave up nine runs on eight hits while issuing three walks.
Humber surrendered a grand slam to Kevin Youkilis while giving up
two homeruns to Jarrod Saltalamacchia. It just goes to show that in
baseball you can go from perfection to pitiful from one outing to
Underscoring just how out of touch with ordinary Americans the
president has become, the Washington Examiner’s Paul
that blue collar Democrats in swing states are none too pleased
with the 17 lavish vacations that the Obamas have taken.
Pollsters who have conducted focus group discussions about the
state of the economy found that on numerous occasions these 2008
Obama voters volunteered that the First Family has taken too many
vacations. “The theme is that the first family ‘is out of touch’
with working class voters,” pollster John McLaughlin said after
discussions with voters in Cleveland and Pittsburgh. More
One of the horrifying sideshows of the Trayvon Martin carnival
is how NBC News edited audio of George Zimmerman’s 911 call to
create the false impression that Zimmerman had said, “This guy
looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black.”
Dan Riehl at Breitbart.com’s Big Journalism reported last
month, NBC edited out a key part of that call. Zimmerman said
that Martin appeared to be “on drugs or something. It’s raining and
he’s just walking around, looking about.” The 911 dispatcher then
asked, “Okay, is this guy, is he white, black, or
Hispanic?” Zimmerman was merely answering the dispatcher’s
“The network is very sensitive about the whole Al Sharpton/MSNBC
issue, so when the right-wing bloggers started hammering, they
needed to throw them fresh meat,” said the station source, who
requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about
the controversy. “It’s not at all clear how this happened.
Obviously, there was miscommunication.”
This would seem to suggest that NBC News is sacrificing
low-level personnel — throwing “fresh meat” to “right-wing
bloggers” — in an effort to evade corporate
responsibility for an unethical deception that inflamed racial
tensions in the Martin case.
This enraged me:
Journalism has evidently become so politicized that there is
apparently no longer even any need for NBC News to pretend that it
is engaged in anything other than partisan propaganda — even when,
in the pursuit of an overtly political agenda, they are providing
manufactured falsehoods to serve as fodder for dangerous racial
Executives at NBC News need to provide a full accounting of how
this happened. For weeks on end, their MSNBC cable outlet stoked
the flames of outrage over the Martin case, outrage the network
itself helped create with its editing of Zimmerman’s 911 call.
NBC’s credibility as a news organization is at stake, and the
network’s executives themselves — who created the corporate
culture in which such deceptive “reporting” was tolerated — must
be held responsible.
As I reported yesterday, the Mobile Police Department is
ludicrously claiming that it is likely that no more than three
people will be arrested for the now-infamous mob beating of a man
in Mobile because the other 17 or so people were supposedly just
“onlookers.” Leaving aside the fact that this hardly squares with
the manifold reports to the contrary, let’s assume that only three
people actually landed blows. To call the others mere “onlookers”
when they were almost all engaged in mob action, yelling, cheering,
or whatever, is outrageous. Last I checked, incitement to violence
is itself a crime. Frankly, I think the circumstances merit
numerous arrests based on Alabama criminal code law 13A-11-4:
Inciting to Riot. Even
14 year-olds have been charged under this statute, for
instigating multi-person fights.
ANYBODY who provides encouragement to the commission of a crime
accessory thereto, which is a criminal offense usually treated
as if it represents the same degree of culpability as the actual
If the Mobile police end up arresting only three people, it will
be almost certainly be a monumental injustice, and amount to
sweeping a crime under the rug.
Over on the main site, John has authored a
well-crafted take on Marco Rubio’s foreign policy address,
given yesterday at the Brookings Institution. There will be plenty
of time to tackle the nature of “neo-Reaganism” in a post-Cold War
world, but for now, I’ll couch my response to the timbres of
The neocons are often cast as the villains of the Bush years,
blamed for leading the country into a calamitous Mesopotamian
misadventure. The historical record doesn’t really support this
narrative. The invasion of Iraq was supported by a broad swath of
the right, left, and center.
Fair point. In fact, 373 senators and representatives — from
both sides of the aisle — were somehow duped into believing the
1. Iraq’s exaggerated power presented a critical threat to
America’s national security;
2. A de facto ally (however unpleasant) against Islamic
fundamentalism, and a strategic counterbalance to Iran needed to be
removed, as swiftly as possible;
3. The invasion and “liberation” of a Muslim country in the
Middle East would not become a recruiting poster for Islamic
4. The U.S. invasion of Iraq would not destabilize the region or
topple “friendly” regimes in neighboring Arab states;
5. We could create a stable, liberal democracy that would be
friendly to American interests, despite the fact that an electoral
democracy would, predictably, put Shi’a groups in power — groups
supported by Iran since Ba’athi repression drove many to seek
sectarian sanctuary; and,
6. An invasion and long-term occupation of Iraq would pay for
itself, and not cost trillions of dollars, bust the budget or throw
the U.S. economy into a tailspin.
I’m sure both John and I could go on, and on, listing the false
promises/premises of America’s efforts in Iraq. Flattening the
logic that bound presumptive fabrications is an exercise in ease.
As such, I’d respectfully counter that shortsighted, neocon-driven
consensus was just ill-advised groupthink, unimproved by
This EPA official who said his strategy is to
“crucify” oil and gas companies ought be fired before week’s
end. Period. This isn’t regulatory enforcement, it’s criminal
prosecutorial abuse. Then again, the Obama administration is rather
good at such regulatory abuses.
makes the case that the Obama presidency is really the second
term of Jimmy Carter. If nothing else, by putting the DNC
acceptance speeches of Carter in 1980 and Obama in 2008 side by
side, Jeff demonstrates that liberals haven’t had any new ideas in
at least thirty years. I know I am being generous and am sure one
could convincingly argue that it’s been nearly fifty years since
liberalism had the semblance of an original thought.
He also cites Hamilton Jordan’s 1979 memo to Carter in which
part states, “We will be re-elected or not re-elected based largely
on your performance as President.”
Well, like Carter, Obama can’t run on his record. However,
Barack Obama is no Jimmy Carter.
First, Jordan might argue about the myth of the incumbent
President but Obama didn’t have a Ted Kennedy to worry about. The
last incumbent President to lose an election without a primary
challenger was when Herbert Hoover was unseated by FDR in 1932. As
for Obama, the Democratic Party might not be as in love with him as
they were in 2008 but their base is solidly behind him. Obama has
at least 40% of the electorate in his back pocket.
Second, Obama enjoys all kinds of advantages Carter could only
dream of - a billion dollar war chest, a field organization that
can turn out the vote and a sympathetic, if not sycophantic media
behind his re-election effort.
Third, Obama is no peanut farmer. Let’s keep in mind that Obama
has spent his entire adult life having had things handed to him
(i.e. Columbia, Harvard Law Review, Sidley Austin, a teaching
position at the University of Chicago, author of an autobiography,
Illinois State Senate, U.S. Senate, author of a second
autobiography and now the White House.) Obama views the presidency
like an entitlement and will fiercely protect it from someone who
has the audacity to take it away from him. President Obama plays
Fourth, contrary to popular belief, Bill Clinton was not the
first black President. If Chris Matthews is already
asking about how the electorate could contemplate “dumping
the first African-American President” then imagine what things will
be like in six months from now? Throw in the Trayvon Martin
shooting and it will be utterly relentless. There might be just
enough white liberal guilt out there to put Obama over the top.
Fifth, as Jeff notes when Jordan penned that memo he did not
know who Carter would be facing the following year. Well, the Obama
team had a pretty good idea from the outset who they would be
facing and as one unnamed Democratic strategist with close ties to
President Obama said
last August, “Unless things change and Obama can run on
accomplishments, he will have to kill Romney.”
Sixth, which brings me to Romney. Jeff writes, “Ronald
Reagan challenged the entire foundation of liberalism, effectively
asking voters to repudiate not just Carter but liberalism itself.”
While the Obama campaign will move heaven and earth to paint Romney
as a right-wing extremist it remains to be seen as to
whether Romney will “challenge the entire foundation of liberalism”
much less ask voters to repudiate Obama.
Don’t get me wrong. Romney could win the election. While 1980
could provide some useful information during the course of the 2012
campaign let us remember that we are not living in 1980 anymore.
This isn’t a 13-channel universe where a home computer is still a
novelty, Asteroids is a cutting edge video game and people need to
take community college courses to learn how to use a microwave. In
a universe where mountains can be moved by a single Tweet, the 2012
campaign is going to present its own unique set of challenges.
Above all else, I think by comparing Obama to Carter there is a
danger in underestimating Obama. Now I don’t think Obama is
intelligent enough to be in the same room with Romney much less
qualified for an entry level job in one of Romney’s companies. But
there are plenty of people who don’t hold Obama in such low
regard. They might not be in love with Obama but they might not be
so sure about Romney either and they too have a vote. If
Romney is to win them over then he can’t rely on Carter’s
cardigan. He must earn it.
This morning, in an interview on
CNBC, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) was told by
CNBC anchor that a recent poll shows Mitt Romney trailing Barack
Obama among Catholics.
Without hesitation, Ryan said “Leaders change polls. We don’t
Ryan’s interview was primarily about pro-growth economic policy
and his upcoming “America’s Enduring Promise” speech at Georgetown
University. Ryan asked the simple and powerful question (simple is
often important for powerful, after all) “Why don’t you just keep
your money in the first place?” rather than jumping through federal
hoops, hoping Washington, DC may give you some of your money
Rep. Ryan made many other important points; I encourage you to
watch the entire 12 minute interview.
Paul Ryan is getting better in front of the camera with each
passing month. The left portrays him as slightly more evil than
Satan, but anyone who actually sees and hears Ryan can’t help but
believe that his high hopes for America and goodwill toward
Americans are heartfelt and sincere. Mitt Romney will have to
consider him for VP, though I would prefer Ryan to stay where he is
for now and just try to teach Romney to understand the budget.
Just got back from a press conference at Mobile police HQ.
Before I get into that, please allow this clarification and
apology. In my original blog post yesterday, while blasting Al
Sharpton and other national figures for their double-standard in
not engaging in advocacy for beaten white people, I also in passing
asked why Mayor Sam Jones had not spoken up. In retrospect, putting
Jones in the company of Sharpton et al was unfair to Jones. My beef
with Jones was not based on any race-related actions or inaction on
his part, nor was it based on any apparent hypocrisy on his part.
Instead, it was a leadership issue: I thought this was a situation
where the mayor should have been out front, verbally “laying down
the law” as it were, and that he should already have made a
statement. I still think so. But to mention him in the same breath
as Sharpton, in the context of Sharpton’s racial double standards,
was thoughtless on my part, and I apologize. I may have policy and
stylistic differences with Mayor Jones, but he has very little
history of anything approaching racial demagoguery.
Okay, ‘nuff said on that. Moving on to the press conference:
Forgive me if I sound cynical, but I came away
far less impressed, if that’s even possible, with the
Mobile police statements than I had been before.
Several people, including the mayor and several top police
officials (but not the chief), spoke. Without getting into the
weeds with lots of specific quotes (for now) attributed to
specific people, here was the gist of the message:
1) They actually believe that only three people were “involved”
as “active participants” in the assault. The rest were “onlookers.”
They may end up therefore only arresting three people (although,
under heated questioning, some by me, they said they of course
won’t rule out more arrests if their investigation warrants
2) They have “absolutely no reason to believe” that racial
motives played a role in the assault. Yeah, really. Even when asked
specifically to divorce the case from the purported reference to
Trayvon Marton, and asked directly whether “deep-seated racial
tension even just between two men” (the victim and the man arrested
today) played a role, the lead investigator said “the evidence and
the investigation that we’ve found just don’t support that.”
Furthermore, officials repeated their contention that the Trayon
Martin reference was mere hearsay from one witness — even though
at least three media sources have each reported at least three
witnesses who said they heard it with their own ears.
3) The mayor has asked for and received a federal investigation
by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney just in case any federal
violations were involved. All appropriate law enforcement outlets
and agency, local/state/federal, are “fully involved and
Frankly, items one and two above do not appear to be remotely
credible. This isn’t to say they are wrong, but
it certainly doesn’t comport with what multiple media reports have
found on both counts. As I reported earlier,
draws our attention to the Supreme Court once again being less
than impressed with the arguments advanced by Solicitor General
Donald Verilli this time over Arizona’s immigration law.
There is a great deal to be unimpressed about. U.S. v.
State of Arizona & Brewerargues
that S.B. 1070 would “conflict with and undermine by the federal
government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities
and activities” by imposing “significant and counterproductive
burdens on the federal agencies charged with enforcing the national
immigration scheme, diverting resources and attention from the
dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top
enforcement priority.” But as I
argued back in July 2010:
When the DOJ argues that S.B. 1070 “will impose significant and
counterproductive burdens on federal agencies” what they mean is
that the ICE operated Law Enforcement Support Center in Williston,
Vermont could get a lot more phone calls from Arizona. So it could
blow the overtime budget of DHS. The is an administrative issue,
not a constitutional one. Perhaps it will cause some inconvenience
for the feds. But let us never confuse inconvenience with
But then again what else can we expect of the Obama
Administration? An administration whose Attorney General admitted
under oath that he had not read the Arizona immigration law and
glanced at it.
Corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder’s war on white people
continues. In its latest installment, the Justice Department on
Monday sued the
city of Jacksonville, FL, to force the city to jettison the written
promotion exams in its fire department. According to Holder and his
leading racialist instigator, civil rights division chief Thomas
Perez, black people can’t be expected to decipher written questions
about firefighting, and it is therefore against the law to ask them
to do so.
In today’s Justice Department, the soft bigotry of low
expectations has joined with the hard bigotry of seeing whites as
racists to create a toxic brew of racial tension…..
Police have now made
one arrest for the mob beating in Mobile. For what it is worth,
both this man who was arrested and the woman who screamed at the
WKRG reporter yesterday were prominently in the street when I drove
down Delmar Drive last night to do my own investigation, both
looking rather angry. Hence my line in this morning’s column about
not wanting to conduct interviews with them once it was already
Anyway, this arrest comes nearly four full days after the
incident. We eagerly await the other 19 or so arrests that
obviously should be forthcoming. As most of the participants
reportedly came from just one city street, it really shouldn’t be
all that difficult to find them, now should it?
Meanwhile, I am really starting to believe the police department
is deliberately trying to cover up the racial angle, wholly
this story from Fox-10 in Mobile, one of several that quotes
police spokesman saying rather definitively that race really played
Cpl. Chris Levy with Mobile police said their investigation
shows the incident stems from an ongoing dispute between the Owens
Police also wanted to release that no one has confirmed that
this attack was “in retaliation for Trayvon Martin,” as one witness
Not to put too fine a point on this, but this is bunk. If it was
just an ongoing dispute between two men, why were 20 others all
involved? And why do they keep insisting that “one witness”
reported the reference to Trayvon Martin, when at least three, and
possibly more, have reported that reference, to at least three
Look, the way to deal with racial violence is not to sweep it
under the rug, but to acknowledge it for what it is, explain that
it won’t be tolerated, explain that justice is or should be
color-blind, and ask people of all races to show that we are better
than this. Otherwise, it’s like the proverbial container of boiling
oil with a very tight lid: Eventually, the steam blows the lid and
does a lot more damage than if you just let the steam out
Democrats and sympathetic media types like to cite the personal
likeability of President Obama as an indicator of his
reelectability (just today on MSNBC, Jonathan Capehart did it). So
it seemed a no-brainer that Obama would go on Jimmy Fallon’s show
last night to do some humorous personal appeals. In
2008, I wrote that candidate Obama only had two jokes: “I’m
great” or “I’m only pretty great.” Why hasn’t Obama grown out of
his ego-inflating “I’m
Pretty Awesome” approach to humor?
Obama’s cameo on Fallon’s show featured him “slow-jamming”
the news (video below). Except Obama didn’t make any jokes. He just
read off the usual talking points about student loans (appealing to
the youth vote amirite?). The whole stunt was based off of having
other people do funny things around him while he was himself. When
your whole shtick is simply contrasting your stature with the
clownishness of comedians you’re not being
funny. And does it really count as playing the “straight
man” if you really think you are above all of it? Or when you crack
they fall flat?
In fact, Obama thinking himself to be pretty awesome has been
something of a buzzkill of late. At National Review, Jim
pointed out this excerpt of Jodi Kantor’s new book:
Obama had always had a high estimation of his ability to cast
and run his operation. When David Plouffe, his campaign manager,
first interviewed for a job with him in 2006, the senator gave him
a warning: “I think I could probably do every job on the campaign
better than the people I’ll hire to do it,” he said. “It’s hard to
give up control when that’s all I’ve known.” Obama
said nearly the same thing to Patrick Gaspard, whom
he hired to be the campaign’s political director. “I think I’m a
better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Obama told him. “I know
more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors.
And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better
political director than my political director.”
The president’s friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett sometimes
pointed out that not only had he never managed an operation, he’d
never really had a nine-to-five job in his life. Obama didn’t
know what he didn’t know, yet his self-confidence was so
stratospheric that once, in the context of thinking about Emanuel’s
replacement, he remarked in all seriousness, “You
know, I’d make a good chief of staff.”
He thinks he’s capable of anything. But a key part of being
funny is often insecurity and self-deprecation, qualities he
appears to lack.
When Obama appeared on Saturday Night Live in his contest
against Hillary Clinton, he couldn’t even
muster a funny line. The one thing he said was: “I have nothing
to hide. I enjoy being myself. I’m not going to change who I am
just because it’s Halloween.”
L.O… uh. Hm.
To be fair, yes, one has to be very self-confident to make it
out of a single-parent childhood and meet with success, let alone
to become president. But at some point, you take into account your
limitations and chuckle at yourself. Instead, Obama seems pretty
confident to lord it over us: He’s awesome. Just totally
(UPDATE: Worth saying, I think Fallon is hilarious in this.)
By most accounts, Paul Clement bested Solicitor General Donald
Verrilli in oral arguments concerning the federal health care law.
It sounds like it was
more of the same as Clement against crossed swords with the
solicitor general in the Obama administration’s attempt to overturn
Arizona’s SB 1070. The Washington Times reports:
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal
government has limited resources and should have the right to
determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal
“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he
But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of
“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia
Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can
always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials
The Supreme Court is hearing the Obama administration’s
constitutional challenge to Arizona’s attempt to crack down on
illegal immigration in the state.
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 4.25.12 @ 12:30PM
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) really thinks George W. Bush was a
fantastic president. In his major foreign policy
address to the Brookings Institution, the possible Mitt Romney
running mate puts himself strongly on the side of first-term Bush,
Joe Lieberman, and the broader activist tradition. He also
criticizes those who hold contrary views in his own party.
This is a battle that has been brewing for some time. I’ve
written about the Tea Party foreign split between Rubio and
Rand Paul, which has manifest itself in the senators’ disagreement
over Georgia’s role in NATO, among other issues.
UPDATE: Rand Paul delivered
a foreign policy address at Johns Hopkins University last year.
Today’s Mobile Press-Register contains
excellent reporting (on the heels of two days of great
reporting by local TV station WKRG) about the racial mob beating of
Matthew Owens in Mobile on Saturday night, courtesy of staff
writers Brendan Kirby, Rhoda Pickett, and Robrt McClendon. They
flesh out what I reported in my column this morning, which is that
the victim is no prince, but instead a confirmed troublemaker.
Some neighbors said they have witnessed belligerence from Owens
in the past, and police reports show that he has gotten into
scrapes before with others — both black and white.
“He probably did as much to instigate this as anybody,” said
Marsha Skipper, who lives next door.
Skipper, who is white, said she gets along with her black
neighbors and has not had problems with the black children. She
said it would be bad for the neighborhood to turn the incident into
the opening salvo of a race war.
“I don’t want to see a racial issue with this,” she said. “I
don’t want to see a black-white issue out of this.”
On the other hand, despite the absurd statements from the Mobile
police downplaying the racial angle, the P-R showed ample evidence
of just that:
One of Parker’s neighbors, who asked not to be identified for
fear of retaliation, said he was watching a movie with his family
when he heard the confrontation. The neighbor, who is white, said
several of the black residents were shouting racial slurs.
He said one of the assailants shouted, “This is justice for
Trayvon,” an apparent reference to the unarmed black teenager in
Florida whose shooting death at the hands of a Hispanic
neighborhood watch volunteer sparked a racial fury.
This is not how Trayvon Martin should be remembered, as an
instigator of racial violence. One victim does not require that
another, unrelated victim be created for some sort of racial
expiation of sins.
At the rally protesting the Trayvon Martin case in Florida
sponsored by Al Sharpton, with Sharpton looking on approvingly,
radio host Mark Thompson fulminated openly about this country still
being “a system of racism and white supremacy.” That is a sick lie,
and a dangerous one because it sends the message that society
cannot be trusted — which to some minds means that racial
vigilantism is the only solution. We are better than this. There
should be no victims, black or white. We still await Sharpton
demanding justice for Matthew Owens.
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 4.25.12 @ 11:35AM
Mitt Romney finally scored that knockout blow he had been
looking for throughout the primaries. According ton one
report, it is “highly likely” that Gingrich will endorse Romney
as he suspends his campaign.
So what now? Well, Romney will obviously be the nominee. That
was a strong likelihood before Rick Santorum dropped out and became
certain once Santorum suspended his campaign. But Santorum’s exit
gave Gingrich an opportunity to become a protest vote for those who
were unhappy about Romney’s nomination, which even yesterday’s
primaries ranged from about a third of Republicans turning out in
the Romney-friendly New England states to more than 40 percent in
Pennsylvania and Delaware. That would have made Gingrich somewhat
relevant to the race again even though he was too far behind to
actually win, and would allow him to close his campaign on somewhat
of an up note.
Last night’s results made clear that this wasn’t likely to
happen. Now deeply in debt, Gingrich doesn’t really have the
resources to fight on in North Carolina and Texas. It’s not clear
he will even finish second in other remaining primaries, after
running third or worse everywhere but Delaware last night. Gingrich
always ran an underfunded and undiscipline campaign, which he was
able to keep alive by excelling at free media opportunities like
debates and collecting super PAC money from Sheldon Addelson. Both
sources of oxygen have since been cut off.
Now Ron Paul, whose campaign still has money, will keep trying
to dominate the delegate selection process in enough caucus states
to get his name placed in nomination in Tampa while seeking
Virginia-like primary results in a few remaining large states. In
Virgina, Paul was the only candidate on the ballot with Romney and
he managed to break 40 percent. But last night’s results showed
consolidating the anti-Romney vote isn’t easy, and that vote may
shrink with Gingrich’s departure. The reality of a Romney
nomination is setting in.
The Obama administration has proclaimed its interest in a pivot
to the Pacific, but Europe grows more interesting all the time.
Governments are falling left and right in response to the
European Union (and the Eurozone) effort to impose budget
discipline and pull back the countries on the brink.
At the same time, the Eastern European nations are mostly trying
to build a future with Europe and away from the old bully in the
schoolyard who used to beat them up. If you want to follow
what’s going in the area Donald Rumsfeld thought of as “New
Europe,” the Center for the Study of
Former Soviet Republics is a good place to dig in.
And it just so happens that Doug Bandow and I are contributing
appears that Newt Gingrich will suspend his campaign today.
Speaking to a Republican crowd in North Carolina this morning,
said, “It’s pretty clear Governor Romney is going to be the
Many words could be used to describe the Newt 2012 campaign.
Dull is not amongst them. Last summer, it appeared his campaign was
over before it started with key staff defecting once Rick Perry
entered the race. But following a series of impressive debate
performances in which he challenged President Obama to seven one on
one Lincoln-Douglas debates, Republican voters began to give Newt a
second look. After Herman Cain’s troubles began last November, Newt
shot to the top of the polls.
However, as the Iowa Caucuses approached, the remaining
candidates turned their attention to Newt and he did not whether
the scrutiny well. Most damaging were the ads put out by PACs
supporting Mitt Romney. Discontent from the Republican
establishment didn’t help his cause either. Gingrich finished a
distant fourth in both Iowa as the anti-Romney vote began to
coalesce around Rick Santorum. Gingrich fared no better in New
Hampshire with another fourth place finish.
Yet Newt found a new lease on life in the days leading up to the
South Carolina primary with two impressive debate performances
centering on exchanges with Juan Williams of Fox News and John King
of CNN. Both exchanges earned Newt standing ovations. As it turned
out, they were the only standing ovations any candidates received
during the GOP debates. What also worked for Newt was releasing his
tax returns while Romney hemmed and hawed. Palmetto voters awarded
him with a double digit victory over Mitt Romney.
But the Romney Super PACs replicated in Florida what they had
done in Iowa. Romney also outperformed Gingrich in two debates in
Tampa and Jacksonville and ended up besting him in the Florida
Primary by 15 points neutralizing Gingrich’s triumph in South
Carolina ten days earlier. Newt never recovered. The only other
contest he won was in his political base of Georgia on Super
Tuesday. If Newt could not withstand the scrutiny of the Romney
Super PACs then how could he possibly withstand the scrutiny of the
even better funded Obama Super PACs?
Since then, with campaign money running dry, Gingrich has been
going through the motions and visiting zoos around the country.
I think Newt will eventually endorse Romney but like Santorum I
don’t think he’ll be in any great hurry to do it.
Alas, Newt is not the
new Nixon. There will be no more Newt to kick around.
Out walking this morning I ran into one of the top political
prognosticators in the country. We chatted about Obama’s chances of
reelection and Romney’s Veep nominee search.
He said that Obama will “lose the white vote badly,” but that he
could still win. Refusing to commit to a prediction,
he said that the outcome will be “extremely close,”
and that the race will largely turn on permutations in the
economy before November.
On the topic of Romney’s Veep search, he said that Romney would
be wise to consider Mike Huckabee if Mitt’s Evangelical
support continues to flag. He also placed Mitch Daniels on his
suggested short list for Romney. As for Jeb Bush, he said that
Romney should study whether or not Bush’s name is still
radioactive. What about Rubio? “The idea that a Cuban-American
could win the Hispanic vote for the Republicans is criminally
stupid,” he replied. He added that Rubio is a flake who
received his political education in corrupt-as-hell
There’s a question I think our media and political class ought
to be asking now that Apple has announced another
report. Simply put, how can we spur greater economic growth and
the creation of more innovative and highly successful companies
such as Apple?
Such a discussion, unfortunately, is sadly lacking in the public
dialogue and debate. President Obama, after all, doesn’t really
care about economic growth. He’s more interested in punishing
entrepreneurs and small businesses under the guise of tax
Republicans, meanwhile, seem more interested in containing the
rising sea of red ink, which threatens to bankrupt America.
The GOP is right to focus on debt reduction; the debt bomb must
be defused. Still, without far more robust economic growth, the
path to fiscal suicide and national decline will be relentless and
The amount of money involved here is quite significant. Apple’s
corporate coffers have accumulated
$110 billion to date. And American high-tech companies as a
whole have an estimated $1 trillion in untapped overseas profits,
President Bush’s 2005 Advisory Panel on
Federal Tax Reform had the right idea: Move to a territorial
tax system in which we recognize that capital, especially today, is
mobile; and that, therefore, it simply doesn’t pay (literally and
figuratively) to try and tax the overseas earnings of American
Instead, allow U.S. firms to repatriate their overseas earnings
and to invest in America.
“An economic distortion caused by the tax code — by which
foreign corporations operating in the U.S. are favored over
U.S.-based corporations, and U.S. corporations are discouraged from
investing here — would be removed,”
notes Justin Fox on the Harvard Business Review Blog
Fox himself is agnostic about the benefits of a territorial tax
system. Yet, he’s honest enough to admit (albeit with some
equivocation) that what’s at issue is “whether we want to maximize
economic growth or maximize corporate tax revenue.”
The Obama administration, of course, wants to maximize corporate
tax revenue; it wants to create and feed the entitlement state. The
Republicans should offer up a more promising and inspiring
free-market vision, one centered on economic growth and the tax
reform needed to effect such growth. Now.
Off his list of places he can win, that is. Whether Newt
Gingrich knows it or not — and I suspect he finally does — it is
over for his presidential campaign. He was counting on an upset
victory in Delaware. Instead he has lost by nearly 30 points. At
the moment, that is the only state where Gingrich is even running
With Rick Santorum out of the race, Gingrich was supposed to be
able to harness the remaining anti-Romney vote. He could press the
idea of a conservative alternative all the way to the convention in
Tampa, keeping Mitt Romney honest by reminding him that he still
had fences to mend with the Republican base. He could have ended
his campaign respectably, perhaps even with a Southern primary win
Tonight shows that is unlikely to happen. Romney has won
Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania without any
resistance from Gingrich. As I write this, the former House speaker
is in fourth place in the Keystone State. Gingrich was already
trailing in Texas and who knows what polls will show in North
Carolina, the two best opportunities for keeping Romney from
running the table in the remaining primaries.
Santorum was at least waving the anti-Romney banner and Ron Paul
is building a movement for his supporters within the GOP. Newt is
doing neither. There is no meaningful reason for Gingrich to carry
When Mitt Romney said in a Republican debate that illegal
immigrants could be encouraged to self-deport, the smart people all
laughed at him. But the latest Pew Hispanic Center
report suggests that this may, in part, be happening.
In the five-year period from 2005 to 2010, about 1.4 million
Mexicans immigrated to the United States and about 1.4 million
Mexican immigrants and their U.S.-born children moved from the
United States to Mexico.
In the five-year period a decade earlier (1995 to 2000), about
3 million Mexicans had immigrated to the U.S. and fewer than
700,000 Mexicans and their U.S. born-children had moved from the
U.S. to Mexico.
This sharp downward trend in net migration has led to the first
significant decrease in at least two decades in the number of
unauthorized Mexican immigrants living in the U.S.—to 6.1 million
in 2011, down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007. Over the
same period the number of authorized Mexican immigrants rose
modestly, from 5.6 million in 2007 to 5.8 million in 2011.
Much of this has to do with relative economic conditions in the
United States and Mexico. But immigration enforcement is also
playing a role.
Apprehensions of Mexicans trying to cross the border illegally
have plummeted by more than 70% in recent years, from more than 1
million in 2005 to 286,000 in 2011—a likely indication that fewer
unauthorized immigrants are trying to cross. This decline has
occurred at a time when funding in the U.S. for border
enforcement—including more agents and more fencing—has risen
As apprehensions at the border have declined, deportations of
unauthorized Mexican immigrants—some of them picked up at work or
after being arrested for other criminal violations—have risen to
record levels. In 2010, nearly 400,000 unauthorized immigrants—73%
of them Mexicans—were deported by U.S. authorities.
Although most unauthorized Mexican immigrants sent home by U.S.
authorities say they plan to try to return, a growing share say
they will not try to come back to the U.S. According to a survey by
Mexican authorities of repatriated immigrants, 20% of labor
migrants in 2010 said they would not return, compared with just 7%
National Journal has an
interesting take on what this could mean for the conventional
wisdom about the Hispanic vote, long assumed to be a harbinger of
Democratic dominance, going forward.
On Monday, President Obama
sketched plans for his administration’s genocide prevention
policies in a speech at the U.S. Holocaust Museum. The so-called
Atrocities Prevention Board will serve as an opinion aggregator of
senior officials from across the government, and will provide for
synchronized intelligence-sharing and policy preparation in
response to the threat of mass killings.
Last year, the White House identified the prevention of mass
atrocities and genocide as a critical national security interest –
not to mention moral responsibility – of the United States.
Fair enough. Since the time of St. Augustine, it has been
ethically justified to save the innocent from certain harm. Now,
modern considerations of national interest have been more broadly
defined to include interventions aimed at ending
genocide, mass murder, mass rape or slavery as
One might add that given recent abuses of the “humanitarian”
label, multilateralism is now morally significant when considering
the “Five Ws” of military intervention.
Ideally, the end goal of such intervention is neither annexation
nor damage to long-term territorial integrity; however, questions
of sovereignty and the use of force weigh against the consequences
of systematic violations of human rights.
In his speech at the Holocaust Museum, Obama discussed actions
he’d taken to prevent mass murder since assuming office. He asked
his audience to recall justifications for military intervention
against the Gaddafi regime, premised on an imminent threat to
Of course, the UN’s altruistic R2P mandate quickly dissolved
into a radical departure from its stated aim to protect unarmed
innocents in Benghazi. Instead, Western powers decapitated Colonel
Gaddafi’s deeply entrenched power structure and cleared space for
the establishment of a shadow regime we neither understand, nor
particularly care to discuss.
Have just wars and humanitarian interventions now declared open
season on existing sovereignty through forcible, if barely
justifiable, democratization and regime change? If regime change is
now a cause of war, this would suggest a significant expansion of
the just war doctrine of jus ad belli.
This is problematic for a number of reasons. But above all else,
humanitarian intervention is chronically shortsighted.
I’ll echo the president: consider Libya. Shifty militias that
fought Gaddafi now
ignore hollow ceasefires to fight one another. Absent an actual
gendarmerie, the ruling National Transitional Council has
proven powerless to convince the umpteen private militias who
fought Gaddafi to lay down their weapons. Tuareg fighters, armed to
the teeth by the Gaddafi regime, are
stoking tensions in neighboring Mali. 680,000 Libyan refugees
fled the country during the fighting, and many remain holed-up
in Egypt and Tunisia – threatening their own transition to
Perhaps most importantly, President Obama’s Libya campaign sunk
any hopes of multilateral mandate to intervene in Syria – or
anywhere else for that matter – now that we’ve reminded Russia and
China we’re ready, willing, and able to impose ordnance-laden
statecraft on pesky, problem regimes. I assure you, veto power
exercised at the Security Council is more than a protective measure
to shelter a close ally and arms buyer in Bashir al-Assad – it’s a
bold statement against an evolving Western imperium to
topple unfriendly autocrats, via UN diktat.
Given this reality, and Obama’s admission that “we cannot and
should not […] intervene militarily every time there’s an injustice
in the world,” one wonders why he wasted our time announcing an
advisory panel that could do more harm than good, if it wasn’t
completely toothless, to begin with?
By the way, the entitlements numbers I
cited earlier have a lot to do with why I take a dim view of
describing George W. Bush as a “fantastic
president.” Here are the projections for Medicare Part D, the
prescription drug benefit passed by a Republican-controlled
Congress (though the House had to be dragged along kicking and
screaming) and signed into law by Mr. Fantastic: $6.8 trillion in
unfunded liabilities over a 75-year horizon and $14.3 trillion over
an infinite horizon. Those are bigger long-term deficits than for
Medicare Part A, the hospital insurance program.
None of this gives Barack Obama a pass on his dismal record,
which frequently consisted of taking Bush-era overspending and
throwing it into hyperdrive. If Obama wants to blame his failures
on someone who has been out of office nearly four years, that
reflects poorly on him. If conservatives want to heap unqualified
praise on a president for bankrupting the country at a slower rate
than Obama, that will reflect poorly on us.
The desire to say nice things about a fellow Republican who
looks a bit better when compared to his successor is somewhat
understandable, especially when considering personal relationships
and friendships. But promising future conservative leaders should
hold higher standards when applying superlatives to budget-busters
from the red team. Until we make a clean break from big government
conservatism, we can’t make a clean break from Obamanomics.
the Alberta Progressive Conservatives won their 12th
consecutive majority government. The Tories won 62 out of 87
seats. The Wildrose Party is the official opposition with 17 seats
while the Liberals and NDP each won four seats. Alison Redford was
elected Premier in her own right after assuming the premiership by
winning the Tory leadership convention last October following the
retirement of her predecessor Ed Stelmach.
The Alberta Tories were first elected in August 1971 under the
leadership of Peter Lougheed dislodging the Social Credit Party
which had been in office since 1935. In 1985, Lougheed was
succeeded by his former Calgary Stampeders teammate Don Getty who
was in office until 1993. Getty was succeeded by Calgary mayor
Ralph Klein who served as Premier for 13 years before being
succeeded by Stelmach. By the end of their new term the
Alberta Tories will have been longest standing provincial
government in Canadian history. The Nova Scotia Liberals were in
power from 1882 to 1925 while more recently the Ontario Tories
(a.k.a. The Big Blue Machine) were in power from 1943 to 1985.
As you can imagine when a government stays in power that long it
acts like it owns place and corruption, abuse of power plus
government waste are sure to follow. You could think of the
Wildrose Party (the wildrose is Alberta’s official flower) as a
Prairie version of the Tea Party. To give you an idea of how long
the Tories have governed Alberta, Wildrose Party leader Danielle
Smith was only four months old when the Tories were first elected
Many thought that Wildrose would do to the Tories what the
Tories did to the Socreds more than four decades ago. But obvously
a lot of people changed their minds at the last minute and stuck
with what they knew. No doubt that people who normally would have
voted Liberal or NDP decided to vote Tory to keep out Wildrose.
It certainly didn’t help that a couple of Wildrose candidates
homophobic comments nor did it help Smith when
she refused to disavow those statements.
If Smith wants to dislodge the Tories in 2016 then she
needs to impose greater discipline on those who carry the Wildrose
banner. The good news is that
Smith seems to understand that this cost her dearly.
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 4.24.12 @ 10:46AM
In case you missed this bit of yesterday’s bad news, let me
recap: Social Security and Medicare are running combined long-term
deficits of $63.3 trillion according to reports released by the
retirement programs’ trustees. The Medicare trust fund will be
running on empty as of 2024 and Social Security’s fund will be
exhausted by 2033, but the reality is much worse: both trust funds
may as well be filled with kitty litter.
To cash in the IOUs the feds have stuffed in the two biggest
entitlements’ trust funds to maintain the accounting fiction that
they are insurance programs rather than intergenerational transfer
payments, taxes will have to be raised or other government spending
cut unless reforms are passed soon. Both programs for the elderly
are already paying out more in benefits than they are collecting in
payroll tax revenue.
“In 2011, Social Security’s cost continued to exceed both the
program’s tax income and its non-interest income, a trend that the
Trustees project to continue throughout the short-range period and
beyond,” Social Security’s trustees explained.
Although the payroll tax holiday was a factor, the program would
have still run deficits without it.
“Beginning in 2008, expenditures exceeded income, and the
Trustees expect this situation to continue throughout the
projection period,” Medicare’s trustees wrote. And even
these projections assume cuts in payments to physicians that aren’t
terribly likely to happen. Congress has overriden these reductions
every year since 2003.
Mob-violence instigator Al Sharpton, racial shakedown artist
Jesse Jackson, and Honorary New Black Panther (HNBP) Eric Holder
now have a test: Do they have any shred of decency, humanity, and
justice left in their race-hustling souls?
According to police, Owens fussed at some kids playing
basketball in the middle of Delmar Drive about 8:30 Saturday night.
They say the kids left and a group of adults returned, armed with
everything but the kitchen sink.
Police tell News 5 the suspects used chairs, pipes and paint
cans to beat Owens.
Owens’ sister, Ashley Parker, saw the attack. “It was the
scariest thing I have ever witnessed.” Parker says 20 people, all
African American, attacked her brother on the front porch of his
home, using “brass buckles, paint cans and anything they could get
their hands on.”…. As the attackers walked away,
leaving Owen bleeding on the ground, Parker says one of them said
“Now thats justice for Trayvon.”
Where is mayor Sam Jones on this? Nowhere to be found. Where is
Sharpton? Jackson? Holder? Is this not a “hate crime” (if such a
thing really exists)? Is this not a civil rights case? Is this not
something that cries out for justice against a clearly racially
motivated attack? Maybe Mr. Holder thinks of himself as a nation
unto himself, which would indeed make him a “nation of cowards”
when it comes to matters racial. Otherwise, he certainly would have
the guts to step in and order an investigation.
C’mon, Mr. Sharpton: Come show that you aren’t a vicious thug
with compassion only for black people. Come on down and have a
press conference demanding justice for Matthew Owens.
For that matter, where is our post-racial president? The least
he could do is invite Joe Biden down to Mobile with him to bring a
beer to Mr. Owens if Mr. Owens recovers from his beating. Or do
white victims not matter in Barack Obama’s world?
Then again, the neighbors of Mr. Owens, white and black alike,
need to come forward. Somebody knows at least some of
the criminals who beat Mr. Owens. When 20 or more people are
involved, somebody is bound to talk, even if there
were no uninvolved witnesses. Well, where are they? Where are the
fine citizens of Mobile who insist that justice should be color
Look, Mobile is hardly a hotbed of racial injustice. When the
rest of Alabama was burning in the 1960s, then-Mayor Joe Langan
quietly integrated Mobile, legally speaking, in one uneventful
afternoon. In 2005, with a black voter registration in the low 40s,
Mobile elected black county commissioner Sam Jones as mayor (with
my support). There is no sociological mumbo jumbo, no excuse, no
reason whatsoever for blacks in Mobile to take such issue with a
white man who asks kids to stop playing basketball so loudly in the
What this is, is a sickness of the first order. Come on down
MSNBC. Come on down, ABC. Come on down, Washington Post. Come on
down, New York Times. Cover this story. Demand justice. Ask what’s
wrong with black America that it could countenance such vicious,
Wait — what’s that you say? You say it’s not fair to blame all
of “black America” for the actions of two dozen men?
Gee, maybe you have a point there. Maybe these were 20 criminals
who ought to spend 20 years apiece in jail, but who are no more
indicative of the rest of their nation or culture than… well,
than “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman is for non-black America, or
than Jared Lee Loughner, a disturbed lefto-anarchist, is for
conservative America or Tea Partiers.
Maybe these criminals ought to be rounded up, arrested, charged,
tried, convicted, and imprisoned as if they are all outrageously
depraved individuals, not as if they somehow represent some group
sickness. Wow, what an idea: treating people as individuals.
Still, HNBP Holder has an obligation — does he not? — to make
sure his civil wrongs division investigates to make sure there
isn’t anything else involved.
Today Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and
Delaware hold their Republican primaries. Mitt Romney was poised to
do well even when Rick Santorum was still actively campaigning,
with Pennsylvania the only obviously competitive state. Without
Santorum, Romney is well positioned for a clean sweep.
But it will still be interesting to see how big the remaining
anti-Romney vote is. Newt Gingrich is trying to
win Delaware, where even some Romney supporters
claim the former speaker has some chance. In the absence of
reliable polling data, it is hard to know whether this is a pipe
dream. But Christine O’Donnell upset Mike Castle in the First State
in 2010. Steve Forbes also briefly revived his flagging 1996
presidential campaign in Delaware. Forbes, the only candidate to
campaign in the state that year, won unexpectedly and gave himself
a boost going into the Arizona primary.
Santorum was a two-term senator from Pennsylvania, where he will
still be on the ballot. The polls were starting to move against him
even while he was still in the race, but states sometimes reward
native sons. I noted
this weekend that Howard Dean won Vermont in 2004 after suspending
Ron Paul won
20 out of 24 delegates in Minnesota. He had finished second in
the popular vote in the state’s caucus. There are
reports of six other caucus states where Republicans are
bracing for a possible delegate coup by the Paul forces, who remain
active and relatively well funded.
I”m not predicting any huge upsets tonight, but we could learn
how little or much work Romney still has to do to win over his
Now here’s a role-reversal: The editors of National
Review, never fans of John Edwards,
examine the charges against him and conclude that “it is our
obligation to come unenthusiastically to his defense.” On the other
hand, Walter Shapiro, who once was an admirer of Edwards,
thinks that the prosecution’s case is stronger than it looks at
first blush. Here’s NR:
Edwards’s mistress, Rielle Hunter, was paid off by his
supporters. The financial chairman of Edwards’s presidential
campaign, the late Frederick Baron, gave financial support to
Hunter and to Andrew Young, the staffer who lied about being the
child’s father. In a picturesque twist, another Edwards supporter,
the heiress Bunny Mellon, is believed to have sent Hunter checks
secreted in boxes of chocolate, though her lawyer denies that she
knew her money was going to Hunter.
The prosecution’s case is built upon a note from Mellon, who
described herself as “furious” about the way in which Edwards was
lampooned for his infamous $400 haircuts. “From now on,” she wrote,
“all haircuts, etc., that are necessary and important for his
campaign — please send the bills to me… . It is a way to help
our friend without government restrictions.” And she did indeed
write some $725,000 in checks for sundry expenses — all of which
went to Hunter, not to the Edwards campaign.
Because none of the money went to the campaign, and none of the
money went for campaign expenses — inasmuch as maintaining a
mistress is not a campaign expense — it is difficult to see why
this should be prosecuted as a campaign-finance violation. At most,
the evidence would seem to justify charging Mellon with conspiring
to subvert campaign-finance laws, though in the event those laws
were not subverted, since her money did not go toward financing the
Shapiro agrees that Count One of the indictment, the charge
relating to Baron, is flimsy, but suggests that Count Two, the
charge relating to Mellon, might be more damning:
[T]he trial will raise the strong possibility—and you will have
to trust me on the sourcing for this—that the then-97-year-old
socialite was as ignorant of the existence of Rielle Hunter (or any
other Other Woman) as any Democratic voter besotted with John
Edwards. When she was asked for the money, delivered in seven
installments beginning in June 2007, she apparently thought that
she was donating in some round-robin fashion to the Edwards
campaign, not covering up an affair…
If the trial shows that Mellon believed her checks for $725,000
were intended for campaign purposes, Edwards’s defense under Count
Two could be severely curtailed. Edwards’s most straightforward
defense—that he sought Mellon’s money in order to hide the affair
and pregnancy from his wife Elizabeth—would suddenly vanish. If
Bunny Mellon did not know about the affair, how could her
contributions be personal rather than political?
Election law expert Rick Hasen responds that he
doesn’t think that’s the right question — it’s Edwards’s intent,
not Mellon’s, that is legally relevant, and “under the murky law on
what constitutes ‘personal use’ of funds received during the course
of a campaign, Edwards has at least a plausible argument his intent
was to save his marriage and not to help his campaign.” Hasen adds
a link to a guest-post on his
Election Law Blog by Rick Pildes that goes further, arguing that
Edwards didn’t commit a crime regardless of anyone’s intentions, on
the theory that the legal definition of a campaign contribution
must be objective rather than subjective. Hasen offers Pildes’s
argument as evidence that “even if the jury convicts, there’s a
good chance the conviction won’t stand.”
The liberal Center for American Progress
claims that Obamacare will save both seniors and taxpayers
money. The group’s Think Progress site touts a new
report by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
showing that taxpayers will save $200 billion and Medicare
recipients $60 billion through 2016 courtesty of the Affordable
Even this wouldn’t be much in the context of Medicare’s
multi-trillion dollar shortfall. But if you read the fine print,
Medicare’s chief actuary doesn’t think these projections are very
realistic. Richard Foster pours the following cold water: “the
financial projections shown in this report for Medicare do not
represent a reasonable expectation for actual program
operations in either the short range (as a result of the
unsustainable reductions in physician payment rates) or the long
range (because of the strong likelihood that the statutory
reductions in price updates for most categories of Medicare
provider services will not be viable).” Emphasis mine, hat tip
The reduction in physician payments isn’t going to happen, at
least not to the extent envisioned by the federal health care law.
And the assumptions about health care productivity improvements
probably won’t pan out either, at least not to the extent necessary
to make these projections realistic. It’s like the old joke about
economists trying to rescue themselves from a pit: “First, assume a
With Mitt Romney moving toward the Republican presidential
veepstakes are now in full bloom. Chris Christie is being
scrutinized for his judicial picks. Others are being
tested in the polls. It will therefore be interesting to see if
there is any reaction of this
interview with Marco Rubio.
Before CNN’s Candy Crowley tried to pin Rubio down on whether
he’d accept a place on Romney’s ticket, she asked him how a
President Romney would differ from President George W. Bush. “I
haven’t gone through the comparison,” the Florida senator replied.
“I think that presidents serve in different times with different
challenges. And so I think that George W. Bush, in my opinion, did
a fantastic job as president over eight years, facing a set of
circumstances during those eight years that are different from the
circumstances that a President Romney would face.”
“Fantastic” was also the adjective Rubio used to describe his
friend Jeb Bush as a possible Romney running mate himself.
Obviously this won’t be a big deal to parts of the Republican base,
who like the Bushes. But much of the country — ranging from
moderate swing voters to some Tea Party conservatives — would like
the next administration to be different from George W. Bush’s.
François Hollande won the first round of balloting in the French
presidential election yesterday, and faces incumbent Nicolas
Sarkozy in a runoff Sunday after next. Polling shows that Hollande
favored to win:
Three French polls conducted Sunday evening as results came in
predicted Hollande would win the May 6 runoff by 8 to 12 percentage
points. Ipsos, CSA and IFOP said economic worries drove many
Americans should be rooting for Sarkozy,
explains Pierpaolo Barbieri at The New
Hollande… is ultimately hostage to an unreformed Socialist
Party: With France’s powerful and obstinate unions overrepresented
in the party ranks, the Socialists have been consistently against
necessary economic reform. Predictably, Hollande says he is eager
to bring back the 35-hour week and roll back pension changes at a
time when the whole region—and arguably the whole world—is swimming
in the opposite direction. His proposal for a 75 percent marginal
tax rate would be laughable, if it hadn’t been offered in
After arguing that Hollande could cause a rift with Germany that
threatens the Eurozone (and by extention the global economy),
In other international affairs, there’s little to look forward
to from a President Hollande. He has hinted at a decreased role in
NATO and a more critical stance toward America. In other words,
Washington can expect an unwelcome return to the Jacques Chirac
years. (It should come as no surprise that Chirac is said to be
casting his vote for the Socialist.)
Not to invoke the “even the liberal New Republic…”
cliché, but it does say something about the state of French
politics that so much of Barbieri’s critique would be as much at
home in a conservative publication as it is in the center-left
This item by Brad Plumer gives a flavor of how far left France
tilts; the Gaullist Sarkozy would scarcely be center-right by
American standards, and the “far right” party led by Marine Le Pen
— who made a big splash yesterday by winning nearly 20% of the
vote — is, like most European nationalist parties, bitterly
hostile to the free market.
Barbieri argues that an upset by Sarkozy is not impossible.
Let’s hope so.
Displaying the tone-deafness that doomed his presidential
campaign, Jon Huntsman
compared the current state of the Republican Party to Communist
China. Complaining about the Republican National Committee’s
decision to un-invite him from a fundraiser after he called for
third party competition, Huntsman told reporters in New York, “This
is what they do in China on party matters if you talk off
Needless to say, the Communist Chinese can do a lot
worse things to you than rescind your invitation to a posh
fundraiser. Huntsman later explained
he was “waxing philosophical.” It was precisely Huntsman’s tendency
to express his extremely mild dissents from the GOP platform in
such world historic terms, combined with his not-too-thinly veiled
contempt for those to his right, that kept him an also-ran.
Not to be outdone, New York Times columnist Thomas
wonders if America needs an “Arab spring” because the last
vestiges of constitutionally limited government make it so darned
hard to get anything done. (Presumably by Arab spring he doesn’t
mean the Muslim Brotherhood taking over the government.) In recent
years, all Washington has been able to ram through is Medicare Part
D, No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, the Iraq war,
Sarbanes-Oxley, TARP, the stimulus, Dodd-Frank, and Obamacare. I’m
probably missing something. “We can’t be great as long as we remain
a vetocracy rather than a democracy,” Friedman concludes.
Erick Erickson offers some
helpful advice to Mitt Romney about not taking Evangelical
voters for granted. Again, this is not meant to tear
down Romney, but to tell him how to avoid making a fatal error.
Again and again I hear people say that Evangelicals or other
conservatives will “vote for Romney anyway,” so Romney doesn’t need
to reach out to them with a good V-P pick, or whatever. Not to be
too blunt, but… that is one of the most idiotic statements in all
of politics. How many times do we need to watch elections to know
that turnout matters? And how many times do we need to see that
people really, really, really will stay home if they aren’t
Karl Rove famously said that an estimated 4 million Evangelicals
who were expected to vote for GW Bush instead stayed home in 2000
when word got out in the final weekend about Bush’s old drunk
driving arrest. Obviously, that almost cost Bush the election. This
is important stuff. Voters motivated by a strong ideology also
often are voters who will help put a pox on both houses by refusing
to vote. That’s just political reality. If Romney doesn’t
understand that and act accordingly to avoid such a fate, he will
lose, and drag us all down with him.
Kathryn Lopez has a
moving, insightful, eloquent column on the National Catholic
Prayer Breakfast and on Rick Santorum’s message that got lost in
the shuffle of him feeling queasy upon reading a famous JFK speech.
Please do read it.
Here’s a nice passage:
Santorum, like Kennedy, is keen on the founding principle that
the president should not attempt to impose his religious views on
the nation. In a speech two years ago, he said that “while the
phrase ‘separation of church and state’ doesn’t appear in the
Constitution, the concept of keeping the government apart from
religion does.” And, like Kennedy, he believes that a candidate’s
religious affiliation shouldn’t be a disqualifier for office. But
the Kennedy speech presented a model for pushing religion to the
margins of our public life, a fact that has impoverished a nation
that once prized religion as an “indispensable” support to
“political prosperity,” as our first president put it.
Charles J. Chaput, the current archbishop of
said that Kennedy was “sincere, compelling, articulate —
Now this next bit I’m going to offer has nothing to do with what
Kathryn wrote, but I can’t resist: Wouldn’t it be fun tomorrow if
Santorum’s home state voters gave him a large percentage of the
votes even though he has officially suspended his campaign? It
would certainly provide conservatives a boost in keeping Mitt
Romney’s feet to the conservative fire.
written several times on my web site about Judge Janice Rogers
Brown, who was nominated to the federal Court of Appeals for
the DC Circuit by President Bush. In my view, Judge Brown is one of
the best, and perhaps the best, federal judge in America — which
is why Ted Kennedy so fiercely (but unsuccessfully, despite an
initial Democrat filibuster) opposed her nomination.
Judge Brown’s fierce intellect was on full display in her
concurrence in a recent court decision in the case of Hettinga
v US in which the owner of a few large dairies argued
unsuccessfully that a law which impacts only him (but does not name
him and could theoretically impact others in a similar situation)
was an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
The full decision can be found
here, but for your review I offer below only Judge Brown’s
concurring opinion, which should be must-read material for every
high school and college “civics” or law-related class, and in every
law student’s introductory materials. (The full opinion has an
extra dozen pages, most of which is not necessary to understand
Judge Brown’s commentary, though for law geeks like me it is an
interesting read, in part because it shows the destructive
influence of reliance on bad precedent.)
The document below includes the first two pages of the full
decision packet, which has the name of the case, the participants,
and the first couple of paragraphs of the per curiam
decision (in this case the unanimous decision of the three-judge
panel) followed by Judge Brown’s concurrence.
One can almost feel Judge Brown’s anger at the Supreme Court’s
reprehensible stance that decisions relating to economic regulation
will be given the Court’s lowest level of scrutiny and generally
resolved in favor of Congress rather than those whose rights are
being trampled by Congress. (For more on the history of this, read
about the 1938 Supreme Court case, made in the shadow of FDR’s
Court-packing threat, called Carolene
Products, and its infamous Footnote Four, which has done
untold damage to our nation by allowing Congresses and Presidents
to run roughshod over what our Founders would certainly have
considered fundamental rights.)
One of the most remarkable things about Judge Brown is that a
formerly ultra-liberal (she says she was borderline “Maoist”)
daughter of an Alabama sharecropper has become one of the leading
pro-liberty minds in America and in our federal judiciary. Sadly
for the nation, one of the other most remarkable things about Judge
Brown is that she is so frequently a voice in the wilderness, lost
among a bunch of judges and politicians whose views would make
James Madison shudder in revulsion with what his “constitutional”
republic has become, and with how little respect those who should
most honor our Founding principles — and who take an oath to
uphold them — actually have for them.
I urge you to read Judge Brown’s opinion, and to share it with
I suggest you click the “read fullscreen” button (a square
with four arrows pointing out from the center) next to the
“Download” button above the document to make your reading easier.
Hit the ESC key when finished reading…
I watched 60 Minutes and saw Bob Simon’s story on the
exodus of Christians from Israel and the West Bank and thought it
was a complete load of rubbish.
Simon blamed Israel’s security fence and checkpoints for this
exodus. His sanctimony was unbearable whether he was berating
Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren for calling the
President of CBS about the segment or when he
asked left-wing Israeli journalist Ari Shavit, “Do you think
the Israeli government ever thinks of the fact that if Christians
aren’t being treated well here, and America is an overwhelmingly
Christian country, that this could have consequences?”
Well, I think of a majority of American Christians believe that
Christians are being treated far more harshly in Iraq, Syria and
Egypt than in Israel. How many Christian churches have been burned
down by Israelis? How many Christians have been murdered inside
Israel? And yet 60 Minutes singles out Israel for scorn.
Well, it’s not the first time. In a 2009 story about Jewish
described Israel as an Apartheid state.
Any segment 60 Minutes does on Israel (and for that
matter the Middle East) should be looked upon with the sternest
1. Thirty-two votes. That’s all Orrin Hatch needed to clinch the
nomination for a seventh term at the Utah Republican State
Convention this weekend. Instead he’ll be forced into a June
primary. He’s still heavily favored to win, but I
wondered if Hatch made a mistake by attacking his opponents as
“radical libertarians” right as the tide was turning in his favor.
The senator later
2. The biggest upset at the Utah GOP gathering came in the race
for the 4th district congressional nomination. Saratoga Springs
Mayor Mia Love stole the show with her speech and then clinched on
the second ballot, taking over 70 percent of the vote. The
likeliest outcome going into the convention was a primary between
Love and Carl Wimmer, a former state legislator who had been
endorsed by U.S. Sen. Mike Lee and Utah Attorney General Mark
Shurtleff. Shurtleff’s backing turned out to be less of a blessing
than a curse.
Love had already brought down the house and won endorsements
from opponents who were eliminated on the first ballot. Speaking in
support of Wimmer, Shurtleff advised Utah Republicans to “pick a
person with a proven record” rather than a “novelty.” Love, the
daughter of Haitian immigrants, is black. The crowd booed and some
felt it put Love over the top. Shurtleff apologized, Wimmer
endorsed the nominee, and Love will now get a chance to take on
Democratic Congressman Jim Matheson this fall.
3. Virgil Goode won the Constitution Party presidential
nomination this weekend. The former Virginia congressman — who had
previously been elected as a Democrat, independent, and Republican
— is the conservative third party’s most politically experienced
nominee. Unlike Alan Keyes four years
ago, Goode was able to overcome his record of supporting the
Iraq war and the Patriot Act. The Constitution Party opposes both
policies. Darrell Castle, the party’s 2008 vice presidential
nominee, made a last-ditch effort to derail Goode but came up short
in his own bid for the nomination.
4. Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary lost much of its luster once
native son Rick Santorum suspended his presidential campaign, but
it will still be worth noting how large the anti-Mitt Romney vote
will be. I’m not aware of any polls that have been done at the
state level since Santorum called it quits. In 2004, Howard Dean
managed to win his home state of Vermont after he had already ended
his presidential bid. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, who were both
born in Pennsylvania, are still in the race.
5. On Friday, there was speculation that Gingrich wouldn’t be in
the race much longer when word came that campaign stops in North
Carolina and elsewhere were on hold. The campaign later
blamed a “communications glitch” and confirmed that they will
press on. Romney has struggled in Southern states on his way to the
6. Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia
isn’t sure he will vote for Barack Obama in November, though he
says he isn’t sold on Romney either. “I am just waiting for it to
play out. I am not jumping in one way or another,” he said. “I’m
worried about me.” Manchin is running for reelection this year in a
state Obama is almost certain to lose.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause
and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress
impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist
surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our
The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3)
organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator
magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional
American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent
permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving
for tax purposes.
The American Spectator. All