UC Berkeley bloated, wasteful, consultants say

S.F. Gate:

For a world-class university studded with Nobel laureates and innovative research, UC Berkeley manages its finances a bit like a sloppy undergrad, a new report suggests.

The campus could save about $75 million a year by streamlining purchases, concentrating job duties and laying off “redundant” managers, according to consultants hired last fall to help the school become a leaner operation.

“This kind of change is hard,” said campus Vice Chancellor Frank Yeary, who is overseeing the Operational Excellence Project. “We will get pushback in certain quarters. But the fact that the state has so consistently disinvested in our organization … most people really appreciate the need to change.”

Yeary said UC Berkeley’s plan is not only to push the state for more education funding – which has dropped by half since 2002 to $232 million in inflation-adjusted dollars – but to do a better job with the money the university already has.

The campus has five big areas of bloat, according to Bain & Co., the Massachusetts consulting firm being paid $3 million to identify waste.

The biggest, say the consultants, is too many managers. The human resources department alone has one manager per 63 employees, compared with an average of one per 127 employees across other universities.

Next up is purchasing. Instead of negotiating universitywide contracts with bulk discounts, for example, it’s every department for itself.

The campus could also consolidate tech services, find ways to save energy, and improve or eliminate student services from graduate student housing to child care.

No faith in advising

The school spends $17 million on academic advising, but even students don’t think the money is well spent.

“School and department advising is terrible,” wrote one undergrad responding to a survey from the consultants. “I never trust what I am being told.”

The comment was typical of those made about that department.

Recession over? Economists panel isn’t sure yet.

All that news that the economy is in a huge recovery, in spite of the fact that we keep posting the economic numbers on this web site that show that we are coasting along the current bottom (a new bottom could come with a new shock to the economy, hence the term “current bottom”). Remember that these same mainstream economists are the same ones that did not see the mortgage collapse. In fact it was the geniuses at the Fed, at the top banks, and in Academia who missed it in spite of warnings from those “amateurs” who make their living working the markets

We have said it on this blog many times and I have said it in economics class as well; most economists we see and read about are political and/or ideological prostitutes. They say what they are paid to see for political expedience and call it “science” or “economics”.

Robert Reich and Paul Krugmann claim to be economists but it amazes me just how much basic macro they have to forget to write the nonsense they do every week…. and then there is Christina Romer, who has written some good stuff, most of which she had to forget as soon as she took a job at the Obama White House.

There are other kinds of economists who are masters of  Keynesian modeling. They make all of these fancy projections and it seems so intimidating, until you realize that their models rarely work out and that Keynesian theory just does not work worth a darn when applied in many circumstances.

Most “mainstream” economists fall into the previous categories.

Forbes Magazine went back to examine who it was that saw the collapse coming:

By 2004, concerns about a housing bubble were pervasive throughout the popular media. But responsible authorities continued to throw cold water on them.

Think on that statement for a moment. The responsible authorities were saying all is well, while those who participate in those markets are telling the media something different. When the “amateurs” are doing better than the super pro’s does that indicate that something is wrong in that profession?

One of the very few academics  who warned that this might happen was Bob Schiller (LINK) and that was in 2003. Hedge fund manager Michael J. Burry saw it coming and invested expecting a bubble burst (LINK, 2). 

The National Bureau of Economic Research says that the recession might not yet be over:

Most mainstream economists think the nation’s deep recession is over, but a special body that makes such a determination took a pass Monday, saying what many Americans intuitively feel, that the data remain inconclusive.

The National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonprofit group of economists, determines when recessions start and end as part of its work in calculating the peaks and troughs of the business cycle.

The bureau’s Business Cycle Dating Committee met last Friday and concluded that the jury is still out on the recession’s end, announcing that decision on its Web site Monday.

The committee reaffirmed that the recession began in December 2007, but its seven members couldn’t determine whether the recession has ended.

“The trough date would identify the end of contraction and the beginning of expansion. Although most indicators have turned up, the committee decided that the determination of the trough date on the basis of current data would be premature,” the committee said in a statement. “Many indicators are quite preliminary at this time and will be revised in coming months.”

One reason for a cautious view is the stubbornly high jobless rate.

Unemployment remains anchored in the ballpark of 9.7 percent. March employment numbers finally showed a solid gain of around 162,000 jobs, partly aided through government hiring to conduct the 2010 census.

Although economic expansion usually is marked by two consecutive quarters of growth, the committee wants to see more evidence of strong and consistent job growth as an indicator that businesses are hiring on the basis of a firming economy.

 

And in this state of regulatory uncertainty with ObamaCare, Cap & Tax, VAT Tax, status of bond holders, changes in capital gains tax rates, energy costs, expiring Bush tax cuts and the deficit can anyone be surprised that few want to create jobs here or invest in the United States? Several of the economists here at IUSB are saying that our economy has all the signs of what is called a “double dip recession”. To me this seems obvious. Economics is largely about incentives and confidence and that seems to be what most “mainstream” economists seem to continually miss.

Ed Morrissey at HotAir has some good comments HERE.

Student Outreach at AIPAC!

Elite Media: Job Losses “Unexpectedly” High Again for how many months now?

Many bloggers are poking fun at the elite media’s desperate attempt to spin bad economic news good while Democrats hold power, just as they often spun good economic news bad while Republicans were in power.

Here we have the elite media’s favorite word “unexpectedly” in regards to bad news, this word is followed in a close second to “surprise” at yet another dose of bad economic news. I am curious, how many months in a year does XX bad economic news have to be “unexpectedly” high before it is not unexpected anymore, or consumer confidence down, or housing down etc ?

See how bloggers covered the ridiculous use of the word ‘unexpected’  HERE. See our coverage HERE.

Associated Press:

Initial jobless claims increase unexpectedly

WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits rose last week, a sign that jobs remain scarce even as the economy recovers.

The increase also may result from the difficulty the Labor Department has in seasonally adjusting the claims around the Easter holiday, which falls on different weeks each year.

“This is … a volatile time when the numbers move around quite a bit,” a department analyst said.

The Labor Department said Thursday that first-time claims increased by 18,000 in the week ended April 3, to a seasonally adjusted 460,000. That’s worse than economists’ estimates of a drop to 435,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

California also closed its state offices for a holiday on March 31, which likely held down the claims figures. On an unadjusted basis, claims rose by 6,500 to nearly 415,000.

I love how they editorialize in the excuses, this time it is Easter, before it was the snow. I wonder where all of this generous benefit of the doubt was when unemployment was dropping from 6.6% to less than 4.7% under you know who?

BLS:

ECON 101 Video: The Cost of Tax Code Compliance

This video from the  Center for Freedom and Prosperity outlines some of the costs of compliance of our overly complex and corrupt tax code. It is definately worth the watch. Thanks to HotAir for the heads up.

Free Speech on Campus: Charging ‘Security Fees’ for student club events is illegal.

My friend Adam Kissel, who is my favorite Harvard trained lawyer, wrote a very interesting blog post at FIRE about one of the ways that colleges illegally censor protected speech by content; the selectively enforced “security fee”. 

In general it works like this: Your College Republicans student club is welcome to invite Dana Perino to come speak on campus, but we are going to charge you a $12,000 “security fee” to do so. 

FIRE, which is fast becoming the premier civil rights organization of the 21st century, has been standing up for the First Amendment, due process and academic freedom for students and faculty. 

FIRE: 

Temple University’s irreconcilable actions regarding a student group that brought Dutch politician Geert Wilders to campus have left students utterly in the dark about what Temple will do the next time a controversial speaker comes to campus. Temple unconstitutionally charged the group, Temple University Purpose, for extra security after the event, but after FIRE intervened, Temple claimed that it could have charged the group thousands of dollars more. Temple arbitrarily offered to withdraw the extra fee, then unilaterally withdrew it. In its latest letter, Temple merely states that the matter is closed and makes no promise to ensure that controversial but protected speech is not silenced on campus. 

Adam Kissel

 

These actions chill speech at Temple because groups will not want to risk similarly strange treatment of their events. Who would bring another controversial speaker to campus, risking thousands of dollars of after-the-fact security fees? Charging an extra security fee because of a potentially hostile audience is unconstitutional because it burdens the speech, but many student groups will likely be unwilling to push their luck to vindicate their rights. 

In our most recent letter to Temple, we point out not only that Temple’s random actions have a chilling effect on campus expression, but also that Temple maintains a constitutionally unacceptable policy of burdening speech. We wrote on March 18: 

While we are pleased that Temple University has withdrawn the bill for this event, it is disappointing that Temple has failed to acknowledge the legal principle under which it was required to do so. In addition, Temple’s actions to date—imposing a fee, offering to withdraw it, and then finally withdrawing it—have been without any explanation on which student organizations can rely when hosting controversial events in the future. Since Temple has not acknowledged its error, for example, in stating that it could have charged $6,000 to TUP for the extra security for the event, students have a reasonable fear of arbitrary imposition of such fees that is likely to have a persistent chilling effect on speech at Temple. Student organizations are likely to avoid bringing a controversial speaker to campus lest they face the vacillating treatment to which TUP was subjected, as well as the prospect of thousands of dollars in extra security fees. 

Again, the Supreme Court in Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 132-33 (1992) found that the implementation of the county’s ordinance showed no “narrowly drawn, reasonable and definite standards guiding the hand of the Forsyth County administrator” in assessing fees (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) and that “[n]othing in the law or its application prevents the official from encouraging some views and discouraging others through the arbitrary application of fees” (emphasis added). 

[Read the rest of this letter HERE] 

Unfortunately, Temple doesn’t seem to care about its policy or its actions. Temple’s April 7 response merely stated: 

We appreciate your concern for student rights and for alerting us to FIRE’s position on the matter. We have withdrawn the fee and now consider the matter closed. 

Apparently Temple thinks it is appropriate to assess a fee unconstitutionally and then withdraw it unilaterally without any acknowledgment of its constitutional obligation not to burden speech in this way. Temple should know better. In fact, the free speech principle here is so clearly established that Temple administrators risk losing qualified immunity in lawsuits if they try such shenanigans again. That means that the administrators could be liable for damages as individuals and not just in their professional capacities as administrators. In the meantime, let us hope that student organizations will be brave enough to fully exercise their rights on campus in spite of Temple’s missteps. 

Loons Send Black Professor Racist Voice Mails After O’Reilly Appearence

Dr. Monica Crowley:

After an appearance a few weeks ago on “The O’Reilly Factor” on the Fox News Channel, Dr. Christopher Metzler, Associate Dean of Continuing Studies at Georgetown University, began to receive despicable, racist voicemail messages.  One caller swears at him profanely and tells him to get his “black ass back to Africa.”

How sad that some people feel that they have to behave in such a manner.

Left Wing Groups Promising to Incite at April 15th Tea Party Events

It is all over the left-wing blogs. Left wing activists plan to show up to Tea Party events with racist signs, poorly spelled signs and intend to act like jack asses for the media. 

If you spot them get a police officer immediately. The Tea Party gets a protest permit to exercise not just the right of free speech, but to exercise the 1st Amendment right of expressive association. If someone shows up who is contrary to the message and is causing trouble they can and should be asked to leave, even if the police have to help them along. Such agitators are violating your rights. 

See my guide on How to spot an ACORN agitator at a Tea Party 

ACORN Agitator at Tea Party

Look at this guy with the professionally produced sign. Look at the reference to the show “In Living Color” which featured all black comedians; thus the not so subtle tie in with where Obama’s father is from and a racism angle. This message was carefully thought out with obvious advertising association techniques. Also notice how only one guy is standing near this agitator and how he has these big signs that are not on sticks so his sign provided the perfect contrast and focal point against the dark grass for a photographer. 

Putting this sign on a stick in the sky would not have made for a good clear photo and other legit signs may have drawn a viewer’s eye.  Surprise surprise, this picture has been farmed to far left blogs as “typical” of what was seen at the tea parties. The truth is that Tea Party organizers would have asked the police to ask this joker to leave on the spot; so they come in get their photo-op and leave. If you see anyone with a sign like this ask them to leave and get the attention of a police officer immediately. 

  

Tea Party Etiquette 

1. Do not wear camo attire period. The media will zone in on the worst looking guy or the guy they will call an armed militia member. They will call anyone wearing camo that if they are an armed militia member or not. If you wear camo attire to a Tea Party event you are a moron who should be asked to leave. 

2. Have some ready-made talking points ready that are sourced about the stimulus and the ObamaCare bill…. and by sourced I mean SOURCED. The media will be looking to play pop the question with a random member in the crowd to make them look like an idiot. DONT BE THAT IDIOT. If you do not know what to say have a “go-to” person that the media can talk to and bring the reporter straight to them. If you are a person who gets emotional do NOT talk to the media. 

3. If you spot one of these LaRouche Democrats who have been bringing nazi signs to the Tea Party events, any Alex Jones wackos or ELF or SEIU/ACORN agitators get an organizer or the police immediately. These people will be trying to get media attention. If you spot an agitator roll some pictures and/or video. Get the video and pictures to blogs like this one. We have resources to identify these people. If you spot a wacko, contact an organizer and have that person escorted out no matter how offended they try to act. 

4. When the cameras are there or a press interview is happening have a ready-made and pre-selected crowd to stand behind said person being interviewed. Agitators will try to get themselves or a sign into the shot. If someone is being interviewed, do NOT distract them, they are nervous enough as it is.

 

 

UPDATE – A commentor ads the following:

No way to get in touch with you, my friend. Could you find a place to mention this, please:

http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=abb0c35811ceca48295409d1cfca6712&CID=6139363581&ch=FD5830A29143A1949D1642CECBBEEFBD

Thanks

NY Times says that interns may be an illegal dodge of labor law, but guess who uses unpaid interns…

You guessed it, the NY Times.

In some cases interns are exploited as often they are skilled free labor, but other times they add needed experience to skill sets for those wealthy enough to work for free.

Prof. William Jacobson:

The NY Times ran an article yesterday about the growth of unpaid internships, Growth of Unpaid Internships May Be Illegal, Officials Say:

With job openings scarce for young people, the number of unpaid internships has climbed in recent years, leading federal and state regulators to worry that more employers are illegally using such internships for free labor….

[Nancy J.] Leppink said many employers failed to pay even though their internships did not comply with the six federal legal criteria that must be satisfied for internships to be unpaid. Among those criteria are that the internship should be similar to the training given in a vocational school or academic institution, that the intern does not displace regular paid workers and that the employer “derives no immediate advantage” from the intern’s activities — in other words, it’s largely a benevolent contribution to the intern.

Which companies have unpaid internships? Well, the NY Times, for one (italics mine):

Academic-Year Internships

The New York Times invites ambitious, motivated graduate students in journalism to apply for semester-long internships on one of our news desks. Working alongside our reporters and editors, students can expect to observe news events, evaluate news releases and competitors’ stories for possible coverage, and have their work critiqued by New York Times staffers.

To be eligible, students must provide letters from their colleges or universities stating that they are receiving academic credit for the internship and providing the contact information for the professor or academic professional responsible for monitoring internships.

Students should expect to write several articles during their semester at The Times and will receive pay at minimum freelance rates for these news stories, as well as for any legwork or stringing. The internship itself is unpaid.

Obama Bows to Chinese Communist

Is anyone getting sick of this yet?

Why did the White House deny bowing to the Saudi King and the rest of them when he keeps on doing this?

Washington Post Admits Error and Misleading Public on Tea Party Coverage

Washington Post:

Two black Democrats, Reps. André Carson of Indiana and John Lewis of Georgia, said protesters subjected them to racial epithets. The episodes were recounted for days in Post stories and columns. Much blame was directed at Tea Party activists.

But many readers, echoing conservative broadcasters and bloggers, insist the reports were exaggerated or that the events simply never took place.

Post reports were “based on no proof at all and without even offering any evidence,” District reader Clarice Feldman charged in an e-mail.

Conservative commentator and blogger Andrew Breitbart has accused Lewis and Carson of fabricating claims of racial epithets to “create the impression that the ‘tea party’ movement is racist.” He initially offered $10,000 to the United Negro College Fund for video evidence of the slurs. It’s now $100,000. “They didn’t expect someone would challenge them on this,” Breitbart told me. “What idiot would challenge John Lewis,” a civil rights movement icon? “Well, I’m that idiot.”

YouTube videos show the spitting incident took place as Cleaver and other black lawmakers passed through a gantlet of rowdy protesters on the steps outside the Cannon House Office Building. Amid booing and chants of “kill the bill,” Cleaver is seen reacting as he passes screaming protesters. He turns, points an accusing finger and appears to chastise one, who is shouting nonstop. As he continues up the steps, Cleaver uses his hand to wipe a protester’s saliva from his face.

Cleaver was hit with spit, but whether it was deliberate is very much in question. The video suggests he was unintentionally sprayed by the screaming protester. The distinction is significant because it fundamentally changes widespread media characterizations of what occurred. The Post and other news organizations left the impression of a despicable, premeditated assault. With videos of the incident so prevalent on liberal and conservative Web sites, and with the question being so widely raised in the blogosphere and on cable channels, The Post was remiss in not providing clarity by quickly dissecting what happened. (Cleaver’s office did not return repeated calls seeking comment for this column.)

Reminder - John Lewis also said on Oct. 11, 2008 that John McCain was a racist inciting hate like George Wallace who tried to keep black children from being educated. No one believed such nonsense. Lewis isn’t the first good man to be totally currputed by the beltway mentality who will say anything to satisfy the want for power and he wont be the last.

Town Hall: Congressman Doesn’t Know Constitution

Interesting video. A citizen asks his member of congress two simple questions about the Constitution. What is Article I Section I mean and name me 3 of 5 rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Article 1 sets up the legislative power among the House and the Senate and as a First Amendment whiz I know the five guarantees of the First Amendment by heart, freedom of press, association, speech, redress of grievances, and religion. The implied but unspoken freedom is freedom of conscience.

Sarah Palin at SRLC. Blasts Obama’s Lack of Experience.

Sarah Palin on “the Obama Doctrine”. Having fun at Obama’s expense.  

Palin is right, there has been one foreign policy goof after another out of this administration and the State Department.

Full Speech. Very smart and funny, worth the time.

Limbaugh Comments: Obama’s point about the joint cheifs is silly. If any one of them objected to the policy to the press they would be canned instantly.

McCotter: How to Speak Democrat

Duke University – If you are a white male consensual sex = sexual misconduct

Duke has quite a record of this sort of radicalized feminist, marxist conflict theory lunacy.

First there is the famed Duke LaCrosse case where 88 members of the faculty signed a statement essentially saying that the students must have raped the black stripper because they are rich, white, and male; all without a hint of evidence. The rich, white and male lacrosse players were exonerated by the evidence and the prosecutor in the case was himself prosecuted for his misconduct in the case.

Duke shut down an event on motherhood because pro-life students with children were going to participate in the event. FIRE was able to get justice in that case as well.

Duke has a LONG history of illegal censorship and retaliation for free speech. Duke shut down Prof. Gary Hull’s website after he posted an article on it calling for a strong military response to the terrorist attacks is just another incident in that long history linked to.  FIRE has been fighting them each step of the way quite successfully.

Look through that long history and it doesn’t take long to realize how subversive and quite frankly mentally deranged many academics at Duke have become. Much like in the book Lord of the Flies, the forces of myopic group think and peer pressure can progress to a psychosis.

Now we have the latest from Duke, a change to its campus policy which essentially states that if there is a “perceived power difference” between two people who engage in consensual sex that it creates an atmosphere of coercion.

Allow me to interpret this radicalized marxist conflict theory code speak. If  male student has sex with a female student, well females are a “protected minority class” there is a power difference therefore the act could not have been truly consensual. Remember the 1970′s and 80′s feminist idea that “all sex is rape”?

This Duke policy is also overtly racist. If a white female had consensual sex with a black male, the white female runs face first into this policy because of the black studies marxist conflict theory polemic called “white privilege“. [Jim Quinn defines white privilege as "a racist idea used by leftist proponents of group politics to explain away the economic and social failure of 'group politics'". It is  used to help keep minorities down by infusing them with false envy; see Detroit - Editor].

Of course this policy will be selectively enforced to promote the marxist conflict theory polemic, therefore it is only white males who are likely in danger of having this new policy used against them.

FIRE sent a letter to the Duke administration. Duke responded by only addressing a minor point in the letter and ignoring the rest of the points addressed. This is a typical tactic used by hyper extremist ideologues on internet message boards when faced with a reality and/or an argument they cannot handle. The people who use this tactic seem to actually believe that the recipient is so stupid that they will fall for it.

Sorry Duke administration, the nice people at FIRE are not stupid.

FIRE:

Duke and the Art of Not Answering Questions

April 9, 2010

by Robert Shibley

Lawyers often specialize in the art of answering questions without actually answering questions.

Here’s a great example: the letter we received today from Duke University lawyer Kate Hendricks. Hendricks was personally very pleasant to me when I had a non-substantive conversation with her on March 25, as I mentioned in my previous blog entry and to which she refers in her letter. But Hendricks’ letter employs a common tactic: it addresses the least important concern we raised in our letter while conveniently ignoring everything else.

Here’s the sole concern Duke addresses: FIRE pointed out in our letter that the sexual misconduct policy says that students in sexual misconduct hearings have all the same rights that they would in all other hearings, but then when it lists those rights, it leaves some of them out. FIRE wrote, “It is unclear whether this ambiguity is an oversight or if Duke intends to give students accused of sexual misconduct fewer rights than they have in other types of cases.” FIRE then goes on to list the rights that seem to differ and concludes the section by asking, “Do these rights exist in sexual misconduct hearings or not? If they do exist in sexual misconduct hearings, why is that not made clear?”

In response to this, Hendricks writes, “While your letter is the first indication we have received that this point is ambiguous, we can certainly review to determine whether clarification is in order.” OK, great. But how long does that take? Like Hendricks, I’m an attorney, too, and it was ambiguous to me—why wouldn’t undergrads be similarly confused? Why can’t Duke just say “whoops, we’ll fix that”? It would require the titanic effort of copying and pasting from one webpage to another. That’s it.

Anyway, as I said, that was the least important of our concerns.

By way of contrast, here is a short list of some of the far greater problems Duke ignored, presented in plain English:

1. If two students are merely “perceived” as differently “powerful,” this policy says that the more “powerful” student may have unintentionally coerced the other into sex and therefore committed sexual misconduct.

2. If two students are drunk and have sex, according to this policy they both committed sexual misconduct against each other.

3. What does “psychological pressure” to have sex mean, and on a student-to-student level, how does Duke distinguish this from peer pressure or even simple persuasion?

4. Since the victim and the accuser do not have to be the same person, and the accuser can be an anonymous third party, the accused cannot be guaranteed the right to face his or her accuser.

5. The accused has no right to representation by an attorney under the policy, so Duke can force him or her to incriminate himself or herself in ways that could compromise his or her defense in parallel criminal charges.

6. The composition of the hearing panel is weighted 3 to 2 in favor of students in ordinary misconduct hearings, but 2 to 1 in favor of faculty and staff (paid by Duke, of course) in sexual misconduct hearings.

7. All participants are required by the policy to keep “any information” about sexual misconduct proceedings confidential, apparently into perpetuity, which denies those found not responsible for sexual misconduct and those falsely accused from using the court of public opinion to clear their names (a right that was critical in the Duke lacrosse rape hoax case).

Totally Awesome Video: Know More About the Founders In Minutes Than Most People with a Masters Degree.

If even by now you do not understand the full extent of public education failure and academic malpractice, you will start to understand after watching this.

McLean’s Magazine: Canadian Police Told Not to Protect Coulter, “Innocent” muslim girl in video is part of a group to destroy Israel, and the same crowd that used violence against Coulter in the name of fighting racism had just staged the antsemitic “Israeli aparthied week”

As usual, the elite media omits key facts to set up a false narrative and in the case of the coverage of the recent Ann Coulter trip to Canada this should be expected. By the way, the “famous” video of Coulter making a crack to a Muslim girl about “take a camel” didn’t happen; the elite media took two clips from Ann talking to two different people and edited them and spliced them together to again set up a totally false narrative. To see the unedited video go HERE.

UPDATE – Let’s talk about this so called “Israeli aparthied week”; apartheid is evil and that is not a subject that is in serious debate. So if it is called Israeli apartheid week than Israel does apartheid and therefore Jews are evil and should be attacked, because they support apartheid and are evil. Make no mistake that this is the narrative.

Well that narrative was carried out in Canada where a Jewish student and his dorm-mate where attacked by an armed group of students speaking anti-Israeli slogans. Jihad  Watch has details.

McLean’s:

As for Ottawa’s coppers, they certainly demonstrated that famously Canadian “restraint.” Faced with a law-abiding group engaging in legal activity and a bunch of thugs trying to prevent it, the police declined to maintain order. As George Jonas wrote, “Ottawa’s finest exemplified Canada’s definition of moral leadership by observing neutrality between lawful and lawless.” Allan Rock’s weasels attempted to defend themselves by pointing out that it was not the university but the organizers who cancelled the event. They did so because the police said they could not “guarantee security.” You’re certainly free to proceed, but, as David Warren pointed out, your liability insurance will decline to cover any damage if you go ahead against the coppers’ advice.

There seems to be rather a lot of this in the True North restrained and civil. I’m not just referring to obvious surrenders such as Caledonia, but to the bizarre episode of TVO’s The Agenda broadcast from the Munk Centre last week. No Ann Coulter around, only the finance minister of Ontario. But a Coulteresque mob rushed the stage, and the host Steve Paikin had to insert himself between protesters and the minister. “Regardless of what you thought of yesterday’s budget,” wrote Paikin, “I don’t believe guests who agree to appear on The Agenda ought to get beaten up.”

Oh, c’mon, you pussy. Where’s your commitment to social justice? As in Ottawa, law enforcement declined to enforce the law, the OPP remaining in the wings as thugs rushed the stage. “The police, I’m told, were urged not to intervene,” Paikin explained, “lest pictures of demonstrators being hauled off by the cops show up all over YouTube.”

True. You might haul off a Muslim or a lesbian and find yourself in “human rights” hell. Better just to linger nonchalantly by the side until it’s all over: O Canada, we stand around for thee. Her Majesty’s Constabulary seem to be sending the message that violence pays—at least for approved identity groups. That doesn’t seem a prudent strategy.

As for the media, they’ve long been too cowed by political correctness to do even elementary research. It took the blogger Blazing Cat Fur to discover that Fatima Al Dhaher, the poor wee thing traumatized by Ann Coulter’s camel joke at the University of Western Ontario, was a member of a Facebook group called “It’s Called Palestine Not Israel,” committed to the elimination of the Jewish state and regarding its present occupants as “subhuman” “zionazis/kikeroaches.” I have no objection to Miss Al Dhaher pursuing her extracurricular enthusiasms, but she would seem, even for Canada, too parodic a poster gal for “restraint” and “civility.”

~

She’s a great defender of the state of Israel, for example. Whereas the students the CJC praised for shutting her down are the same crowd who organized “Israeli Apartheid Week.” Given a choice between a steadfast friend of Israel and the new and ubiquitous campus Judenhass, the CJC characteristically chose the latter. For years, Bernie Farber’s CJC has never met a state censor it didn’t like. Now, it’s extolling the virtues of mob rule. By the “Israeli Apartheid” gang. Granted that the only plausible explanation for the CJC is that it’s an Islamist front organization, you surely don’t want to make it too obvious.

That seems an appropriately logical reductio for multiculturalism: the subhuman zionazis and the Riot Against Israeli Apartheid executive committee united by their opposition to Ann Coulter. Celebrate diversity! Thus, the new Canada: intolerance is “tolerance”; mob rule is “restraint”; “kike­roaches” is “civility”; law enforcement is optional; jokes are actionable; up is down; black is white; “conflict studies” majors are rioting; Steve Paikin interviewing the Ontario finance minister on public television makes Jerry Springer interviewing transsexuals who date their ex-wives’ dads look like Jack Paar hosting Kitty Carlisle Hart; and sticks and stones may break your bones, but Rocks like Allan will issue a soothing press release. What an Olympic opening ceremony it would make.

Obama Appoints Radicallized Union Lawyer to NLRB

His name is Craig Becker and he thinks that he can unilaterally change the law to impose “card check” and impose unions on employees without their consent. …speaking of guys who don’t recognize the limits of their office…..

Of course Obama uses a recess appointment because there is no way this guy could get confirmed by the Senate.

Indiana Senate Race: Don Bates on the Supreme Court

There are five people running for the GOP nomination to run for our Indiana seat in the U.S. Senate. I am quite content with three of the candidates. Don Bates, Marlin Stutzman and Congressman Hostettler.

My biggest complaint with the Senate race is the same complaint I have with most other races. Most of what they say is boilerplate conservative language, most of them are not so good at differentiating themselves from one another, most are short on specifics.

I have been getting the emails and following the candidates in the news and on Facebook; I have been impressed with Don Bates who seems to have worked a little harder to make himself more available than the other candidates, he has been going to Tea Party events and speaking events and getting in front of the citizens more often by my count than the other candidates. So either this means that he can afford to do so, or it means that he actually respects the people and are inviting the voters to look at him and judge him accordingly. That shows a dash of humility and I appreciate that.

Humility is a trait that is often lost in the D.C. beltway.

I see the press releases from the candidates as I said, and I have not blogged about them because quite frankly, no one was saying anything that surprised me …until today.

Press Release for Don Bates:

Anderson, IN – Republican US Senate candidate, and businessman and financial advisor, Don Bates Jr. responded to news of Justice John Paul Stevens’ retirement from the Supreme Court in June with the following statement:

“Justice Stevens leaves the Supreme Court with a long and distinguished record. Unfortunately, that record reveals that he repeatedly embraced activist legal theories viewing the role of a judge as similar to that of a legislator. The judicial activism that is a scourge on the American political and judicial scene is typified by jurists like Justice Stevens.

“The next senator from Indiana must be an individual who will carefully examine the qualifications of judicial nominees sent before the Senate. The consistent encroachment on our freedom by activists judges must be stemmed with strong ‘No’ votes on judicial nominees that do not hold to a restrained view of their role in our Constitutional system. We must not send to Washington someone who will rubber-stamp judicial nominees with more thought for past precedent than current realities.

“If elected, I will carefully review all judicial nominations that come before the Senate, and support those who respect the boundaries of their office while opposing those who view themselves as unelected super-legislators with the power to make law.”

 

“I will carefully review all judicial nominations that come before the Senate, and support those who respect the boundaries of their office…”

 

Why is that so interesting? Because this single sentence sums up the entire problem with government. People in office who do not respect the boundaries of their office. The Senate broke the rules when it used “reconciliation” to avoid the filibuster to amend the O-Care bill. See why this is so important HERE.

The House attempted to pervert a House rule to pass O-Care without voting on the bill itself. The Supreme Court in New London v Connecticut changed 200 years of obviously simple “Eminent Domain” interpretation and turned it on its head to allow the government to take your property by force and give it to another private party if they are willing to pay more property taxes on it.

This Supreme Court decision was not just “a legitimate difference of legal opinion” as so many lawyers would describe it. For over 200 years everybody knew what the Eminent Domain power was for, as all of our history books and civics books and law books have always told us that the power is there to get land when needed for things like military bases and highways and then should only be used as a last resort with just compensation to the citizens affected.

The eminent domain issue was not a controversy in the least, until five people on the Supreme Court decided that their power was unlimited and decided that the rights of private property in the face of government wants meant nothing at all.

This was not a mere case of  a slight difference of legal application or interpretation. This was a case of people in the public trust not recognizing the boundaries of their office. If those in office recognize no boundaries on their power why even have a Constitution and why pay lip service to the entire concept of limited government?

President Obama is considering putting up a nominee that once said that Chief Justice is an extremist not fit for the bench because he believes in private property. This is not a simple case of liberal vs. conservative judicial interpretation, this goes so far beyond that. Such judgeship nominees are people who do not recognize any limits on their power or respect the limits of their office.

There are many Republicans like Fox News’ Megyn Kelly who are caught up in the narrative of “Oh judges like that are ok, you just have a different interpretation” and that has to end. A note to Megyn Kelly, one can be a “liberal” and still respect the boundaries of one’s office. We need people in office who will stand up to the conventional wisdom of the elite media and who will not just accept the slick sounding, yet bogus premises of the far left.

Don Bates has taken a step forward into convincing me that he is such a man.

Pinhead Quote of the Day: Congressman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) “There is no ObamaCare Mandate……”

Wow, this is totally priceless.

Is there anything a politician will not say, any sugar-coated euphemistic deception they will not employ? Schultz was a major negotiator in the O-Care process and cannot claim ignorance. This just goes to show that conservatives are afraid that the people will not understand, leftists are afraid the people will understand.

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

 

It’s pretty silly. The IRS is hiring 16,500 new people to enforce the ObamaCare mandate. If you don’t buy the insurance the IRS will fine you, they will confiscate your tax return etc and the IRS Chief even said so.

Congressman Schultz saying that the mandate isn’t mandatory, “that it just puts you in a new tax status”, is like saying that there is no mandate against murder, but if you do it you will just be put in a new residency status… a federal penitentiary.

Where is the elite media? What if Bush had said something as preposterous as this?

Basic Economics: If We Europeanize, Europe is in Trouble

Jonah Goldberg makes a case that IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton has made for years. Europe is so burdened by government and the innovators and economic risk takers are so punished by their anti-wealth, neo-marxist policies that Europe is not much of an innovator. Less and less truly new and innovative products come from socialized Europe. Ireland, which for many years went with a smart but very limited government model was a massive innovator until it started becoming more like socialized Europe.

Europe has unemployment that is worse than the United States but it is permanent. Several EU countries are in debt to the point of losing their credit status and some already have such as Greece and Iceland.

Most European countries spend very little on their own GDP on national defense…. because they know that we will defend them. This puts their level of wasteful spending in perspective.

Read this carefully.

Jonah Goldberg:

By now you may have heard: America is on its way to becoming another European country.

Now, by that I do not mean that we’re moving our tectonic plate off the coast of France or anything. But rather, that a century-long dream of American progressives is finally looking like it might become a reality. The recently passed health-care legislation is the cornerstone of the Europeanization of America. And to pay for it, the White House is now floating the idea of imposing a value-added tax (VAT) like they have throughout most of Europe.

Jonah Goldberg

In the egghead-o-sphere there’s been an ongoing debate about whether America should become more like Europe. The battle lines are split along almost perfect left-right lines ideologically. Liberals like the European welfare states, unionized workforces (in and out of government), generous benefits, long vacations, etc. Conservatives like America’s economic growth, its dynamism and innovation.

From what I can tell, everyone agrees that you can’t have Europeanization without European-size governments. Hence, America’s government outlays (pre-Obama) have tended to hover around 20 percent of GDP (the average of the last 50 years), while Europe’s are often more than twice that. In France, government outlays are nearly 55 percent of GDP. In 2009, the bailout and Obama budget sent America’s government outlay to 28 percent of GDP, but that should decline a bit over the next decade, unless Democrats have something else in mind.

To be fair, liberals insist conservatives are wrong to think that Europeanizing America will necessarily come at any significant cost. New York Times columnist and Princeton economist Paul Krugman says that in exchange for only a tiny bit less growth, Europeans buy a whole lot of security and comfort. Economists such as Stanford’s Michael Boskin say Europeans have a standard of living about 30 percent lower than ours and are stagnating. Others note that the structural unemployment rate in Europe, particularly for young people (it’s over 20 percent in many countries), is socially devastating.

Obviously, I’m in the conservative camp. But I think the debate misses something. We can’t become Europe unless someone else is willing to become America.

Look at it this way. My 7 year-old daughter has a great lifestyle. She has all of her clothes and food bought for her. She goes on great vacations. She has plenty of leisure time. A day doesn’t go by where I don’t look at her and feel envious at how good she’s got it compared to me. But here’s the problem: If I decide to live like her, who’s going to take my place?

Europe is a free-rider. It can only afford to be Europe because we can afford to be America.

The most obvious and most cited illustration of this fact is national defense. Europe’s defense budgets have been miniscule because Europeans can count on Uncle Sam to protect them. Britain, which has the most credible military in NATO after ours, has funded its butter account with its gun account. As Mark Steyn recently noted in National Review, from 1951 to 1997 the share of British government expenditure on defense fell from 24 percent to 7 percent, while the share on health and welfare increased from 22 percent to 53 percent. And that was before New Labor started rolling back Thatcherism. If America Europeanizes, who’s going to protect Europe? Who’s going to keep the sea lanes open? Who’s going to contain Iran? China? OK, maybe. But then who’s going to contain China?

But that’s not the only way in which Europeans are free-riders. America invents a lot of stuff. When was the last time you used a Portuguese electronic device? How often does Europe come out with a breakthrough drug? Not often, and when they do, it’s usually because companies like Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline increasingly conduct their research here. Indeed, the top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single country combined. We nearly monopolize the Nobel Prize in medicine, and we create stuff at a rate Europe hasn’t seen since da Vinci was in his workshop.

If America truly Europeanized, where would the innovations come from?

Europhiles hate this sort of talk. They say there’s no reason to expect America to lose its edge just because we have a more “compassionate” government. Americans are an innovative, economically driven people. That’s true. But so were the Europeans — once. Then they adopted the policies they have today and that liberals want us to have tomorrow.

Tea Party has a message for the GOP

The Tea Party voters can elect the GOP. They can also keep Republicans from getting elected by staying home and/or splitting the vote to run candidates of their own. The people are leading and the leaders need to follow, or they will not stay leaders.

The biggest issue for the GOP is that some big government republicans will not have learned this lesson and or new one that get elected will be consumed by the belt way and elite media mentality that they know better than freedom. A few bad republicans can destroy the entire electoral chances of the GOP in 2012 or 2014.

Some may like it some may not, but this is a political reality.

Nearly Half of US Households Pay No Income Tax – Other Half Soaked

Wealth and jobs and investors and economic risk takers go where they are treated well. Want to know why the US is being industrialized and jobs are fleeing the country, this article explains a great deal of the problem.

AP/Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it’s simply somebody else’s problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

Most people still are required to file returns by the April 15 deadline. The penalty for skipping it is limited to the amount of taxes owed, but it’s still almost always better to file: That’s the only way to get a refund of all the income taxes withheld by employers.

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

“We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing,” said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property.

Bart Stupak Retires.

Vote & Run as Matt Drudge has called it. It goes to show that the utopian view of government central control is more important to Democrats than re-election. But don’t feel bad for all of these retiring Democrats as they will get cushy jobs as lobbyists and ObamaCare administrators.

Stupak is one of many Democrats who are engaging in the tactic of “vote & run” so they wont have to face the wrath of the voters. If you don’t know how Stupak lied to his voters and tried a pretty transparent trick to cover it up click HERE and then see how he got paid for it HERE.

These videos are dedicated to the Bart Stupaks of the world.

Obama nuclear rhetoric does hurt us, but this is a distraction to get subject off ObamaCare and off the Obama proposed energy tax. – UPDATED!

UPDATE – Sarah Palin Comments –

Folks, all this talk about how we wont use nuclear weapons even if we are attacked with WMD’s etc is just talk. Obama can “change the policy” all he wants and if a situation arises alter it at will. What Obama has done is change the national subject although it seems that it may be backfiring on him.  

Elizabeth Cheney explains how the series of policy moves has harmed our relationship with our allies. 

As for me, I find it interesting that Obama is more outraged over Jews building apartments then he is about Iranian Mullah’s building nukes. 

Elizabeth Cheney: 

Cheney told the roughly 3,500 conservative activists and donors gathered for the conference that there are three prongs to the president’s foreign policy: “apologize for America, abandon our allies and appease our enemies.” 

Cheney

“The Obama administration is putting us on the path to decline,” added Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney. 

She criticized the administration for the “shabby reception” given Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visited Washington recently, which she deemed “disgraceful.” 

“President Obama is playing a reckless game if he continues down the path of diminishing the United States’ ties to Israel,” she said, deeming the world safer when there is “no daylight” between the two countries. 

Cheney criticized the administration for expressing concerns about Afghan president Hamid Karzai, and not categorically casting the Afghan leader as an ally. The posture, she said, marked a “dangerous and juvenile display.” 

On Iran, she deemed the president’s deadlines “meaningless” and his speeches “pointless.” She said that Mr. Obama’s response to the protests following that country’s election suggested he was “much more concerned about whether the mullahs in Iran would be offended by his actions.” 

Threats of “watered down sanctions,” she added, are just “buying time for the Iranians” to increase their capacity to attack. 

She said Mr. Obama’s recently-unveiled nuclear policy displayed his “naivete about his views about America’s enemies,” because it sent those enemies the message that America would not strike back when attacked. 

“President Obama, stop apologizing for this great nation and start defending it,” she said. 

Cheney said Mr. Obama has “degraded and diminished” America’s intelligence gathering posture by revealing the details of the “enhanced interrogation program” used under the George W. Bush administration. 

She complained that the Obama administration was wasting its time interrogating the CIA officers who were involved with that program. Those who were involved with enhanced interrogation, she said, obtained valuable information and are “American patriots” who “do not deserve to be scorned or hounded.” 

“This administration is confused about who the enemy is,” said Cheney. 

Union Threatens Life of New Republican New Jersey Governor

Oh look a politician threatened.,…. oh wait its a Republican… ok we will put it online but it will never be on the CBS News home page or on the network evening news or on page 1 of the new York Times or appear on CNN every single hour. Nothing to see here move along move along…

WCBS:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie isn’t laughing about a teachers union’s memo that hints of his death.

The memo is the latest salvo in a war of words between Christie and the union over wage and benefits concessions.

The Recorder of Bergen County obtained the Bergen County Education Association memo that includes a closing prayer:

“Dear Lord this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor.”

Association president Joe Coppola says the “prayer” was a joke and was never meant to be made public.

Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak says there’s nothing professional about the group.

 

UPDATE – Teachers Union still posting threats and hate of Facebook

AP:

In NJ school cut debate, insults overshadow issues

By GEOFF MULVIHILL (AP) – 21 hours ago

HADDONFIELD, N.J. — They’re the kind of obscenity-laced schoolyard taunts that could get a student suspended.

But the target of this tirade is New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie — and the perpetrators are the state’s teachers, irate over his calls for salary freezes and funding cuts for schools.

In Facebook messages visible to the world — not to mention their students — the teachers have called Christie fat, compared him to a genocidal dictator and wished he was dead. The postings are often riddled with bad grammar and misspellings.

“Never trust a fat f…,” read one profane post on the Facebook page, “New Jersey Teachers United Against Governor Chris Christie’s Pay Freeze,” which has some 69,000 fans, many of them teachers.

“How do you spell A– hole? C-H-R-I-S C-H-R-I-S-T-I-E,” read another.

The rhetoric has become ever more heated as residents of most of the state’s school districts get ready to vote Tuesday on property tax levies that support district budgets. And while many of the postings are emotional, most aren’t personal attacks.

Christie, a first-year Republican governor who inherited a state in dire financial straits, wants voters to reject the proposals in districts where educators won’t agree to salary freezes for the coming school year.

The acrimony intensified last month when Christie proposed cutting state and federal aid to districts by 11 percent, calling it a way to share sacrifice as the state tries to rein in spending.

That’s when the Facebook attacks really took off.

One educator, a librarian with a Master’s degree, described the cuts as “rediculous.”

Another pointed out that Christie’s late mother was a member of the teachers union: “It’s not right to bite the hand that feeds you. Oh I forgot it’s Chirs Christie, He’s so large I bet he’d bite anything that’s put in front of his face!”

“Remember Pol Pot, dictator of Cambodia?” warned another. “He reigned in terror, his target was teachers and intellectuals. They were either killed or put into forced labor… King Kris Kristy is headed in this direction.”

Christie’s supporters have responded with a Facebook page of their own. “Teachers need to sit down and shut up. They live in a dream world where they work 180 days a year,” it asserted. “Way overpaid to start with, they could never make it working in the real world.”

Even in these tough economic times, teachers in most New Jersey districts have continued to get annual negotiated raises — often around 4 percent — and don’t have to help pay for their health insurance.

So Christie has offered more money to districts that can get teachers unions to revise their contracts and freeze salaries for the upcoming school year — and agree to start paying 1.5 percent of their salaries toward their health insurance.

So far, teachers in only 20 of the state’s 590 school districts have agreed to any concessions.

In 2006, the last year for which data was available, New Jersey teachers made an average of $58,000. The salary, in one of the highest cost-of-living states, was fourth in the nation.

Earlier this month, an opinion column in the Star-Ledger of Newark, the state’s largest newspaper, took teachers to task for their attacks on the governor.

“Here are words to live by from a guy teaching you critical life tools,” it said of one expletive-ridden post. “Write them down. There might be a quiz.”

Some have cooled the rhetoric and even apologized.

After a New Jersey teacher’s union wished Christie dead — like “my favorite singer, Michael Jackson” — the group’s president, Joe Coppola of the Bergen County Education Association, called it a bad attempt at humor and apologized.

Christie’s people weren’t impressed. “The union is, has been, and probably always will be a bully,” the governor’s spokesman, Michael Drewniak, said in an interview last week.

It’s Christie who’s the real bully, asserted Marlene Brubaker, a Camden County Technical School science teacher who wrote the post comparing the governor to the Khmer Rouge leader, Pol Pot.

“I’m not saying this guy is killing us physically,” she said. “I would say he’s trying to kill us spiritually,” by disrespecting teachers and spreading the myth that they’re overpaid.

Her salary, which public records show is a bit more than $50,000 a year, isn’t enough to make ends meet, she added, so she also has to tutor and work as a home health aide.

The debate appears to be taking a slightly more civil course lately, especially after the founder of the anti-Christie page was shut out from posting on the site for about a week because of all the hateful comments.

“I have deleted and will continue to delete commets comparing Governor Christie to genocidal maniacs,” read a recent post, complete with a typo. “He is not a genocidal maniac. He is a crappy governor.”

Related:

Union Threatens Life of New Republican New Jersey Governor

New N.J. Gov. Christie Freezes Spending – Keeps Campaign Promise – Democrats Furious – UPDATED!

AWESOME: Gov Christie on MSNBC. Fighting Public Sector Unions

Nancy Pelosi Hates This Video!

Which means you will love it ;)

Obama Padded His Resume. Teaching Job was a Political Patronage Position.

So some claims on his resume are exaggerated. Not a big surprise, but the circumstances surrounding the exaggerations make for an interesting story. Rest assured if Bush had done this the elite media would be wall to wall with it 24/7.

Of course political patronage positions in Chicago is no surprise at all, but apparently Obama did not get the job on the merits. Now we know why there is such lack of transparency with his transcripts and other records.

Via The Examiner:

In what is being called ‘the biggest hustle in human history,’ a special investigation has discovered numerous bogus claims on Barack Obama’s resume, including the outright lie that he was a ‘Constitutional scholar and professor.’

The claim turns out to be false.

As investigators delve further into the background of Barack Obama, a disturbing picture is emerging of a man who is not who he claims to be. The information the public has been told concerning Obama is turning out to be false–fabrications and inventions of a man and an unseen force behind him that had clear ulterior motives for seeking the highest office in the land.

According to a special report issued by ‘the Blogging Professor,’ the Chicago Law School faculty hated Obama. The report states that Obama was unqualified, that he was never a ‘constitutional professor and scholar,’ and that he never served as editor of the Harvard Law Review while a student at the school.

The real truth is that Barack Obama was merely an ‘instructor’ at Chicago Law School, not a professor. Commonly, instructors are non-tenure-track teachers hired by colleges and universities to teach certain courses for a salary that is well below that of Associate Professors or full Professors.

In the hierarchy of higher education, the status of instructors is below that of associate professors and professors because they lack the credentials.

In fact, it can be safely concluded that the claims of Barack Obama concerning his educational credentials and work history in higher education are a complete sham. The President of the United States is a complete fraud.

According to Doug Ross:

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

Thus, the question arises, was the claim that Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review a ‘put-up job’ as well, allowing the student to claim he held this prestigious position without having the qualifications or meeting the requirements of holding that position? And why?

Further,

Consider this: 1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a “lawyer”. He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he “fibbed” on his bar application.

2. Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993.

3. So, we have the President and First Lady – who don’t actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.

4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, “Obama did NOT ‘hold the title’ of a University of Chicago law school professor”. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.

5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

These are highly disturbing facts, verified facts from the people who know at the Chicago Law School.

There is more from Ross, however:

6. “He did not hold the title of professor of law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

8. The B-Cast posted the video.

9. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in ourConstitution: the notion that we are all created equal.”

10. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you are a phony it’s hard to keep facts straight.

Obama has made sure that all of his records are sealed tight. And apart from the courageous souls at the various educational institutions who dared to speak the truth, the schools Obama claimed to attend unanimously refuse to release transcripts, records, or other bits of evidence concerning Obama’s presence in their institutions.

BREAKING DEVELOPMENT–just as these disturbing facts come to light about Barack Obama, the White House is busy making deals with numerous ‘journalists,’ promising unprecedented access to the President in exchange for refraining from reporting certain information ‘they may discover.’

Chairman Steele Needs to Stay and Go on the Offense

The elite media narrative, we have all seen it, a couple of minor players at the GOP federal machine make a foolish error, and it is all over the news.

This is like indicting Rudolph Giuliani as a bad mayor because Bernie Kerrick used to work for him. The truth is that Giuliani hired thousands of people and made thousands of decisions with the vast majority being very good for the people of New York.

Republican Chairman Michael Steele

Yet where is the constant onslaught against white Republicans and former GOP chairs who were less effective? Or DNC chair’s who get beaten in fund-raising and media presence by our GOP Chairman Steele?

Do you remember Miguel Estrada? He is a brilliant lawyer and when nominated by the president to be a federal judge, the Democrats said in their own leaked judiciary committee memos that his nomination had to be stopped “because he is Latino”. Read it in their own words HERE.

The left and the elite media’s narrative is that anyone who isn’t a Democrat or opposes a Democrat is a racist. How effective can that narrative be when effective Black and Latino leaders are the face of the GOP and are in power? 

Did we see Senator Schumer illegally obtaining any other DNC or Republican chairman’s credit report and leak it to the press (or any other candidate’s credit report for that matter)? No. Do we see democratic operatives showing up to Steele events and throw Oreo’s at him? Yes. Do we see the failures of the DNC as far as fund-raising and generating a persuasive media presence being piled onto by the elite media? No.

Election season is near and Micheal Steele will be the face of the GOP this midterm. The elite media and the Democrats racist narrative cannot hold water with Steele being on television every single day, so they must destroy him. It is the same reason that when a Latino or a Black Tea Party participant rises to speak at an event, the elite media turns the television cameras off. Anyone who has been to a large Tea Party event has seen this happen. Look at the racist attacks on Supreme Court Justice Thomas from the left or how about the left comparing Condi Rice to Aunt Jemima etc. ?

Kevin Jackson has headlined 80 Tea Party events, yet I bet this video is the first time you have ever seen him.  

The RNC just had another record month of fundraising. When you have the big gun you become the target and take a lot of fire from the enemy and this is what we are seeing in the attacks on Chairman Steele. Yes Steele has made mistakes, who doesn’t, so did Mayor Giuliani; by and large both are very capable and effective leaders. It is foolish to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

The uncomfortable truth is that the elite media narrative would be much more effective if the face of the GOP was a white southerner like Haley Barbour (don’t get me wrong, Gov. Barbour is a great guy but we are talking about a media war here). If Chairman Steele was a white man from Queens, the elite media would not be piling on as they are.

Republicans too often get caught up in the wave of media narrative and end up going along with it. Democrats, no matter how corrupt they get, can always get together to smile for the camera, drink beer and eat polish sausage. Republicans hold their own to a much higher standard, but once again we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Chairman Steele is an effective leader. It is time to stop making him less effective by adopting the elite media’s bogus narrative. It is time for Chairman Steele to go on the offense, big time.

Chuck Norton

Elite Media Disinformation Leads to Mass Chaos on ObamaCare

From our left of center friends at McClatchy News:

Two weeks after President Barack Obama signed the big health care overhaul into law, Americans are struggling to understand how — and when — the sweeping measure will affect them.

Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors’ offices, human resources departments and business groups.

“They’re saying, ‘Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?’ ” said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.

[You mean after a year of "explaining it" the American people still don't know what is in it? Whew and I thought that Bush had a bad communications machine. Of course the point was to spread disinformation to confuse the people and keep them from understanding it, an effort that was partially successful.  - Editor]

McLean said the call center had been inundated by uninsured consumers who were hoping that the overhaul would translate into instant, affordable coverage. That widespread misconception may have originated in part from distorted rhetoric about the legislation bubbling up from the hyper-partisan debate about it in Washington and some media outlets, such as when opponents denounced it as socialism. [ This is pretty amusing, it wasnt the GOP or Fox telling people that OBamaCare would make coverage more affordable, because it wont, it wasn't Fox and the GOP telling you that it will insure the uninsured people, because it doesn't, it will help some people get insurance that will be very expensive, but that is down the road. You just have to 'luv' the elite media's total lack of introspective. After showing us that ObamaCare is the answer for a year with a deluge of Democrat talking points, while telling us that the opponents who were revealing the details of it are liars, now they are back pedalling. - Editor]

More…:

Adults with pre-existing conditions are frustrated to learn that insurers won’t have to cover them until 2014 (though those under 18 will be protected in late September); then they become both hopeful and confused upon learning that a federal high-risk pool for them will be established in the next few months. “Health insurance is so confusing. You add this on top of it and it makes it even more confusing,” McLean said.

 

 

…and wayyy deeper in the article…:

 

[Editor's Note - By all means folks, lets leave the truth that businesses will be facing taxes and fees and mandates that will cost jobs at the very end of the article, in an article about misconceptions.... Studies show that most readers only read to about the 5th paragraph of any story, but hey they can say they reported it.]

Many small business owners are nervous about requirements being phased in.

“Members are still trying to wrap their head around everything that’s in this law,” said Michelle Dimarob, the manager of legislative affairs for the National Federation of Independent Business, the small-business lobby.

Dimarob said the lobby’s primary concern was that its costs would rise over the next four years as a result of fees, taxes and coverage mandates related to the overhaul.

“The next question that comes out of their mouths is: ‘What do I have to do right now?’ They need to start talking with their accountant, depending on how they’re organized, what industry they’re in and whether they’re offering insurance now and what kind they’re offering. We’re suggesting they talk to their agent or broker.”

Suntan businesses face a new excise tax starting in July as part of the overhaul. Other business owners are trying to understand new Internal Revenue Service reporting requirements related to business-to-business transactions that will kick in as a result of the new law. Others are looking ahead to coverage mandates for 2014 and calculating how many part-time versus full-time employees they should have to best contain costs.

While Obama has been touting a tax credit for small businesses that offer employees health coverage, Dimarob said many small businesses wouldn’t be able to participate. First they must do research to see whether they qualify. “It requires them to understand the intricacies,” she said.

Rasmussen Poll: 55% Say Media Bias Bigger Problem in Politics Than Big Contributions

Rasmussen:

Voters agree that big money talks in politics but apparently not as loudly as big media.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of U.S. voters continue to think that media bias is a bigger problem in politics today than big campaign contributions, identical to the finding in August 2008.

Thirty-two percent (32%) say big contributions are the bigger problem, but that’s down four points from the previous survey. Thirteen percent (13%) more are not sure.

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of voters say they are more likely to contribute time or money to a political campaign this year compared to previous election years.

Voters ages 30 to 49 are the most wary of the media’s influence on politics today.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republicans and 62% of unaffiliated voters say media bias is the bigger problem in politics, a view shared by just 37% of Democrats. The plurality (46%) of Democrats says campaign contributions are a bigger problem.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of Mainstream voters and 54% of the Political Class agree that the bigger problem facing politics is media bias.

 

This is interesting:

Fifty-one percent (51%) of voters say the average reporter is more liberal than they are. Eighteen percent (18%) say that reporter is more conservative, and 20% think their views are about the same ideologically as the average reporter’s.

As far as voters are concerned, liberal is the most unpopular of five common political labels.

Sixty-two percent (62%) believe that what the media thinks is more important to the average member of Congress than what voters think. Sixty-seven percent (67%) say the news media have too much power and influence over government decisions.

In a survey in February of last year, 57% of Americans said political donors get more than their money back in terms of favors from members of Congress. Fifty-one percent (51%) said you can influence a governor or member of Congress for less than $50,000 in contributions.

However, 68% believe that requiring the disclosure of all campaign contributions is more important that limiting those contributions.

CNN Reporter: Almost everyone I met was welcoming to this African-American television news producer.

After wall to wall lies about the elite media Tea Party coverage, CNN finally did a fair piece. This is no surprise though as the pattern is usually the same, take 15 steps forward with the elite media spin and take one step back with one honest report so when called on how unfair their narrative is they can point to this and say “see”…..

CNN:

But here’s what you don’t often see in the coverage of Tea Party rallies: Patriotic signs professing a love for country; mothers and fathers with their children; African-Americans proudly participating; and senior citizens bopping to a hip-hop rapper.

Last week, I saw all of this during a five-city Western swing as the Tea Party Express national tour made its way across the country. CNN was along for the ride, and I was charged with planning CNN’s coverage for five stops in two states: St. George, Provo and Salt Lake City, Utah; and Grand Junction and Denver, Colorado.

CNN was the only national news outlet on this Western leg of the tour. We had a full team on the ground: myself, correspondent Ed Lavandera, producers Tracy Sabo and Jim Spellman and the crew of the CNN Express bus. For Spellman, it was his third Tea Party Express tour.

Together, we beamed out images of the anger and the optimism, profiled African-Americans who are proud to be in the Tea Party’s minority and showed activists stirred by “God Bless America” or amused by a young rapper who strung together rhymes against the president and Democrats.

The CNN Express traveled with the Tea Party Express buses for hundreds of miles, from rally to rally to rally.

Being at a Tea Party rally is not quite like seeing it on TV, in newspapers or online. That’s the reason CNN is covering this political movement — and doing so in ways few others can or choose to do.

It is important to show the colorful anger Americans might have against elected leaders and Washington. But people should also see the orange-vested Tea Party hospitality handlers who welcome you with colorful smiles.

There were a few signs that could be seen as offensive to African-Americans. But by and large, no one I spoke with or I heard from on stage said anything that was approaching racist.

Almost everyone I met was welcoming to this African-American television news producer.

Video: Rachel Maddow and Elite Media Incite Violence and Hate to FreedomWorks

Content Warning: These are a small sample of voice mails to the public policy institute FreedomWorks from those who claim a monopoly on love and tolerance.

FreedomWorks:

Some money quotes:

“Be careful what you wish for – the right to bear arms means that everyone can bear arms.”

“We will be fighting you to the death.”

“I’m so glad that I saw Rachel Maddow. She’s brilliant. She’s absolutely fantastic. And her diagnosis of the ills of the American right are so right on. I mean, basically, what you’re doing is just saying no. You’re like belligerent children. You have no concept of how hard people have worked to get this together, and to make sure that we win. We WILL win, and will continue. That’s why Obama got elected.”

“We are now organized. We will show up at your town meetings, and your town halls, and trust me, it’s a force to be reckoned with.”

Sounds pretty threatening to me… but will Rachel condemn this? I’m sure she won’t. How about any of these phone calls, posted back in August? 

I’ll be the first to say that the calls to violence that are floating around both sides are inappropriate. It’s not productive, and makes everyone look bad. The media isn’t helping the situation by feeding stories that may or may not (and are most likely not) true from last weekend’s Tea Party rallies in Washington…

Glenn Beck Makes Case White House is Going Marxist. Dares White House or Anyone to Prove His Case Wrong

Glenn Beck takes the entire show and makes his case complete with sources and the President’s own words.

This case is so rock solid that I dare anyone to attempt to refute it with verifiable substantive evidence…. good luck.

Watch Arianna Huffington Get Destroyed on MSNBC for her Hateful Personal Attacks and Hypocrisy

The cast of Morning Joe on MSNBC got fed up with Arianna’s attacks and grilled her. This is a site to see.