<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Democrat</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/democrat/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 15:24:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Budget Battle Royale</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/budget-battle-royale/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=budget-battle-royale</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/budget-battle-royale/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2014 05:25:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cromnibus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[omnibus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vote]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=247279</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The “CRomnibus" bill pushes through. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="color: #232323;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/141027-electionpoll-editorial.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-247280" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/141027-electionpoll-editorial-450x300.jpg" alt="As Deadline On Debt Reduction Impasse Looms, Super Committee Meets Over Weekend" width="353" height="235" /></a>Thursday was filled with chaos in the capital. By a razor thin margin, the Republican-controlled House voted in favor of the $1.1 trillion “CRomnibus” funding bill. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) was forced to cajole conservative GOPers to switch their votes after it appeared it was headed for defeat earlier in the day. All of the machinations were aimed at preventing a government shutdown beginning at midnight.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">For a brief moment in time early Thursday, the nay votes outnumbered the yeas for the current <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/12/11/Boehner-Omnibus-Bill-Size-Grows-An-Extra-171-Pages-Overnight-Now-1774-Pages-Long"><span style="color: #1255cc;">1,774-page bill</span></a> allocating $1.01 trillion of federal spending for FY2015. That’s because conservative Republicans remain infuriated by the reality ObamaCare remains <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/09/whats-in-the-spending-bill-we-skim-it-so-you-dont-have-to/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">fully funded</span></a>, save for a $10 million budget cut for Independent Payment Advisory Board, and the president’s executive amnesty program remains funded until February. Nonetheless, $948 million has been allocated for the Department of Health and Human Service’s (DHS) unaccompanied children program, increasing that budget by $80 million, and another $14 million is aimed at helping school districts absorb new immigrant students. Adding insult to conservative injury, the State Department is on track to receive $260 million to assist the Central American countries responsible for the onslaught of children crossing the Southwest border over the summer.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">“The fix is in, which I’ve been saying all along,” <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/12/10/Conservatives-Express-Anger-That-Amnesty-Not-Defunded-In-Omnibus-The-Fix-Is-In"><span style="color: #1255cc;">said</span></a> Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) following the Republican conference Wednesday morning. “Promises around here&#8211;regardless of who they are made by&#8211;don’t seem to mean anything,” he added, further explaining that lawmakers’ phones have been “lighting up” with constituents asking them to “do what [they] were elected to do.”</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Salmon was one of sixteen Republicans, including Reps. Justin Amash (R-MI), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Dave Brat (R-VA), Mo Brooks (R-AL), Paul Broun (R-GA), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Walter Jones (R-NC), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Steve King (R-IA), Raul Labrador (R-ID), Tom Massie (R-KY), Bill Posey (R-FL), and and Steve Stockman (R-TX) who refused to accommodate GOP leadership on the debate vote.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Democrats were equally resistant, with most of their opposition aimed primarily at two riders. The <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/226788-dems-to-boehner-change-the-bill"><span style="color: #0433ff;">first one</span></a> waters down the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, allowing Wall Street banks to trade the risky derivatives banned by that bill. The second provision allows wealthy political donors to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/09/spending-deal-would-allow-wealthy-donors-to-dramatically-increase-giving-to-national-parties/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">dramatically increase</span></a> the amount of money they can donate to national political parties. &#8220;Stakeholders from across the progressive community&#8211;including the AFL-CIO, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Public Citizen, Communications Workers, Common Cause, and many others&#8211;have expressed their opposition to passing a funding bill that includes these dangerous provisions,” said leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), who were urging Democrats to vote no.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Yet many Democrats remained ambivalent due to the 2014 election that eliminated their Senate majority and increased Republican numbers in the House. While they don’t like the CRomnibus, some see it as their last chance to exert any influence over spending while they still retain their Senate majority. Furthermore, they were all aware of the reality that if the bill failed, GOP leadership was prepared to move forward with a shorter alternative.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">President Obama offered his support for the package both <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/finance/226817-white-house-signals-support-for-cromnibus-ahead-of-critical-vote"><span style="color: #1255cc;">before</span></a> and <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/113/saphr83h_20141211.pdf"><span style="color: #1255cc;">shortly after</span></a> the vote took place. GOP leadership needed 50-60 Democrats to make up for the likely conservative defectors in their own party, and it appeared the president was well aware of that reality.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Yet even as Obama expressed his support, several Senate Democrats <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/226824-liberal-senators-threaten-to-oppose-omnibus"><span style="color: #1255cc;">rallied</span></a> around Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), viewed by many as that party’s newest star, to express their opposition to the aforementioned provisions for Wall Street and political donors. &#8220;It’s a very black mark on the omnibus if it comes over to the Senate with that in it. I certainly would consider voting no on it,&#8221; said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) also contended there would be a “problem” if the current language on Dodd-Frank remained intact. Warren remained adamant. “A vote for this bill is a vote for future taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street,” she insisted.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Warren might have a tad more credibility were it not for the reality that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two lending giants at the center of the housing meltdown, will once again be <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2014/12/09/mortgage-down-payments"><span style="color: #1255cc;">offering</span></a> 3 percent down payments on mortgages to “qualified” home buyers. Those would be the same Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae left <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272368/dodd-frank-s-fannie-trap-john-berlau"><span style="color: #1255cc;">untouched</span></a> by Dodd-Frank.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Two upsides for conservatives in the package includes a $60 million cut in the EPA’s budget to $8.1 billion. That brings the agency’s budget down a total of 21 percent since 2010, and staffing to its lowest level since 1989. The IRS also takes a $345.6 million hit, and the bill includes a future ban on their now infamous efforts to target organizations seeking tax-exempt status based on their ideological beliefs.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">At 2 p.m. the drama intensified, when House leaders <a href="http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/218/lacking-sufficient-support-house-gop-leaders-delay-cromnibus-vote/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">called</span></a> for a recess instead of a vote, with a GOP aide insisting “leadership teams are still talking to their respective members. We still plan to vote this afternoon,” the aide added. At that point, whether they were voting on the CRomnibus package or a short-term Continuing Resolution remained unclear. The delay indicated GOP leadership was having trouble corralling enough of their own membership, while Nancy Pelosi sought to undercut support by Democrats and Obama with a fiery floor speech, saying she was “enormously disappointed” with the Obama administration.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Ironically, it was a Tea Party congressman defeated by the GOP establishment who <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/394438/reindeer-farmer-saves-boehner-dramatic-procedural-vote-joel-gehrke"><span style="color: #1255cc;">managed</span></a> to get Boehner past the initial hurdle. With the vote tied at 213-213, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI) change his no vote to a yes. The outgoing reindeer farmer saved Boehner from enduring a major embarrassment that not only had forced Boehner to cast a vote himself (a rarity), but forced him to keep the vote going after time had officially expired. Frustrated Democrats shouted, “Call the vote,” but the Speaker ignored them until he got the result he wanted.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Irrespective of that vote, Obama’s immigration excesses and the healthcare bill remain sticking points for the GOP. Regarding immigration, GOP leadership <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/226737-government-shutdown-would-not-stop-obama-action-on-immigration"><span style="color: #1255cc;">posits</span></a> they’ll be better positioned to take on de facto amnesty a month from now, when they get their Senate majority and larger share of the House. “If you’re gonna start a bar fight, start it when you’ve got as many friends in the bar as you can possibly have. Why would you start it now?” said Boehner ally Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK). A leadership aide echoed that contention, insisting the GOP has an “array of legislative and legal options” they can employ—without specifying any of them. The two flies in the proverbial ointment include an Obama veto, and regardless of funding or lack thereof, how many DHS workers could be deemed “essential,” preventing them from being furloughed. That’s why conservative GOPers preferred to fight using the entire budget as a hammer.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">ObamaCare is a different story. Obama still has veto power, but several Democrats, including Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Harry Reid (D-NV), have <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/04/after-midterm-drubbing-senior-dems-voicing-regret-over-obamacare/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">expressed</span></a> regret regarding its passage, and ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber embarrassed himself <a href="http://qpolitical.com/thats-the-best-you-got-trey-gowdy-embarrasses-gruber-on-his-insulting-comments-about-americans/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">during</span></a> testimony on Capitol Hill. There was also <i>another</i> video released yesterday in which he <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/11/in-a-new-video-jon-gruber-boasted-that-he-helped-write-obamacare/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">claimed</span></a> he “helped write” the bill. Moreover, the Supreme Court is <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/how-the-supreme-court-can-kill-obamacare-without-overturning-it-20141117"><span style="color: #1255cc;">poised to rule</span></a> on <i>King v. Burwell, </i>a case where the plaintiffs contend only healthcare exchanges “established by the state” can provide IRS tax subsidies to ObamaCare enrollees. If the Court rules according to the law as written, the roughly 4 to 5 million people now receiving financial assistance would lose it in the 36 states that didn’t set up their own exchanges. And the law, as <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/poll-obamacare-approval-112948.html"><span style="color: #1255cc;">unpopular as ever</span></a> with the public, would essentially be gutted. All of this may provide impetus for a bipartisan effort to make majors changes to the law—even changes that might garner enough support to override a veto by Obama.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">At around 5:30 p.m. Democrats <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/2015-gop-budget-back-up-plan-113498.html"><span style="color: #1255cc;">convened</span></a> a closed meeting to discuss the bill following a series of phone calls from Obama and Vice President Biden, urging party members to vote for it. Pelosi remained against it, insisting Republicans &#8220;don’t have enough votes,” while GOP leadership indicated they could either pass a three-month stop-gap measure avoiding a shutdown, or a weeklong measure giving Boehner more time to marshal support. “We expect the bill to pass with bipartisan support today, but if it does not, we will pass a short-term CR to avoid a government shutdown,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">The American public? <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/11/amnesty-protestors-crash-capitol-hill-switchboard/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">Jamming</span></a> the congressional switchboard with calls most likely opposed to even a temporary funding of Obama’s de facto amnesty, much like a similar wave of calls opposing immigration legislation attempted by both parties in 2006 and 2007.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">In the end, the status quo—the member-added pork, the absurd outlays for outrageous inanities, the deficit spending adding to a national debt that now tops $18 trillion, and the public-insulting passage of bills unread by the people who pass them—remains undisturbed. The express train to fiscal oblivion, in a country where national sovereignty is becoming an anachronism in pursuit of cheap labor and cheap votes, and the concerns of the elitist few overwhelm those of an outraged public deemed too “stupid” to know what’s good for them, remains on track.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/budget-battle-royale/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kimberley Strassel on the GOP Game Plan Going into 2016</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/kimberley-strassel-on-the-gop-game-plan-going-into-2016/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=kimberley-strassel-on-the-gop-game-plan-going-into-2016</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/kimberley-strassel-on-the-gop-game-plan-going-into-2016/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2014 05:51:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2016]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Midterm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Presidency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=247101</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wall Street Journal editor lays out the political battle ahead in Washington at Restoration Weekend.  ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong style="color: #232323;">Below are the video and transcript to Kimberley Strassel&#8217;s speech at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 20th Anniversary Restoration Weekend. The event took place Nov. 13th-16th at the Breakers Resort in Palm Beach, Florida. </strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/113680186" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p>A little bit more on me and my background.  I do sit on the editorial board of the <i>Wall Street Journal</i>.  We have a motto. We&#8217;ve had the motto, the same motto for decades, &#8220;Free Markets, Free People.&#8221;  It used to actually be &#8220;Free Markets, Free Men,&#8221; but then folks like me worked there, and we had to switch it up a little.  I&#8217;m the only member of the board who sits down in Washington and, from there, I write quite a few of the unsigned editorials that are the opinion of the editorial page.  Most of those focus on laying out our views on policy.  I separately also, under my own name once a week write a Potomac Watch column, and the idea of that is not to talk about policy but to try to explain politics which is, of course, infinitely harder, although infinitely more amusing.  It always reminds me of that famous Will Rogers line, &#8220;I don&#8217;t make jokes, I just watch the government and report the facts.&#8221;</p>
<p>So, we just had an election.  We are still waiting for a few last final results, Louisiana Senate race, some House seats, but the headline news is in and, of course, it is that the Republicans won and they won big.  This marks the first time in four years that one party has owned both houses of Congress, and the first time in the Obama presidency that he has faced a united Republican front.  In other words, after years of watching Harry Reid turn the Senate into an earthbound equivalent of the black hole, we are about to experience in Washington something very, very new, and I thought what I would do is just spend a few minutes talking about what I think we might expect.  What can we expect from President Obama in terms of his interaction with Republicans?  What can we expect from the GOP in terms of what they&#8217;re going to try to accomplish with domestic legislation and foreign policy and oversight?</p>
<p>Let me start with the President because I think that one&#8217;s pretty easy.  There are some, we can call them the world&#8217;s bipartisan optimists, who think that perhaps President Obama has been chastened by this loss.  They believe that he is like most Presidents, that he&#8217;ll be worried about his legacy, he hasn&#8217;t passed anything of consequence since 2010.  He&#8217;ll want to move up those approval ratings.  He&#8217;ll extend a hand to Republicans.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m a Conservative, and so I&#8217;m a born optimist, but I also try not to confuse optimism with insanity.  I think if we&#8217;ve learned anything about this presidency it&#8217;s that this President is fairly self-satisfied.  What you hear coming out of the White House is that he already believes he has written himself into the history books.  He did Obamacare.  He will take credit for restoring the economy.  He won the Nobel Peace Prize.  There is a view in the White House that what will in fact determine President Obama&#8217;s legacy is his party&#8217;s ability to keep the White House in 2016 and therefore protect programs like Obamacare.  And if that&#8217;s your guiding principle, then your impulse is going to be to spend the next two years trying to lay traps and create scenarios designed to make Republicans look bad, to make them look obstructionist and hostile to progress and therefore laying the groundwork for another Democratic President.  And I point out that he&#8217;s likely to get a lot of support for that strategy from Congress.  They are not chastened either.</p>
<p>One aspect of this recent midterm that has not been adequately noted is that most of the Democrats who lost their seats were the ones who at least claimed to represent the more moderate wing of the Democratic Party.  So the Democrats who were going to be returning to Washington in January are not only going to be greatly reduced in numbers, they&#8217;re going to be a far more liberal caucus than that party has probably seen in decades.</p>
<p>And we&#8217;re already seeing the President&#8217;s approach.  I&#8217;d like to point out to you for any of you who didn&#8217;t watch it or didn&#8217;t note this, the most telling line in the President&#8217;s press conference after his midterm thumping, &#8220;To all the Americans who voted, I hear you.  To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you too.&#8221;  This is a story Democrats are already telling themselves.  They didn&#8217;t lose this because it was a referendum on Obama.  They didn&#8217;t lose it because people disapprove of their policies or their candidates or want to change.  Oh, no.  They lost because not enough people voted.  In particular, not enough people on their side.  And so the approach going forward is to double down, to reenergize the liberal base with more aggressive policies.</p>
<p>And that&#8217;s been the definition of Obama&#8217;s past week.  In the ten short days since this midterm, the President&#8217;s announced he&#8217;s going to unveil a series of unlawful immigration orders to get the Hispanic vote back onside.  He&#8217;s unilaterally cemented a new climate deal with China to get the Tom Steyers and the environmental base back onside.  He&#8217;s pressuring the Federal Communications Commissions on net neutrality to get all those Silicon Valley donors onboard.  And this in my view will be the definition of Obama&#8217;s behavior in his last two years in office.  This is going to be a White House that continues to break in every form and fashion and to new levels of the boundaries of Presidential power.  And the reason I think this is guaranteed is because I believe there is really only one lesson this President has learned in the last six years and that lesson is this.  He has discovered, to his delight, that when he does this stuff, there really isn&#8217;t anything anyone can do to stop him.</p>
<p>So, what about Republicans.  Republicans.  It is sometimes easy to look at the Republicans over the past few years and not be filled with huge amounts of rousing confidence that they&#8217;re going to successfully navigate the next couple of years.  But I think the glass-half-full side of all of this is that, in fact, the GOP has learned some very bruising lessons over the last couple of years, and they&#8217;ve learned them the hard way.  And so they come into this majority with those mistakes under their belt a little bit savvier perhaps than in recent years.  And their greatest insight, in my mind, and the one that their ability to remember I think is going to define their success, is that they can&#8217;t govern from Congress.  You can&#8217;t govern from Congress.  You can&#8217;t.  You can push, you can demand, you can block, you can exert influence.  They&#8217;re going to have a bigger megaphone than they did because they&#8217;ll now have both chambers.  But it&#8217;s the other guy who has the veto pen, and they know that this President is going to use that pen to draw lines around certain of his priorities and to protect them at all cost.  And so the trickiest thing the GOP is going to have to handle over the next two years is expectations management.  They cannot afford to go out and promise to repeal Obamacare because they can&#8217;t.  And they can&#8217;t reform Medicare.  And they can&#8217;t abolish the EPA.  That&#8217;s just not going to happen.</p>
<p>What they can do, and what they must do, is instead lay out on the national stage an optimistic, creative, pro-growth, problem-solving agenda by moving a steady stream of targeted, sometimes smaller legislation, to the President&#8217;s desk and daring him to say no to that.  Set peace battles in which the GOP highlights very specific positive changes and then forces congressional Democrats and President Obama to make choices.  And note this President has never had to do that before.  For six years he&#8217;s been protected by the Democratic Senate which spent its first two years only sending him his priorities, and the last four years shutting down the entire chamber to shield him from any controversial bills.  And by the way, most of the Senate has never had to take a difficult vote.  Do not underestimate the power of simply forcing the left to have to vote on some issues.</p>
<p>Look at Keystone.  I think this is a fabulous example.  It has been delayed for six years.  The House has passed legislation authorizing it nine times, and Harry Reid acted like the subject never existed, never had binding vote on it.  But now, Democrats came back and they realized that this was going to be one of the first things that Republicans took up when they took over the Senate.  They realized that 70 percent of Americans support the idea of the Keystone Pipeline.  They know that many of their members are going to get shellacked if they actually do vote no.  So rather than wait for Republicans to take credit for that, they&#8217;re moving it up, and they&#8217;re likely to have a vote on Tuesday.  And I will wager that there will be a number, a significant number, of Democrats who vote for this only because they are finally being made to.  So that&#8217;s an idea of the dynamic and how it changes.</p>
<p>Republicans are going to have a lot of avenues by which to make President Obama and Democrats have to make those choices.  In particular, because they have vowed to, and this is important not just for the country, I think, but for their success in Washington, they vowed to go back to regular order.  Something Washington has been missing a while.  We may finally have, for instance, an honest to goodness appropriations process.  Imagine that.  And that means the full use of the power of the purse which is the power that&#8217;s been largely obliterated by these many years of continuing resolutions and omnibus bills.  Those CRs have meant that if Republicans ever wanted to force a policy change via the federal purse, they had to hold the whole government hostage.  That&#8217;s what happened last fall with Obamacare and the government shut down, and it isn&#8217;t always good politics.</p>
<p>If you go back to the regular process, however, as both John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have promised to do, and it&#8217;s important that they be held to that, that&#8217;s a whole new ballgame.  You can put policy into individual funding bills.  You can pressure Democrats to join it.  You can send it to the President and then he has a choice.  He can agree to your policy, or he can be responsible for shutting down one piece of his own government.</p>
<p>Think about how much fun this could be with, say, an energy appropriations bill.  You put all this policy in there that the President and Democrats have for years, claims that they&#8217;re in favor of, more liquid natural gas terminals, offshore drilling, and you force them to vote on it, and you send it to the President and if he vetoes it, darn, he shut down his energy department, which would just be awful, right?  I mean he wouldn&#8217;t be able to send anymore subsidies to Solyndras.</p>
<p>If Republicans are going to lay out an agenda, that appropriations process is also going to be vital for another reason.  It&#8217;s going to be the main way to finally and again have a national debate on spending and priorities in government.  This is a debate the President has also been largely able to deep-six over the last few years because of the continuing resolution culture.  &#8220;Government Just Gets Funded,&#8221; it&#8217;s a little note on Page 36 of the newspapers.  Nobody talks about what was in it.  Republicans can once again talk about the sequester.  They can tie this into the foreign policy debate that we&#8217;re now having, the cuts President Obama has made to the military and what&#8217;s that meant for our national security, and even if they don&#8217;t send all their ideas to the President, they can tee-up via these process, budget process, their visions of healthcare reform and entitlement reform and give the country an idea of what would happen if there were a Republican President.</p>
<p>Some of these little set piece battles aside, there&#8217;s probably a few bigger and bolder things, if Republicans are very smart about it.  There is a push right now coming from the White House to work with Republicans on corporate tax reform.  Paul Ryan is taking over Ways and Means.  He&#8217;s very serious on this subject.  And the question is going to be whether Obama can be a trusted partner in a tax venture.  He never has been before.  We&#8217;ll see if he&#8217;s changed.</p>
<p>Immigration.  There is only one reason in my cynical little mind that the President is now threatening these immediate actions on immigration executive orders.  It isn&#8217;t to help the Hispanic community.  It isn&#8217;t to clarify the law.  It probably isn&#8217;t even likely because he believes that it&#8217;s great politics for him.  It is for one reason only. It is to goad Republicans into acting like lunatics.  And I know there is a very controversial question out there still, immigration, among the conservative ranks, but in my view Republicans would be very wise to act in a responsible way on some form of legislation and just clear this from their decks.</p>
<p>A little takeaway from the midterm that I didn&#8217;t think got a lot of attention, but it&#8217;s hugely relevant.  One of the reasons Republicans did better among Hispanics this midterm, and they did – a lot of senators, a lot of governors, a lot of house members.  Their numbers were higher with Hispanic voters.  I think it&#8217;s because immigration wasn&#8217;t really a topic.  The President didn&#8217;t want to talk about it because of what had gone on down at the border.  Republicans didn&#8217;t want to talk about it because it&#8217;s an uncomfortable subject.  And it just didn&#8217;t come up in a lot of races.  And as a result, the GOP had an opportunity to talk to Hispanic voters about other issues that matter deeply to the country, the economy, jobs, healthcare.  This ought to be the situation that Republicans are striving for.  Being able to talk to Hispanic voters about other issues that matter to them, and you can&#8217;t do that until immigration as a policy topic is neutralized.</p>
<p>So that&#8217;s legislative.  Beyond that, the next most important thing the GOP is going to have to do is tackle nominations.  It&#8217;s huge.  As many of you know, Mr. Reid at the end of last year blew up the Senate filibuster for Presidential nominations.  The consequences of that have been profound.  For years now Federal Appeals Courts have favored Conservative justices because of the legacies of Reagan and both Bushes.  Now for the first time in more than a decade, and a lot of people don&#8217;t know this, for the first time in more than a decade judges appointed by Democratic Presidents significantly outnumber judges appointed by Republicans.  Democratic appointees now hold the majority of seats of 9 of 13 appellate court circuits.  When Obama took office that number was one.</p>
<p>The most consequential of these as you may know is the DC Circuit which hears almost every important case out of Washington and now has seven Liberals and five Conservatives on it.  Four of those seven were picked by Obama, and most of them ran through just in this past year since the filibuster was blown up.  Obama has now not only appointed far more judges than President Bush had by this time in his tenure, those justices, because there has been no filibuster to provide a check on what kind of judges they are, they are far more Liberal than most justices that have been put on the court in decades.  And they&#8217;re going to serve lifelong terms.</p>
<p>Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has said he&#8217;s going to return the Senate to regular order and also restore the filibuster to 60 votes to confirm nominees.  I know there&#8217;s a big debate out there among Republicans on whether or not this is a good idea.  I think it is.  I know a lot of people think that Republicans should give Democrats a taste of their own medicine, but if you don&#8217;t go back up to 60 votes, here&#8217;s one of the problems.  There are a lot of Republican Senators right now in the Senate who are of the mind frame that you need to show deference to Presidential appointments and nominations.  And there are plenty more Republicans who are up for election in 2016 in very tough states, and they are not always going to be reliable when it comes to the nominations questions.  And I think it&#8217;s going to be very, very hard.  I don&#8217;t think, I&#8217;m sorry, I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s going to be very, very hard for Democrats to get 51 votes on most of these nominations, so if you don&#8217;t put it back up to 60, it becomes much harder to block things.  And I want everyone to think about that too in the context if there is a potential Supreme Court opening.</p>
<p>Finally, the other major priority for Republicans has to be oversight.  This is a Presidency that is a mountain of scandals: Fast and furious, Benghazi, the IRS, the Veterans Administration, the Pebble Mine veto.  And the only thing that all of these cases all have in common is that we don&#8217;t have answers to any of them.  We have very valiant people trying to get those answers.  I saw that Cleta Mitchell got your Annie Taylor award last night.  By the way, Cleta Mitchell took me to the bar last night, and if I don&#8217;t make it all the way through this speech, it&#8217;s her fault.</p>
<p>The individual agencies that are the subject of these probes backed up by the Justice Department and aided by Democrats in Congress have spent the past three years engaging in a fulltime outright effort to stonewall every one of these probes.  Will a Republican Senate get us all the answers?  No.  But what this does do &#8212; and Cleta actually wrote an amazing piece in the <i>Wall Street Journal</i> this last week which everyone should pay attention to because it&#8217;s correct &#8212; this ought to be a moment for the Republicans to finally get more serious about oversight, to be far more aggressive to get the right people at the committees who are actually going to go to the wall to get some of the answers.  And that&#8217;s a big moment for Republicans too, because unravelling some of these scandals, I think, it&#8217;s going to be important for laying the groundwork for 2016 for them.</p>
<p>And they&#8217;ve got to do all this because it plays back to the opening point.  The GOP&#8217;s challenge in a nutshell is this.  They were voted in because people in this country desperately want change, but it&#8217;s also the case that they can&#8217;t run all of Washington just from Congress.  There are limits on what they can do, so they&#8217;ve got get through what smaller things they can while every day showing what things could be like, how things could be different.  And every day master the impulse to react to Obama, because his only goal is going to be to paint them as obstructionists who can&#8217;t govern, who are driven by internal fights, and they&#8217;ve got to prove that that isn&#8217;t true.</p>
<p>And they have to too because this next Presidential race is going to be very tough and nobody should think otherwise.  The Republicans on the upside have a very neat, new, young generationally different crew of potential nominees coming up, and that&#8217;s very good for the party.  But it&#8217;s also going to mean potentially a very long and ugly nomination fight.  And the Democrats aren&#8217;t going to have that problem because they&#8217;re going to have Hillary.  I mean everyone keeps asking is Hillary going to run?  Hillary is running.  She&#8217;s running right now.  She&#8217;s running, running, running.  You don&#8217;t go out and write a book and campaign for everyone across the country unless you&#8217;re saying I&#8217;m running.  Now she could change her mind in the next few months, but right now we are going to have some Republican versus Hillary Clinton.  And not only does some Republican have to get through a potentially ugly primary, but that some Republican then has to run in a general election in which increasingly the demographics of this country do favor a Democratic party.</p>
<p>And it isn&#8217;t just the Presidency on the line.  I&#8217;ve talked to some Democrats in the last few weeks since this election.  They&#8217;re not really overly fussed that they just lost the Senate.  Why?  Because they&#8217;re convinced this is going to be the shortest term loss ever.  The last three election cycles have all favored Republicans in the Senate.  Far more Democrats up for reelection than Republicans.  In 2016, that situation is totally reversed.  There will be 24 Republicans up for reelection.  Many in states that are absolutely brutal for Republicans to hold.  Places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.  By comparison there will be ten Democrats up for reelection in 2016.</p>
<p>So, again, the ability for Republicans to prove that they can do something and to lay out, to lay out very clear, modest proposals, act on them, and then provide a vision could well shape the politics of this country for the next decade.  The policies the President&#8217;s passed, whether they&#8217;re allowed to stand, the shape of the courts, the final truth about these scandals, the biggest questions and whether they can ultimately be changed &#8212; entitlements, the tax code, tort reform, campaign finance, speech laws &#8211; this next two years are very important.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m just going to finish by telling you what I&#8217;m actually most excited about, and that&#8217;s actually the things I don&#8217;t yet know are going to come.  A major shift has actually been happening in Congress, one that tends to not get a lot of attention.  The media tends to be so obsessed with the split in the Republican Party, the Tea Party versus establishment and Libertarians versus Hawks.  The biggest change I&#8217;ve actually seen in Washington and particularly in the Senate in the decade I&#8217;ve been covering is in fact a generational one.  When I first started writing about the Senate, the average age of a Senator was about 180 years old.  And the real story of recent elections is how many of these older, distinguished politicians have retired or died in office and been replaced by a lot younger people with new ideas.  And that&#8217;s happened on both sides of the aisle, by the way.  It&#8217;s not just a Republican phenomena.  But given Harry Reid&#8217;s lockdown, hardly any of these guys have ever had a chance to make a mark.</p>
<p>And some of them are really impressive thinkers and policymakers.  I know you&#8217;ve heard from Ron Johnson last night.  Yeah.  Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and they&#8217;re about to be joined by what I would term the best crop as a whole of Republican Senatorial candidates in goodness knows how long.  Tom Cotton in Arkansas, Ben Sasse in Nebraska, Dan Sullivan in Alaska &#8212; woo hoo, just got Alaska! &#8212; Joanie Ernst in Iowa, Steve Daines in Montana.  This is a really impressive crew, all of whom have real expertise in the areas that are actually going to matter profoundly in the debates in the next two years, things like energy, things like foreign policy.  And you&#8217;re going to see them join the many reformers you&#8217;ve also seen in the House.  And you can have real opportunity, I think, for some ideas and innovation of the kind that the Conservative moment has been lacking for some time and I think that&#8217;s going to be a really fun thing to watch.</p>
<p>So, on that more optimistic note, I&#8217;m going to let you all get back to your lunch.  Thank you so much for taking the time to listen to me, and if there are any questions I&#8217;m happy to take them.</p>
<p><strong>Audience Member: </strong>The Democrats have really poisoned the well.  Everybody who is an uninformed voter knows full well that every Conservative, every Republican is mean, selfish, dishonest, homophobic, bigoted, racist and any other bad thing you can think of.  So the question is, if people are really convinced of this, we have to change that impression first.  How the heck do we do it?</p>
<p><strong>Kimberley Strassel: </strong>Well, we have to show it, you know, and actually I think there were some remarkable examples of how people did that in this last election.  I think it&#8217;s why the Republicans won is because they did.  You know, the war on women thing, okay.  I mean, that has crushed Republicans the last few years.  It hit a wall this year and in part it was because of guys like Cory Gardner out in Colorado, who when they started running ads against him saying he was anti-women and, and would stop everything, he said, actually you know what, I&#8217;m in favor of over-the-counter contraception which actually would make it much easier for all of you women out there.  And by talking about policies that would actually help women in particular and by not being afraid to, he didn&#8217;t just say no, I&#8217;m not.  He actually gave examples of what it was that made him, his policies and his ideas work for women and, you know, I can&#8217;t remember what the final vote was but he kept the gap with Mark Udall very small in the women&#8217;s vote.  When Ken Buck ran in 2010 he lost women by 17 points.  And they did the same playbook on him in Colorado and I think Cory Gardner lost women by 3 or 4 in the end or something like that.  Tom Cotton won women by 10 points in part by talking about issues that mattered to women that went beyond uteruses.  You know, he talked about foreign policy.  You know, remember, there&#8217;s a lot of women out there that are national security moms.  They care about things like this.  So I think you have to address these head on.  You know, Ed Gillespie in Virginia, so close, but he spent most of his time, a lot of time on the campaign trail and I advised everyone to go look in Ed Gillespie&#8217;s campaign, he had all of his policies laid out.  He was a very informed candidate who went on an agenda and he spent a lot of time on the campaign trail talking about ways in which Republican policies will help the working poor.  You know, you have to address these things if you&#8217;re not going to be tarred as anti-women, anti-poor and everything else.</p>
<p><strong>Audience Member: </strong>Yeah, just so the Republicans don&#8217;t overreact and go ballistic and actually damage themselves, what is your recommendation for a strategy after Obama commits his lawless act next week?</p>
<p><strong>Kimberley Strassel:</strong> Well, look, I think the first thing Republicans have to do is actually just point out, A) how unlawful this is, okay, and that&#8217;s a theme that&#8217;s really grown out there among people and the public and I think it resonates.  I think they also have to point out that this was done for cynical reasons.  The President is not helping Hispanic voters.  What he will put out will not be durable, it does not address a lot of the problems the Hispanic community cares about.  There are all kinds of problems with doing this by executive order because you shouldn&#8217;t do it that way.  So they should point out that there are major problems and that he didn&#8217;t do this to actually help and it&#8217;s not good policy, and then I think they should put forward a series of bills that address different issues, starting with the border security bill, but going through some of the things.  And, you know, I think that Republicans have the ability, when I think of immigration, I know that this is very controversial but immigration can also be seen as a big jobs bill.  I mean, there&#8217;s a lot to this about high tech visas, guest worker programs, things like that, and I think it&#8217;s got to be a framing issue as well as anything.  But they do I think have to respond in some way.</p>
<p><strong>Audience Member: </strong>John Boehner has already rolled over on immigration and is going to give us amnesty and it makes those of us who worked hard to get Republicans elected wonder what the effort was about and why the Republicans in the House can&#8217;t seem to get a Republican as a leader.  Would you like to comment on that?</p>
<p><strong>Kimberley Strassel: </strong>Well, they just had elections.  Anyone could have challenged him and nobody did.  So I think one problem that has happened, and I would wager if you talked to members of Congress they would agree with this too, is that probably one of the failings of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell over the last few years is they haven&#8217;t actually talked to each other, and they haven&#8217;t necessarily talked to their conferences as much as they should and told them what they&#8217;re going to do and make an effort to get them onboard with it.  And you know when you&#8217;re not sending a message about what your plan is and working hard internally to get your guys onboard, you create a vacuum which allows everyone to kind of do whatever they want.  And, you know, I think that was some of the craziness you saw over the shutdown last year, it wasn&#8217;t the shutdown itself but the fact that the party didn&#8217;t seem to know where it was going, it was running in 15 different directions all at the same time.  So this isn&#8217;t directly addressing your question but I do think one of the things that I&#8217;m hearing from people is that there&#8217;s been a big push on Boehner and McConnell to be a lot more responsive to their caucuses, be a lot more informative about what they&#8217;re doing and to work with each other and have a unified strategy and we&#8217;ll see if that doesn&#8217;t help.  Thank you.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/kimberley-strassel-on-the-gop-game-plan-going-into-2016/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Vanishing of White Working-Class Democrats</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ian-smith/the-vanishing-of-white-working-class-democrats/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-vanishing-of-white-working-class-democrats</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ian-smith/the-vanishing-of-white-working-class-democrats/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2014 05:02:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ian Smith]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[base]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[working class]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=247019</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The left's hatred for the working class backfires. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="color: #232323;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/construction-worker-at-construction-site-with-hard-hat_123251.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-247027" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/construction-worker-at-construction-site-with-hard-hat_123251-450x337.jpg" alt="construction-worker-at-construction-site-with-hard-hat_123251" width="336" height="252" /></a>In the National Journal Daily this week, liberal elections analyst Charlie Cook of the Cook Report penned a <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/off-to-the-races/democrats-paved-the-way-for-their-own-decline-20141201"><span style="color: #1255cc;">rejoinder</span></a> to his fellow Democrats accusing the party of having a race problem. In his piece, subtitled “Democrats have subordinated their traditional focus on helping the working class,” Cook notes it’s been “increasingly hard” for the party to attract <i>white</i> working class voters in particular. Because inside-the-Beltway types usually take years to notice things us regular outsiders have been seeing for decades, Cook&#8217;s commentary is refreshing stuff.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Noting the media’s mantra Republicans face about their poor polling returns among blacks, Hispanics and single women, Cook takes a swipe at his own, saying that a “parallel problem” exists among Dems, namely the whittling away of their white working class vote, once the core constituency of ‘the modern, post-New Deal Democratic Party.’</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Turning to his always good demographic analysis, Cook notes that along with urban areas and college towns, Democratic strength is increasingly concentrated in “narrow bands along the West Coast (but only the first 50-100 miles from the beaches) and the East Coast (but only from New York City northward).” By contrast he notes, “few Democrats represent small-town and rural areas”, areas which are rapidly becoming “no-fly zones for Democrats.” <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/179753/obama-approval-drops-among-working-class-whites.aspx"><span style="color: #1255cc;">Citing</span></a> recent polls taken among white working voters, Cook says Obama’s job approval rating is a mere 27 percent, his lowest ever. Meanwhile, in these past midterms, Democratic House candidates lost this demographic by 30 points.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">This isn’t exactly surprising, but it’s refreshing given the source. Cook is a regular at liberal speaking events around the Beltway area. In the rare time the white working class vote is discussed at such dos, whether at Brookings, the Center for American Progress or the Carnegie Endowment, the tone is usually derisive and frequently hateful.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Cook’s description of the isolated Democratic strongholds is very revealing and aligns well with Charles Murray’s 2012 ‘<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/books/review/charles-murray-examines-the-white-working-class-in-coming-apart.html?pagewanted=all&amp;_r=0"><span style="color: #1255cc;">Coming Apart</span></a>’ survey of White America. The gaping division Cook describes between the fenced-in white enclaves of the West and Northeast coasts and the great white expanse everywhere in-between should, he says, “underscore the magnitude of the Democratic Party’s problem” today.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">The class division among whites is wider than ever due to our immigration policy, an area that’s been increasingly disastrous for the lower classes and which is finally making headlines in the mainstream media, not occasionally, but daily – Cook doesn’t mention immigration as a source of class tension; the topic is apparently still a verboten one for contemporary Dems, even the ones that profess to be sympathetic to the working class – The historic party of working people have become the chief importers of scab labor, all for the elite’s personal short-term gain. Being of the company exec/shareholding class, these elites siphon off the outsized corporate profits caused by suppressed labor costs and personally benefit from cheap maids, cooks and nannies all the while pushing the diffuse costs onto the general taxpaying public. While white working people in the hinterland are cleaning their <i>own</i> houses, the coastal Democrat elite are holding feel-good fundraisers and sipping champagne poured by the non-white help.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">During a 2008 fundraiser in San Francisco, an area well within one of Cook’s “narrow bands,” Obama demeaned his party’s traditional white working class base when he said they “<a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/11/snob-ama-disses-pro-gun-religious-anti-illegal-immigration-activists-in-penn/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">cling to guns or religion</span></a>” out of a sense of bitterness. But when one’s livelihood is given away, what else are they expected to cling to?</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">There’s one thing Democrats should remember about the heartlanders living between New York and LA. Although they’re some of the nicest people in the world, they have a strong sense of injustice and do not respond well to unfairness. If <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-problem-i-m-not-emperor-united-states_701295.html"><span style="color: #1255cc;">Emperor Obama</span></a> and the Democratic elite want to avoid another electoral defeat, they should take Cook’s advice and revisit the Party’s traditional focus on helping, not hindering, its traditional base.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ian-smith/the-vanishing-of-white-working-class-democrats/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pat Caddell: Midterm Elections a Repudiation of Obama</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/pat-caddell-midterm-elections-a-repudiation-of-obama/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=pat-caddell-midterm-elections-a-repudiation-of-obama</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/pat-caddell-midterm-elections-a-repudiation-of-obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2014 05:52:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Midterm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=245909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of America's foremost election experts analyzes the GOP's victory at Restoration Weekend. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong style="color: #232323;">Below are the video and transcript to Pat Caddell&#8217;s speech at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 20th Anniversary Restoration Weekend. The event was held Nov. 13th-16th at the Breakers Resort in Palm Beach, Florida. </strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/112328603" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Yes, I’m basically happy.  The person I’m really happy about is that Harry Reid is no longer Majority Leader.  I say that certainly not because I’m a Republican.  I say that because I’m an American and, as I had said on television, he was the greatest danger to democracy, I said this election, that we&#8217;ve ever seen, and his damage to the institution of the Senate where no one was allowed to vote, where there were no amendments, where there were no bills considered unless he wanted to, where he killed all discussion and basically all effective work in the world’s most deliberative body, supposedly.  And what he did with the nuclear option overnight to roll back 250 years of protecting the minority, which now the Democrats are going to find out how much they like that, but all of that and I think for the sake of the democracy, his demise is the biggest and greatest news.  The fact that he stays on only shows you how my party cannot get beyond—he and Nancy Pelosi&#8211;the Democrats cannot get beyond their own myopia and thinking as they have a truly disastrous election.</p>
<p>An election, I want to point out that was not only &#8212; but has many interesting kernels to it.  And I want to say, first of all, and it has many instructions for the future and then it was also about not a lot, not a lot.  The one thing is that, first of all, yes, the Republicans won a big victory and, once again, left amazing possibilities on the table because their consultant, lobbying, whoever controls this Republican Party has the imagination of a French General staff in World War I.  They poured hundreds of millions of dollars into about a dozen states, and they did not put anything into what I thought was a pretty simple election.  First, the Republicans decided they didn’t have anything they were going to offer.  No economic plan, no message, nothing like what happened in &#8217;94 with which was the Contract for America.  Which no one knew what was in the Contract for America, but it set an image for the Republicans that year with Gingrich and the victory that year, which was that at least the Republicans had a plan, had an idea.  We’re most of all united.  Let me just say something about those kinds of things, misreading elections.  Newt Gingrich then misread that election that the country had voted for revolution.  The country had voted to stop Bill Clinton.  There is somewhat of a vast difference there.</p>
<p>This election, let me just say, the success.  I want to talk first about what was left there and then the success.  The strangest thing about the election, for those of you who don’t know, I’m on a program at 7:30 eastern time on Sunday nights live with Doug Schoen and John LeBoutillier called <i>Political Insiders</i> in which we basically try to tell the truth, and we’ve been fortunate enough to have quite a response, and sometimes I get a little carried away.  I called the President last week a raging narcissist, which is true.  The whole problem with this guy is not that he’s a radical Pres &#8212; he’s a raging narcissist, and he’s going to prove it in the next couple of weeks.  But the election hung for a long time.  Those close Senate races hung to the end.  You could not look at the national situation &#8212; the direction of America where it was more than two to one or going in the wrong direction, the President’s job rating poorly, all of his policies under attack and very negatively received, an economy that people believed was not helping them, and all of that &#8212; and you look at the historical record in the six years and you say, “My God, that’s got to be a Republican landslide.”  And then you look down at the individual race and you said, “My God, they’re all close.”  And I kept saying this tension could not hold.  And I thought, as I had said the Sunday before election, there was a good 30 percent chance or more that it would just blow open; that eventually the undecides would move in the direction they should and essentially that’s what happened.</p>
<p>But when I look at the election and say what was possible, and I don’t mean to be a sour note on what makes everyone happy, but it’s important to understand what it may tell you.  In the states that did not have big battleground Senate races, where none of the several billion dollars or $4 billion, whatever was spent, the Republicans put no effort whatsoever.  I had argued, as I had done in &#8217;12, and argued since, hey, this is a pretty simple election.  This is a referendum election.  And why the Republicans refused to take some of that money that they were wasting by piling even more.  For those of you who know economics, know the marginal gain, marginal differentials.  But when you keep pouring money into races where people are saturated beyond belief with television and where you’re watching 50 spots at one time and the whole thing, because of local buy, and the expense the stations are gouging, the people buying the media and whatever, why did the Republican National Committee, which does have the ability to do this, where the Senate can eat it up by national advertising amazes me, why didn’t they put air cover over the race?  Why didn’t they?  Very simple, first of all, remember we’ve had all of these crises.  Starting, you go to the VA, Benghazi, or anything you want to take, White House Secret Service, Bergdahl, on and on and on, a disaster after disaster this year.  And, voters, like all of us, there was one coming every week and then Ebola and ISIS and then you go, my God I forgot about the VA.  Well, in advertising there is a reason they keep reminding you.  So, what I’m wondering is why wasn’t there some kind of effort to put out a message that said to remind.  First of all, all it did was remind people.  Remember this, remember this, and ask a simple question.  Because we knew what the results were.  They were more than two to one people opposed his policies.  Once Obama handed the Republicans and shafted his party with the message that my policies are on the ballad, why didn’t they just quote that.  Put that up and say, “If you disagree with those policies and here’s an example, send him a message.  Vote Republican.”  If you weren’t going to say anything positive, that certainly was a major message.  And guess what, it would’ve been seen by everybody and cheaper and better placement, everywhere across the country.</p>
<p>And you know what would’ve happened?  Let me tell you what happens.  There were 15 House races that were undecided election night.  Most of them line outside of all of these states where the money was spent.  As of to date, nine of those 15 have ended up being won by Democrats because there was no national message.  If you look at Illinois, where the Republican Senate gubernatorial candidate won a surprising victory over one of the most corrupt&#8211;I mean really, I’m broke.  I mean what a disastrous place Illinois is&#8211;after Obama had campaigned for Pat Quinn, the incumbent.  Won by five, six points.  That’s even counting Chicago several times.  But Dick Durbin, the major force in Democrats in the Senate, Democrat Whitt got 53 percent of the vote.  Al Franken got 53 percent of the vote.  You go through some of these races and you think, my God.  Always when we have landslides, we have these surprise upsets.  Like Virginia almost was.  But we have them.  Now Gillespie had no more.  He couldn’t buy media pretty much the last month.  No one was supporting him.  Can you imagine what a little bit more push and a national message would have done or might have opened up in a couple of these Senate races?</p>
<p>Look, the Republicans have their best House position since 1946.  But if you’re going to win an election, take everything off the table you can is my theory.  But, unfortunately, the strategy I described does not enrich the political consultant, lobbyist class in the Republican party, which makes a lot more money by having only state races and does not require them to have any imagination other than storming across no man’s land in the same way they do.</p>
<p>Let me say this.  You look at the exit polls and there are some problems.  When everyone tells you how all the vote came out, let me tell you a dirty little secret for which I will probably be shot for having announced.  At the end of the process, after the votes come in, the people who run the exit poll reweight all of their actual results from the 20,000 people they interview and weight it to the results.  That’s like if you hired me to poll and I said to you, just wait election night I guarantee you I will give you the winner and the right result.  Well, they’ve got some bias problems in there.  So, take some of these divisions skeptically.  So, I went back.  I polled the numbers for the 97 percent before we had the magic of this.  And here’s part of the story of the election.  One, it is that the voters were not rewarding.  And this is important about misreading elections as I pointed out in &#8217;94.</p>
<p>This was a repudiation of the President and his policies and his party.  But it was not an endorsement of the Republican Party by any means.  This was voting for the lesser of which evil that was in front of you and the evil in front of you was the one that was in the White House and in power.  Now, that doesn’t mean the opportunities don’t exist for what you do, but to think that this was an endorsement, because mainly remember I don’t know if you can define.  I don’t know what the campaign was about other than beating Obama.  And in individual races, it worked.  But listen to this, and this goes to a message I’ll talk about at the end in a few minutes about 2016 and what’s coming and a project I’ve been working on.  But I want to tell you this.  What you had was both parties had high negative ratings.  The public was dissatisfied, to say the least, with Obama.  When asked angry or dissatisfied, it was around 60 percent.  The Republican leadership in Congress got the same number, 60 some percent, just to show you, and this is of Republicans.  I mean this is a Republican wave election.  Right?  Republicans are still getting even worse ratings relatively, if you think about how people are voting, than did the Democrats.  All of that pointed to me to the fact that one should be careful; that basically, this was a very dissatisfied election.</p>
<p>Remember, we had a drop off.  This is the lowest midterm election since 1942.  Now, in 1942 there was a reason a lot of people didn’t get to the ballot.  For those of you who are too young to know, there was a thing called World War II going on.  But the results are only slightly better than they were in the 1942 turnout because so many dissatisfied voters where both parties stayed home.  And they depended on area.  Someone has done this.  It’s quite an interesting analysis.  In the third most rural and, therefore, most Republican areas of the country, the turnout was down about 34 percent.  In the exurbs and the suburbs, it was 38 percent decline, and in the urban areas, the urban centers, it was 47 percent.  Now that does not mean that the black vote, for instance, necessarily, and this is where only when we get a genius like Mike Barone you get in the precinct and actual numbers analysis is what we know.  But we have a situation where the exit polls tell us that the black turnout, the African American turnout, was only a point less than it was in 2012.  The Hispanics really stayed home.  But as Tavis Smiley, I agree with Tavis Smiley, if you’re black or Hispanic or of any color, what the hell was your reason to turn out and vote Democratic.  What had you been given, an economy where your income had gone down, where your families are not benefited and where the very wealthy were.  Remember, this is a Fed, appointed by Barrack Obama, propping up the very richest people with this wonderful bond buying plan they had, which has stoked the stock market, but done nothing for ordinary Americans.  And the President can’t understand and the economists say, “Oh my gosh, look how good the economy’s doing.”  Well, the American people have a different perception whether they are Democrats, Republicans or Conservatives.  If they know that they are not doing as well, they know that the jobs being created, thanks in part to Obamacare, more than half of them and a vast majority of them now, are part-time.  People are not working.  They live on the edge and they are still very nervous even though things are getting better.  And that partly is reflected you could see in the exit polls.  Seventy-eight percent of the people thought that they were extremely or very worried about the economy in the next year or so, which is totally different than what we’re being told is the case.</p>
<p>And then finally, one of the points in the exit poll that was interesting was that 3/4th of the American people believe that we were going to have another terrorist attack.  That it was highly likely or more that we would have a terrorist attack.  Those numbers are actually higher than they were after 2001.  And I wonder why?  Well, because if you look to the feckless leadership of this White House.  I mean the only way I can even describe it in foreign policy is feckless.  Whether it is in Iran.  In search of a deal, you have to be panic.  Barrack Obama’s proven one thing.  In search of a deal, he will do anything.  And that’s what’s been happening with Iran.  They’re allowing Iran supposedly to stop their nuclear weapons plan to continue to enrich uranium.  Hardly a prescription.  And if they don’t get an agreement by the 24th, the Iranians have used this time and given up nothing that they said they would.  And we have the person, so you can feel certain at night and not worry, the very woman who crafted the wonderful plan with the North Koreans during the Clinton administration to keep them from having nucs and expanding is the one working with the Iranians that John Kerry has brought in to handle that.</p>
<p>And then we have the Ukraine.  Putin sees the President at this meeting in Asia for two days and immediately starts reinvading Ukraine because he was so amazed with the President’s toughness.</p>
<p>And then finally we do it in a climate deal with Chinese, which is wonderful.  They buy 20/30 somewhere in the future.  They will cut back their CO2 use, but with no plan.  And meanwhile, we’re supposed to cut even more in between.  Once again, the search free deal at all costs.  And it should frighten anybody that for two years this will happen and you have to look to the Republican Congress.</p>
<p>But the President’s lack of behavior during this ISIS, which most Americans support.  Fifty-eight, thirty-seven support.  And yet on the ISIS thing, you have a lot of the people who opposed it, Democrats and Republicans agreed equally in their support, but people who oppose this, Democrat and Republican, who oppose what’s going on with ISIS, voted Republican.  Why?  Because I suspect they think this is not working.  That this is another sham being presented.  And any plan that has five shorties a day for air cover with no one on the ground.  And now our new, in the spirit of Arvin, we are sending in deals to that crack Iraqi Army to take on ISIS, and with what will be, we promise, great results.  That whole unraveling, all of that has made the American people very, very nervous.  And yet the President seems to have learned nothing from the election.</p>
<p>And I want to talk about a couple of issues for now they are very important coming up, and they also relate to the election and what we also know.  And also the question of how the Republicans will behave because I think they’ve behaved badly on many of these issues, and I have said this before at this forum.</p>
<p>Let’s take Obamacare.  What I call the night it was passed, a crime against democracy.  To jam through something without any support, unlike Social Security or Medicare where we had massive support from both parties, jam through with lies.  And, by the way, when we really found out the lies, it was amazing but by, and basically on the basis of bribery.  And all those people this time who voted for it, except for Jeanne Sheehan, were defeated and Franken and Durbin.  But the point is is that the American people have never accepted Obamacare.  We are kept told how great it is.  And then we have this gift of Mr. Gruber.  I just can’t get over him.  All I can think is Goober peas.  Gruber, he’s out there with all his comments.  And the White House denies he had anything to do.  We were paying him $400,000.00 apparently not to do anything except write the plan.  He is a Romney hangover from Romneycare.  Which is one of the reasons I am so unenthusiastic about your last nominee, who should have won the election and lost the election that should never have been lost.  Again, and the same people who came up short in delivering what could have been this year and are running around crowing are the same people who delivered that mistake.</p>
<p>And the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare was legal.  But when John Roberts had that visitation that he wouldn’t be invited to Washington dinner parties anymore after <i>The Washington Post</i> warned him desperately.  Things in Washington, there are certain priorities in life, going to dinner parties.  Apparently, John Roberts is more important than the law.  So he changed his opinion, embarrassingly so, and then decided to call the mandated attacks.  And, as I said at the time, my God, in this terrible disaster, he’s handed one club to the Republicans that they must use, which is that they lied that it was a tax.  Right?  Now, you would have thought the Republican party would have taken that in the Senate and the election and pounded that, and they didn’t and they wouldn’t.  And, to this day, I don’t know.  I can speculate why, but they did not.  That message for the American people, because it was very simple for the Democratic opponents in some of these Senate races that year, which is were you lying.  Were you part of the lie or, if you didn’t know, will you vow to vote to repeal the mandate now that you were lied to too.  It’s only one of two choices.  Either you were fooled or you were part of the fooling of us.</p>
<p>But that kind of thinking doesn’t seem to make it into politics anymore, which I think would’ve been helpful.  I think all along the Republican establishment has been lukewarm about Obamacare.  They have gone through the motions, sometimes these useless repeals.  Why we had useless repeals after 27 of them or whatever after the Supreme Court decision, not move to specifically just repeal the mandate, which would’ve killed healthcare, I do not know.  We’re going to have more opportunities.  But the notion of let’s repeal it all or whatever the strategies are, Obamacare has been proven to be the big lie of American politics.  And the President and now Mr. Gruber has pulled the bandage off so we can all see what was the truth, and we’re hopeful that that will change.</p>
<p>The other issue is immigration.  I listen to the people saying how great things would be.  We’d all be holding hands and jumping up and down because Obama would now embrace the compromise.  So, I’m sitting with Neil Cavuto election night on his show on Fox Business about 10:00, and I’m getting this and someone’s arguing on a panel.  I’m going, wait a minute, didn’t we do this two years ago.  I sat right here while all you people were saying Obama now would have a legacy.  He’s got a second term.  He’ll now work with people.  And didn’t I tell you he just tore the country apart to win and that he hates his other opposition and he’s so arrogant.  I told you there would be no peace.  And now you people think he’s going to do anything.  He’s going to blow the country up.  And all of this we’re going to work together and whatever?  This is a President who has decided that with this immigration move, and here is a very important point if you take nothing back.  And I am going to stress it Sunday because it’s really important. I watched the Sunday shows last week and all of the commentators in the Beltway, all of the wonderful media, and I want to talk about them for one second in a minute.  But all of them talked about this in one sentence.  Well, the Republicans are going to be angry.  It’s going to be a firestorm among the Republicans.  No, the firestorm will be with the American people.</p>
<p>The attitudes on immigration have had a sea change in three months.  In September, Rasmussen had numbers that showed vast majorities of Americans both oppose the President granting amnesty, believe that he did not have the power to do so, and also believed that if they did, the Republicans should take him to court, which people had ridiculed before, and including a large majority of moderates, the most critical group in the election who were normally democratic.  They do not vote like liberals, but they generally follow that and they deserted on immigration.</p>
<p>Everything points to we had a referendum in Oregon election night.  Now, you wouldn’t know this because, even if you go to CNN or whatever, the only thing that you will find that was on the ballot in Oregon was the legalization of marijuana, which CNN and the people in the news organization mainly think that’s probably one of the more important issues.  But they didn’t cover, and they don’t even report to this day on their web site, is there was a ballot measure by the same people, liberal Oregon, which had just voted for marijuana, to allow illegal aliens to have driver’s license.  Almost 70 percent of the vote was no.  Okay?  You want to talk about canaries in the mine.  Actually, the Democrats will have to worry because they blow up the Democratic party with this.  But you know what happened in the election, and I said this weeks before.  I was talking about the sea change on immigration.  The fact that it went to the idea of the President was King, not President, and that even large numbers of Democrats were opposed, and what I didn’t understand is why wasn’t the Republican party making that a direct issue against Democratic candidates.  How are you voting on immigration?  The President’s going to sign this amnesty.  Will you reject the President or not?  Actually, make it explicit particularly in those places where you don’t have a chance.  But they didn’t and I’ll tell you why.</p>
<p>Because the unholy alliance.  And some of you won’t like this, but it’s the truth.  The unholy alliance on immigration is an alliance between unions and the left because they want more cheap votes and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, particularly, and a lot of major Republican donors who want a lot of cheap workers.  And, therefore, and that is best illustrated by <i>The Wall Street Journal</i>, which takes all leave of its senses because of their support for total, open borders, along with <i>The New York Times</i>.  That’s when they stroll through the lilies together, skipping through and singing.  This is the problem.  The country doesn’t want this.  The country’s attitudes are changing.  And certainly, by the way, generically, and I love the way the institutions organize and put together the stuff on polling because they try to give a question that will give them some answer.  So, once it was clear that attitudes on immigration change, all of the major mainstream media polling outfits stopped polling on immigration.  As I pointed out, they didn’t even mention it in their election results.</p>
<p>And it goes to the other question.  The President’s right to constitutional power; that he is King.  But I have no confidence when Lindsey Graham, who got, by the way, 54 percent in South Carolina and a black man got 62 percent, tells you what might have been in South Carolina.  Some people, as opponents, are better to be lucky than to be good.  But Lindsey Graham and John McCain, who led the surrender on the appointments when the President was appointing these people on the Labor Practices Commission, laid down on that, which the court ruled unanimously was illegal.  And the Republicans were halfhearted.  It’s like the response when Harry Reid did the nuclear option.  Mitch McConnell and the Republicans could have stopped everything in the Senate.  Everything in the Senate requires unanimous consent, including the prayer in the morning.  Do you know what happens if Mitch McConnell had gotten up and said there will be no more business in this Senate until this is revoked.  You are not going to overnight have a coup de tat against the Constitution of the United States.  A stand for principle for once, the people would’ve supported.  Instead, they just said, “Oh my God, wait until we get to have it.”  It’s just those kinds of things that disillusion Americans.</p>
<p>Finally, the last point I want to really talk about other than the media.  And let me tell you something, whatever goes forward, the true enemy, and I’ve said this for years, is the media.  And it is not because of the truth they tell or the lies they tell, it is what they do not tell.  It is their decision not to report things.  For instance, the Gruber incident as of last night until yesterday morning, once, had been mentioned, only once, on any of the major networks, NBC, ABC, CBS.  Now, of course, CBS news is run by the man whose brother, Ben Rhodes, is the one who manufactured the talking points at Tom Donlan’s direction from Benghazi, and who makes sure to protect Obama.  But, they report nothing.  In the election, its stunning.  Numbers were in 2006, huge percentages.  I think it was like 150 some mentions on the evening news about President Bush being in trouble.  On the three networks this time, it was like 15 or 16.  And on ABC, it was zero.  ABC wasn’t even…and you wonder why interest was lower?  Because a lot of it wasn’t being reported.  And this has got to be taken on at a different level.  Too many Republicans in Washington and the establishment want to have nice relations with the press.  They want to be mentioned in the press.  They want to go along.  There needs to be a war on the press because it goes to the culture and it goes to whether or not we have a Constitution.</p>
<p>I was on the board at West Point.  I watched young men and women who were willing to stand on the ramparts and pledge with their very lives to protect our freedom, who thought it was an honor.  The press, which their ramparts, is a special deal on the First Amendment is that they would protect the American people from power from the Government.  And they have deserted those ramparts.  And in deserting those ramparts, they have endangered the freedom of every American, Democrat, Republican, Liberal or Conservative.  And there has to be a real war here.  And there is not.</p>
<p>You people, it’s like Bill Maher on television.  I mean HBO.  Bill Maher is not practicing free speech.  He’s practicing paid speech.  He gets paid by HBO.  He gets paid by you subscribers.  How many of you people in here subscribe to HBO?  Look.  Come on, let’s all be honest, I mean.  Yeah.  You know what you’re doing, you’re subsidizing all of that because Conservatives don’t know how to fight.  They don’t know how to take on HBO and say, hey, we’re not asking you take Bill Maher off.  How about put someone else on.  I have a friend in mind I would like to mention, but I won’t.  But, put someone on that balances that out or we will all cancel.  Do you know how fast Time-Warner would do if a million people in this country said they would cancel if they did not put a balance on HBO?  But you don’t fight.  You just give in.  It’s like the war on the culture.  This is a time to actually make definitions of these things.  The influence of the culture in Hollywood, as my friend Michael Barnes here says, every day on YouTube and everything else, they get up and then the score is at the end of the day is 845 to nothing.  Imagine if you cut that to two to one in the culture in terms of messaging and real things.</p>
<p>Finally, on 2016.  Nothing can be read from 2014.  The things I talk about is what I have discussed in my Smith Project.  The American people are united about one thing.  They hate the political class in Washington.  They hate the Democrats and Republicans, alike, with that.  They believe they are being screwed by both.  And I would like to remind the Speaker, again last night, Elizabeth Warren’s position about how the banks operate and about how they are getting off.  You know who agrees with that?  About 85 percent of the Republicans and Conservatives.  The entire country understands being screwed by crony capitalism which operates with the Chamber of Commerce and in Washington and the Democrats with all of their energy and all of their building bureaucracies for political machinery.  And they know they’re not being benefited and there is a common sense center that is gigantic, and it is coming.  It didn’t come in this election because we were squeezed between who would be in control of the Senate.</p>
<p>But I will tell you one last thing from the exit polls that has not been discussed.  There was a special sub sample of them, in which they asked people about several candidates would they be a good president.  Hillary Clinton was 42 yes, 53 no.  Then they asked about four Republicans, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Rand Paul and Rick Perrin.  On the average, 26 percent said that each of them would make a good president.  On average, 60 to 63 percent said no, they wouldn’t.  And this is in a Republican sweep going on.  And when they asked to how the people would vote in an election, 39 to 40 percent said they would vote Republican.  Thirty-four percent for Hillary.  This is not good news for Hillary at all.  And the balance said that it all depended.  They weren’t sure.  They weren’t particularly happy.  Understand we’re going to have insurgencies in 2016.  The Republican party and for the first time in your lifetime, my lifetime, or anyone’s lifetime.  Well, I guess some people were born in 1940 when you had Wendell Willkie seize the Republican party.  It was an insurgency.  You could have one this year.</p>
<p>And let me give you one last example why.  I’ll give you an issue.  One of the things the American people most are upset about when you ask them about it.  I’ve done it, Heather Higgins has done it, on polling about the exemption for Congress and the Congressional staff in the healthcare bill that the President came down and negotiated with Harry Reid and with John Boehner.  And Boehner was then saying, oh, he was against this exemption except that Harry Reid got ticked off and leaked all the emails where they agreed, they came together, so that they protect the Congress from what the American people were doing.  When you ask that of American people, 2/3rds of Republicans believe that’s the reason to turn every single person in Washington out of office.  You have 15, 18, whatever number of candidates running for President or thinking about running or having dreams and visions of White House and oval offices.  Not a single one of them will raise this issue.  This issue, the agreement between the two parties was that it was not to be discussed in the election, and it wasn’t.  Did you know that?  They had an actual agreement they would not raise this issue.  Do you know what could’ve happened to some of the incumbents, Democrats particularly, who were vulnerable if that had been raised.  And it wasn’t.  And the reason is and that’s what I mean, there is an insurgency.</p>
<p>I will know the Republican party has life when there’s a Republican running for President willing to attack the establishment of his own party the way that Jimmy Carter and others did in the Democratic party that I was involved in in the 70s.  Then you may get somebody who represents the American people.  As long as this is controlled by the people, as I said to you for two years, in Washington whose only real ambition is to hold on to the power they have and the money they make, your prospects in 2016 are dim.</p>
<p>Anyway, thank you very much.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/pat-caddell-midterm-elections-a-repudiation-of-obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Midterm Election: What Just Happened?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/midterm-election-what-just-happened/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=midterm-election-what-just-happened</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/midterm-election-what-just-happened/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2014 05:53:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Midterm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Presidency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=245957</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An all-star panel discusses what to expect in 2016 and beyond at Restoration Weekend. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong style="color: #232323;">Below are the video and transcript to the panel discussion &#8220;Midterm Election: What Just Happened?&#8221; which took place at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 20th Anniversary Restoration Weekend. The event was held Nov. 13th-16th at the Breakers Resort in Palm Beach, Florida. </strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/112390545" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Richard Baehr:</strong> Let me start in response a little bit to what Ben said last night where he broke down the urgent versus the necessary. Obviously, election matter because the last six years I think have done real damage, and we lost very badly in 2006, both the House and the Senate. 2008 it got even worse. Also lost the presidency and terribly wide margins for the Democrats in both the House and the Senate. Made a comeback in 2010, moved back 2012, made some progress again this year, and now we have control of the Congress, but in the two years we have left with Obama in the White House, in a sense we have a blocking action. We&#8217;ll have some discussion later about what we can achieve positively and how clever we can be, but losing elections really does matter and yes, changing the culture matters too, and that&#8217;s a longer-term proposition, but we really can&#8217;t afford to lose the next presidential election and then have essentially the judiciary locked up for the next 25, 30 years under the control of the Democrats as well as the political election cycle.</p>
<p>Start with the big issue of whether the Republicans, based on what happened this year, can win a presidential election, and this comes down to what I call the demographic argument, and I want to throw out a comparison of two presidential elections, 1988 and 2012. 1988 was the last presidential election a Republican won when most of the media and the Democrats thought the Republicans had a lock on the Electoral College. George Herbert Walker Bush beat Michael Dukakis 40 states to 10, 426 electoral votes to 112, won by 8 percent in the popular vote, 54 to 46, but the interesting thing is, if you look at the breakdown between the votes of white voters and nonwhite voters in that election, Bush won by 20 percent among white voters and lost by 66 percent among non-white voters. In 2012 you have exactly, exactly the same breakdown in terms of white voters and non-white voters. Romney won by 20 percent among white voters and lost by 66 percent among non-white voters. The difference is in 1988 whites were 86 percent of those who voted in the presidential election and in 2012 they were 72 percent. When you change 14 percent and you take away a 20 percent margin among those 14 percent, a positive margin for your side, and replace it with a 66 percent margin for the other side, those 14 percent produced a 12 percent shift in margin. Instead of an 8 percent victory for Bush over Dukakis, Obama beat Romney by 4 percent. All right? Every 1, 2 percent shift has that impact at this point, assuming the numbers stay the same.</p>
<p>Now, the good news is the Republicans are improving their performance slightly among white voters. They won by 22 percent in 2014, and they did substantially better among minority voters. Instead of losing by 45 percent among Hispanics, they lost by roughly 26, 27 percent. They almost broke even among Asian voters after losing that group by 45 percent in 2012. The exit polls showed they won among Native Americans. That doesn&#8217;t make a whole lot of sense to me, but I think that may be some of the massaging that Pat Caddell talked about. The African Americans who voted 96 to 3 in 2008 for Obama and 93 to 6 in 2012 this time in the congressional elections was 89 to 10. It may not seem like a big deal, but it is a big deal. When George Bush was elected in 2004, the black vote was 88 to 11. That&#8217;s a huge difference from 96 to 3 or 93 to 6. All right? In fact, in 2004 to 2008 Bush won by 3 million votes, Obama won in 2008 by 9½ million votes. That&#8217;s a 12½ million shift in margin. Half of it, half of it was in increased turnout, substantially increased turnout among African Americans and the huge victory margin they gave of 93 percent margin as opposed to 77. Okay?</p>
<p>The Obama team knew what they were doing. They knew who would vote for them, and they got them registered, and they brought them to the polls. That&#8217;s a good thing they did for their candidate. All right? They knew who their voters were, and they got them to register, and they got them to vote, and they had the mechanics to monitor who was voting on election day and who hadn&#8217;t, and getting to the votes with early voting and so on. Okay? Republicans did better in the ground game this time, but still probably not up to where we need to be to win a presidential election.</p>
<p>So what were the demographics? I mean, if you think about it for a second, last year in the United States, actually for the last two years, 50 percent of the live births went to whites, 50 percent to non-whites. Let&#8217;s assume you look 30, 40 years out and you assume we have a country where the white vote goes for 22 percent. Remember, these are all citizens; they&#8217;re all born here. 22 percent for the Republican and the non-white vote, which is 50 percent, goes by 50, 55 percent to the Democrats. You balance those out, you average them out, what do you have? California. The nation has become California in terms of its electoral mix. What if you get the 2014 numbers, which are better. Republicans did better among whites. They won by 22 percent. They lose among minorities by say 45 to 50 percent. Then you get Oregon. Or maybe Minnesota. Okay? You got a shot in a good year, but doesn&#8217;t look very good.</p>
<p>The good news is the shift in the birth rate is not reflected in the shift in the mix of those who are voting to the same extent. Hispanics were 8 percent in 2006, they were 8 percent in 2010, they were 8 percent of the vote in 2014. Given that they are by far the fastest-growing group in America, that suggests that even with the Hispanic vote being obviously a pro-Democratic vote, if that vote grows much more slowly than is anticipated and grows to 10 percent, 12 percent, 13, and Republicans can keep their losses to 20 percent, you do not have the demographic nightmare which was forecast for the Republican Party in a book in 2002 by John Judis and Reed Teixeira, who called it the emerging demographic majority for the Democrats because of A) growing minority vote and B) growing percentage of white voters who are college educated who are more open and receptive to Democrats than non-college-educated white voters are who are the Republicans&#8217; strongest base.</p>
<p>Turns out that white college-educated voters move from election to election and can get disgusted if they think their taxes are going up and their services are going down or if they see things that they&#8217;re unhappy about, so it&#8217;s not a lost cause, but it would be silly not to recognize some of the trends that are underway in American society. This country is changing faster demographically than any country in Europe, and we&#8217;ve had books by Mark Steyn and others talking about how Europe is gone and it&#8217;s going to be 50 percent Muslim and those countries are going to disappear. The United States&#8217; demographics is changing much faster than any of those countries, and that&#8217;s with a replacement birthrate here at almost 2.1. We&#8217;re just a little bit below that. In Europe they&#8217;re much below that. They&#8217;re bringing in people. Their actual native population is declining.</p>
<p>So this is a shift and it&#8217;d be silly &#8212; Republicans have to do better with all groups. That&#8217;s the message I&#8217;d have, and do better with all groups means less pandering and more having a national American message, which is exactly I think what Pat Caddell was talking about today. I could not agree with him more. If the Republican Party simply is part of the governing majority and it&#8217;s a little bit less liberal than the other party, you sort of have the political parties in Great Britain. They are all locked in, essentially, to the same situation.</p>
<p>Now, let me talk again: Some good news this year in the elections. Republicans, the charge was, well, it&#8217;s a favorable nap in the Senate. You had all these Senate seats in red states that Romney had won big. There were 36 governors&#8217; races, and 22 of them were in states that Obama had carried. Republicans did not win red state governorships. They won in Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Maine. I have a summer home in Maine. One of the biggest wins of the night for me, because there&#8217;s probably no more detested character on the left than the governor of Maine, who is an abused child, one of 18 children. You talk about a rags to riches story. Look up Paul LePage on Wikipedia and read his life story, and it will match what you heard before in the previous talks about someone making something of their life and dealing with a tough situation and overcoming it. Maine Public Radio had a suicide watch out for all of their listeners on election night. They called for grief counselors, but unfortunately the grief counselors were all their listeners. They had to bring them in from Northern New Hampshire. There were seven Republican grief counselors in Northern New Hampshire.</p>
<p>Anyway, in the House of Representatives, I disagree a little bit with Pat, but for the most part he&#8217;s correct. Republicans probably left six, seven, eight seats on the table this year, but their maximum, given essentially the current mix of the populations and how people vote, is probably not a lot higher than 260, and they will probably get to 248, 249, 250 after those last few recounts are done in Arizona and New York, California, and you have the two runoffs in Louisiana. By the way, Louisiana Senate, first poll on the runoff, Cassidy is 16 points ahead of Mary Landrieu, so say goodbye to Mary.</p>
<p>There is something to having a national message, if you&#8217;re a national political party, and the Republicans again, why I say there&#8217;s sort of a limit, 260, 265, you&#8217;re not going to do much better. The Republicans did a great job redistricting, which is why winning the governorships in 2018, winning state legislative seats in 2020 is so crucial to maintaining that for the next ten years. I mean, in Ohio, Republicans have 12 of the 16 House seats. They have 13 of the 18 House seats in Pennsylvania, 9 or 14 in Michigan, 9 of 13 in North Carolina. Those are not deep red states. I mean, essentially what&#8217;s happened is the Democrats want their minority voters concentrated, and the Republicans cooperate, so they give them seats where Democrats had enormous numbers of wasted votes. They win by 80 to 20 in their seats. Republicans win a lot of other seats by 55/45, 60/40. All right?</p>
<p>So, and I want to say this very clearly. For the purposes of what you&#8217;re going to hear over the next few days, I&#8217;m not saying the Republicans are the good guys, but they&#8217;re our side at this point, and it&#8217;s our side versus the other side, and I would prefer our side wins. Okay? And getting the right people on our side obviously matters, and getting better candidates for our side matters, but we did well this year as a party and conservatives are in better shape for the Republicans having won control of both Houses than if they had remained in a minority on the other side.</p>
<p>One last thing. You hear a lot of talk about this blue wall. Republicans can&#8217;t win the White House. They can&#8217;t win the White House because the Democrats have won enough states in the last six presidential elections to get 242 electoral votes. All right? So Republicans gotta win pretty much every toss-up to be able to get elected President. Well, Republicans were 206 this time. Add Florida, Virginia, and Ohio you get to 266. Those are three states Republicans have to win to win the presidency. If they can&#8217;t win those three states they&#8217;re not going to win the presidency. All right? But then you have a bunch of other states. There are seven or eight states from Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, which was only a 5 percent state, New Hampshire, Colorado. Republicans can put together a win nationally at the White House and for once they&#8217;ll be running against a candidate who may be older than the Republican, and the Republicans may not be nominating someone who ran before and lost, which has been six of their last seven nominees. All right? That seems to be how you get nominated for Republican. Run once and lose. So put together a younger candidate, someone with a fresh face, someone with ideas and I don&#8217;t think 2016 is a dead issue. Thank you.</p>
<p><strong>Ron Radosh: </strong>This election, the midterm election, was not a vote for conservatism or the Republican Party. It was a vote against President Barack Obama, that the whole populace and the America people were really fed up with, and look at the minuses that Obama had: the handling of the Ebola crisis, the handling of Obamacare, the lies about Obamacare, his entire foreign policy collapse where his whole approach to the Middle East has gone up in flames. Everyone can see that Obama, in virtually domestic and foreign policy, I would say he&#8217;s actually the worst president that we&#8217;ve had certainly in the 20th century on. I think history will show, if the liberals on the left stop writing history and get some conservatives in there, at least, that Obama will be in the middle or on the bottom and nowhere near the top, as the greatest president, as a good president. He&#8217;s not in the ranks of an FDR or a Lincoln or a Reagan. He will be at the bottom.</p>
<p>So this midterm election really should come as no surprise. The presidency is something very, very different, and here&#8217;s what I think the problem is. The Republicans have to have a few different things if they are going to win. First, they have to understand that they must get votes from and appeal to the white working class, young people, Hispanics, African Americans. They have to broaden their approach and realize that they have to make inroads in groups that traditionally have not voted Republican in a long, long time. They can make these inroads, but to do that the Republicans have to have the message that they are a Big 10 party. They are not going to impose an ideological uniformity where if you don&#8217;t have either the most conservative position or if you disagree on tactics with some conservatives, that you are therefore not a conservative and not a Republican. They have to realize that everyone is not going to agree on every issue within the Republican Party, and the party has to begin trying to change its message to appeal to some of the groups whose votes they need.</p>
<p>Now, here is where Rand Paul sees part of the picture. Now I&#8217;m an opponent of Rand Paul. I think he would be a disaster. I think he&#8217;s trying to hide it by calling himself a realist, but he has an isolationist or a non-interventionist position very close to that of his father. That would be a disaster for America as well as the Republican Party. But the one thing Rand Paul has understood has to be done is a broad outreach to African Americans showing that the Republican Party has something to offer the African American community. In fact, has a great deal more to offer them than the Democratic Party, whose Great Society programs have collapsed and have proved to be an utter failure. So Rand Paul understands that. Secondly, Rand Paul has been making a great outreach to young people, and young people are attracted to a lot of his libertarian message. I don&#8217;t agree, again, with all of the libertarian message or proposals of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, but Paul is reaching them and getting the big turnouts on campus because he understands the need for a new kind of message and reconsideration of old views.</p>
<p>Now, let me raise as an example here, the attitude towards gay marriage. Social conservatives have, for reasons that I respect, drawn a strong case against gay marriage as being good for society. My friend Robbie George, the Princeton professor of politics and perhaps the nation&#8217;s leading social conservative, has made a compelling case against gay marriage. But as I said to them, the tipping point is over. It&#8217;s a done deal. None of your arguments, as good as you and people who agree with you make them out to be, it&#8217;s over. The fight has been lost. You can&#8217;t change the fights that have been lost. There have been polls taken of young Republicans. I think a poll I read said that about 80 percent of young Republicans who consider themselves conservatives support gay marriage. The tide has changed. If the Republican Party can&#8217;t come out for gay marriage because they have to hold the party together, at least they can unite and work in areas in which both factions of the party agree to end discrimination against gay people. That has to be an opening in that position and a shift, or the Republican Party is going to lose young Republicans and young conservatives as well. I think that&#8217;s a hard truth, and it has to be accepted.</p>
<p>Secondly, let me give you another example, and here I&#8217;m going to quote from Michael Gerson&#8217;s recent column in the Washington Post about John Kasich. Now John Kasich has done tremendous things. Here&#8217;s what Gerson writes, and I&#8217;ll ready the quote. Kasich, he writes, deserves the award for the best performance in a battleground state. Yet Kasich won a majority of union voters, three-fifths of female voters, a majority of voters under the age of 30, two-thirds of Independents, and one quarter of African American voters. That is an incredible statistic for a real conservative. Now let&#8217;s say hypothetically John Kasich or someone who has his kind of positions got to be the Republican nominee. Are conservatives going to stand against such a person merely because he moved in one direction other Republican conservative governors did not move? That is, accepting the expansion of Medicaid and accepting the government funds to do that while other conservatives who were governors voted against it and stood firm against that? Kasich believes, right or wrong, that a program exists to help the poor who deserve help for health insurance, that that was a necessary step. In other words, he dissented from traditional conservative positions on one issue. To a lot of conservatives, that makes Kasich beyond the pale. I think you can&#8217;t do that. For a party that wants to broaden its appeal, it has to agree that not everyone is going to agree with what most people think are conservative principles. On one or another specific issue a conservative can feel a different approach has to be taken, even if it goes against the sentiment or the viewpoint of other conservatives. We have to accept that kind of diversity and try to understand why someone like a John Kasich, who is a conservative, disagrees and does something else in his own state. So there&#8217;s that to consider.</p>
<p>Secondly, let me finish with this thought. I think that one also has to stop demanding all or nothing. I think some of the arguments coming from the Ted Cruz faction or from Cruz himself of the Republican Party, and you heard Ted here last year. He&#8217;s a very intelligent man, brilliant intelligence. Both Robbie George and Alan Dershowitz said he was the best student they ever had, but I think Ted Cruz is wrong in a lot of his tactics, making extreme tactics the equivalent or the mark for being a conservative. Cruz has been making some noise recently about maybe we should close down the government again and not accept certain things that Republican leadership seems to be accepting. I think that&#8217;s wrong and dangerous.</p>
<p>Now, let me quote one conservative who said this. If you read Commentary Magazine you saw it in the cover story by Peter Wehner, and I forget who coauthored it. I think it might be Yuval Levin. But they have this quote from a conservative leader, who said, &#8220;True believers on the Republican right prefer to go off the cliff with flags flying rather than take half a loaf and later come back for more.&#8221; Now you know who said that? Anybody? Yes, it was Ronald Reagan, and Reagan understood that one has to make compromises. For example, in 1964 Reagan campaigned very strongly against Medicare. In 1980 he said we have to accept the fact Medicaid is popular. It passed with votes from both Republicans and Democrats. We can&#8217;t undo Medicare or spend any time attacking it. It&#8217;s here to stay. Reagan adopted to reality. There are some things we can&#8217;t change. We have to pick our fights closely, fight where we can win, and fight not only getting conservatives to vote for us, but getting centrist and disaffected Democrats. We have to create, as Reagan managed to do, a new generation of Reagan Democrats. They&#8217;re there waiting to be taken back into the fold. The midterm elections showed that. We have to remember that as we go forward to 2016. Thank you.</p>
<p><strong>Matt Kibbe: </strong>Saving Pat Roberts, $12 million. Rescuing Mitch McConnell in very Republican Kentucky, $50 million. The look on Harry Reid&#8217;s face sitting next to Barack Obama two days later, priceless. If you haven&#8217;t seen that picture, please print it and frame it and put it over your desk. You know, I think Pat Caddell and Richard delivered some of the buzzkill facts about what happened in the last election, but I think we should do a victory lap first, and we all know about the Senate. In some ways I think that was the least important victory, and let me just point out a couple things that happened. We&#8217;ve talked about new Republican governors. There were at least 350 new Republican seats picked up in state legislatures. Tim Scott, one of my favorite senators, is the first black American to win in the south since Reconstruction. Some of you will remember that Tim Scott was in fact the Tea Party candidate in a very crowded House Republican primary who ran on issues, who ran on something called the Contract from America against Strom Thurmond&#8217;s grandson. Someone should tell Mother Jones the story about how it is that the Tea Party is expanding what it is the Republican Party looks like in 2014, which brings up, of course, Mia Love.</p>
<p>The story in the House, I think, is more compelling. Let&#8217;s give a shout out to Mia Love. I first met Mia Love when she was still a mayor in the State of Utah, and if you&#8217;re talking about expanding the demographics of the GOP, consider this. Black, woman, conservative, Tea Partier, Mormon. That&#8217;s pretty cool, huh? Someone send a memo to Mother Jones on that one too. But you know the House got more conservative. It got more liberty minded, and yes, the House majority grew but we also picked up seats like Mia Love&#8217;s which is a Democratic pickup. Bruce Poliquin in Maine, who is another liberty-minded fiscal conservative, and also Rod Blum in Iowa. This is a seat that Republicans should not have picked up. These are candidates that ran on something other than &#8220;I&#8217;m not Barack Obama.&#8221; There may be a lesson in there.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s at least touch on the down side here. The turnout in 2014 compared to 2010 was down 8 million voters. Now imagine what we might have done with a couple million votes at the margin in some of these battleground states. In 2010 we had much higher turnout among self-identified Independents, self-identified Tea Partiers, and self-identified conservatives. All of those voters showed up less in 2014 than they did in 2010. Interestingly, registered Republicans, or at least self-identified Republicans, went up a little bit, 1 percent according to a Wall Street Journal poll. I think that sort of punches a hole in this mythology that somehow Tea Partiers and conservatives are the Republican base. I think it&#8217;s better described that there are people that vote based on issues, not party affiliation. Someone should send that memo to Reince Priebus. You&#8217;re allowed to clap. It&#8217;s cool. So that&#8217;s the good news.</p>
<p>That was good stuff, and we need to be careful about the lessons for 2016 because I think, if you go to Nebraska, one of my favorite senators that will be coming in 2015, of course, is Ben Sasse in Nebraska. Now, if you compare Ben&#8217;s performance in Nebraska to what happened in Kansas, these states are fairly comparable in terms of size, in terms of massive Republican advantage. Pat Roberts struggled until the last minute to win in a state that we shouldn&#8217;t have spent a dime in. Ben Sasse spent far less money, and he won by 34 points. Now how did that happen? Anyone who was paying attention to this race should remember that Ben Sasse not only ran against Obamacare, he actually put together a very specific plan on what he would do to dismantle and replace Obamacare with a patient-driven system. You didn&#8217;t see that much amongst Republican candidates. Ed Gillespie actually did something similar at the last minute in Virginia, and you might argue that that was where he got his last-minute surge. I don&#8217;t have data to prove that point, and I won&#8217;t necessarily be able to defend it, but it&#8217;s something to check out, but Ben Sasse comes to the U.S. Senate as a one-man think tank that actually has ideas that were proven on the campaign trail on how we are going to manage Obamacare now that it is law, now that it has destroyed the individual market, now that it has radically expanded Medicaid rolls. We need more than &#8220;I&#8217;m not Barack Obama&#8221; to solve this problem, and this goes back to the 2010 analogy.</p>
<p>In 2010 there was a crowd-source document some of you will remember. It was called the Contract from America, and it was modeled after Newt Gingrich&#8217;s 1994 contract with one important difference. It wasn&#8217;t designed in Washington, D.C. It was crowd-sourced from millions of Americans who were asked, and Freedom Works was intimately part of this process. We actually had the audacity to ask Americans what they thought Washington should do, and so you came up with a ten-policy plank platform that not only Tim Scott ran on in South Carolina, but a vast majority of the Republicans that won in 2010 on a positive, specific, bold agenda. That&#8217;s where that came from.</p>
<p>Maybe that&#8217;s a lesson for 2016. The good news, and we&#8217;ve heard all the bad news, and I agree with all of the analysis on demographics and how an off-year election is fundamentally different than a presidential election. The good news is that we can actually fix this if we look at where the ideas are coming from in the House and the Senate Republican caucuses. It&#8217;s not coming from the top. It&#8217;s not coming from leadership. It&#8217;s coming from the bottom up, and perhaps that&#8217;s appropriate given who we are and what we believe. We think the genius of America comes from our communities, not from Washington, D.C., not from the top down. We are not Democratic apparatchiks that wait for someone to tell us what to do, right? This is why herding individualists is a lot like herding cats. But in the age of the Internet there&#8217;s a lot more of us than there are of them. If you go to the very long tail of the Internet where the decentralization of information – do you guys remember when Walter Cronkite used to tell you &#8220;that&#8217;s the way it is&#8221;? You couldn&#8217;t go on Google and fact check him, could you? You couldn&#8217;t set up an RSS feed and get multiple sources of information that told you that what the three networks were spoon feeding you was just not true. That doesn&#8217;t exist anymore, and even the New York Times is scrambling for eyeballs online in a very decentralized world where good information gets to people at lower marginal costs all the time. This is the new normal. This is the opportunity for Republicans that have enough faith in their ideas that they&#8217;re actually going to talk about big bold ideas going into 2016.</p>
<p>When Pat Robertson was in trouble in Kansas, did he call John McCain to come rescue him? Who did he call? Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Where are the ideas coming from in the Republican Party? Mike Lee just became the chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, which Jim DeMint turned into the Republican Senate Think Tank a few years earlier. Mike Lee is another one-man think tank. He&#8217;s the guy that&#8217;s actually not only sober in his analysis but bold in his willingness to put good ideas on the table. We should learn a thing or two from Mike, and by the way, the GOP establishment is preparing to primary him in Utah in 2016. We should not let that happen.</p>
<p>I think Republicans mostly succeeded in 2014 by not being Barack Obama. This is not a very good long-term strategy, but if we would embrace the idea that good ideas can actually engage people that are interested in ideas, not party affiliation, and connect with Independents, connect with young people who are more liberty minded, there&#8217;s nothing but potential here, but the GOP needs to get comfortable with the fact that they&#8217;re not in charge anymore. You think about the vaunted Obama Get Out the Vote machine, for all of its decentralization it was fundamentally dependent on a cult of personality from someone at the very top of the pyramid dictating this is what we&#8217;re going to do, people waiting for their marching orders. You cannot do that with Republicans, and if you try they will take your head off. You can&#8217;t do that with libertarians. You can&#8217;t do that with Tea Partiers. They rightly believe that they&#8217;re in charge, and the moms that have Facebook pages all over American, Tea Party moms that are bigger than county GOPs, they&#8217;re in charge now.</p>
<p>So the question is what is the party going to do to tap into this massive decentralized network of people that should be constituents of Republican candidates? Don&#8217;t take them for granted. Don&#8217;t tell them what to do. Engage them on a set of values and ideas that are compelling. Now this is not necessarily completely like what you would argue Ted Cruz is doing. I think there are a lot of big bold ideas, positive ideas, Reaganesque ideas that cut across party lines. One is yes, we do need to repeal Obamacare, but we need to replace it with something, right? And if Republicans were good they would put that on the president&#8217;s desk. If they can&#8217;t do that, they should repeal the individual mandate. It is completely unjust. It is completely screwing our young people, and it has bipartisan support. There was a House vote where 30 Democrats crossed across the aisle. Another interesting subject is criminal justice reform, including asset seizure, sentencing reform. These are things that Rand Paul has worked on that again creates bipartisan majorities. They would put the president in quite a bind if he chose to veto things like that, and most importantly, embrace the chaos of a beautiful decentralized community that will show up if you stand for something and will stay home if you don&#8217;t. Thank you very much.</p>
<p><strong>Richard Baehr: </strong>I just want to make one quick note. To follow up with what Matt said. At this point in time, the Republican Party, which is of course the old people&#8217;s white people&#8217;s party, there are more statewide elected officials which means senators or governors, minorities in the Republican Party than there are in the Democratic Party. There are five versus four. The Republicans will put up a candidate and it doesn&#8217;t matter whether they&#8217;re Hispanic or Black to run statewide or Asian, and they&#8217;ll win if the voters, and particularly in those states where a lot of Republican voters like their ideas. Tim Scott proves that. Democrats will only put up their candidates, minority candidates, in safe minority districts. They will not risk essentially what&#8217;s going on statewide, and that&#8217;s why they have so few. If they are the overwhelming choice, they should be putting up more state nominees and they don&#8217;t.</p>
<p><strong>Matt Kibbe: </strong>Just one more comment on what Rand Paul is doing. I was on a panel recently with Richard Viguerie and he described libertarians as the fourth leg of what has now become a Republican table. Not, no longer the traditional stool where you had social conservatives, defense conservatives and fiscal conservatives. I do think that&#8217;s true particularly with young people, and we should be careful not to disenfranchise all of these crazy liberty kids that can be unruly. They can be loud. Remind me a lot of exactly what I was like when I was their age. This is an opportunity, and I think that the party made a huge mistake at the convention in 2012 by disenfranchising Ron Paul delegations. It wasn&#8217;t like Ron Paul was going to win the nomination. They would have been smarter to embrace a very broad community that includes the liberty agenda as part of that.</p>
<p><strong>Tom Lifson: </strong>I&#8217;ll use the moderator&#8217;s prerogative to agree with Matt. I live in Berkeley, California believe or not, and when Rand Paul came to campus it was electric. Nobody has been screwed worse by Obama than the young demographic. Nobody has been screwed worse by the education establishment than the young demographic, who are graduating college with debt that can&#8217;t be discharged in bankruptcy. So there is an opportunity there for the Republicans, if we&#8217;re willing to take it. Okay. Throwing it open to questions. Over there.</p>
<p>Next Speaker</p>
<p><strong>Audience Member:</strong> I&#8217;d like to challenge some of the things that I heard from Ron Radosh, I&#8217;ve heard these from others as well, that the Republican Party somehow has to become more like the Democrat Party. We have to be for amnesty. We have to be for gay marriage. We have to be for all of this left-wing social agenda and it&#8217;s because of these palecon social conservatives that we are losing elections. I can say as a Republican candidate in a blue state, Maryland, first for Congress I was the Republican nominee in 2012 against Chris Van Hollen and again this year as a lieutenant governor candidate in a primary in Maryland where we ultimately won the governor&#8217;s race in a blue state, nobody saw that coming, that social conservative issues are big winners. And we have to be true to our social roots and our conservative roots. I campaigned an awful lot in Hispanic churches. I can tell you this is a demographic we are told by the political consultants that is not supposed to vote Republican. They were overwhelming going to vote Republican, and why were they going to vote Republican? Because we were against gay marriage, we affirm that marriage was between one man and one woman, and that is the way it always has been. That is a natural fact. You cannot legislate marriage and destroy biology. It does not happen.</p>
<p>Young people understand. And even in the Hispanic community they understood the argument which I put forward boldly and frankly and openly looking people in their eyes that we exist in a nation of laws. And the reason that many Hispanics came to this country was to escape countries where there was not a rule of law, and do you want to go back to dictatorship, which is what you fled from &#8212; or do you want to live here in a country with rule of law?</p>
<p>So I think, I would challenge you that we should not be abandoning our social agenda. We can perhaps express it differently. I&#8217;ll give you that. Yes, we could express it differently. We can put a more positive spin on it, not a restricted spin on it. But a lot of social conservatives stayed home. Many of them in minority communities, and these are votes that could be big winners for us, if we stay true to our values. Thanks.</p>
<p><strong>Ron Radosh: </strong>I&#8217;m not saying you and other social conservatives should not stay true to their values. I did not say the Republican Party should endorse gay marriage. I don&#8217;t think it should. I think it should allow in its ranks those who believe that gay marriage is right, and those who believe it is wrong. To take a position on this kind of issue is going to lose a lot of young people. And they are overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage. Now you can try and educate them for your point of view, argue with them, present solid arguments as to why marriage should just be between a man and woman. That&#8217;s fine. But for the party to come out on one or another side of this would be disastrous. It&#8217;s going to put into oblivion. I think there are common issues. One other comment I wanted to make that I forgot to say, about ideas. And I agree with a lot of what Matt said. There is that group what they call the Young, the YG project, Young Guards?</p>
<p><strong>Matt Kibbe: </strong>Young Guns.</p>
<p><strong>Ron Radosh: </strong>Young Guns.</p>
<p><strong>Matt Kibbe: </strong>Yeah.</p>
<p><strong>Ron Radosh: </strong>And they put out a book filled with ideas. There are great theorists. Like my two favorite ones are conservative intellectuals Yuval Levin and James Capretta. You&#8217;ve seen Capretta a lot on Fox News. They have drawn up serious arguments for how to not just say replace, get rid of Obamacare, but how to replace it with a solid program that gives real healthcare on market-based principals. They have thought about this. I think all political leaders have to look at the various arguments in their book, that is free online, and take these, a lot of their ideas into consideration, and if you&#8217;re in office as Republican in the state or national level, see if you can work with some of these people to fashion legislation to present based on some of the concrete ideas they lay out. I think that&#8217;s extremely important.</p>
<p><strong>Matt Kibbe: </strong>A quick comment on the question from a libertarian perspective, I can speak to my community which is very libertarian, but also significantly socially conservative, and I don&#8217;t think that you had to abandon your personal values and the things that you learn in church on Sunday or the definition of marriage in order to understand that outsourcing really important social institutions to 535 men and women that can&#8217;t balance a budget is a really bad idea. And I think we learn that during, you can clap. That&#8217;s cool. During the Bush administration, I think there was a lesson learned when we got involved in things like face-based initiatives that really outsourced really precious community actions, voluntary community-based activities to Washington, DC, and they started fighting over who got the most earmarks. I think that&#8217;s a huge mistake. I think that social institutions that hold this country together are way too important to let Washington, DC get its hand on them.</p>
<p><strong>Tom Lifson: </strong>Thank you. One more question. The gentleman on the aisle, yes?</p>
<p><strong>Audience Member: </strong>What you guys think about first a new radical right that gets in the media&#8217;s face and pushes the agenda to them instead of accepting the agenda that they get shut out of day after day, and secondly, creating a real marketing machine for the things that we hold most dear and pushing it out to the American people who will follow the first shiny object that comes in front of them?</p>
<p><strong>Richard Baehr: </strong>I&#8217;m going to take a quick response and really take a different attack which is I think Republicans win when they have better candidates, and the machinery makes the big difference and the spending does, but we had better candidates this year. Wendy Davis was a terrible candidate. She was their Todd Akin. Bruce Braley was a terrible candidate in Iowa state. Democratic never should have lost. We came up in the process this year, produced much better, more effective, positive messengers for our side. It wasn&#8217;t just all a negative anti-Obama message on the state level in these individual races. The people we put up were better candidates. They were more &#8212; there&#8217;s no way a Republican should ever win an open seat race in Iowa by 9 percent, and that had a lot to do, not with the amount of spending, each side had it, not with the particular messaging that the parties put in behind it, but the fact that one candidate communicated better and connected with the voters better than the other side did.</p>
<p><strong>Matt Kibbe: </strong>You know I think politics is a little bit like entrepreneurship because sometimes the customer is always right and sometimes you go to market with something they didn&#8217;t know they wanted. Say an iPhone, something like that. And all of sudden everybody decides that that&#8217;s what they want. So it is good candidates. But I think the machinery matters as well, and you guys are in the right place if you want to understand a little bit about how Democratic apparatchiks function because I assume you&#8217;ve all been assigned your readings from Saul Alinsky, and we need to understand that. Pat Caddell mentioned something that can&#8217;t be overstated. The consultant industrial complex is so fixated on paid media because that&#8217;s where they can make their margins. You can&#8217;t make a lot of money going door to door, engaging grassroots communities. This is why the left beats on us the ground. I&#8217;ll go back to something I mentioned earlier: embrace decentralization, social media. Instead of running thousand point TV buys, why don&#8217;t you target young people on Facebook? We&#8217;ve tested this. It works.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/midterm-election-what-just-happened/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Happened?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/thomas-sowell/what-happened/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=what-happened</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/thomas-sowell/what-happened/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2014 05:01:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas Sowell]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lame duck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Midterm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=245227</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Looking at the years ahead after the midterm elections. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Midterm-Elections-1.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-245228" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Midterm-Elections-1-444x350.jpg" alt="Midterm Elections-1" width="312" height="246" /></a>Just what happened last week on election day? And what is going to happen in the years ahead?</p>
<p>The most important thing that happened last week was that the country dodged a bullet. Had the Democrats retained control of the Senate, President Obama could have spent his last two years in office loading the federal judiciary with judges who share his contempt for the Constitution of the United States.</p>
<p>Such judges — perhaps including Supreme Court justices — would have been confirmed by Senate Democrats, and could spend the rest of their lifetime appointments ruling in favor of expansions of federal government power that would make the freedom of &#8220;we the people&#8221; only a distant memory and a painful mockery.</p>
<p>We dodged that bullet. But what about the rest of Barack Obama&#8217;s term?</p>
<p>Pundits who depict Obama as a weak, lame duck president may be greatly misjudging him, as they have so often in the past. Despite the Republican sweep of elections across the country last week, President Obama has issued an ultimatum to Congress, to either pass the kind of immigration law he wants before the end of this year or he will issue Executive Orders changing the country&#8217;s immigration laws unilaterally.</p>
<p>Does that sound like a lame duck president?</p>
<p>On the contrary, it sounds more like some banana republic&#8217;s dictator. Nor is Obama making an idle bluff. He has already changed other laws unilaterally, including the work requirement in welfare reform laws passed during the Clinton administration.</p>
<p>The very idea of Congress rushing a bill into law in less than two months, on a subject as complex, and with such irreversible long-run consequences as immigration, is staggering. But there is already a precedent for such hasty action, without Congressional hearings to bring out facts or air different views. That is how ObamaCare was passed. And we see how that has turned out.</p>
<p>People who are increasingly questioning Barack Obama&#8217;s competence are continuing to ignore the alternative possibility that his fundamental values and imperatives are different from theirs.</p>
<p>You cannot tell whether someone is failing or succeeding without knowing what they are trying to do.</p>
<p>When Obama made a brief public statement about Americans being beheaded by terrorists, and then went on out to play golf, that was seen as a sign of political ineptness, rather than a stark revelation of what kind of man he is, underneath the smooth image and lofty rhetoric.</p>
<p>The president&#8217;s refusal to protect the American people by quarantining people coming from Ebola-infected areas — as was done by Britain and a number of African nations — is by no means a sign of incompetence. It is a sacrifice of Americans&#8217; interests for the sake of other people&#8217;s interests, as is an assisted invasion of illegal immigrants across our southern borders.</p>
<p>Such actions are perfectly consistent with Obama&#8217;s citizen of the world vision that has led to such statements of his in 2008: &#8220;We can&#8217;t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times &#8230; and then just expect that every other country&#8217;s going to say okay.&#8221;</p>
<p>In a similar vein, Obama said, &#8220;we consume more than 20 percent of the world&#8217;s oil but have less than 2 percent of the world&#8217;s oil reserves.&#8221; In short, Americans are undeservedly prosperous and selfishly consuming a disproportionate share of &#8220;the world&#8217;s output&#8221; — at least in the vision of Barack Obama.</p>
<p>That Americans are producing a disproportionate share of what is called &#8220;the world&#8217;s output&#8221; and consuming what we produce — while paying for our imports — is not allowed to disturb Obama&#8217;s vision.</p>
<p>Resentment of the prosperous — whether at home or on the world stage — runs through virtually everything Barack Obama has said and done throughout his life. You don&#8217;t need to be Sherlock Holmes to find the clues. You have to shut your eyes tightly to keep from seeing them everywhere, in every period of his life.</p>
<p>The big question is whether the other branches of government — Congress and the Supreme Court — can stop him from doing irreparable damage to America in his last two years. Seeing Obama as an incompetent and weak, lame duck president only makes that task harder.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/thomas-sowell/what-happened/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Dems Lost and It’s Not Their Fault</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-dems-lost-and-its-not-their-fault/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-dems-lost-and-its-not-their-fault</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-dems-lost-and-its-not-their-fault/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2014 05:57:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[midterm election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=244865</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Irresponsible Party can’t take responsibility.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/0719-CPELOSI-05-PELOSI-US-POLITICS-GOVERNMENT-CONGRESS-PELOSI_full_600.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-244887" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/0719-CPELOSI-05-PELOSI-US-POLITICS-GOVERNMENT-CONGRESS-PELOSI_full_600-450x344.jpg" alt="0719-CPELOSI-05-PELOSI-US-POLITICS-GOVERNMENT-CONGRESS-PELOSI_full_600" width="357" height="273" /></a>The Democrats lost and no one is resigning. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi intend to stay on even after overseeing the largest political catastrophe for their party in decades. In six years, Pelosi went from a House majority of 257 seats to a current running total in the 180s. Harry Reid took a Senate majority and turned it into a minority and all he has to show for it are a lot of donations from out-of-state law firms.</p>
<p>Not only aren’t Harry and Nancy resigning, but they aren’t even taking any responsibility. Irresponsibility is the Democratic word of the day and the decade. Harry is blaming Barry. Barry is blaming Harry. No one is even paying attention to Nancy ever since she became irrelevant four years ago.</p>
<p>The Democrats don’t just preach irresponsibility and pander to the irresponsible. They are irresponsible.</p>
<p>Democrats often point to Congress’s low approval ratings as proof that the public doesn’t support the Republicans. They neglect to mention that its present low approval rating of 14 matches its low point of 14 under Pelosi and Reid’s Democratic majority. The last time Congress had an approval rating above 40, there were Republican majorities in the House and Senate.</p>
<p>It isn’t Republican obstructionism that keeps the approval ratings low. That’s just the narrative that the real Democratic obstructionists used once they lost their majority in order to give Obama sanction for unilateral rule. Now Senate and House Democrats have paid the price for the damage that they inflicted on their party by allowing Obama’s unilateral and incoherent policymaking to define them.</p>
<p>Obama “won” by locking in an opposition Congress that leaves him as the only significant elected member of his party. He has achieved what he sought all along by reducing his entire party to him. By completely isolating himself politically, Obama has eliminated any dissent from within his own party.</p>
<p>He has become a “Party of One.”</p>
<p>It’s not much of a victory for any politician who isn’t a wannabe dictator or a hopeless narcissist.</p>
<p>Like his congressional leaders, Obama refuses to concede that the election had anything to do with him, despite claiming beforehand that it was all about his policies. During the election, his inner narcissist wanted to make the election about him, even though his own party begged him not to.</p>
<p>But now that the election is lost, he isn’t responsible and is blaming the “map” which is his way of saying that he didn’t lose the game. The game was unfair.</p>
<p>The most powerful man in the world is making the same excuse as a little boy losing at Monopoly. But he has a point. There was no way to win on his terms by maximizing the turnout of the base with ugly polarizing identity politics. The closest thing to that effort came from “Senator Uterus” and his off-putting “War on Women” rhetoric and it failed. If Obama can’t win with identity politics, then the election is unfair… and the only way to fix it is with illegal alien amnesty for demographic change.</p>
<p>Illegal alien amnesty is the adult political equivalent of overturning the board of the United States, tossing all the American voters on the floor, and remaking the country with new majorities.</p>
<p>That way identity politics will always be a winning move.</p>
<p>That’s why Obama isn’t offering any actual compromises. Instead he came out and threatened executive action on illegal alien amnesty. Then he offered the possibility that he might consider giving the Republicans some of what they want if they give him everything he wants. That’s not how he negotiates with Iran, but he obviously has warmer feelings for the Ayatollahs than he does for the Republican Party.</p>
<p>It’s not as if there are any adults in the room.</p>
<p>Joe Biden prepped for the election by getting blonde hair plugs so he can seem younger than Hillary when he runs against her. He’s polling at 21% among Dems 18 to 29, the only age group in whose support for Hillary he has managed to make a serious dent.  Biden may be four years older than Hillary, but with enough caps, implants and procedures, he can appear young enough for a mid-life crisis.</p>
<p>Biden predicted that the Dems would hold the Senate. Had he spent less time looking in the mirror and styling the new scalp that he had gotten stapled to his skull and more time looking at the polls, he might have had been able to prepare his party for the actual outcome.</p>
<p>On the party side, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz will launch a review to see what went wrong. It’s a safe bet that the thing that went wrong won’t involve her. But maybe Debbie should have paid more attention to what the voters thought of her party instead of trying to find new arguments to get it to pay for her dresses.</p>
<p>At least Biden wasn’t sending the DNC the bill for his hair plugs. Or so we hope.</p>
<p>Barry and Harry, Nancy and Debbie have one real skill between them and that’s raising money. All of them are good at parting billionaires from big checks in exchange for specified and unspecified favors. None of them are any good at actually running things or at accepting responsibility when they go wrong.</p>
<p>And then there are the Clintons, the 2016 frontrunners whose fundraising skills are unparalleled, but who couldn’t stop Arkansas or West Virginia from going GOP and whose aggressive campaign strategy fizzled. Like Harry and Nancy, Hillary isn’t about to step back. Like Obama, she isn’t accepting responsibility for the defeat; instead her backers say she’ll benefit from a Republican House and Senate.</p>
<p>It’s not bad enough that the Dems torched their own legislative majority to make it easier for Obama to blame Republicans, but now they’re celebrating losing the Senate because that makes it even easier for Hillary Clinton to blame Republicans.</p>
<p>And if Hillary loses in 2016, think how easy it will be for the Dems to finally be able to blame Republicans for everything.</p>
<p>This isn’t how serious political leaders act. This is how children behave.</p>
<p>The winning Dem strategy is to have the most power and the least responsibility. They want to rule unilaterally and blame the Republicans for everything that goes wrong. They want to nuke the filibuster, the power of the legislature and then claim that their man is acting like a dictator because of the GOP.</p>
<p>They need the Republican Party as a scapegoat for their policymaking failures, but they can’t blame it for their political failures. That’s too much like admitting defeat.</p>
<p>If the Democrats didn’t lose because the Republicans offered a compelling vision or because of their own incompetence, then why did they lose? The only remaining excuse is racism. The Democrats have taught a chunk of their base to blame their own failures on racism. Now they want to do the same.</p>
<p>Harry and Barry, Nancy and Debbie can stay in their old jobs and ride their party off the cliff. And it won’t be their fault. No one will have to be fired. No policies will have to be rethought.</p>
<p>It will be because the map was unfair. Because America is racist. Because the dog ate their homework and the Koch Brothers unfairly ran the same attack ads that they had been running and it was raining outside and some states had Voter ID and there wasn’t enough early voting and the lines were too long and their shoelaces broke and everything out of their control conspired unfairly to make them lose.</p>
<p>The only thing that can save the Dems is responsibility. But after so many years of preaching irresponsibility, the irresponsible party has poisoned itself with its own product.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-dems-lost-and-its-not-their-fault/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>61</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Election Was Fun But Don’t Get Too Happy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-election-was-fun-but-dont-get-too-happy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-election-was-fun-but-dont-get-too-happy</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-election-was-fun-but-dont-get-too-happy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2014 05:58:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[majority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=244637</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The GOP has two years to give voters a real reason to vote for it -- before Dems regroup in 2016. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/election.png"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-244639" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/election-450x346.png" alt="election" width="351" height="270" /></a>Eighteen years ago I met a Democratic consultant who said to me, “David, your side doesn’t give people a reason to vote for them. Republicans only win when Democrats screw up big time.” This year Democrats screwed up big time (along with many pollsters), and Republicans won big time. There’s a lot of good news here, especially the Republican gubernatorial victories in Democratic states like Michigan and Wisconsin, and battleground states like Ohio and Florida. Perhaps the most inexplicable good news of the day was the fact that Sandra Fluke got trounced by a Republican in the People’s Republic of Santa Monica. No wonder Democrats are weaker now than at any time since the 1920s.</p>
<p>Looking over this Democratic wreckage, Republican doomsayers should take note. The American people are not “low information” dummies, who will believe anything Democrats tell them. Abe Lincoln had it right: “You can fool some of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Republicans should also note that despite all the people on food stamps and all of the voters getting free stuff – 47% by Mitt Romney’s misguided count – they were still independent and savvy enough to return Scott Walker in Wisconsin, to elect Tim Cotton in Arkansas, and to defeat Sandra Fluke in Santa Monica. Finally, Democrats’ racist appeals to minority voters don’t seem to be working as well as they used to. All these Republican whines were in fact excuses for poorly run political campaigns. Normally, you have to defeat your opponents. You can’t count on them to defeat themselves. Normally.</p>
<p>And this raises the big question, which is 2016. Democrats, when they are not over reaching and claiming against all evidence that the party of Joni Ernst and Shelley Moore Capito and Nikki Haley is conducting a war against women, are formidable political opponents. When they regroup after this defeat they will not be so easy beat in 2016. Unless…</p>
<p>Unless Obama, ideologue that he is, determines to stay the course, grants amnesty to 11 million illegals, continues to use fly swatters to combat ISIS, alternately stonewalls and heads for the golf course in the face of major crises, and vetoes Republican bills to restore the economy. There is always this possibility but don’t count on it. And in the absence of such screw-ups, Republicans will need to get their act together and give voters something to vote <i>for</i>.</p>
<p>Here’s an idea. What Republicans should offer voters is a national security program that protects them, and individual freedom. Freedom to choose their healthcare; freedom to run their businesses in an environment where government is not looking over their shoulders at every turn and stifling their incentives to create jobs; freedom to go about their lives without fear of terrorist attacks; freedom to shape their country and its culture within secure borders; freedom from electoral fraud, and IRS intrusion designed to turn their country into a one-party state.</p>
<p>These are not only policy preferences; they are moral themes – calls to action &#8211; that sum up what the Republican Party is about.</p>
<p><em>David Horowitz is the author of the recently published book </em>Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan For Defeating The Left<em> (Regnery 2014).</em></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-election-was-fun-but-dont-get-too-happy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Election Day: What&#8217;s at Stake</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/election-day-whats-at-stake/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=election-day-whats-at-stake</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/election-day-whats-at-stake/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2014 05:58:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2014]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[small government]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=244348</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Will Americans choose freedom or the continuing dominance of statism? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/votejpeg-42b1d7963e761260.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-244349" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/votejpeg-42b1d7963e761260-450x288.jpg" alt="votejpeg-42b1d7963e761260" width="355" height="227" /></a>The election and reelection of Barack Obama have seemingly realized the progressive dream of transforming America from its traditional Constitutional order to one more similar to Europe’s––an activist rather than a limited federal government, one whose power and reach extend into the market economy, trump state sovereignty, and subject individuals to the ideological preferences and aims of the federal Leviathan and its managers. What is at stake today is the continuing dominance of these statist ideas.</p>
<p>Over the past six years Obama and progressives partially achieved some of these progressive goals. Through legislation, executive orders, like-minded judges, and the interpretations of law by anonymous, unelected federal functionaries, Obama’s government has intervened in the automobile, finance, health care, and housing industries; hampered the explosive growth of the energy industry by reducing development on federal lands and waging a war on carbon; encroached on the states’ sovereignty through the regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency and the renegade Department Of Justice; and intruded into civil society and individual rights on issues such as contraception, traditional marriage, freedom of speech, and religious freedom.</p>
<p>Worse yet, the old progressive goal of redistributing property has accelerated over the last 6 years. Entitlement spending has exploded, increasing along the way the wider regulatory scope and intrusiveness of the federal agencies created to manage this transfer of wealth. Social welfare spending now approaches a trillion dollars a year, people claiming Social Security Disability insurance have increased from 3 million in 1980 to 11 million today, and the number of people getting food stamps has doubled to 46 million just over the last decade. These trillions in transfer payments represent a massive redistribution of property. According to the Tax Foundation, America’s highly progressive tax system in 2012 resulted in about $2 trillion being redistributed from the top 40% of taxpayers to the bottom 60%.</p>
<p>The increase in entitlement spending, however, has also required much higher budget deficits and an unprecedented peacetime increase in the national debt, which now stands at $17 trillion dollars, up from $10 trillion in 2008. From 2009-2012, Obama’s budgets averaged deficits of $1.25 trillion. This year’s deficit is projected to be around half a trillion dollars, but according to the CBO, deficits will return to the trillion-dollar mark from 2022-2024. And don’t forget, the costs of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt are projected to devour all tax revenues by 2030. This means that either taxes will have to be raised to ruinous levels, or even more money borrowed to finance the unfunded liabilities of those programs, which have been estimated at anywhere between $123 and $200 trillion. Ancient tyrants redistributed the property of just the living; the modern welfare state has managed to redistribute the property of the unborn citizens who will inherit this debt.</p>
<p>Both parties bear some responsibility for this mess, testimony to just how engrained the entitlement mentality and the acceptance of redistributing property are in today’s America. Yet the last 6 years have seen unprecedented expansions of this process, and demonization of those like Paul Ryan who propose even modest steps towards defusing this ticking fiscal bomb.</p>
<p>In foreign policy as well, Obama and the Democrats have shaped their actions according to the quasi-pacifist, “postmodern” ideology that distrusts using American power to protect Americans’ security and promote their interests. Instead, an America guilty of historical crimes, oppression, and exploitation must subordinate its power to transnational institutions like the U.N., and rely on diplomacy and multilateral coalitions that advance international interests, including those of our enemies and rivals, at the expense of America’s.</p>
<p>Thus Obama started his presidency with an apology tour, led from behind in Libya, and oversaw dangerous reductions in the military budget. He has abandoned Iraq, and left its fragile political order, purchased with the blood and money of Americans, stranded between the Iranian rock and the ISIS hard place. His feckless overthrow of Libya’s Gaddafi has left that country a petri dish of jihadist bacilli, leading to the murder of an American diplomat and 3 brave warriors, and flooding the Middle East with weapons plundered from Gaddafi’s arsenals. He has compromised and betrayed America’s allies like Egypt and Israel, and groveled before her enemies like Iran. His empty bluster on Syria and Ukraine has emboldened bloody tyrants like Assad and geopolitical rivals like Russia. All the while he and his foreign policy team have talked and talked and talked, a spectacle of gutless, futile diplomacy redolent of England’s in the 20’s and 30’s.</p>
<p>Yet all these actions and policies both domestic and foreign reflect a worn-out philosophy repeatedly repudiated by history. The progressive worldview of the Democrats is founded on the idea that increasing knowledge of the natural world, human nature and behavior, and social and political reality can drive human progress and improvement. Nature, people, and society thus can be directed towards the creation of an idealized world in which the tragic constants of human life––physical want, suffering, oppression, violence, brutality, inequality, and injustice––are eliminated. Just give power to the “technicians of the soul,” as Stalin called them, the “technocrats” who possess this knowledge, and they will rearrange society in a way that achieves utopia––once, of course, religion, custom, and traditional wisdom are swept away lest their irrational prejudices and superstitions like “sin” and “good and evil” block humanity’s march to the brave new world. All that is needed is to increase the coercive power of the state in order to institute reforms and remove any obstacles to the efforts of technical elites to achieve these utopian boons.</p>
<p>The progressives’ hostility to free-market capitalism and fondness for dirigiste economic polices, for example, illustrate these philosophical assumptions. To progressives, “income inequality” and economic winners and losers are intolerable injustices reflecting not the variations of talent, virtue, hard work, and luck among individuals, but capitalism’s rigged rules and privileging of profit over people. Use the power of the state to amend those rules and to intervene in the market through regulations, tax policy, and the redistribution of property, and you can eliminate those injustices. Thus Obama’s “You didn’t build that” and  “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” rhetoric, recently endorsed by Hillary Clinton’s similar claim, <span style="color: #272727;">“Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” </span>Thus the relentless public demonization of the wealthy and corporations, and the attempt to use regulatory and taxing power to siphon off their capital and put it to achieving the progressive vision of “social justice.”</p>
<p>What is at stake this election day is whether or not Americans will reject this ideology and the policies it creates. It is about starting to restore to our politics prudence, humility, respect for traditional wisdom, and common sense. It is about recognizing that an irreducibly complex and quirky human nature and behavior are not infinitely plastic and so cannot be shaped according to the abstract visions of technical elites armed with an intrusive power that compromises our freedom. It is about accepting the tragic truth that the freedom to choose how to shape one’s life means that bad choices will create bad consequences, and so individual freedom cannot exist without individual responsibility for those bad choices. It is about accepting that suffering and failure are not unjust anomalies to be engineered from human existence, but non-negotiable givens of human life, and thus will never be eliminated, but only mitigated. And it is about remembering that every attempt to create heaven on earth has had to diminish the people’s freedom, and sometimes has demanded their lives.</p>
<p>In short, what is at stake is the return to the ideas about human nature and existence upon which the Founders built the American order and its guarantee of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/election-day-whats-at-stake/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reasons for Political Hope</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/reasons-for-political-hope-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=reasons-for-political-hope-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/reasons-for-political-hope-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2014 04:52:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hope]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=242261</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Four key factors working against the Left this election season. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/vote-here.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-242263" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/vote-here-450x337.jpg" alt="Americans Go To The Polls To Elect The Next U.S. President" width="308" height="231" /></a>Many Republicans are excited about the midterm elections. They see a good chance of taking over the Senate, which means they can neutralize Obama’s last few years in office. Many also are hopeful about the presidential election in 2016, though Hillary Clinton will enter that race with decided advantages. Regaining the presidency, some believe, will lead to a reprise of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, in which the country was turned from its leftward drift under Jimmy Carter.</p>
<p>Yet even if this scenario unfolds as the Republicans hope, it is doubtful the deeper structural problems of the country will be solved. The entitlement Leviathan, nourished under governments dominated by both parties, is unlikely to be reformed as significantly as it must in order to ward off looming fiscal catastrophe. Too many Republican politicians are enablers of government spending, voting to keep funding handouts like the $20 billion a year in agricultural subsidies. Others are plotting “comprehensive immigration reform,” aka amnesty, to ensure a steady supply of cheap labor.  Too many have seemingly accepted the disastrous cuts in military spending that put at risk our ability to defend our interests and security.</p>
<p>Then there are the nearly 66 million American people who reelected as president an inexperienced narcissist, serial liar, racial divider, and manifest failure. Whether they did so out of juvenile idealism, hope for racial reconciliation, or the lure of more government handouts doesn’t really matter. This lack of judgment and basic information, or sacrifice of principle to self-interest, bespeaks an electorate significant numbers of whom are unlikely to support any politician or party that seriously attempts to halt runaway entitlement spending, debt, and deficits, or to rebuild our military deterrence and reassert our will globally.</p>
<p>Yet despite these obstacles, the political order created in 1787, assaulted as it has been over the last 100 years, still possesses resources for putting us back on the right track. If we fail to take advantage of those resources and modern information technologies, we will have no one blame but our fellow citizens or ourselves for our country’s decline.</p>
<p>First and foremost, we still hold elections every 2 years, and elections have consequences. We can remain mystified that 66 million voters chose Barack Obama over Mitt Romney in 2012, but think how much worse it could have been without the 2010 midterm “shellacking,” as Obama called, that gave the House of Representatives to the Republicans. We can disagree over what the Republican House should or shouldn’t have done with their power, but they at least slowed down the slow-motion train-wreck of the Democrats’ progressive policies.</p>
<p>Regular fair and transparent elections mean that changing course is always possible. It may be that things will have to get much worse than they are now to wake up those 4 million Republicans who stayed home in 2012, or those 5 million voters who gave Obama the victory. And there’s a chance that the pain of correction will be much more severe, much more socially disruptive than anything we’ve seen in many years. But we still will have the legal right to change course when that moment comes.</p>
<p>Second, despite decades of assault on federalism, sovereign state governments still exist. They still remain what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in 1932 called a “laboratory” in which citizens can “try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” In recent years states have gone their own way on issues like gun control, voter identification laws, same-sex marriage, right-to-work laws, reduction of public employee unions’ political power, limits on abortion, or legalization of marijuana. Particularly important are the states’ right to set tax laws and business-friendly regulations that lure investment and people.</p>
<p>A comparison of California with Texas illustrates this phenomenon. As <i>Forbes</i> <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/07/03/texas-v-california-the-real-facts-behind-the-lone-star-states-miracle/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">reported</span></a> last year on the country’s two most populous states, “California’s state and local tax burden ranks as America’s 4th-highest compared to Texas at 45th.  California taxes a 42 percent larger share of state income than does Texas, California’s restrictive energy policies discourage oil extraction, even though it has the largest proven shale oil reserves in the nation; while its industrial electrical rates are 88 percent higher than in Texas.” As a result, in 2011 Texas’ per capita GDP surpassed California’s. No surprise, then, that between 2000 and 2012, Texas’ population growth rate doubled California’s, and that 183 Californians moved to Texas for every 100 Texans moving to California.</p>
<p>Increasing red-state success in growing their economies and liberating people from the intrusive Leviathan state will attract more and more people, even as the bankrupt blue-state policies of ruinous tax rates and over-regulation will drive more and more people away. We could then see a return to the Founders’ idea of federalism as “islands of intolerance in a sea of tolerance,” with people free to feet-vote for the political and social order they find congenial.</p>
<p>Third, American civil society––those 1.5 million associations and organizations separate from government––is still vigorous, though not as much as it was at its peak in 1970. People still belong to groups like the PTA and the Rotary Club, and still attend more than 350,000 churches. The pushback by churches and religious organizations against Obamacare’s requirement that they offer abortifacients and birth control in their health plans illustrates the impact civil society can have on public policy. More significant is the rise of the Tea Party, a truly grassroots movement that quickly organized in 2009, and by the summer its members were confronting politicians at “town-hall” events, a display of direct political accountability to the people more typical of early America or ancient Athens. There is no question that the Republicans’ victory in the 2010 midterm was made possible by Tea Party activists.</p>
<p>Finally, new communication technologies have broken the monopoly liberals once held over information and commentary. Before the rise of talk-radio in the 80s, political opinion was controlled by a few score network news anchors, magazine editors, and syndicated columnists. Today there are hundred of thousands of voices and opinions on cable news networks like Fox News, blogs, on-line magazines like <i>FrontPage</i>, websites, social networks like Facebook, and video sites like YouTube. It’s clear that the persistence of Fox News in reporting the Benghazi debacle and the IRS scandal have kept these administration failures alive in the public square.</p>
<p>Of course some of these sites are frequently venues for misinformation, propaganda, and transient trivia. But they also provide ordinary citizens with a democratic virtual town square in which lies are exposed, truths hidden by the establishment media revealed, and opinions aired to raucous challenge and debate. Don’t forget, the Tea Party could become a national organization nearly overnight because of a YouTube video and the Drudge Report. Still protected by the First Amendment, this virtual town square gives everyone the opportunity to exercise their right to free speech, and to mobilize resistance to the political status quo.</p>
<p>The resources, then, are there, and they more than any one election give us hope. We just have to make use of them. It is still in doubt whether the 2 terms of Barack Obama have represented a permanent change in the American political character, a shift much farther to the left than this country has ever experienced; or whether the unique circumstances of electing the first black president will be a one-off, and the nation will return to its traditional center-right character, and restore our fiscal sanity and our global leadership. Whatever the outcome, it will be the responsibility of the people to use resources of the Constitution to get our country back on track.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/reasons-for-political-hope-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two Americas</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/boblonsberry/two-americas/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=two-americas</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/boblonsberry/two-americas/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2014 04:41:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bob Lonsberry]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income inequality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=239299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The real divide in the United States. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/divided.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-239301" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/divided-450x292.jpg" alt="divided" width="307" height="199" /></a>Reposted from <a href="http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=3651&amp;go=4">Bob Lonsberry.com</a>. </strong></p>
<p>The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.</p>
<p>The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t.</p>
<p>It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, to obey the law and support themselves and contribute to society, and others don’t.</p>
<p>That’s the divide in America.</p>
<p>It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.</p>
<p>That’s not invective, that’s truth.</p>
<p>And it’s about time someone said it.</p>
<p>The politics of envy was on proud display last week as the president said he would pledge the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He notes that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.</p>
<p>It was the rationale of thievery.</p>
<p>The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you.</p>
<p>Vote Democrat.</p>
<p>It is the electoral philosophy that gave us Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.</p>
<p>And it conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense. It ends up not being a benefit to the people who support it, but a betrayal. The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them – in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victimhood and anger instead of ability and hope.</p>
<p>The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to ignore and cheat the law of choices and consequences. It seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.</p>
<p>Because, by and large, the variability in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.</p>
<p>And success and failure can manifest themselves in personal and family income.</p>
<p>You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education. You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course, you have them in wedlock and life is apt to take another course.</p>
<p>Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.</p>
<p>My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome. But, our lives also have had an inequality of effort. Whereas my doctor went to college and then gave the flower of his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice. And our choices led us to different outcomes.</p>
<p>His outcome pays a lot better than mine.</p>
<p>Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth?</p>
<p>No, it means we are both free men.</p>
<p>And in a free society, free choices will lead to different outcomes.</p>
<p>It is not inequality Barack Obama will take away, it is freedom.</p>
<p>The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. And there is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.</p>
<p>The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy.</p>
<p>Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing.</p>
<p>Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.</p>
<p>Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort. The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.”</p>
<p>The progressive movement would turn that upside down.</p>
<p>Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement has replaced effort as the key to upward mobility in American society.</p>
<p>Or at least it has if Barack Obama gets his way.</p>
<p>He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive and fosters equality through mediocrity.</p>
<p>He and his party speak of two Americas.</p>
<p>And their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other.</p>
<p>America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts. And by the false philosophy that says one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.</p>
<p>What the president offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, he pitted one set of Americans against another.</p>
<p>For his own political benefit.</p>
<p>That’s what progressives offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow.</p>
<p>Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/boblonsberry/two-americas/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>279</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The New Shame of the Cities</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/the-new-shame-of-the-cities/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-new-shame-of-the-cities</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/the-new-shame-of-the-cities/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2014 04:59:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Shame of the Cities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pamphlet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[urban]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=238134</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new Freedom Center pamphlet unmasks America's Democrat-run holding cells for the poor. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ww.gif"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-238276" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ww-239x350.gif" alt="ww" width="239" height="350" /></a><strong>To order John Perazzo&#8217;s new Freedom Center pamphlet, &#8220;<em>The New Shame of the Cities</em>,&#8221; <a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenterstore.org/products/the-new-shame-of-the-cities">click here</a>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Introduction:</strong></p>
<p>American politics is dominated by an enduring myth—that Democrats are the party of the common man; the voiceless, the powerless, the poor. That if you care about what happens to the least among us, you will cast your vote in the Democratic column.</p>
<p>But the reality is this: the vast majority of voiceless, powerless and poor people are concentrated in Detroit, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Chicago, Atlanta, and America’s other large urban centers. All of them are run by Democrats and have been for 50 to 100 years. On the Democrats’ watch, these cities have become the equivalent of holding cells for the poor and minorities. Everything that’s wrong with America’s cities that can be affected by policy, Democrats are responsible for. There are poor to be helped, but Democrats have buried them deeper in poverty and powerlessness. There are minorities who seek opportunities, but Democrats have kept them second-class citizens. Democrats have been the problem rather than the solution.</p>
<p>In 1904, Lincoln Steffens, a major figure in the group of journalists Teddy Roosevelt called “muckrakers,” published a groundbreaking book called <em>Shame of the Cities</em>. In it he examined the inner workings of America’s great urban centers and found them swarming with graft and corruption. In his searing portraits of these cities, Steffens documented the inner workings of political machines across the country which were then imitating the apparatus built a few decades earlier by Tammany Hall’s notorious Boss Tweed, first of this new breed of crooked backroom Democratic princes of the city. Steffens showed how these machines ran over and flattened the lives of ordinary working people. But even more than corruption itself, Steffens was incensed by the complicity of intellectuals and opinion makers—people who knew that the political machines mangled democracy but had nonetheless allowed them to make America’s cities cesspools of poverty and despair.</p>
<p>If Lincoln Steffens was alive today, he would feel even greater outrage at the current disastrous state of America’s cities, as documented by John Perrazo in <em>The New Shame of the Cities</em>. Steffens would see in Perrazo’s portraits of the present-day machines of the Democrat Party, which have ruled America’s cities for a generation, today’s equivalent of Tammany Hall. He would see their governance not simply as an expression of failed policies, but as a massive human rights violation that has delivered the poor and minorities into a state of hopelessness and made them a permanent underclass. And, as he did in his own time, Steffens would feel contempt for today’s political class that has stood by and watched this urban tragedy unfold and bought into the Democrats’ myth that they are actually protectors of the poor.</p>
<p>It didn’t have to turn out this way. In part because of the issues Steffens himself raised at the turn of the twentieth century, good government movements took hold with the goal of making municipal government responsible and efficient and the cities themselves livable. By the 1930s, the metropolises of the United States had become centers of enterprise, commerce, and culture—“big shouldered,” in the phrase Carl Sandburg used to describe bustling Chicago, one of the most industrious—as they integrated a generation of new immigrants into the national fabric and welcomed the businesses and corporations that provided paychecks for workers and prosperity for the nation.</p>
<p>To be sure, the great American cities of the early 20<sup>th</sup> century were run for the most part by politicians whose allegiance was to the New Deal, many of them autocrats who held office for decades. But these politicians were judged on how well their policies produced real-life solutions for the poor and how well they advanced the poor into the middle class. Voters and residents were interested only in one thing: whether or not the cities these politicians managed “worked.”</p>
<p>That was then and this is now. As John Perazzo shows in <em>The New Shame of the Cities</em>, over the last fifty years America’s urban centers have slid into violence, corruption and savage dysfunction that make the snapshots of despair Lincoln Steffens produced at the beginning of the 20<sup>th</sup> century seem mild by comparison. The cities that were once the engines powering the American Century have stopped functioning. Going back to the future, they are once again America’s shame.</p>
<p>From Atlanta to Newark and Washington, D.C. to St. Louis, Perazzo shows how contemporary urban life has become stuck in reverse, bankrupt in finance and in spirit. “Detroit, ruled by Democrats for nearly a half century, has hemorrhaged population, becoming a ghost town,” he writes, “as it has gone from being the automotive capital of America, producer of its dream machines, to the murder capital—according to <em>Forbes</em> magazine, the most dangerous city in the country.” About Baltimore, also governed by the Democratic Party for more than 50 years, the verdict is equally grim: “As a result of widespread political corruption, a damaged economy, astronomically high taxes, and escalating crime rates, population fell by 120,000 just in the 1990s, making the city blacker and poorer. Tens of thousands of homes were simply abandoned by residents desperate to escape.” The verdict on Chicago is rendered by its new street nickname “Chiraq,” a reference to the killings that have become commonplace and know no holiday truce: there were 45 shootings in the city on Easter weekend 2014 alone, six of the victims children.</p>
<p>Perrazo’s portraits of these once great American metropolises show how Democratic Party policies have made them into little more than holding cells for blacks and Hispanics and other minorities immiserated by the policies of their Democratic Party rulers. This urban tragedy isn’t the result of some impersonal historical process; nor is it, as the Democrats who have presided over the catastrophe like to claim, caused by racism or neglect by the federal government. The reasons for the decline of America’s cities are indeed complicated, but there should be no argument that it has occurred as a result of policies designed and implemented by the Democrats, or that this decline began in the 1960s, when the pragmatic centrists who had defined the Democratic Party for a generation and had built livable cities were defeated by “new politics” liberals, soon to label themselves “progressives,” who proceeded to make these cities into mad laboratories for their leftist ideological experiments.</p>
<p>Today’s Democrat power brokers have monopolized power even more ruthlessly than the bosses Lincoln Steffens targeted in his exposé over a hundred years ago (while piously claiming that they do so for “the people” in a way that even those otherwise shameless politicians would have considered hypocritical). They believe that the measure of a city’s administration is no longer whether it creates solutions that “work” or whether most of its residents’ lives are improving most of the time. Instead, success is now determined by the size of the municipal bureaucracy and the power it has over every aspect of individual lives; by scapegoating and stigmatization of the “greedy” businesses that had traditionally created the jobs providing each new American generation with greater social and financial opportunities than the previous one had enjoyed; by mortgaging the educational system, which once offered poor people their best opportunity to step out of caste, to the teachers’ unions which in return keep the political status quo in place with their money and votes.</p>
<p>The fiscal irresponsibility that has driven our cities to bankruptcy has daily, real-life, real-time consequences for citizens as budgets are slashed and first responders are cut back. “When Detroit residents place a call seeking help from the city’s understaffed police department,” Perazzo writes, “they must wait an average of 58 minutes for an officer to arrive at the scene.”</p>
<p>Today’s big-city Democrats, while utter failures at bettering the lives of their constituents, are very good at the class warfare rhetoric and conspiracy theories that make these constituents feel that the Party that has beaten them down is actually their last best hope. This is why Democrats routinely receive over 90% of the votes in elections whose nearly unanimous results call to mind those that once took place in the Soviet bloc.</p>
<p>In the background of Perazzo’s profiles of corruption and malfeasance that is literally criminal—America’s big-city mayors and administrators over the last several decades have gone to jail in astounding numbers—are national policies that have trickled down despair to the cities and to the African American and Hispanic poor, whom Democrats still cynically claim to protect. Welfare programs promoted since the 1960s by successive Democrat administrations in our urban centers have created the perverse incentives that lead to three quarters of black children being born out of wedlock and growing up in families without fathers; an outcome that haunts the community later on, since fatherless young black males commit crimes, most of them against other blacks, at astronomic rates. Access to subprime housing loans and lax lending standards promoted in the name of “social justice” during the 1990s by Democrat city and federal governments and by radical allies such as ACORN, caused the collapse of the national housing market that hit these minorities twice as hard as it hit whites and led to a huge reduction in family wealth among blacks and Hispanics.</p>
<p><em>The New Shame of the Cities</em> shows the same grim picture in city after city, where the poor have gotten poorer and the whites have moved away over the last generation, creating ghost neighborhoods where abandoned homes stand like pulled teeth. But what has been a catastrophe for the people unfortunate enough to still have to live in such places (a recent poll by the <em>Detroit Free Press</em> found that 40% of the city’s population, drastically reduced over the last 50 years, planned to move as soon as possible) has been a godsend for the Democrats in charge. <em>Forbes</em> magazine summarizes the moral of the story: “A politician or a political party can achieve long-term dominance by tipping the balance of votes in their direction through the implementation of policies that strangle and stifle economic growth. Counterintuitively, making a city poorer leads to political success for the engineers of that impoverishment.”<sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup> It is also a story with a cynical twist: most of these failing cities are now administered by black Democrats, which means that anyone criticizing their failed policies can be attacked as “racist.” Incompetent at everything else, these politicians have become adept at projecting blame onto the abstract other—Washington, exploitive businesses and businessmen, “white flight,” racism.</p>
<p>The statistics that Perrazo has assembled in this work, drearily similar in city after city, have the cumulative power of a punch in the face: Black unemployment at 16.3 percent (19.1 percent for young black males). Poverty rates of 37.5 percent and 35.5 percent, respectively, for Hispanic and black single parents. Sixty percent of rapists, 72 percent of adolescent murderers, and 70 percent of long-term prisoners, are men who grew up in fatherless families encouraged by Democratic welfare programs. And public school, once the way out, now a dead end with 45 percent and 43 percent of black and Hispanic students dropping out at a time when those who fail to graduate from high school in America earn only about half as much as those who do.</p>
<p>This urban chamber of horrors has been built on the watch of Democratic Party city governments, often with black mayors, who have helped turn our once-proud big cities into the equivalent of black reservations. African American sociologist Walter E. Williams had it exactly right when he once surveyed this urban wreckage and said, “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do. And that is to destroy the black family.”<sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup></p>
<p><em>The New Shame of the Cities</em> gives the lie to the liberal idea—never anything more than a power grab disguised as compassion—that it takes a government to elevate an individual. By documenting the ruinous state of our once great cities, this work illumines a darker truth: that it takes a government to destroy the communities that give individual life dignity and purpose.   &#8211;Peter Collier</p>
<p>*</p>
<p><em><strong>Detroit:</strong></em></p>
<p>Hard as it is to believe today—when Detroit has the desolate, bombed-out look of a conquered nation—fifty years ago there were few more exciting and attractive places for Americans, black and white, to live. As the social critic Matthew Josephson observed in the 1920s, when the city was on the move: “Nowhere in the world may the trend of the new industrial cycle be perceived more clearly than in Detroit. In this sense, it is the most modern city in the world, the city of tomorrow.”<sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup> University of Michigan historian Jeffrey Mirel puts it this way: “Throughout the 1920s, Detroit was the shining star of the new era, the very center of the American economic universe, where capitalism and technology combined to produce the greatest goods for the greatest numbers.”<sup><sup>[4]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Detroit is best known as the home of the “Big Three” auto makers—General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler—who made the U.S. and the rest of the world mobile and powered what at the time seemed an urban research-and-demonstration project. During the decades of the early to mid twentieth century, the auto industry’s need for massive quantities of steel, glass, copper, and (later) plastic gave rise to numerous enterprises related to car manufacture that employed hundreds of thousands of additional blue-collar workers in and around the city.<sup><sup>[5]</sup></sup> The assembly line was perfected here, and brought with it the idea that industrial workers could expect to enjoy a middle-class lifestyle.</p>
<p>During World War II, Detroit was a key part of the arsenal of democracy, producing tanks, jeeps and a host of other weapons that helped win the war. In the postwar years the city boomed, building the tail-finned, futuristic cars that in turn symbolized the American Dream—of mobility, financial stability, and success. By the 1950s, Detroit had become the fifth largest city in the United States, home to nearly two million residents.<sup><sup>[6]</sup></sup> By 1960, it had the highest per capita income of any city in the country.<sup><sup>[7]</sup></sup></p>
<p>As the Sixties progressed, Motown Records—founded in Detroit by one of its native sons, Berry Gordy Jr.— produced such megastars as Diana Ross and the Supremes, Marvin Gaye, the Jackson Five, the Temptations, the Four Tops, the Commodores, and Gladys Knight &amp; the Pips, who made the music America hummed. The city school system, meanwhile, turned out capable graduates.</p>
<p>The Sixties was also the moment when Detroit began to experience its reversal of fortune. The city was hit particularly hard by the social turbulence of this revolutionary era, most notably a rising militancy among local community organizers angered by what they perceived to be the slow pace of civil-rights reforms<sup><sup>[8]</sup></sup>—although Detroit had a large and prosperous black middle class, higher-than-normal wages for unskilled black workers because of the auto industry, and two black U.S. congressmen. Moreover, Detroit had acquired millions in federal funds through President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs and invested them almost exclusively in the inner city, where poverty and social problems were concentrated. The <em>Washington Post</em> claimed that Detroit’s inner-city schools were undergoing “the country’s leading and most forceful reforms in education.”<sup><sup>[9]</sup></sup> Housing conditions were not viewed as worse than those of other Northern cities. In 1965, the American Institute of Architects gave Detroit an award for urban redevelopment.<sup><sup>[10]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Nonetheless, Rev. Albert Cleague and other Detroit-area activists openly called for black separatism and self-determination on the premise that whites would never voluntarily choose to share political power with blacks.<sup><sup>[11]</sup></sup> At a July 1967 Black Power rally in Detroit, the radical H. Rap Brown gave voice to the city’s growing unrest when he warned “Motown” that if it did not make sufficient reforms, “we are going to burn you down.”<sup><sup>[12]</sup></sup></p>
<p>This inflammatory racial discontent grew at a time when the Democratic Party, claiming to be sensitive to the problems of minorities, was completing a takeover of city government. In 1961, the reins of political power in the city fell permanently into Democrats’ hands. In the 53 years that have passed since then, Detroit has not had a single Republican mayor. Indeed, it has elected only one Republican to its City Council since 1970.<sup><sup>[13]</sup></sup> As it was becoming a failed city, it was also becoming a political monoculture.</p>
<p>The first mayor of Detroit’s Democratic Party era, Jerome Cavanagh (1962-70), was a white liberal who greatly expanded the role of government in the city and took pains to appoint blacks to prominent positions in his administration.<sup><sup>[14]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Cavanagh also served on the “Model Cities” task force that President Johnson launched in 1966 as part of his Great Society and War on Poverty programs. Although it distantly echoed Soviet efforts to rebuild urban areas in Eastern Europe, this centralized approach to urban development was seen in the ’60s as the hallmark of a new era. Along with United Auto Workers president Walter Reuther, Cavanagh persuaded President Johnson to designate a nine-square-mile section of Detroit—an area where 134,000 people (one-ninth of the city’s population) resided—as a pilot location for the Model Cities initiative.<sup><sup>[15]</sup></sup> The overriding objective of Model Cities was to demonstrate the amazing ability of federal grants to rehabilitate slums and replace them with publicly financed “affordable housing”; alleviate poverty by injecting rivers of taxpayer money into social programs; provide ghetto dwellers with federally funded jobs at municipal and nonprofit agencies; and create a host of job-training, healthcare, educational, and recreational facilities for the poor.<sup><sup>[16]</sup></sup> In just a few short years, $490 million in federal funds were poured into Detroit to bankroll these programs.<sup><sup>[17]</sup></sup> On top of this, Cavanaugh was able to get Michigan’s state legislature to pass new taxes that would help pay for the Model Cities program and would be borne entirely by “the rich.”<sup><sup>[18]</sup></sup></p>
<p>The government giveaways not only failed in their immediate goals of creating changes that would lead to upward social mobility, but actually fostered resentment at the paternalism at the heart of the Model Cities program—the idea that “disadvantaged” people’s decisions about where they could live, where they could build businesses, and how they should run those enterprises should be micromanaged by a bureaucratic elite.<sup><sup>[19]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In the final analysis, for all the hugger mugger at its launching, Detroit’s Model City program and the half-a-billion taxpayer dollars that funded it purchased very little in terms of urban regeneration. Some contend that the program “worked,” in the sense that it temporarily—albeit at an unsustainable cost—decreased poverty and unemployment slightly in the targeted communities. But instead of encouraging entrepreneurship and self-reliance, it mainly promoted dependence on government and thus led to no lasting gains for its “beneficiaries.” By 1990, Detroit’s Model City area had lost 63% of its population and 45% of its housing units, statistics that rendered a sobering verdict on the program.<sup><sup>[20]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Mayor Cavanaugh’s political and economic policies not only failed to resuscitate Detroit’s blighted neighborhoods, but also intensified the percolating rage of local black militants. Every guilty gesture of appeasement and recompense made by the Democratic city administration only increased radicals’ indignation about the condescending inadequacy of those gestures and stoked the fires of a “revolution of rising expectations.” And then, in July 1967, H. Rap Brown’s threat became a reality as Detroit was set on fire by radicals, becoming the scene of the decade’s most horrific urban race riot—43 deaths, 1,200 injuries, over 7,200 arrests, and more than 2,000 buildings destroyed.<sup><sup>[21]</sup></sup> This calamity would continue to resonate in the years to come as a massive “white flight” that led some 140,000 people to evacuate the central city within a mere 18 months. Detroit would never be the same again.<sup><sup>[22]</sup></sup></p>
<p>By now the Democratic Party—increasingly radicalized by the growing influence of the New Left—was making the city into a laboratory experiment for destructive urban policies. In 1974, Democrat Coleman Young, a secret member of the Communist Party, began a 20-year stint as Detroit’s first black mayor. Scholar Steven Malanga writes that Young, from an economic standpoint, “lacked a plan except to go to war with the city’s major institutions and demand that the federal government save it with subsidies”—a strategy that critics referred to as “tin-cup urbanism.”<sup><sup>[23]</sup></sup> Under Young’s disastrous stewardship, Detroit’s debt rating reached junk status.<sup><sup>[24]</sup></sup> By 1987, 34% of Detroit residents were on welfare rolls—more than 4 times as many as in 1967.<sup><sup>[25]</sup></sup> During that same two-decade period, nearly 200,000 jobs were lost in the city.<sup><sup>[26]</sup></sup> The late political scientist James Q. Wilson wrote that by the end of Young’s mayoralty, Detroit was “a fiscal and social wreck.”<sup><sup>[27]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Young also further poisoned the waters of black-white relations in Detroit, routinely playing the race card to maintain his hold on city hall by engaging in an “us-against-them” style of politics that essentially branded anyone who opposed him as a “racist.”<sup><sup>[28]</sup></sup> This tactic increased racial polarization, drove multitudes of whites out of the city, and helped plunge Detroit ever deeper into social and economic chaos.<sup><sup>[29]</sup></sup> <em>TIME</em> editor Daniel Okrent has portrayed Young’s mayoralty as the “corrosive two-decade rule of a black politician who cared more about retribution than about resurrection.”<sup><sup>[30]</sup></sup> The <em>Washington Post</em>, similarly, describes Young as someone who promoted “racial divisiveness” and “did little to try and mend fences broken down along racial lines.”<sup><sup>[31]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Nowhere was this more apparent than in Young’s policies vis à vis law-enforcement. Dividing his city’s police department along racial lines, the mayor created separate layoff lists for white and black officers. Young made it clear, moreover, that policing practices which resulted in disproportionately high numbers of arrests or citations of African Americans, whether or not they committed the preponderance of crimes, would not be tolerated. As one black officer bluntly told journalist Tamar Jacoby: “I wouldn’t write tickets for black kids.”<sup><sup>[32]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In 1976, Young cut the Detroit police force by 20% as a means of addressing the city’s budget deficit, and Detroit became one of the most violent cities in the United States.<sup><sup>[33]</sup></sup> By 1987, the city’s homicide rate was 3 times higher than it had been two decades earlier.<sup><sup>[34]</sup></sup> But when local residents complained about runaway crime, the mayor sneered that their calls for “law and order” were nothing more than “code” for “Keep the ni**ers in their place.”<sup><sup>[35]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Young further debased Detroit law-enforcement by putting his own corrupt people in charge. He appointed as police chief his close friend William Hart,<sup><sup>[36]</sup></sup> who in 1992 was convicted of embezzling $1.3 million from a police undercover anti-drug fund—money which he then lavished on female paramours while lying repeatedly to cover up his crimes.<sup><sup>[37]</sup></sup> Hart was eventually sentenced to 15 years in prison.<sup><sup>[38]</sup></sup></p>
<p>For good measure, Young also appointed his business associate and former investment advisor Kenneth Weiner—who had no prior police experience—as Detroit’s civilian deputy police chief.<sup><sup>[39]</sup></sup> While in that post, Weiner conspired with William Hart to illegally divert another $1.3 million to phony corporations that Weiner controlled.<sup><sup>[40]</sup></sup> For this, Weiner would be incarcerated for five years.<sup><sup>[41]</sup></sup> In yet another matter, Weiner was convicted of all 40 counts against him for his role in a pyramid scheme through which he and Coleman Young had duped investors out of millions of dollars.<sup><sup>[42]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Corruption by Democratic Party politicians has remained a hallmark of Detroit politics ever since Young’s tenure. Some lowlights:</p>
<p>In 2006, former Detroit City Council member Alonzo Bates was convicted of having improperly put one of his relatives on the city payroll, a transgression for which he was sentenced to 33 months in prison.<sup><sup>[43]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In 2009, Detroit City Council member Monica Conyers, wife of U.S. House Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), pleaded guilty to federal bribery charges and went on to serve 27 months in a federal penitentiary.<sup><sup>[44]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In 2008, Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick agreed to resign from his office and spend four months in jail for two obstruction-of-justice felony counts.<sup><sup>[45]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In 2010, Kilpatrick was sentenced to additional jail time for violating the terms of his probation related to the 2008 conviction.<sup><sup>[46]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In March 2013, Kilpatrick was found guilty of 24 offenses including fraud, racketeering and extortion.<sup><sup>[47]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In 2012, Detroit Police Chief Ralph Godbee Jr. retired when it became publicly known that he was sexually involved with a female officer in the department.<sup><sup>[48]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In 2013, two Detroit city officials—pension-fund lawyer Ronald Zajac and Police &amp; Fire pension trustee Paul Stewart—were indicted in a bribery scandal.<sup><sup>[49]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Under the unbroken chain of Democrats who have led the city ever since 1961, Detroit has taken on some of the characteristics of an experiment in how to create a social underclass. Its population today is 82.7% black and 10.6% white,<sup><sup>[50]</sup></sup> a generation of racial hostility having destroyed what was once a racially balanced population. Under this new regime, traditional nuclear families, once the norm in Detroit’s black community, are now a rarity. The city’s out-of-wedlock birth rate exceeds 75%, and married-parent families with children younger than 18 constitute only 9.2% of all residents.<sup><sup>[51]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Ruled by a series of black mayors, the Motor City’s economic catastrophe is now both widespread and profound. Indeed, the population of Detroit has a per capita income of just $14,861 (scarcely half the national average), a median household income of $26,955 (about half the national median), and a poverty rate of 38.1% (about 2.5 times the U.S. average).<sup><sup>[52]</sup></sup> Since 1970, the number of Detroiters with jobs has dropped by more than 53%.<sup><sup>[53]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Detroit’s economic malaise has been brought about by decades of Democratic governance and practices that sociologist Thomas Sowell has termed the “Detroit Pattern,” a reference to “increasing taxes, harassing businesses, and pandering to unions.”<sup><sup>[54]</sup></sup> In any analysis of Detroit’s tragic decline, these three factors bear close examination:</p>
<p><em><strong>(1) Taxes:</strong> </em></p>
<p>Because of the middle-class population exodus caused by policies that inflamed race relations, Detroit’s tax base has been in free fall, leading city leaders from the 1960s onward to try repeatedly to regain lost revenue through tax increases.<sup><sup>[55]</sup></sup> Today, Detroit’s property-tax rates are the highest in America and generally twice as high as the overall average nationwide,<sup><sup>[56]</sup></sup> establishing a vicious cycle that continues to drive businesses away and cause taxpayers to relocate to the suburbs in still-larger numbers. By 2012, Detroit’s tax <em>revenues</em>—notwithstanding the high <em>rates</em>—were 40% lower, in constant 2012 dollars, than they had been in 1962.<sup><sup>[57]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Another reason why Detroit’s stratospheric tax rates have resulted in meager government revenues is because of the city’s rapidly declining property values. Over the past half-century, the total assessed value of property in Detroit has fallen (in inflation-adjusted dollars) by 77%.<sup><sup>[58]</sup></sup> The median home price in Motown is now just $40,000, and many dwellings in the city’s most blighted areas sell for less than $1,000.<sup><sup>[59]</sup></sup></p>
<p>The non-payment of property taxes has also become a widespread phenomenon in Detroit. In 2012, for example, some 47% of all homeowners in the city elected not to pay their taxes — mainly because the city’s cash-strapped government had failed to provide most of the basic services normally funded by such revenues.<sup><sup>[60]</sup></sup></p>
<p><em><strong>(2) Harassing Businesses:</strong> </em></p>
<p>In recent decades, the Democrats in control of Detroit have cultivated an oppressive climate for small businesses by instituting a complex constellation of protectionist regulations.<sup><sup>[61]</sup></sup> In 2013, economist Dean Stansel conducted an “economic freedom” study that ranked the regulatory and tax climates of 384 U.S. metro areas, and found that Detroit placed 345th.<sup><sup>[62]</sup></sup> The Institute For Justice (IFJ) observes that the massive amounts of “time and money” that business owners must expend in order to comply with “all the regulatory requirements” of Detroit’s “stupefying bureaucracy” cause many aspiring entrepreneurs to “simply give up their business dreams.”<sup><sup>[63]</sup></sup></p>
<p><em><strong>Adds IFJ:</strong></em></p>
<p>“Multiple inspections and inspection fees, incomprehensible building requirements, expensive, mandatory public hearings, arbitrary discretion by officials, and lengthy processing delays combine to discourage entrepreneurs from undertaking business ventures or improving existing ones. From sign taxes to restrictions on planting trees, the bureaucratic shuffle has gotten so out of hand that one business owner explained, ‘We operate on the basis that we just do what we want to do and the permits will catch up with us sometime.’”<sup><sup>[64]</sup></sup></p>
<p>According to one survey, 56% of small-business owners in Detroit are unsure whether they are operating in full compliance with the law.<sup><sup>[65]</sup></sup></p>
<p><strong><em>(3) Pandering to Unions:</em></strong></p>
<p>Detroit’s network of nearly incomprehensible business regulations is largely the creation of its vast public bureaucracy, which is dominated by approximately four-dozen labor unions. Over time, the long succession of Democratic political administrations that have run Detroit have lavished such high salaries and lucrative pensions and health-benefit packages on members of these unions (whom they regard as their core political constituency), that it is now virtually impossible for the city to balance its budget and meet its financial obligations.<sup><sup>[66]</sup></sup> One of the consequences of this unholy alliance between Democratic politicians and union bosses is that current employee contributions can’t keep pace with the needs of current pension recipients.</p>
<p>Today, Detroit’s government sends monthly checks (with an average value of $1,600 apiece) to some 21,000 public-sector retirees and their families. This is more than twice the number of workers (9,700) who are currently employed by the city.<sup><sup>[67]</sup></sup> The pension obligations that Detroit owes to its retirees account for about half of the city’s $18-to-$20 billion in long-term unfunded debt.<sup><sup>[68]</sup></sup></p>
<p>By early 2013, Detroit’s finances had become so chaotic that Michigan Governor Rick Snyder appointed attorney Kevyn Orr to serve as the city’s emergency financial manager in a last-resort effort to avoid the largest municipal bankruptcy in American history. According to the<em> New York Times</em>, Orr was authorized “to cut city spending, change contracts with labor unions, merge or eliminate city departments, urge the sale of city assets and even, if all else fail[s], recommend bankruptcy proceedings.”<sup><sup>[69]</sup></sup> Orr attributed Detroit’s “dysfunctional and wasteful” operations to “years of budgetary restrictions, mismanagement, crippling operational practices and, in some cases, indifference or corruption.”<sup><sup>[70]</sup></sup> In May 2013, he issued a report stating that the city was “clearly insolvent on a cash flow basis,”<sup><sup>[71]</sup></sup> that its budget deficit was approaching $386 million,<sup><sup>[72]</sup></sup> and that fully one-third of its budget was being spent on retiree benefits for former public-sector employees.<sup><sup>[73]</sup></sup> It was clear that without judicious and substantial cuts to retiree benefits, there would be no stopping this runaway fiscal train. But in July 2013, Detroit’s two largest municipal pension funds filed suit in state court specifically to prevent Orr from instituting such cuts. Thus the city went ahead and filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy.<sup><sup>[74]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Another major financial drain on taxpayers has been the money that the city spends on its Detroit Public School (DPS) system—more than $15,500 per pupil, or nearly 50% more than the national average.<sup><sup>[75]</sup></sup> Notwithstanding these enormous outlays, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan characterized DPS as a “national disgrace” in 2009.<sup><sup>[76]</sup></sup></p>
<p>That same year, DPS was put under the control of an emergency financial manager—the Washington, DC Board of Education’s former president, Robert Bobb—in an attempt to prevent bankruptcy. Bobb found that many of DPS’s financial problems stemmed from willful corruption.<sup><sup>[77]</sup></sup> For instance:</p>
<p>In June 2009, Bobb enlisted the services of a team of forensic accounting analysts who discovered that 257 “ghost” employees were illegally receiving paychecks from DPS.</p>
<p>Two months later, seven additional public officials were charged with felonies for operating an embezzlement scheme that siphoned tens of thousands of dollars out of the school system.<sup><sup>[78]</sup></sup></p>
<p>It was also discovered that some 500 people who had been illegally enrolled as healthcare-plan dependents were costing the school district millions of dollars per year.</p>
<p>In 2012, a DPS contract accountant and her daughter, who was a schoolteacher, were indicted by the FBI on charges of fraud, conspiracy, and tax offenses.<sup><sup>[79]</sup></sup></p>
<p>The appointment of DPS’s emergency manager did nothing to improve student performance. In the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a U.S. Department of Education standardized test, fourth- and eighth-graders in the city’s public schools currently read at a level that is 73% below the national average, and lower than that of students in any other urban school district in the country.<sup><sup>[80]</sup></sup> Similarly, the reading skills of Detroit’s eighth-graders are 60% below the national average, and their math scores in 2009 were the lowest ever recorded in the then-40-year history of the exam.<sup><sup>[81]</sup></sup></p>
<p>The results of exams that the Michigan Educational Assessment Program administered in 2012-13 to measure students’ abilities in a variety of different subject areas provide further evidence of DPS’s failed track record:</p>
<p>The percentage of students whose scores indicated proficiency in math were: 15.7% of third-graders; 18.8% of fourth-graders; 17% of fifth-graders; 13.6% of sixth-graders; 13.2% of seventh-graders; and fewer than 11.1% of eighth-graders.</p>
<p>The percentage of students whose scores indicated proficiency in reading were: 42.7% of third-graders; 40.7% of fourth-graders; 44.5% of fifth-graders; 45.3% of sixth-graders; 33% of seventh-graders; and 45.8% of eighth-graders.</p>
<p>Only fifth- and eighth-graders were tested in science, and fewer than 10% of each group registered scores that indicated proficiency.</p>
<p>Only sixth- and ninth-graders were tested in social studies, and fewer than 10% of each group registered scores that indicated proficiency.</p>
<p>Only fourth- and seventh-graders were tested in writing, and just 19.5% of the former and 28% of the latter registered scores that indicated proficiency.<sup><sup>[82]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In 1927, <em>New Republic</em> described the Detroit school system as “one of the finest in the world.”<sup><sup>[83]</sup></sup> Today, it is one of the worst in the country. It is little wonder that a recent survey of Detroit-area parents found that 79% of respondents did not want their children educated by the city’s public schools.<sup><sup>[84]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Apart from its catastrophic fiscal and educational problems, Detroit has long ranked as one of the most dangerous places in the United States.<sup><sup>[85]</sup></sup> Each year from 2009 through 2013, for instance, <em>Forbes</em> magazine rated Detroit as America’s Most Dangerous City.<sup><sup>[86]</sup></sup> FBI data confirm that Detroit’s metro division has the highest violent-crime rate in the nation.<sup><sup>[87]</sup></sup> Indeed, the city’s homicide rate is now at its highest level in 40 years, and is more than 10 times greater than the national average.<sup><sup>[88]</sup></sup> In addition, the robbery rate in Detroit is about 6.1 times the national average; the assault rate is 5.5 times the national average; and property crimes like burglary and auto theft occur at rates that are 3 and 7 times higher, respectively, than the national average.<sup><sup>[89]</sup></sup></p>
<p>The crime rates that plague Detroit are exacerbated by the fact that the city’s financial woes have necessitated budget (and manpower) cuts to the local police force. Thus, when Detroit residents place a phone call seeking help from the city’s understaffed police department, they must wait an average of 58 minutes for an officer to arrive on the scene (vs. a national average of 11 minutes).<sup><sup>[90]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Given this brief profile of steep urban decline, it is hardly surprising that a 2013 <em>Forbes</em> magazine analysis named Detroit as America’s “most miserable” city.<sup><sup>[91]</sup></sup> Signs of this misery are everywhere visible in the city’s blighted landscape. For example, Detroit has been the site of 11,000 to 12,000 fires every year for the past decade; it currently has just 370 functioning street lights per square mile, compared to 812 for Cleveland and 785 for St. Louis; more than half of its parks have been closed down since 2008; and it has approximately 99,000 vacant housing units (out of a total of 363,000).<sup><sup>[92]</sup></sup></p>
<p>As far as Detroit has fallen, the city’s future appears even bleaker than its present. The Democratic Party and the cadre of corrupt politicians it has empowered over the past fifty years have driven millions from this once-thriving metropolis and have left the remaining, largely black population to suffer in its ruins with little chance of escape. Yet they haven’t stopped thinking about it; a 2012 <em>Detroit News</em> poll found that 40% of the city’s residents hoped to leave Detroit within five years.<sup><sup>[93]</sup></sup></p>
<p><em><strong>Baltimore, MD:</strong></em></p>
<p>In the 1950s and early ’60s, Baltimore was booming. Known for its thriving industries—particularly manufacturing and shipping—these large enterprises created some three-fourths of all the jobs held by people in its metropolitan region.<sup><sup>[94]</sup></sup> The city at that time had nearly a million residents, 23% of whom were black. The median family income was 7% higher than the national average; the percentage of Baltimore families earning middle-class wages was about one-fifth higher than in the U.S. as a whole; and the proportion of Baltimoreans living in poverty was roughly one-fifth lower than the corresponding national figure.<sup><sup>[95]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In 1967, however, this prosperity began to vanish when the city government was taken over by a string of Democratic mayors, persisting into the present day, who have made Baltimore into the grim and dangerous urban environment portrayed so chillingly in the television series <em>The Wire</em>. As in the case of other big cities around the country, while the Democratic Party machine was taking control of the ballot box, the people were voting with their feet by leaving the city. Today Baltimore’s population has declined to 622,000, 64% of it black.<sup><sup>[96]</sup></sup></p>
<p>William Donald Schaefer, Baltimore’s mayor from 1971-87, set the stage for economic decline in his city by championing an ever-expanding public sector as well as extensive government regulation of private business.<sup><sup>[97]</sup></sup> Further, he relied heavily on federal grants and city bonds to finance a host of development projects throughout Baltimore. As the <em>City Journal</em> reports: “[W]hen those monies proved insufficient, [Schaefer] &#8230; created his own city bank to seed development: the Loan and Guarantee Fund. The fund financed itself by selling city property and then leasing it back to itself, and by selling bonds that would stick future taxpayers with much of the bill.”<sup><sup>[98]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Along with fiscal improvidence, Schaefer’s administration was replete with the corruption and cronyism that has become the hallmark of the Democrats’ big-city political machines over the last generation. For instance:</p>
<p>The mayor’s finance director, Charles Benton, once steered $5.6 million in public money to a repair project on an apartment building owned by a Schaefer political supporter.<sup><sup>[99]</sup></sup></p>
<p>On another occasion, Benton directed more than $4 million in taxpayer funds to the refurbishing of a hotel owned by a longtime friend of the mayor. The hotel went bankrupt shortly after Schaefer’s mayoral tenure ended.<sup><sup>[100]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In the 1970s, Schaefer’s deputy public works director was incarcerated for rigging bids on city contracts.<sup><sup>[101]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In the ’80s, the federal government shut down Baltimore’s Urban Development Action Grants program due to its many abuses.<sup><sup>[102]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In 1987, Schaefer was succeeded by Baltimore’s first elected black mayor, Kurt Schmoke, who, during his 12 years in office, continued his white predecessor’s policy of extracting as much taxpayer money as possible from Annapolis and Washington. By 2001, such state and federal subsidies accounted for 40% of Baltimore’s operating budget.<sup><sup>[103]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Schmoke was a close friend of President Bill Clinton and had connections to a number of Clinton administration officials—most notably the disgraced Henry Cisneros and Andrew Cuomo, both heads of the Department of Housing &amp; Urban Development (HUD)—ensuring that Baltimore’s city programs would continue to receive high levels of federal support.<sup><sup>[104]</sup></sup> One such initiative—bankrolled by a ten-year, $100 million federal grant—was the establishment of an Empowerment Zone whose goal was to transform “distressed” areas of the city into “neighborhoods of choice” by implementing a host of job-training, workforce-development, home-construction, and drug-treatment pro-grams.<sup><sup>[105]</sup></sup> All told, Baltimore’s Empowerment Zone (EZ) covered nearly 10% of the city’s total area.<sup><sup>[106]</sup></sup></p>
<p>The results of this endeavor, though, were largely disappointing. As the <em>Baltimore Sun</em> reported in 2002, “the areas that make up the city’s federally funded empowerment zone remain deeply troubled.” Some specifics:</p>
<p>The poverty rate within the EZ had dropped slightly (from 41.9% to 35.6%), but was still about 50% higher than the corresponding rate citywide.</p>
<p>Median household income had risen in slightly more than half of the EZ area, but had declined in the rest and was below the citywide median in 92% of the EZ area.</p>
<p>Homeownership rates in the EZ had increased modestly, from 30% to 35%—but not nearly as much as officials had predicted; moreover, homeownership in the EZ was still 15 percentage points lower than the citywide rate.</p>
<p>Unemployment in the EZ had increased from 14.9% to 16.5%, and was about 50% higher than Baltimore’s overall rate.</p>
<p>And perhaps most tellingly, the EZ region had lost population at more than double the rate of the city as a whole.<sup><sup>[107]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Like Schaefer’s, the Schmoke administration was scarred by corruption. In the mid-1990s, for instance, federal officials were alerted to the fact that the mayor’s Housing Authority had squandered—via no-bid contracts, massive cost overruns, and blatant cronyism—some $25.6 million in Department of Housing &amp; Urban Development (HUD) funds that had been earmarked for housing repairs. Ultimately, the scandal resulted in federal convictions against 13 contractors.<sup><sup>[108]</sup></sup></p>
<p>For awhile it appeared that even Schmoke himself might find his political career in jeopardy when, in 1998, HUD’s inspector general announced a probe of the mayor’s handling of federal housing aid. However, both Schmoke and his housing chief, Dan Henson, were able to disarm investigators by playing the race card. At their instigation, West Baltimore black Congressman Elijah Cummings demanded that the White House launch a special investigation into the inspector general’s investigation. In the end, Schmoke escaped unscathed when HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo quashed the probe.<sup><sup>[109]</sup></sup></p>
<p>America as a whole may have flourished in the 1990s, but Baltimore’s economy foundered under Democrats’ stewardship. Contributing to this state of affairs was the fact that in the preceding decades, Baltimore’s property taxes, the highest in all of Maryland, had been repeatedly raised. Businesses, in turn, voted with their feet and many of the city’s leading private-sector firms, in search of a more business-friendly climate, relocated to the suburbs during the Nineties. Thus, between 1990 and 1999, Baltimore lost some 58,000 jobs. These included approximately 13,000 in the manufacturing sector; another 12,300 in the finance, insurance, and real-estate industries; and 23,400 in retail and wholesale businesses. During the worst of times on Mayor Schmoke’s watch, Baltimore’s overall work force shrank by an average of 722 people <em>per month</em>. The city’s unemployment rate during the ’90s was twice that of the rest of Maryland.<sup><sup>[110]</sup></sup></p>
<p>While Baltimore’s industry and finance were in steep decline, crime was on the rise—thanks, in large measure, to Schmoke’s decision to focus the city’s policing strategy on decriminalizing drugs rather than on tackling violent crime. As a result, by the end of the 1990s, the murder rate in Baltimore was six times higher than in New York<sup><sup>[111]</sup></sup> (where a variety of proactive policing practices instituted by mayor Rudy Guiliani had dramatically reduced serious crime.)<sup><sup>[112]</sup></sup> Throughout the Nineties, Baltimore was the scene of more than 300 murders every year, prompting locals to nickname their city—which had become the second-deadliest in the nation—“Bodymore, Murderland.” Approx-imately 75% of Baltimore’s killings were drug-related—symptoms of an ongoing, brutal drug-turf war that was allowed to engulf many black neighborhoods. Police, meanwhile, were frustrated by the fact that those drug dealers they arrested were routinely released a short time later, as a result of Schmoke’s “philosophy,” free to resume their criminal activities on the streets. One police sergeant lamented that under Schmoke’s leadership, Baltimore had become a city “in love with its own victimhood.”<sup><sup>[113]</sup></sup></p>
<p>The casual attitude on the part of Baltimore’s leadership toward drug crimes may have pleased the city’s liberal elites, but it devastated the minority community, whose champion it otherwise pretended to be. As of 2000, only 23 detectives in the entire city were actively investigating narcotics cases—even while epidemics of heroin and cocaine abuse, particularly among black males, reached levels unmatched in virtually any other American city. Further, just four officers in all of Baltimore were tasked with tracking down the suspects who had been named in some 54,000 open arrest warrants—250 of them for murder or attempted murder.<sup><sup>[114]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Baltimore’s widespread political corruption, failing economy, high taxes, and escalating crime rates, caused its population to fall by more than 120,000 during the 1990s, making the city blacker and poorer.<sup><sup>[115]</sup></sup> Tens of thousands of homes were simply abandoned by residents desperate to leave town.</p>
<p>In 1999, Democratic city councilman Martin O’Malley won Baltimore’s mayoral race by campaigning on a law-and-order platform, but in part because of the legacy he inherited, he was ultimately unable to fulfill his crime-reduction pledges. In 2005, when his tenure was nearing its end, criminal-justice statistics for Baltimore indicated that 17.6 violent crimes were committed for every 1,000 residents—a figure almost 80% higher than America’s big-city average. Baltimore’s murder rate, meanwhile, was nearly three times higher than the big-city average—just as it had been when O’Malley first took office in 2000. Robberies and aggravated assaults (including nonfatal shootings) had dropped slightly since 2000, but were still more than twice as prevalent as in other large American cities.<sup><sup>[116]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Meanwhile, Baltimore’s anemic economy lagged even further under O’Malley’s stewardship. Between 2001 and 2004, the city lost nearly 5% of all its remaining jobs, including a quarter of its manufacturing jobs, 15% of its banking and finance jobs, and 5% of its retail jobs.<sup><sup>[117]</sup></sup> From 2000 to 2007, private-sector employment in Baltimore shrank by 10.4%—a loss of approximately 33,600 jobs. During that same seven-year period, employment in the areas immediately <em>outside</em> of Baltimore grew by 13.9%—after having grown by 25.1% during the 1990s.<sup><sup>[118]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In 2007, O’Malley was succeeded as mayor by fellow Democrat Sheila Dixon, who was forced to resign three years later when convicted of embezzlement and perjury.<sup><sup>[119]</sup></sup> Replacing Dixon was another black Democrat, city council president Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.</p>
<p>Today, Baltimore’s residents have a median household income of $38,721 (about 45% below Maryland’s state average) and a poverty rate of 25.1% (about 1.7 times the national average).<sup><sup>[120]</sup></sup> Among America’s 100 most populous cities, Baltimore ranks 87th in median household income.<sup><sup>[121]</sup></sup></p>
<p>The violent crime rate in Baltimore is currently 3.7 times higher than the national average. This figure includes astronomical rates of murder (6.6 times the national average), rape (twice the national average), robbery (4.8 times the national average), and assault (3.2 times the national average).<sup><sup>[122]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Once Baltimore’s public schools were racially balanced; today 84% of the students are black and another 6% are Hispanic.<sup><sup>[123]</sup></sup> Baltimore’s Democratic leaders claim to be looking out for the welfare of the city’s minorities, yet find its minority students easy to ignore.</p>
<p>Funding is not a problem. The Baltimore City Public Schools (BCPS) spend, on average, $15,483 for each K-12 student in their jurisdiction—almost 50% more than the national average.<sup><sup>[124]</sup></sup> But achievement is paltry. Baltimore’s students perform near the bottom on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a standardized test that measures the academic abilities of children in elementary and junior high school. In 2013, for example, NAEP results indicated that only 14% of Baltimore’s fourth-graders, and 16% of its eighth-graders, were able to read proficiently. In math, the corresponding proficiency figures for fourth- and eighth-graders were 19% and 13%.<sup><sup>[125]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Notwithstanding this abysmal track record, the Baltimore Teachers Union (BTU), which is a reliable bulwark for Democratic Party causes and candidates in the city, has successfully opposed any calls for a voucher program that would enable low-income parents to take their children out of the city’s failing public schools and send them instead—for a fraction of the cost—to a private or parochial school.<sup><sup>[126]</sup></sup> And of course Baltimore Democrats, knowing that a substantial portion of BTU union dues are funneled directly into their party’s coffers, likewise abjure voucher proposals—just as Democrats have done in city after city across the United States. Joel Klein, former chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, once explained candidly: “[P]oliticians—especially Democratic politicians—generally do what the unions want. And the unions, in turn, are very clear about what that is. They want, first, happy members, so that those who run the unions get reelected; and, second, more members, so their power, money, and influence grow.”<sup><sup>[127]</sup></sup></p>
<p>This educational train wreck is largely funded by Baltimore’s stratospheric property taxes, twice as high as those of any other jurisdiction in Maryland or the District of Columbia.<sup><sup>[128]</sup></sup> The city’s residents have become accustomed not only to high taxation, but to the use of taxes as a weapon in a war of divide-and-conquer. As economists Steve Hanke of Johns Hopkins University and Stephen Walters of Loyola University write: “In modern Baltimore, the [political] machine has exploited class divisions, not ethnic ones. Officials raised property taxes 21 times between 1950 and 1985 … causing many homeowners and entrepreneurs—disproportionately Republicans—to flee.”<sup><sup>[129]</sup></sup></p>
<p>But just as high taxes have failed to buy a decent education for Baltimore’s schoolchildren, so have they failed to cover the costs of runaway government spending under a long succession of fiscally irresponsible Democrats in high office. By December 2012, the unfunded pension liabilities that Baltimore owed to its retired police and firefighters had reached an unprecedented $765 million.<sup><sup>[130]</sup></sup></p>
<p>As a result of Baltimore’s multiple social, economic, and educational problems, some 47,000 abandoned houses and 16,000 vacant buildings now stand like pulled teeth in Baltimore’s once vibrant but now depleted and depressed neighborhoods.<sup><sup>[131]</sup></sup></p>
<p><em><strong>Washington, DC:</strong></em></p>
<p>Founded in 1790 and named after the first President, Washington, DC was established by the U.S. Constitution to serve as the seat of America’s federal government.<sup><sup>[132]</sup></sup> Between 1800 and 1820, DC’s population grew from about 5,000 to more than 13,200, making it the country’s ninth largest city.<sup><sup>[133]</sup></sup> By 1840, that figure had mushroomed to 23,364, and two decades later it stood at 61,122.<sup><sup>[134]</sup></sup></p>
<p>As a Southern city, DC, from its earliest days, always had a substantial African American population that included a growing number of free blacks who worked as craftsmen, hack drivers, businessmen and laborers. Slavery was abolished in the capital on April 16, 1862—about eight months before President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.<sup><sup>[135]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Beginning in 1871, DC was governed by a three-member Board of Commissioners, two of whom were appointed by the U.S. President after approval by the Senate, and a third who was selected from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The city would retain this political arrangement for nearly a century, until 1967 when Congress passed a law eliminating the three-commissioner form of government and replacing it with a single commissioner and a nine-member city council, all appointed by the President.</p>
<p>During the latter decades of the 19th century, DC continued to grow at a brisk pace; by 1900 its population had reached 278,718.<sup><sup>[136]</sup></sup> Many new roads were built in the city at that time, so as to extend, like an ever-expanding network, to its remotest reaches. And in 1900, Congress formed the Senate Park Improvement Commission which drew up an architectural plan for the redevelopment of the National Mall—with an eye toward emulating the grandeur of European capitals such as Paris, London, and Rome.</p>
<p>After World War II, Washington was a destination for large numbers of Southern blacks emigrating to Northern cities in pursuit of job opportunities. By 1957, DC had become the first major American city with a majority-black population.<sup><sup>[137]</sup></sup> Six years later, Washington took center stage in the American Civil Rights Movement when Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his historic “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial.</p>
<p>Following King’s assassination in Memphis in April 1968, DC was devastated by four days of race riots that resulted in 10 deaths, at least 1,200 fires, more than 7,600 arrests, and over $13 million in property damage. The violence had a profound effect on the people of DC, causing many whites, middle-class blacks, and business owners to flee the city and resettle elsewhere.<sup><sup>[138]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which for the first time placed the city under the governance of a directly elected mayor and a Council. The first elected mayor under this new arrangement was Walter Washington. And every DC mayor since then has been, like Mr. Washington, a Democrat.</p>
<p>Mayor Washington opposed the increasing tendency of his party to pit blacks and whites against one another for their own political advantage—“playing the race card,” it would later be called. The <em>Washington Post </em>once quoted him as saying, “This city is already too much divided along race and income lines. We have got to take the lead and set the example in bringing this city together. We’ve got to become just one Washington.” He was also an effective administrator; by the time he left office in 1978, DC’s city government was running a $40 million yearly surplus.<sup><sup>[139] </sup></sup>But Mayor Washington’s successor, Marion Barry, was a master at racial division, and also incompetent and crooked. During his administration, the nation’s capital became a center of scandal and something of a national joke.</p>
<p>In the 1970s, Barry, who had worked for the Student Nonviolence Coordinating Committee (SNCC) as a young man, served as president of the DC Board of Education and as a member of the DC Council.<sup><sup>[140]</sup></sup> He won his first mayoral race in 1978 and was subsequently reelected by wide margins in 1982 and 1986. “During his tenure in the 1980s,” reports the <em>City Journal</em>, “unchecked corruption, ineptly delivered city services, soaring crime, horrendous public schools, financial chaos, and racial tensions made the city a byword for dysfunction nationally.”<sup><sup>[141]</sup></sup> By the early 1990s, DC was the site of several hundred homicides per year and was dubbed the “murder capital” of the nation (a dubious honor that would rotate among almost all of the country’s big cities in the years to come.)<sup><sup>[142]</sup></sup> The city’s economy, meanwhile, was in shambles—notwithstanding the $400 million in federal aid it received each year.<sup><sup>[143]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Throughout his years as mayor, Barry worked hard to expand the rolls of Washington’s public employees. Indeed, even as the District’s population fell by nearly 30,000 during Barry’s three terms (1979-1991), the number of public-sector bureaucrats in the city increased by some 10,000.<sup><sup>[144]</sup></sup> By 1992, an astonishing 52,000 people—one in twelve city residents—were on DC’s municipal payroll. Los Angeles—a city whose population was five times larger than DC’s—had 14,000 fewer taxpayer-funded workers.<sup><sup>[145]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Despite the massive number of public employees in DC, vital city services were hopelessly inefficient and chaotic. As a 1990 <em>Los Angeles Times</em> piece stated: “The city is under court order to correct prison and mental health facilities. Nearly half of all public housing sits idle for lack of repairs. Bureaucrats are so incompetent, arrogant and slothful, critics say, that even 9-1-1 calls go unanswered and ambulances may not arrive until tomorrow.”<sup><sup>[146]</sup></sup> On seven separate occasions between 1987 and 1990, judges cited DC for the systematic mistreatment of juvenile delinquents, prison inmates, and mentally handicapped residents in its custody in specialized facilities.<sup><sup>[147]</sup></sup> In 1989, the <em>Washington Monthly</em> characterized Barry’s administration as “the worst city government in America.”<sup><sup>[148]</sup></sup> The mayor, unfazed by such assessments, routinely chalked them up to racism on the part of his critics.<sup><sup>[149]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Barry’s mayoralty was infamous not only for its gross incompetence but also for the magnitude of its corruption. One of his appointments that drew attention was that of Ivanhoe Donaldson, his longtime friend and ally from SNCC, whom he appointed deputy mayor for economic development. In 1985, Donaldson pled guilty to stealing $190,000 from the city, and eventually wound up in prison for his crime. For good measure, Donaldson also obstructed justice by attempting to persuade four individuals to submit false affidavits to DC inspectors.<sup><sup>[150]</sup></sup></p>
<p>After Barry’s 1986 reelection, two more DC deputy mayors and ten additional city officials were charged with corruption.<sup><sup>[151]</sup></sup> One of these, deputy mayor for finance Alphonse G. Hill, was indicted on eleven counts of extortion, income tax evasion, and defrauding the District government—charges to which he eventually pled guilty.<sup><sup>[152]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Standing behind the corruption was Barry himself and his personal problems. Throughout the ’80s, rumors circulated about his frequent cocaine use. Though the evidence to that effect was highly credible, Barry for years managed to elude the grip of law-enforcement authorities—thanks, in large part, to friends and supporters who helped him stonewall investigations. One such ally, Karen K. Johnson, was paid $25,000 to keep silent regarding the cocaine allegations and was cited for contempt of court when she refused to testify before a federal grand jury that was probing the matter. The truth was finally revealed, however, in a January 18, 1990 sting operation, when Barry—lured to a Washington hotel room by a former girlfriend-turned-FBI-informant—was secretly filmed smoking a crack pipe.<sup><sup>[153]</sup></sup></p>
<p>At his subsequent indictment, Barry once again raised the specter of race, lamenting that he was the victim of a “political lynching.”<sup><sup>[154]</sup></sup> The charge of racism was picked up by civil rights professionals such as NAACP executive director Benjamin Hooks, who denounced Barry’s prosecution as “Nazilike,” charging that “overzealous, hostile—if not openly racist—district and U.S. attorneys will bring a black official to trial on the flimsiest of evidence.”<sup><sup>[155]</sup></sup></p>
<p>When Barry was tried for 14 counts of cocaine possession and lying to a grand jury, a jury of ten blacks and two whites convicted him of only a single cocaine-possession charge, for which he was sentenced to six months in prison.<sup><sup>[156]</sup></sup> Black columnist Carl Rowan put the Barry case in perspective: “These jurors were saying: The mayor may be a cocaine junkie, a crack addict, a sexual scoundrel, but he is <em>our</em> junkie, <em>our</em> addict, <em>our</em> scoundrel, and we aren’t going to let you white folks put him in jail.”<sup><sup>[157]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Just two months after his release from prison in 1992, Barry—disgraced but not chastened—filed papers to run for DC’s Ward 8 Council seat in that year’s upcoming election. Campaigning under the slogan, “He May Not Be Perfect, But He’s Perfect for DC,” Barry won the race easily.<sup><sup>[158]</sup></sup> Two years after that, he decided to set his political sights higher and was elected to a fourth term (1995-99) as mayor.</p>
<p>After taking some time away from politics, Barry won election to the DC Council in 2004 with 95% of the vote and continues in that office.<sup><sup>[159]</sup></sup></p>
<p>A mainstay of the Democratic Party, Marion Barry has been a larger-than-life figure in Washington DC politics in terms of his corruption, criminality and race-baiting. But those who followed him in city leadership have come close to matching his sordid record. Indeed, half of DC’s top government officials, at one time or another, were under investigation by either federal authorities or the city’s board of elections in the period 2008-2012.<sup><sup>[160]</sup></sup></p>
<p>The following snapshots from recent DC politics give a sense of the corruption presided over by the Democratic Party, corruption that has become standard operating procedure:</p>
<p>In October 2005, the <em>Washington Post</em> reported that DC Councilman Jack Evans had used money from a political action committee to cover personal expenses, including sporting-event tickets and a friend’s trip to China.<sup><sup>[161]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In November 2007, Harriette Walters, manager of the DC Real Property Tax Administration Adjustments Unit, was one of 11 people arrested for her role in the largest fraud scheme in the history of DC’s city government. As <em>The New York Times</em> reports, “Walters used her job as a tax manager for the district treasury to issue $48 million in bogus property tax refunds for herself and her co-conspirators, who included family, friends and a bank manager.” The refunds—which amounted, on average, to  $388,000 per month—were used to purchase such items as clothing, jewelry, other luxury goods, and even homes. Walters was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison for her crimes.<sup><sup>[162]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In January 2011, DC’s newly elected mayor, Vince Gray, was accused of improperly hiring relatives of his supporters and staffers for city jobs.<sup><sup>[163]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In February 2011, while DC was facing a projected annual budget deficit of $400 million, it was learned that city taxpayers were making lease payments on two luxury automobiles—each in the amount of approximately $1,900 per month—for Council chairman Kwame Brown. Brown had initially requested a fully loaded, extended-wheelbase Lincoln Navigator with a black interior. When he instead received a Navigator with a gray interior, he defiantly ordered the second vehicle—and had the city pay an additional $1,500 for its expedited shipping.<sup><sup>[164]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In June 2011, a video surfaced of Ted Loza, former chief of staff to DC Councilman Jim Graham, accepting a $1,500 bribe from an FBI informant in return for pushing legislation that was beneficial to some in the taxi-cab industry through the DC Council. Loza was eventually sentenced to eight months in prison.<sup><sup>[165]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In July 2011, the DC Board of Elections and Ethics referred, to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, allegations that DC Council chairman Kwame Brown’s 2008 reelection campaign had failed to report more than $170,000 in contributions while inaccurately reporting almost $350,000 in spending. In 2012, Brown pled guilty to bank fraud and resigned from his post.<sup><sup>[166]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In January 2012, Ward 5 councilman Harry Thomas Jr. pled guilty to the felony of embezzling some $353,000 in public funds that had been intended mostly for a youth baseball program. Thomas used the money instead to purchase for himself such items as designer shoes, a $58,000 luxury automobile, a $23,000 motorcycle, and lavish vacations. He was sentenced to 38 months in prison.<sup><sup>[167]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In June 2013, DC Council member Michael Brown pled guilty to accepting $55,000 in cash bribes from undercover agents posing as businessmen seeking city contracts.<sup><sup>[168]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In March 2014, businessman Jeffrey E. Thompson pled guilty to conspiring to break federal and local campaign-finance laws. At issue was more than $668,000 in illegal donations he had given to the Vince Gray mayoral campaign, with Gray’s full knowledge. Moreover, Thompson had secretly spent $812,146 in support of seven other candidates for mayor and DC Council.<sup><sup>[169]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In addition to becoming America’s urban capital of political corruption, the District of Columbia has also become a synonym for criminality and violence. Though the city’s crime rates today are below the stratospheric levels which they reached during Marion Barry’s heyday, DC remains an unsafe place by any measure. Today it is America’s 5<sup>th</sup> most dangerous city among those with populations of more than 500,000, and the 21<sup>st</sup> most dangerous city overall.<sup><sup>[170]</sup></sup> Indeed, 95% of all urban areas in the U.S. are statistically safer than Washington,<sup><sup>[171]</sup></sup> whose rates of homicide and robbery are, respectively, 3 and 5 times higher than the national average.<sup><sup>[172]</sup></sup> In 2012 alone, there were 7,448 violent crimes and 29,264 property crimes reported in DC.<sup><sup>[173]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Yet another major problem area for the nation’s capital is its public school system. As bad as many of them are, no other system in America has a more glaring record of failure. When the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests were administered, most recently, to fourth- and eigth-grade students in 2013:</p>
<p>Just 25% of DC fourth-graders performed well enough to be classified as “proficient” in grade-level reading.<sup><sup>[174]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Only 30% of DC fourth-graders performed well enough to be classified as “proficient” in grade-level math.<sup><sup>[175]</sup></sup></p>
<p>A paltry 17% of DC eighth-graders performed well enough to be categorized as “proficient” in grade-level reading.<sup><sup>[176]</sup></sup></p>
<p>And a mere 16% of DC eighth-graders performed well enough to be deemed “proficient” in grade-level math.<sup><sup>[177]</sup></sup></p>
<p>When Adrian Fenty became mayor in 2007, the teacher-to-pupil ratio in Washington’s public school classrooms was approximately 12-to-1, while taxpayers provided nearly $29,000 per year to educate each child therein. This massive sum was equivalent to the cost of tuition at the most elite private schools in the country, where children received the best education that money could buy.<sup><sup>[178]</sup></sup> A contrarian Democrat, Fenty tried to do something about this outrage. He hired Michelle Rhee, an education reformer, as the new school chancellor. He closed dangerous and underused schools and laid off incompetent teachers. He waged a successful two-year battle to get a new union contract, which ended lifetime tenure and connected financial reward to teacher performance. Michelle Rhee fired 241 incompetent teachers and put another 737 on notice for being rated “minimally effective.”<sup><sup>[179]</sup></sup></p>
<p>The results were dramatic. At Sousa Middle School—located in one of the district’s most impoverished neighborhoods—84% of the students had math and reading scores below the minimal standards when Fenty and Rhee took charge. In just one year of the Fenty-Rhee reform administration, students at Sousa gained 17 points in reading proficiency and 25 in math, meeting the federal benchmarks for progress for the first time in the history of the school.<sup><sup>[180]</sup></sup></p>
<p>But the teachers’ unions struck back in 2012, supporting another Democrat, Vincent Gray, who would turn back the clock on Fenty’s reforms. The party backed Gray, and the head of the AFL-CIO himself came to town to campaign against Fenty and seal his defeat. In the process, he also sealed the fate of the many students, most of them black, who were stuck in the city’s atrocious public schools.</p>
<p><em><strong>Chicago:</strong></em></p>
<p><em>Hog Butcher for the World,<br />
Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat,<br />
Player with Railroads and the Nation’s Freight Handler;<br />
Stormy, husky, brawling &#8230;</em></p>
<p>This is how Carl Sandberg saw Chicago in his famous poem about the city published in 1914.<sup><sup>[181]</sup></sup> He was right to use the language of enterprise and simple hard work, since the Windy City, standing at the crossroads of the United States, was so intimately associated with the nation-building epic. Chicago was the site of stockyards for the livestock that fed the country . It was the home of such technological and commercial innovations as the first refrigerated railroad car (1878), the first mail-order retailing corporations (Sears-Roebuck in 1893 and Montgomery Ward in 1872), and the first car radio manufacture (1920s).<sup><sup>[182]</sup></sup> Also during the Twenties, new construction boomed throughout the city, punctuated by the completion in 1930 of such landmarks as the Chicago Board of Trade Building and the famed Merchandise Mart (whose 4 million square feet of office space made it the world’s largest building at the time). The fact that it was also the home turf of gangsters like Al Capone and the G-men like Elliot Ness who hunted him down only added to the legendary status it acquired in the nation’s imagination.</p>
<p>“Chicagoland,” as the city is now sometimes called, is meant to conjure a zesty sense of urban uniqueness, but the term has instead become a synonym for corrupt power politics and urban malaise in what has become the murder capital of the United States. Chicago has been led exclusively by Democratic mayors since 1931. Under the administrations of Richard J. Daley (1955-76), Michael Bilandic (1976-79), Jane Byrne (1979-83), and Harold Washington (1983-87), the city’s economic and social fabric deteriorated markedly. Chicago lost its power and romance.<sup><sup>[183]</sup></sup> According to urban analyst Aaron Renn, by 1976 Chicago was “a grim, decaying city” that “was failing on nearly every measure.” Renn elaborates: “The city was losing people, losing businesses, and losing jobs&#8230;. Manufacturing was collapsing and the middle class was fleeing, leading to neighborhood decline and eroding the city’s tax base, which in turn degraded the city services residents had come to expect and demand. The decline in services and neighborhoods drove more people away, which led to further declines, perpetuating a vicious cycle.”<sup><sup>[184]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In a similar vein, <em>Chicago Tribune</em> correspondent Richard Longworth, author of a powerful front-page series in 1981 titled “A City on the Brink,” concluded: “Chicago has become an economic invalid. The situation may be permanent.” University of Illinois at Chicago Professor Pierre de Vise, for his part, saw “very little hope for locating economic activities here again.” And a local business executive asked, “Is the city being anni-hilated? It’s probably inevitable.”<sup><sup>[185]</sup></sup> The economic malaise that plagued Chicago during this period was accompanied by a steep decline in the city’s population, which fell from 3.62 million in 1950 to 2.78 million by 1990.<sup><sup>[186]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Harold Washington, an African American who served as Chicago’s mayor from 1983-87, was an icon of the progressive left that now dominates the city’s politics. Washington’s election represented a break from the postwar Democratic Party machine whose symbolic figure was the first Mayor Richard Daley (Daley’s son by the same name also became mayor of Chicago). Daley was one of the last of the big-city “bosses” who angered the left—especially with his zero-tolerance policy toward demonstrators at the 1968 Democratic Party convention—but his critics admitted that he presided over “a city that worked.” Harold Washington was in effect the anti-Daley—an influence on the rising young local activist Barack Obama and on Obama’s pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright, who mobilized black and Hispanic voters in support of Washington’s electoral campaigns.</p>
<p>Close to the Chicago contingent of the Democratic Socialists of America, Washington calculated that he could most effectively advance his leftist agendas by calling himself a “liberal” and working within the Democratic Party. Unlike the first Mayor Daley, who used his immense power to make the machinery of city government run smoothly, Washington prioritized ideology. Stanley Kurtz, author and senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center who has closely followed Chicago politics, explains that Washington rose to political prominence by assembling “a ‘rainbow’ coalition of blacks, Hispanics, and left-leaning whites” whose ultimate aim was to “pus[h] the Democrats to the left by polarizing the country along class lines.”<sup><sup>[187]</sup></sup></p>
<p>During his 1983 campaign, Washington vowed to reduce regressive local taxes and rely more heavily on money from the State of Illinois. Once elected, however, he raised taxes on Chicagoans by hundreds of millions of dollars.<sup><sup>[188]</sup></sup> As one of his constituents later said, “All he did was tax, tax, tax.”<sup><sup>[189]</sup></sup> Through a 1985 executive order, Washington enacted one of his major priorities as mayor: the implementation of an aggressive affirmative action program setting aside at least 25% of all city contracts for minority-owned business enterprises and another 5% for women-owned businesses.<sup><sup>[190]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Under Washington, whose mayoralty ended suddenly in November 1987 when he died of a heart attack just a few months into his second term, Chicago’s civic life deteriorated rapidly. One clear example involved the Chicago Housing Authority—a massive municipal agency that had been created to own and operate public housing built by the federal government—which was brought to the brink of insolvency by Washington’s appointees.<sup><sup>[191]</sup></sup> The U.S. Secretary of Education in 1987 described the city’s school system—where students were mostly poor and nonwhite—as the very worst in America.<sup><sup>[192]</sup></sup> Also during Mayor Washington’s tenure, crime rates in the city exploded: Between 1982 and 1987, the annual incidence of robbery rose by 44%, while the corresponding increases for other crimes included 37% for burglary, more than 20% for both larceny-theft and auto theft, over 40% for arson, and at least 300% for aggravated assault.<sup><sup>[193]</sup></sup> Because this violent environment was toxic to local retail and service establishments, many business owners simply pulled up their roots and relocated to more welcoming places. All told, Chicago suffered a net loss of 45,000+ jobs during the ’80s—a period of great economic prosperity and employment growth for most of the country—and many of the Windy City’s job losses occurred on Mayor Washington’s watch.<sup><sup>[194]</sup></sup> Likewise, Chicago’s overall population declined, on average, by more than 20,000 residents per year.<sup><sup>[195]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Under Mayor Richard M. Daley (1989-2011), son and namesake of Mayor Richard J. Daley, Chicago rebounded a bit in the 1990s when it enjoyed a lower unemployment rate and stronger per-capita income growth than either New York or Los Angeles. It also added some 560,000 new jobs and gained more than 100,000 residents. During that same period, Chicago spent billions of dollars on a host of development projects including the construction of an elevated train line to Midway Airport, a wide-ranging street-beautification initiative, and the creation of impressive cultural facilities such as the $450 million Millennium Park.<sup><sup>[196]</sup></sup></p>
<p>But in the first decade of the 21st century, these successes faded. Fiscal mismanagement by the Daley administration began to manifest itself in Chicago’s economy, causing 7.1% of the city’s jobs to dry up and disappear. Chicago’s famous Loop, the second-largest central business district in the nation, was especially hard hit—losing 18.6% of its private-sector jobs. The city government, meanwhile, began incurring massive levels of debt, running an annual budget deficit of approximately $650 million.<sup><sup>[197]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Contributing heavily to these shortfalls were ever-escalating expenditures on lavish benefits and pensions for Chicago’s public-sector union employees, whose political support had been decisive in the succession of Democrat mayoral administrations. The employee pensions were, by mandate of the Illinois state constitution, permanently immune to cutbacks.<sup><sup>[198]</sup></sup> According to the <em>Washington Post</em>, Chicago today owes nearly $14 billion in outstanding General Obligation bond debt,<sup><sup>[199]</sup></sup> and the city’s pension funds owe $27 billion in unfunded obligations to police, firefighters, teachers, and municipal employees who have been courted—and rewarded—by administrations since the time of the first Mayor Daley. This shortfall amounts to more than $9,900 per city resident.<sup><sup>[200]</sup></sup> In Chicago’s fire department alone, unfunded liabilities exceed 650% of payroll, meaning that they total more than 6.5 times what the city spends each year to pay all of its active firefighters. Similarly, the Chicago police department’s unfunded liabilities amount to just above 600% of payroll.<sup><sup>[201]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In 2008, Mayor Richard M. Daley sought to address his city’s budget deficit, in part, by means of his now-infamous parking-meter lease, whereby—in exchange for $1.1 billion up front—the city sold its right to 75 years worth of parking revenues to the private company Chicago Parking Meters LLC. Just two years into the deal, the city had already spent 84% of that $1.1 billion and was looking at the loss of countless billions in revenue over the next seven decades.<sup><sup>[202]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Also in typical Democrat fashion, Chicago politicos have repeatedly sought to balance their budgets by raising local property and sales taxes. Today Chicago has the nation’s highest sales tax rate, whose impact on the city is amplified by Illinois’ already-high state taxes.<sup><sup>[203]</sup></sup> According to a March 2013 <em>Wall Street Journal</em> report, the state and local taxes currently paid by Chicagoans are higher than those paid by their counterparts in all but four other American cities.<sup><sup>[204]</sup></sup> This oppressive tax climate has dealt a painful blow to Chicago’s residents and business owners alike.</p>
<p>In July 2013, Moody’s Investors Service—citing Chicago’s “very large and growing pension liabilities and accelerating budget pressures associated with those liabilities”—downgraded the city’s General Obligation (GO) and sales-tax ratings from AA3 to A3.<sup><sup>[205]</sup></sup> Four months later, another major ratings agency—Fitch Ratings, Inc.—likewise downgraded Chicago’s debt worthiness after the Illinois legislature failed to pass a budget fix.<sup><sup>[206]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Another factor harming small businesses in Chicago is the system of “aldermanic privilege” that dominates the city’s politics and serves as a fertile breeding ground for corruption. As urban-affairs analyst Aaron Renn explains, Chicago’s aldermen—i.e., city council members—have “nearly dictatorial control over what happens in their wards, from zoning changes to sidewalk café permits.” As Renn notes, “This dumps political risk onto the shoulders of every would-be entrepreneur, who knows that he must stay on the alderman’s good side to be in business. It’s also a recipe for sleaze: 31 aldermen have been convicted of corruption since 1970.”<sup><sup>[207]</sup></sup> According to a University of Illinois report issued in 2012, Chicago is the most politically corrupt city in the United States, having averaged 51 public corruption convictions annually since 1976.<sup><sup>[208]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Chicago’s entrepreneurs are further handicapped by the byzantine regulations and red tape that make it prohibitively expensive and complicated to run a business within the city’s confines. According to Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce CEO Jerry Roper, such “unnecessary and burdensome regulation” has placed Chicago “at a competitive disadvantage with other cities.”<sup><sup>[209]</sup></sup> The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for its part, has described the litigation environment of Cook County—where Chicago is located—as the most unfair and unreasonable of any jurisdiction in the United States.<sup><sup>[210]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Yet another reality that has had a severely negative impact on life in Chicago is violent crime. Since the mid-1970s, the annual homicide tally within the Windy City has ranged between 435 and 970, with the trends and fluctuations more-or-less mirroring those observable nationwide.<sup><sup>[211]</sup></sup> In 2012 and 2013, Chicago led all U.S. cities in homicides, with a combined total of 931 during that two-year period—far more than any other American city. In 2012, approximately one in every 1,000 Chicagoans was shot (either fatally or non-fatally) at some point during that year—a rate 6 times higher than in New York City.<sup><sup>[212]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Whites, who constitute roughly 28% of Chicago’s population, commit about 4% of all homicides in the city. African Americans, who are 35% of the population, are responsible for three-fourths of the homicides. The statistics for Chicago’s black youth, many of whom have become involved in a culture of gang violence, are paricularly grim. Between 2003 and 2008, black youngsters accounted for 78% of all juvenile arrests in the city.<sup><sup>[213]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Driving the trend of stratospheric crime rates in Chicago’s black community is a high incidence of single motherhood. Between 75% and 80% of the city’s black children are born out-of-wedlock.<sup><sup>[214]</sup></sup> For decades, empirical research has demonstrated conclusively that growing up without a father is a far better forecaster of a boy’s future criminality than either race or poverty. Indeed, regardless of race, 70% of all young people in state reform institutions were raised in fatherless homes, as were 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison inmates.<sup><sup>[215]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In recent years, Chicago has been the scene of dozens of violent, black-on-white “flash mob” attacks, as documented by author Colin Flaherty. One of the most recent, high-profile incidents occurred at the end of March 2013, when some 500 blacks stormed the so-called Magnificent Mile, an upscale shopping area, randomly assaulting innocent people and destroying property.<sup><sup>[216]</sup></sup></p>
<p>The response of Chicago’s leadership to this type of criminality has been far less assertive than that of New York, for instance, where Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Police Chief William Bratton in the 1990s instituted a proactive, aggressive, and highly successful anti-crime strategy that incorporated “stop-and-frisk” policies and so-called “broken windows” law-enforcement philosophy. Their approach—which was subsequently continued, to similar effect, by Giuliani’s Republican successor Michael Bloomberg—reversed a long trend of escalating criminality that had plagued New York City in the pre-Giuliani years.<sup><sup>[217]</sup></sup></p>
<p>By contrast, Chicago’s politicians, community activists, and religious leaders alike have largely turned their backs on such policing philosophies. As a former Chicago deputy superintendent of police once observed: “Mayor Daley [who served from 1989-2011] is not a cop supporter.”<sup><sup>[218]</sup></sup> Chicago’s failure to establish control over either its economy or its crime problem is mirrored by the persistent inability of its lavishly funded public-school system to educate the city’s children. There is little to show for the more than $13,000 spent annually on the education-related expenses of each K-12 student in the city.<sup><sup>[219]</sup></sup> In the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), stand-ardized exams designed to measure students’ academic abilities:</p>
<p>Just 21% of Chicago fourth-graders performed well enough to be classified as “proficient” or better in grade-level reading—vs. 34% of fourth-graders nationally.<sup><sup>[220]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Only 27% of Chicago fourth-graders performed well enough to be classified as “proficient” or better in grade-level math—vs. 42% of fourth-graders nationally.<sup><sup>[221]</sup></sup></p>
<p>A mere 20% of Chicago eighth-graders performed well enough to be categorized as “proficient” or better in grade-level reading, vs. 35% of eighth-graders nationally.<sup><sup>[222]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Just 20% of Chicago eighth-graders performed well enough to be deemed “proficient” or better in grade-level math, vs. 34% of eighth-graders nationally.<sup><sup>[223]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Moreover, only 63% of Chicago’s public high-school students graduate on time (within four years)—well below the national average of 78%.<sup><sup>[224]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In June 2013, Chicago Teachers Union president Karen Lewis, a Democrat, attributed the failures of the Chicago Public Schools not to any shortcomings in the city’s educational apparatus, but rather to the “fact that rich white people think they know what’s in the best interest of children of African-Americans and Latinos, no matter what the parents’ income or education level.” She elaborated on this charge that racism caused educational failure: “If you look at the majority of the tax base for property taxes in Chicago, they’re mostly white, who don’t have a real interest in paying for the education of poor black and brown children.”<sup><sup>[225]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Following a pattern that is seen repeatedly in Democrat-controlled cities across the United States, Chicago’s toxic brew of high taxes, out-of-control crime rates, failing schools, mounting public debt, and anti-business economic climate has driven away massive numbers of residents and entrepreneurs. After the city’s population peaked at 3.62 million in 1950,<sup><sup>[226]</sup></sup> it underwent a half-century of decline that leveled off only temporarily in the 1990s. In the first decade of the 21<sup>st</sup> century, some 200,000 people (including 175,000 African Americans) moved out of Chicago during—an exodus exceeded in magnitude only in Detroit.<sup><sup>[227]</sup></sup> According to the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau Report, Chicago’s population was 2,695,598 and falling.<sup><sup>[228]</sup></sup></p>
<p><em><strong>Milwaukee, WI:</strong></em></p>
<p>For years it was the world’s foremost beer-producing city, home to four of the largest breweries in the world (Schlitz, Blatz, Pabst, and Miller). Almost every major American brewery, in fact, had at least one factory in Milwaukee. These employed thousands of local residents in jobs that formed the foundation of the city’s solid middle class.<sup><sup>[229]</sup></sup> Other major corporations in the city during the first half of the twentieth century included the A. F. Gallun &amp; Sons leather tanning company; the machinery manufacturer Allis-Chalmers; the heavy-mining equipment producer Bucyrus Erie Company; the Falk Corporation, producer of industrial power transmission products; the electrical component maker Cutler-Hammer; and the A.O. Smith Corporation, a major manufacturer of automotive frames.<sup><sup>[230]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Most of them are gone now and Milwaukee is a different place.</p>
<p>Every Milwaukee mayor of the past 106 years has been a Democrat—with the exception of three who were Socialists. The first of the Socialists—in fact the first Socialist mayor of any major American city—was Emil Seidel, who held office from 1910-12. Next came Daniel Webster Hoan in 1916, whose 24-year tenure in office</p>
<p>was the longest continuous Socialist administration in American history. The city’s third Socialist mayor was Frank Paul Zeidler, who served three terms from 1948-60 and whose administration oversaw the large-scale construction of public housing as a means of promoting racial and economic justice.<sup><sup>[231]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Zeidler spoke out forcefully in favor of what he termed “public enterprise,” the notion that government could improve the condition of the poor via the efficient dispensation of taxpayer-funded public services.<sup><sup>[232]</sup></sup> But demographic trends capsized this theory. During Zeidler’s time in office, Milwaukee’s black population nearly quintupled, from 13,000 in 1945 to more than 62,000 in 1960, as Southern blacks began their northward migration away from segregation and toward jobs. They were packed into a few areas as a result of “de facto” segregation.<sup><sup>[233]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Local black radicals, allied ideologically with the black militancy that was sweeping many American cities in the Sixties, were dissatisfied with what they viewed as the inadequate pace of racial reforms. And in the summer of 1967, the race riots that rocked Detroit and Newark sparked a similar—though less devastating—outburst in Milwaukee which resulted in 3 deaths, about 100 injuries, and 1,740 arrests.<sup><sup>[234]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In response to the rioting, Democrat Henry Maier, who served as mayor of Milwaukee from 1960-88, swiftly unveiled a “39-Point Program” designed to address the inner-city problems of poverty and racism that liberal Democrats widely cited as the causes of the riots. This program was based on pouring massive amounts of local, state, and federal money into initiatives like housing construction, youth programs, and “community renewal” to pacify an angry populace.<sup><sup>[235]</sup></sup> But in the eyes of local black leftists, it was too little, too late. As Mrs. Vel Phillips, a black member of Milwaukee’s Common Council, said in April 1968, the mayor’s 39-point program had failed to demonstrate any “visible effect on the root causes” of ghetto unrest: “I don’t believe in violence, and I hope we don’t have any more. But we’d all better realize that many young Negroes have reached the point where they’re ready and willing to die because they figure they have nothing to lose.”<sup><sup>[236]</sup></sup></p>
<p>As of 1970, seven of Milwaukee’s top ten companies were engaged in manufacturing and employed nearly 47,000 people.<sup><sup>[237]</sup></sup> But as the cost of manufacturing in the U.S. skyrocketed in subsequent decades and the city became fiscally inhospitable many of these businesses moved their operations. Between 1970 and 2011, Milwaukee lost no fewer than 40% of its manufacturing jobs—a severe economic blow to the entire city. From 1970 to 2007, the percentage of families in the Milwaukee metro area that were middle-class declined from 37% to 24%, while the percentage of households that were poor spiked from 23% to 31%.<sup><sup>[238]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Today, per capita income in Milwaukee is $19,199 (32% below the national average); median household income is $35,823 (33% below the national average); and the poverty rate is 28.3% (nearly double the national average).<sup><sup>[239]</sup></sup></p>
<p>While joblessness and poverty plague many Milwaukeeans, crime may be an even larger affliction in their lives. Milwaukee today has a violent crime rate that is 2.6 times greater than the national average, including a robbery rate of 4.4 times the national average and a murder rate that is triple the national average.<sup><sup>[240]</sup></sup> In 2012, 80% of all homicide victims in the city were black, as were three-fourths of the known suspects in these crimes.<sup><sup>[241]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Though the city’s public school system annually spends some $14,200 (about one-third more than the national average) in taxpayer funds on the education of each K-12 student in its jurisdiction,<sup><sup>[242]</sup></sup> the overall high-school graduation rate in the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) is a paltry 62.8%—far below Wisconsin’s 87% statewide average.<sup><sup>[243]</sup></sup> On standardized National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests administered in 2013 to measure students’ academic abilities:</p>
<p>Only 18% of Milwaukee’s fourth-graders scored as proficient or better in math.<sup><sup>[244]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Just 11% of Milwaukee’s eighth-graders scored as proficient or better in math.<sup><sup>[245]</sup></sup></p>
<p>A mere 16% of Milwaukee’s fourth-graders scored as proficient or better in reading.<sup><sup>[246]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Only 13% of Milwaukee’s eighth-graders scored as proficient or better in reading.<sup><sup>[247]</sup></sup></p>
<p>But unlike their counterparts in other cities, some Milwaukee students, thanks to a handful of civic leaders and activists as well as vital funding from the Bradley Foundation, have access to a school voucher program. In response to a long effort by this group of advocates, in 1990 the Wisconsin State Legislature passed a bill creating the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP), the first publicly funded voucher initiative in the United States.<sup><sup>[248]</sup></sup> Though lawmakers initially restricted it to just 1,000 low-income public school students within the city, MPCP has since grown, largely as a result of private fundraising, to become the largest voucher program in America, serving more than 20,000 students.<sup><sup>[249]</sup></sup> A 2011 study published by School Choice Wisconsin indicated that students in the MPCP had a graduation rate 18% higher than their counterparts in the Milwaukee Public Schools.<sup><sup>[250]</sup></sup> Showing also that the massive per-pupil outlays championed by teachers’ unions are unnecessary to increase achievement, the MPCP spends $6,442 per scholarship to educate its students—less than half of what the non-voucher public schools spend.<sup><sup>[251]</sup></sup></p>
<p>The Democrat-controlled teachers’ unions have fought the MPCP tooth-and-nail.<sup><sup>[252]</sup></sup> So has a group called the Educators’ Network for Social Justice (ENSJ), a leftist alliance of classroom teachers and post-secondary instructors who have allied themselves with the Democratic Party of Milwaukee County and a number of local Democrat politicians. Committed to “promoting pro-justice curricula and policies so that all students in the Milwaukee area are better served,” ENSJ also opposes the use of standardized tests to measure student achievement and aptitude.<sup><sup>[253]</sup></sup></p>
<p>The poverty, crime, unemployment, and dysfunctional school system that have become the hallmarks of life in Milwaukee have led the city’s population to decline markedly in recent decades, from 741,000 in 1960 to just 599,000 today.<sup><sup>[254]</sup></sup> An estimated 5,000 houses—mostly in impoverished neighborhoods—stand vacant and abandoned, a mute testament to peoples’ desire to get out of town.<sup><sup>[255]</sup></sup></p>
<p><em><strong>Newark, NJ:</strong></em></p>
<p>The city of Newark, New Jersey has been led exclusively by Democrat mayors for the past 81 years. The entrenched power of the Democratic Party is reflected in the near-unanimous support its candidates receive from Newark voters in political elections on every level. For example, in the 2009 gubernatorial race, Newark voters cast 90.2% of their ballots for Democrat Jon Corzine, vs. just 8.3% for Republican Chris Christie, the ultimate winner.<sup><sup>[256]</sup></sup> And in the 2008 presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama captured 90.8% of the Newark vote, vs. 7.0% for Republican John McCain.<sup><sup>[257]</sup></sup></p>
<p>At one time, Newark was bustling and prosperous. As of 1922, it had 63 live theaters and 46 movie theaters, and its so-called “Four Corners”—where Market and Broad Streets intersected—was widely considered the busiest intersection in the country. In 1927, a prominent businessman observed: “Great is Newark’s vitality. It is the red blood in its veins—this basic strength that is going to carry it over whatever hurdles it may encounter, enable it to recover from whatever losses it may suffer and battle its way to still higher achievement industrially and financially, making it eventually perhaps the greatest industrial center in the world.”<sup><sup>[258]</sup></sup> The realities of Newark today make these words sound like they were written in a foreign language.</p>
<p>Between 1950 and 1967, Newark’s black population rose from 70,000 to 220,000, largely as a result of the arrival of African Americans leaving the segregated south for northern job opportunities. Newark educator Nathan Wright Jr. noted that “no typical American city has as yet experienced such a precipitous change from a white to a black majority.”<sup><sup>[259]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In response to the influx, the city’s Democratic leadership launched major urban-renewal initiatives during the 1960s, persuading the federal government to cover 100% of the costs associated with constructing new public housing projects. Eventually, Newark had a higher percentage of its residents living in public housing than any other city in the United States.<sup><sup>[260]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Black militants in the city, however, derided this and other costly programs that displaced some black residential neighborhoods as “Negro removal.” The militants were angered by plans to build superhighways that would bisect the city’s black community. They likewise condemned a proposal in early 1967 for the “clearance” of 150 acres of predominantly black “slum” land on which a medical school/hospital complex would be built.<sup><sup>[261]</sup></sup>In 1967, the rage of Newark’s black militants exploded in the form of devastating race riots. The incident precipitating the violence was the police beating of a black cabbie on the night of July 12, 1967. The rioting persisted for six days and resulted in 23 deaths, 725 injuries, nearly 1,500 arrests, $10 million in property damage, and the destruction of approximately 1,000 stores and business establishments.<sup><sup>[262]</sup></sup> As was the case in other cities that experienced similar violence during this era, Newark never really recovered from these riots.</p>
<p>In addition to the race problem, Newark was also struggling with political corruption. The city’s politics have been plagued by Mob influence for generations. According to the <em>City Journal</em>, for instance, the bootlegger Abner “Longy” Zwillman, who smuggled through Newark nearly 40% of all the liquor sold on the East Coast during Prohibition, “bought off enough local officials to take control of the city’s politics from the late 1920s until his death in 1959.”<sup><sup>[263]</sup></sup> In 1962, Angelo “Ray” DeCarlo, a capo in New York’s Genovese crime family, helped fix the Newark mayoral election for Democrat Hugh Addonizio. “Federal investigations into Addonizio’s sleazy administration later revealed that almost every aspect of Newark’s government operated like a racket,” writes Manhattan Institute scholar Steven Malanga. “Officials fattened the cost of contracts by 10 percent for kickbacks, and city government even used the same bought-and-paid-for auditors as the mob did. Every Newark citizen and firm paid a corruption tax.” Partly because of this, Newark at that time had the most expensive government of any midsize American city—spending almost twice as much per capita as the average urban area.<sup><sup>[264]</sup></sup> By 1967, Newark’s property tax rate was $7.75 per $100 of assessed value, the highest in America. As the Newark <em>Star-Ledger</em> notes: “If taxed at that rate today, an average home in New Jersey—valued at $350,000—would owe more than $27,000 a year in property taxes.”<sup><sup>[265]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Lawlessness in high places, in conjunction with escalating costs and a volatile racial atmosphere, made Newark an increasingly undesirable place to live. “Fearful and without faith in Newark’s blatantly crooked government,” writes Steven Malanga, “the middle class fled. The city’s population shrank to just 270,000 mostly low-income residents—a 40 percent decline.”<sup><sup>[266]</sup></sup> Throughout the 1950s and ’60s, manufacturers and entrepreneurs in Newark pulled up their roots and sought out other locations that were less expensive, more business-friendly, and less socially combustible. Between 1950 and 1960, the city’s white population fell by nearly a third, from 363,000 to 265,000.<sup><sup>[267]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Addonizio’s successor was Kenneth Gibson, the city’s first black mayor. Amiri Baraka—the black nationalist, anti-Semitic poet/playwright, and self-avowed Marxist-Leninist—played a key role in galvanizing black voters to support Gibson at the polls. “We will nationalize the city’s institutions, as if it were liberated territory in Zimbabwe or Angola,” Baraka declared at the time.<sup><sup>[268]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Upon his election, Gibson boldly proclaimed: “Wherever American cities are going, Newark will get there first.”<sup><sup>[269]</sup></sup>   Gibson was right: Newark would lead the rush toward insolvency, corruption and racial conflict that marked America’s future urban reality. Contradicting the expectations of Baraka and other radical intellectuals who had supported him, the new mayor inaugurated policies that had a strong negative impact on blacks and the poor in Newark. The city continued to hemorrhage industrial jobs, as employment rates declined and the welfare rolls swelled. As more and more factories were abandoned, the number of taxable properties in the city decreased, cutting sharply into the city’s income and bringing it to the threshold of bankruptcy several times. Neighborhood programs and services—including trash collection—were cut repeatedly throughout the ’70s. Indeed, massive, stinking piles of uncollected garbage became a dismaying symbol of life in Newark during the decade.<sup><sup>[270]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Gibson’s administration was also afflicted by significant corruption. In 1982, investigators jailed numerous city officials for various infractions. Gibson himself faced state charges of having conspired to create a no-show job specifically for a former Newark official but was acquitted in 1982.<sup><sup>[271]</sup></sup> By 1986, Gibson’s last year in office, the city’s unemployment rate was nearly 50% higher than it had been at the start of his mayoralty. A Manhattan Institute report states that by the end of Gibson’s tenure in office, “failed government policies and middle-class flight had weakened much of Newark, except for a few corporate-supported blocks downtown and a few enclaves&#8230;.”<sup><sup>[272]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Every Newark mayor since Gibson has also been African American. His successor in 1986 was Democrat Sharpe James, who went on to hold office for two decades. Conditions in James’s own neighborhood, the South Ward, were particularly grim—replete with decrepit, crime-infested public housing projects and hundreds of vacant lots.<sup><sup>[273]</sup></sup></p>
<p>The James administration became infamous for its corruption. In 1996, for instance, Newark’s police commissioner pled guilty to stealing money that had been intended to finance local undercover narcotics investigations.<sup><sup>[274]</sup></sup> The following year, the mayor’s chief of staff, Jackie Mattison, was convicted of taking bribes to help steer city contracts to a particular insurance broker.<sup><sup>[275]</sup></sup> And during his final term in office, James himself sold a number of the city’s publicly owned vacant lots to his friends and supporters—for pennies on the dollar. One of the buyers was James’s mistress, Tamika Riley, who between 2001 and 2005 spent a grand total of $46,000 to purchase nine tracts of land from the city, which in each instance she promptly resold for a large profit. All told, Ms. Riley collected $665,000 from these sales.<sup><sup>[276]</sup></sup> For his involvement in this scam, James was convicted in 2008 on five counts of fraud and conspiracy charges; he subsequently spent 27 months in prison and was fined $100,000. Prosecutors dropped additional charges that James had billed the city for a host of personal expenses including meals, pornography, and body lotions, when they concluded that convictions for these items would not add any time to his prison sentence.<sup><sup>[277]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Mayor James’s ethical failure became standard operating procedure in Newark politics. Since 1962, every mayor of Newark except Cory Booker (2006- 2013) has been indicted for crimes committed while in office.<sup><sup>[278]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Newark’s woes are exacerbated by the fact that it is currently the second most highly taxed city in the United States. One study in 2013 estimated that the average three-person family with $50,000 in annual income owed $8,327 per year in local school and property taxes alone.<sup><sup>[279]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Newark’s unemployment rate is approximately two-thirds higher than that of New Jersey as a whole, and more than twice the national average.<sup><sup>[280]</sup></sup> Per capita income in Newark is just $17,161 per year (38% below the national average and less than half the New Jersey average), and median household income is $34,387 (about 36% below the national average).<sup><sup>[281]</sup></sup> The poverty rate citywide is 31%, and the child-advocacy organization New Jersey Kids Count estimates that about a quarter of Newark children under age 5 live in “extreme poverty.”<sup><sup>[282]</sup></sup></p>
<p>The city’s disastrously ineffective public education system spends an astronomical $23,000 on each K-12 pupil in its jurisdiction.<sup><sup>[283]</sup></sup> But in tests that were administered to elementary through junior-high-school students in 2013, just 19% of Newark’s third-graders registered scores indicating that they were “proficient” in English; the corresponding figure in math was 21%. The numbers were similar for students in grades 4 through 8.<sup><sup>[284]</sup></sup></p>
<p>According to the New Jersey Department of Education, the dropout rate for Newark’s high-school students is nearly 40%.<sup><sup>[285]</sup></sup> Among those who do manage to graduate, only about 3-in-10 are able to pass a state proficiency exam indicating that they are qualified for college-level work. Dan Gaby, executive director of the education-reform group E3, puts these numbers in perspective by estimating that Newark taxpayers spend approximately <em>$1.3 million</em> on the education-related expenses of each <em>qualified</em> student who earns a diploma from one of the city’s public high schools.<sup><sup>[286]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Compounding the academic decline in Newark is the fact that the city’s school district has been mismanaged into a state of financial chaos. At the start of the 2013-14 school year, the district faced a projected budget shortfall of $57 million.<sup><sup>[287]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Perhaps the biggest drain on Newark’s quality of life, however, is the city’s high rate of violent crime—including a murder rate that is roughly 7.2 times the national average and a robbery rate of 6.2 times the national average.<sup><sup>[288]</sup></sup> Newark’s criminal element has long understood that it can break the law with virtual impunity. As of 2007, the county prosecutor’s office responsible for Newark had the worst conviction rate of any county in New Jersey—in part because, as the <em>City Journal</em> notes, it has been “a haven for political appointees who aren’t necessarily qualified investigators or prosecutors.”<sup><sup>[289]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In September 2011, the combination of high taxes and intolerable crime rates led a large group of angry residents, predominantly black, of Newark’s East Ward, to stage a protest demonstration at city hall.<sup><sup>[290]</sup></sup> Many others, meanwhile, have protested with their feet. Newark’s population, which stood at 429,760 in 1940, is just 77,000 today.<sup><sup>[291]</sup></sup></p>
<p><em><strong>St. Louis:</strong></em></p>
<p>During World War II, St. Louis, Missouri was a bustling place replete with factories that produced such necessities as ammunition, uniforms and footwear, K-rations, chemicals and medicines, and even aircraft. Soon after the war, in 1949, an era of Democratic rule began that continues in the city to this day. Indeed, it has been 65 years since a Republican was elected mayor of St. Louis. This entrenched Democratic dominance is reflected in the fact that in each of the past three U.S. presidential elections, voters in St. Louis cast between 80 and 84 percent of their ballots for the Democrat candidate.<sup><sup>[292]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Between 1940 and 1970, St. Louis was one of the major destinations for the millions of blacks who migrated away from the rural South to take advantage of newly available job opportunities in Northern cities. During this 30-year period, St. Louis’s black population nearly tripled, from approximately 108,000 to more than 317,000.<sup><sup>[293]</sup></sup> By 1970, it was a majority-black city—a fact that, in light of theoverwhelming degree to which African Americans identify as Democrats, would have immense political implications for the city and its future.</p>
<p>The start of St. Louis’s Democratic era, which began with the mayoralty of Joseph Darst, coincided with President Harry Truman’s signing of the American Housing Act of 1949. This legislation greatly expanded the role of federal funds in the construction of public housing, and kick-started the “urban redevelopment” (also known as “urban renewal”) programs that would reshape a host of American cities. Darst, like so many Democrats, was a strong proponent of such federal intervention in local affairs.<sup><sup>[294]</sup></sup> By the end of his four-year term as mayor, approximately 700 public housing units had been completed citywide, with an additional 17,000 under construction and 4,000 in the planning stages.</p>
<p>Darst’s successor was Raymond Tucker, a longtime professor of mechanical engineering at Washington University, who went on to serve three terms as St. Louis mayor from 1953-65. The early part of his tenure coincided with the passage of the Housing Act of 1954, which, under the authority of the Federal Housing Administration, was initially drafted to create 140,000 public housing units in cities across the U.S., including St. Louis. Like Darst before him, Tucker was a staunch believer in the transformative powers of urban renewal—a strategy that, in the words of University of Illinois political science professor Dennis Judd, “was now the big game in town.”<sup><sup>[295]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Amid this wave of optimism, St. Louis issued bonds in 1953 to finance the completion of the St. Louis Gateway Mall and a number of high-rise housing projects. The most famous of these was the federally funded Pruitt-Igoe housing project which consisted of 33 eleven-story buildings with nearly 3,000 units in total. But showering the local population with federal cash—a longstanding Democrat tradition—was not the recipe for lasting success its proponents hoped. Indeed, just a few years after Pruitt-Igoe first opened its doors in 1956, it fell into disrepair and became a hotbed of crime and vandalism. As Alexander von Hoffman of Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies writes: “Large numbers of vacancies indicated that even poor people preferred to live anywhere but Pruitt-Igoe. In 1972, after spending more than $5 million in vain to cure the problems at Pruitt-Igoe, the St. Louis Housing Authority, in a highly publicized event, demolished three of the high-rise buildings. A year later, in concert with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, it declared Pruitt-Igoe unsalvageable and razed the remaining buildings.”<sup><sup>[296]</sup></sup></p>
<p>The Pruitt-Igoe experience was typical of urban renewal endeavors across the United States. By the time the urban renewal era ended in 1973, it was widely regarded as a colossal failure.<sup><sup>[297]</sup></sup></p>
<p>During 1950-70, a period which coincided with the era of urban renewal, close to 60% of St. Louis’s white residents relocated to other towns and cities.<sup><sup>[298]</sup></sup> According to University of Iowa history professor Colin Gordon, who authored the 2008 book <em>Mapping Decline: St. Louis and the Fate of the American City</em>, St. Louis during this period became “the poster child of white flight.”<sup><sup>[299]</sup></sup></p>
<p>But this was not simply a case of racial phobia. Gordon also notes that whites were not alone in their eagerness to escape St. Louis’s crime-infested streets. “White flight in St. Louis was followed closely by black flight,” he explains, “leaving large tracts of the North Side virtually vacant and much of the ‘urban crisis’ now located in North County’s inner suburbs.”<sup><sup>[300]</sup></sup> Between 1970 and 1980, as St. Louis’s overall population fell from about 622,000 to just 453,000, the city’s black population likewise declined from 317,000 to about 206,000.<sup><sup>[301]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In 1993, St. Louis elected its first black mayor, Democrat Freeman Bosley Jr., whose four years in office were marked by a failure to deal with an exploding crime problem. From the beginning of his tenure in office, Bosley tried quixotically to arrange friendly meetings between himself and local gang members, urging them to stay in school and assuring them that he was “committed to finding you jobs.” He convinced a number of corporate sponsors to offer 500 paying jobs to city students in the summer of 2004; he established eight community schools with recreation centers open until 10 p.m. each night, in an effort to help keep young people out of trouble; and city corporations bankrolled a Midnight Basketball League for similar purposes.<sup><sup>[302]</sup></sup> Notwithstanding all these efforts, Bosley’s first year in office was the bloodiest in city history, with 267 homicides.<sup><sup>[303]</sup></sup></p>
<p>By the end of the Nineties, social and economic decay were evident throughout much of St. Louis, as evidenced by the following excerpt from the 1999 St. Louis City Plan:</p>
<p>“[A] visual survey of the neighborhood reveals a tree-lined block of stable, well-kept, two- and four-family homes followed by a block of overgrown board-ups on a one-to-one ratio with intact housing&#8230;. Two blocks later, a once commercial area of St. Louis Avenue is now totally empty with vacated lots and derelict buildings. This trend is not specific to St. Louis Avenue; the same can be said of Taylor, Greer, Labadie, and most other neighborhood streets. For businesses, the situation appears even worse. Signs of life are few and far between the corner store board-ups and chain-link-fence-covered storefronts.”<sup><sup>[304]</sup></sup></p>
<p>By the year 2000, the total population of St. Louis—which had peaked at about 857,000 in 1950—had fallen to 348,000.<sup><sup>[305]</sup></sup> Remarkably, this figure was smaller than that which had been recorded in the city’s census 120 years earlier.<sup><sup>[306]</sup></sup> According to New Geography.com: “Among the world’s municipalities that have ever achieved 500,000 population, none have lost so much as the city of St. Louis.”<sup><sup>[307]</sup></sup></p>
<p>After decades of Democratic leadership, St. Louis today is a city facing severe economic challenges. It has a per capita income of just $22,551 (about 20% below the national average), a median household income of $34,384 (some 35% below the national median), and a poverty rate of 27% (nearly twice the national average).<sup><sup>[308]</sup></sup></p>
<p>According to <em>CQ Press, </em>which annually publishes crime rankings that compare cities across the United States in terms of their respective incidences of murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft, St. Louis was “America’s Most Dangerous City” in 2006 and 2010, while in other recent years it has ranked consistently near the top of that same list.<sup><sup>[309]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Closely analyzing St. Louis’s crime statistics can be a dispiriting experience. The city’s incidence (per 100,000 residents) of violent crime is more than 4.5 times higher than the national average—including 7.5 times the national average for murder, 5.8 times the national average for robberies, 2.2 times the national average for rapes, and 4.6 times the national average for assaults.<sup><sup>[310]</sup></sup> The vast majority of St. Louis residents victimized by these crimes in any given year are African Americans. Indeed, blacks were victims in 502 of the 567 homicides that occurred in the city between 2008 and 2011. Virtually all of the killers, as well, were black.<sup><sup>[311]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In 2008, Charles Quincy Troupe, alderman of one crime-infested ward in North St. Louis, openly advised his constituents to arm themselves because criminality in the area had become so rampant that the police force would be unable to keep it in check. “The community has to be ready to defend itself,” Troupe said, “because it’s clear the economy is going to get worse, and criminals are getting more bold.”<sup><sup>[312]</sup></sup> In a November 2013 story about life in St. Louis, the <em>New York Times</em> interviewed one longtime black resident who, fearful of the ubiquitous violence that surrounded him, avoided going outdoors after dark and regularly slept with a shotgun by his bed. “There’s a sense of hopelessness on behalf of a lot of people,” the man lamented. Another St. Louis resident told the <em>Times</em>: “It’s scary, man. Whoever tells you they ain’t scared of this life, they [sic] lying to you.”<sup><sup>[313]</sup></sup></p>
<p>St. Louis’s decay is evident also in its woeful public education system. Though the city’s Public School District annually spends over $15,000 per K-12 pupil—at least 40% more than the national average—the children (and the taxpayers) of St. Louis get very little in return.<sup><sup>[314]</sup></sup> The high-school graduation rates of St. Louis students range between about 46% and 60% in any given year—a far cry from Missouri’s overall figure of approximately 85%.<sup><sup>[315]</sup></sup></p>
<p>According to Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, which publishes an Annual Performance Report evaluating every school district in the state, the St. Louis Public Schools in 2013 scored a meager 24.6% on a scale of zero to 100%.<sup><sup>[316]</sup></sup> Further, students in the vast majority of the city’s public schools performed poorly on Missouri Assessment Program tests designed to measure proficiency in English, math and science. For example:</p>
<p>In 87% of St. Louis public schools, fewer than half of all students registered scores high enough to qualify them as “proficient” in English. In 37% of the schools, <em>fewer than one-fifth</em> of students were proficient in English.<sup><sup>[317]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In 92% of St. Louis public schools, fewer than half of all students registered scores high enough to qualify them as “proficient” in math. In 39% of the schools, <em>fewer than one-fifth</em> of students were proficient in math.<sup><sup>[318]</sup></sup></p>
<p>In 85% of St. Louis public schools, fewer than half of all students registered scores high enough to qualify them as “proficient” in science. In an astonishing 62% of the schools, <em>fewer than one-fifth</em> of students were proficient in science. In fact, in 31 separate schools the proficiency rate was below 10%, and in 7 schools the figure was a flat 0%.<sup><sup>[319]</sup></sup></p>
<p><em><strong>Atlanta:</strong></em></p>
<p>The city of Atlanta, Georgia has not been governed by a Republican mayor since 1879, the era of Reconstruction. Since the 1960s and early ’70s, Atlanta’s mayors have not only been Democrats, but “progressives” as well.</p>
<p>Because it is home to the prestigious historically black colleges Morehouse and Spelman, Atlanta has often been seen as the intellectual capital of black America, and the black Democrat mayors it has elected over the past four decades have automatically become important national figures.</p>
<p>Maynard Jackson was the first; he was elected in 1974 and went on to hold the mayor’s office for three (non-consecutive) four-year terms: 1974-78, 1978–82, and 1990–94. He is often credited with improving race relations in Atlanta as the city moved away from its segregated past and into its role as capital of the New South that emerged after the civil rights era. Yet he was also a divisive figure who ran Atlanta in the dictatorial manner of the big-city bosses of the American past. In May 1974, soon after first taking office, Jackson stoked racial tensions in Atlanta when he attempted, over the strong objections of the city’s white police officers, to fire the incumbent (white) police chief, John Inman. A Fulton County court judge upheld Inman’s right to retain his job, but a few months later the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a new city charter authorizing Mayor Jackson and Atlanta’s City Council to reorganize their city’s police department in any way they wished. This enabled Jackson to undermine Inman’s authority and turn him into a figurehead subservient to the newly created “public safety commissioner” authorized to oversee the police, fire, and civil defense departments.<sup><sup>[320]</sup></sup></p>
<p>To fill the role of public safety commissioner, Jackson appointed his former college classmate, black activist Reginald Eaves, who had no safety experience. Eaves’ attitude toward his new role was symbolized by his defiant use of public money to purchase extra options on his fully loaded city vehicle. When criticized, he said defiantly: “If I can’t ride in a little bit of comfort, to hell with it.”<sup><sup>[321]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Eaves sparked further controversy when he appointed an ex-convict as his personal secretary and instituted a quota system that gave preference to African Americans for hirings and promotions within the police department. Eventually, in 1978, Mayor Jackson was forced to fire Eaves for his role in a scandal in which certain police officers were allowed to cheat on promotions exams. (Eaves’ unethical conduct continued later on when he became a member of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners and took bribes from local businessmen in exchange for ensuring that their projects were approved.)<sup><sup>[322]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Between 1978 and 1979 alone, Atlanta experienced a 69% increase in homicides and now had the highest murder rate—and overall crime rate—of any city in the United States. But while crime was exploding, Jackson reduced the police force by 25% between 1975 and 1979.<sup><sup>[323]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Jackson effectively presented himself as an advocate for poor blacks throughout his political career, in large part by pressing for affirmative action and set asides for blacks in public works projects and municipal contracts.<sup><sup>[324]</sup></sup> But in January 1994, as his third and final term as mayor was winding down, a federal court jury cast a shadow over his repeated use of these strategies. In one of the most politically explosive trials in Atlanta history—centered on an affirmative action program by which Jackson’s administration had tried to increase the presence of black-owned shops and businesses at Atlanta’s Hartsfield International Airport—the jury convicted a former airport commissioner and councilman on 83 counts of mail fraud, 4 counts of tax evasion, and 43 counts of accepting bribes from an airport concessionaire in return for favorable treatment, such as reduced rent at the airport.<sup><sup>[325]</sup></sup></p>
<p>These proceedings did considerable damage to Jackson’s legacy, leaving the impression that the mayor’s affirmative action program had been, as the <em>New York Times</em> described it, little more than “a scheme to benefit white businessmen, politically connected blacks, and black political leaders.”<sup><sup>[326]</sup></sup> Bob Holmes, a Democratic State Representative from Atlanta and director of Atlanta University’s Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy, put it this way in a 1994 interview: “People are going to ask if other minority participation arrangements were really fronts and whether Atlanta’s business is conducted on the basis of political payoff rather than competency and efficiency. It casts the image of impropriety and suggests a 20-year relationship where folks were rewarded merely for supporting Maynard.”<sup><sup>[327]</sup></sup>Holmes’s words proved prophetic. In 2002, when an investigation by the <em>Atlanta Journal Constitution</em> found that friends of Jackson and his successor as Atlanta mayor, Bill Campbell (1994-2002), had for years received “the vast majority” of contracts awarded by the Atlanta airport which were supposed to go to the black community generally. In at least 80 of the 100 contracts reviewed during the probe, one or more of the business partners involved had cultivated a relationship with either Jackson, Campbell, or both. Further, most of those partners had contributed money to the Jackson and/or Campbell mayoral campaigns.<sup><sup>[328]</sup></sup></p>
<p>As for Campbell, this was by no means his only brush with political scandal. Indeed, a seven-year federal corruption probe resulted in the 2006 convictions of 10 city officials tied to his administration. Also in 2006, prosecutors charged Campbell with personally accepting more than $160,000 worth of illegal campaign contributions, cash payments, junkets, and home improvements from city contractors during his years as mayor. Ultimately, he was convicted only of three counts of federal tax evasion.<sup><sup>[329]</sup></sup></p>
<p>For many years Atlanta’s political leaders—in exchange for the slavish political support of unionized public-sector workers—promised an unending array of unsustainable pension benefits to those employees. Consequently, by 2011 Atlanta’s city government owed no less than $1.5 billion in unfunded liabilities on the pensions of its public-sector workers—an ominous figure that forced the Atlanta City Council to restructure the city’s pension system so that all police officers, firefighters and city employees must now contribute an additional 5% of their wages to the pension system to keep it solvent.<sup><sup>[330]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Political mismanagement and incompetence have had serious consequences for Atlanta’s residents, more than 26% of whom currently live in poverty.<sup><sup>[331]</sup></sup> As with other urban centers led by Democrats, blacks are hit hardest. Among the nation’s 40 largest urban areas, Atlanta has the fifth-highest black poverty rate.<sup><sup>[332]</sup></sup> And according to a study released by the Brookings Institution in February 2014, Atlanta has a greater disparity between rich and poor than any other urban area in America.<sup><sup>[333]</sup></sup></p>
<p>As in so many Democrat-run U.S. cities, Atlanta’s public-school system has grown, over time, into a bureaucratic monstrosity of waste and ineptitude. Every year the Atlanta Public Schools (APS) system gobbles up some 15,000 taxpayer dollars—nearly 50% more than the national average—for the education-related expenses of each K-12 pupil in its jurisdiction.<sup><sup>[334]</sup></sup> Despite this investment, proficiency rates for APS eighth-graders in 2013 were a meager 22% in reading and 17% in math.<sup><sup>[335]</sup></sup>For about a decade, a cabal of Atlanta educators and school administrators carefully orchestrated a secret campaign to conceal this woeful educational track record—and to enrich themselves in the process. The roots of that campaign go back to 1999, when black educator Beverly L. Hall, who had just finished serving four years as superintendent of the Newark Public Schools, was hired as APS superintendent and hailed as a highly innovative reformer—even as she remained the target of a New Jersey State Senate probe examining a $58 million deficit that had accrued under her watch in Newark.<sup><sup>[336]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Under the leadership of Hall who aligns herself with Democratic Party causes<sup><sup>[337]</sup></sup> and donated money to the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns of Barack Obama, the standardized test scores of Atlanta students began to rise—inexplicably to some observers of the troubled school system. In 2008, according to standards set by the federal No Child Left Behind law, every elementary school in Atlanta demonstrated “adequate yearly progress” as measured by student scores.<sup><sup>[338]</sup></sup> More noticeably, in many cases, Atlanta pupils from poor and minority backgrounds were outperforming their white peers from wealthier suburban districts on the exams.<sup><sup>[339]</sup></sup> In recognition of this rather startling trend, the American Association of School Administrators in 2009 gave Hall its coveted National Superintendent of the Year award, crediting her “leadership” with having “turned Atlanta into a model of urban school reform.”<sup><sup>[340]</sup></sup> That same year, President Obama’s Secretary of Education Arne Duncan invited Hall to be recognized at the White House.<sup><sup>[341]</sup></sup></p>
<p>But then, soon after, the <em>Atl</em><em>anta Journal-Constitution</em> examined closely the large gains that APS students had been making in their Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) scores, and published a series of articles reporting that some of those scores were statistically improbable.<sup><sup>[342]</sup></sup> A subsequent probe by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation—the results of which were made public in July 2011—found that a significant number of teachers and principals at 58 Atlanta schools had secretly corrected and/or fabricated many of the answers on the CRCT tests, so as to give the false impression of improving student performance.<sup><sup>[343]</sup></sup> All told, the investigation implicated 38 principals and 140 teachers, making it the most extensive cheating scandal in the history of American education.<sup><sup>[344]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Prior to these revelations, many of the educators involved in the scandal had been handsomely rewarded for their malfeasance. Indeed, Atlanta’s <em>Channel 2 Action News</em> reported that teachers at 13 schools in particular had received a combined $500,000 in merit-pay bonuses in 2009 alone.<sup><sup>[345]</sup></sup> And Beverly Hall, for her part, had raked in approximately $580,000 in “performance” bonuses.<sup><sup>[346]</sup></sup> This self-enrichment took place at the same time that the APS was racking up a budget deficit that, by 2014, amounted to no less than $45 million.<sup><sup>[347]</sup></sup> Following Georgia’s investigation into the APS cheating scandal, Superintendent Hall was allowed to resign without penalty in 2010 but was indicted by a Fulton County grand jury in 2013.<sup><sup>[348]</sup></sup></p>
<p>Administrators such as Hall have come and gone in Atlanta, but the children remain behind to pay the price for their malfeasance. According to Binghamton University Professor Lawrence C. Stedman, APS students lag one to two years behind national averages on the NAEP. “At current rates,” Stedman writes, “it will take from 50 to 110 years to bring all students to proficiency.”<sup><sup>[349]</sup></sup></p>
<p>No profile of Atlanta would be complete without mentioning the crime rates that plagued the city at least since the mayorship of Maynard Jackson. Today, the city’s rates of murder, robbery, and auto theft exceed the corresponding national averages by 300%, 360%, and 410%, respectively.<sup><sup>[350]</sup></sup> In 2012, Atlanta ranked, as the ninth most dangerous U.S. city with a population of 200,000 or more.<sup><sup>[351]</sup></sup> The incidence of murders in Atlanta is about the same as in South Africa, a nation infamous for its exceedingly high homicide rate.<sup><sup>[352]</sup></sup></p>
<p><strong>Notes:</strong></p>
<p><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup>http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/05/31/president-obamas-wealth-destroying-goal-taking-the-curley-effect-nationwide/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704881304576094221050061598</p>
<p><sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup>http://books.google.com/books?id=5ceGeWusD7gC&amp;pg=PA217&amp;source=gbs_toc_r&amp;cad=3#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false</p>
<p><sup><sup>[4]</sup></sup>http://books.google.com/books?id=5ceGeWusD7gC&amp;pg=PA217&amp;source=gbs_toc_r&amp;cad=3#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false</p>
<p><sup><sup>[5]</sup></sup>http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/politics-reform/essays/motor-city-story-detroit</p>
<p><sup><sup>[6]</sup></sup>http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/politics-reform/essays/motor-city-story-detroit</p>
<p><sup><sup>[7]</sup></sup>http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353862/detroit-goes-down-kevin-d-williamson</p>
<p><sup><sup>[8]</sup></sup> http://tinyurl.com/ktf3564</p>
<p><sup><sup>[9]</sup></sup>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/27/1227025/-Detroit-s-Long-Road-to-Bankruptcy-Began-Because-of-Resentment-Towards-it-s-First-Black-Mayor#</p>
<p><sup><sup>[10]</sup></sup> http://tinyurl.com/mxguzry</p>
<p><sup><sup>[11]</sup></sup> http://tinyurl.com/ktf3564</p>
<p><sup><sup>[12]</sup></sup> http://tinyurl.com/km2993h</p>
<p><sup><sup>[13]</sup></sup>http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/07/22/how-democrats-and-unions-destroyed-detroit</p>
<p><sup><sup>[14]</sup></sup>http://dailyreckoning.com/detroits-socialist-nightmare-is-americas-future/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[15]</sup></sup>http://www.detroits-great-rebellion.com/Miriani-Crackdown.html; http://books.google.com/books?id=c_LpEOQMEq4C&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false</p>
<p><sup><sup>[16]</sup></sup>http://www.detroits-great-rebellion.com/Miriani-Crackdown.html; http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/toxic-government-by-democrats-detroit-2/; http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?12355-This-week-in-Detroit-City-History-1968-Federal-quot-Model-Cities-quot-program</p>
<p><sup><sup>[17]</sup></sup>http://detroitplanninghistory.weebly.com/jerome-cavanagh-elected-mayor.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[18]</sup></sup>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/how-the-democrats-destroyed-detroit/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[19]</sup></sup>http://dailyreckoning.com/detroits-socialist-nightmare-is-americas-future/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[20]</sup></sup>http://books.google.com/books?id=c_LpEOQMEq4C&amp;pg=PA111&amp;lpg=PA111&amp;dq=#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false</p>
<p><sup><sup>[21]</sup></sup>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/how-the-democrats-destroyed-detroit/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[22]</sup></sup>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/toxic-government-by-democrats-detroit-2/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[23]</sup></sup>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324110404578625581152645480</p>
<p><sup><sup>[24]</sup></sup>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2013/07/19/what-killed-detroit-lets-not-forget-the-who/;</p>
<p><sup><sup>[25]</sup></sup> http://tinyurl.com/k8e8vfz</p>
<p><sup><sup>[26]</sup></sup> http://tinyurl.com/k8e8vfz</p>
<p><sup><sup>[27]</sup></sup>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324110404578625581152645480</p>
<p><sup><sup>[28]</sup></sup>http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&amp;dat=19930626&amp;id=lVdPAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=VAMEAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=6310,6814490</p>
<p><sup><sup>[29]</sup></sup>http://www.examiner.com/article/detroit-s-collapse-the-young-years</p>
<p><sup><sup>[30]</sup></sup>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2013/07/19/what-killed-detroit-lets-not-forget-the-who/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[31]</sup></sup>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2013/07/19/what-killed-detroit-lets-not-forget-the-who/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[32]</sup></sup>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324110404578625581152645480</p>
<p><sup><sup>[33]</sup></sup>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324110404578625581152645480</p>
<p><sup><sup>[34]</sup></sup> http://tinyurl.com/k8e8vfz</p>
<p><sup><sup>[35]</sup></sup>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324110404578625581152645480</p>
<p><sup><sup>[36]</sup></sup>http://www.cnn.com/US/9711/29/young.obit.pm/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[37]</sup></sup>http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/08/us/former-detroit-police-chief-convicted-of-embezzlement.html; http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1992/Prosecutor-Ex-Chief-s-$2-6-Million-Theft-Shows-How-Power-Corrupts/id-5ca60a54bd33a361740eb2a6c1f037c2</p>
<p><sup><sup>[38]</sup></sup>http://www.nationalbcc.org/news/beyond-the-rhetoric/1694-detroit-free-falls-as-its-leaders-are-in-denial</p>
<p><sup><sup>[39]</sup></sup>http://articles.latimes.com/1990-04-20/news/mn-1412_1_south-african-gold-coins; http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-02-13/news/9101130805_1_coleman-young-appointees-teresa-blossom</p>
<p><sup><sup>[40]</sup></sup>http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1992/Prosecutor-Ex-Chief-s-$2-6-Million-Theft-Shows-How-Power-Corrupts/id-5ca60a54bd33a361740eb2a6c1f037c2</p>
<p><sup><sup>[41]</sup></sup>http://www.nationalbcc.org/news/beyond-the-rhetoric/1694-detroit-free-falls-as-its-leaders-are-in-denial</p>
<p><sup><sup>[42]</sup></sup>http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/16/us/ex-official-guilty-in-detroit-fraud.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[43]</sup></sup>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/toxic-government-by-democrats-detroit-2/; http://www.freep.com/article/20130311/NEWS0102/130311042/Elected-leaders-their-legal-issues</p>
<p><sup><sup>[44]</sup></sup>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/toxic-government-by-democrats-detroit-2/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[45]</sup></sup>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/toxic-government-by-democrats-detroit-2/;</p>
<p><sup><sup>[46]</sup></sup>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/25/judge-sentences-detroit-mayor-kwame-kilpatrick-years-prison/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[47]</sup></sup>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/toxic-government-by-democrats-detroit-2/; http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/us/kwame-kilpatrick-ex-mayor-of-detroit-convicted-in-corruption-case.html?_r=0&amp;gwh=C9121B44C5BA0D101AFE9BA29981FFB8&amp;gwt=pay</p>
<p><sup><sup>[48]</sup></sup>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/toxic-government-by-democrats-detroit-2/; http://www.freep.com/article/20121008/NEWS01/121008028</p>
<p><sup><sup>[49]</sup></sup>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/toxic-government-by-democrats-detroit-2/;</p>
<p><sup><sup>[50]</sup></sup>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2622000.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[51]</sup></sup>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/toxic-government-by-democrats-detroit-2/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[52]</sup></sup>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2622000.html; http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[53]</sup></sup>http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/12/02/19-facts-about-detroit-bankruptcy/3823355/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[54]</sup></sup>http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/03/22/obama_adminstration_is_following_the_detroit_pattern/page/full</p>
<p><sup><sup>[55]</sup></sup>http://www.freep.com/interactive/article/20130915/NEWS01/130801004/Detroit-Bankruptcy-history-1950-debt-pension-revenue</p>
<p><sup><sup>[56]</sup></sup>http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/chrisedwards/2013/07/29/detroits-high-property-taxes-n1651149</p>
<p><sup><sup>[57]</sup></sup>http://www.freep.com/interactive/article/20130915/NEWS01/130801004/Detroit-Bankruptcy-history-1950-debt-pension-revenue</p>
<p><sup><sup>[58]</sup></sup>http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/12/02/19-facts-about-detroit-bankruptcy/3823355/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[59]</sup></sup>http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2013/02/21/detroit-tops-2013-list-of-americas-most-miserable-cities/; http://www.newgeography.com/content/003897-root-causes-detroit-s-decline-should-not-go-ignored</p>
<p><sup><sup>[60]</sup></sup>http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130221/METRO01/302210375; http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/how-the-democrats-destroyed-detroit/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[61]</sup></sup>http://www.newgeography.com/content/003897-root-causes-detroit-s-decline-should-not-go-ignored</p>
<p><sup><sup>[62]</sup></sup>http://www.jrap-journal.org/pastvolumes/2010/v43/v43_n1_a2_stansel.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[63]</sup></sup>http://ij.org/detroit</p>
<p><sup><sup>[64]</sup></sup>http://ij.org/detroit</p>
<p><sup><sup>[65]</sup></sup>http://ippsr.msu.edu/policy/13MayPolicyBrief.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[66]</sup></sup>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/how-the-democrats-destroyed-detroit/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[67]</sup></sup>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/19/detroits-pension-problems-in-one-chart/; http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/12/02/19-facts-about-detroit-bankruptcy/3823355/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[68]</sup></sup>http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/22/detroit-and-the-bankruptcy-of-liberalism/; http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/12/02/19-facts-about-detroit-bankruptcy/3823355/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[69]</sup></sup>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/02/us/michigan-appoints-emergency-manager-for-detroit.html?hp&amp;_r=0&amp;gwh=62AECD70ABA2A0FBD24C1D41934CDC29&amp;gwt=pay</p>
<p><sup><sup>[70]</sup></sup>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/13/report-by-emergency-manager-says-detroit-finances-are-crumbling-and-future-is/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[71]</sup></sup>http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22514588</p>
<p><sup><sup>[72]</sup></sup>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/13/report-by-emergency-manager-says-detroit-finances-are-crumbling-and-future-is/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[73]</sup></sup>http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/05/13/detroit-emergency-financial-manager-report/2155081/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[74]</sup></sup>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/18/detroit-prepares-bankruptcy-filing-friday/2552819/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[75]</sup></sup>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/detroit-public-schools-bankrupting-minority-students-futures/; http://detroit2020.com/2011/06/21/comparing-school-district-spending/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[76]</sup></sup>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124813472753066949?mg=reno64-wsj&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB124813472753066949.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[77]</sup></sup>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/toxic-government-by-democrats-detroit-2/; http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/detroit-public-schools-bankrupting-minority-students-futures/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[78]</sup></sup>http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/08/more-corruption-detroit/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[79]</sup></sup>http://www.fbi.gov/detroit/press-releases/2012/former-detroit-public-schools-accountant-teacher-indicted-on-fraud-and-money-laundering-charges</p>
<p><sup><sup>[80]</sup></sup>http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/05/nations_report_card_detroit_st.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[81]</sup></sup>http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/detroit_students_notch_lowest.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[82]</sup></sup>https://www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles/AssessmentResults/Meap/MeapPerformanceSummary.aspx</p>
<p><sup><sup>[83]</sup></sup>http://books.google.com/books?id=5ceGeWusD7gC&amp;pg=PA217&amp;source=gbs_toc_r&amp;cad=3#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false</p>
<p><sup><sup>[84]</sup></sup>http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121011/METRO01/210110335/1409/metro/Detroit-parents-embrace-school-choice-poll-says</p>
<p><sup><sup>[85]</sup></sup>http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/12/02/19-facts-about-detroit-bankruptcy/3823355/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[86]</sup></sup>http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/10/22/detroit-again-tops-list-of-most-dangerous-cities-but-crime-rate-dips/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[87]</sup></sup>http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2013/02/21/detroit-tops-2013-list-of-americas-most-miserable-cities/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[88]</sup></sup>http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/12/02/19-facts-about-detroit-bankruptcy/3823355/; http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/10/22/detroit-again-tops-list-of-most-dangerous-cities-but-crime-rate-dips/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[89]</sup></sup>http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Detroit-Michigan.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[90]</sup></sup>http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/12/02/19-facts-about-detroit-bankruptcy/3823355/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[91]</sup></sup>http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2013/02/21/detroit-tops-2013-list-of-americas-most-miserable-cities/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[92]</sup></sup>http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/12/02/19-facts-about-detroit-bankruptcy/3823355/; http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/toxic-government-by-democrats-detroit-2/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[93]</sup></sup>http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121009/METRO01/210090369</p>
<p><sup><sup>[94]</sup></sup>http://www.nathanielturner.com/robertmooreand1199union3.htm</p>
<p><sup><sup>[95]</sup></sup>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576510794280560566; http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/blame-taxes-baltimores-rot</p>
<p><sup><sup>[96]</sup></sup>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/24/24510.html;</p>
<p><sup><sup>[97]</sup></sup>http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/speccol/sc3500/sc3520/001400/001489/html/msa01489.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[98]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_can_mayor_omalley.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[99]</sup></sup>http://citypaper.com/news/saint-or-sinner-1.1144574</p>
<p><sup><sup>[100]</sup></sup>http://citypaper.com/news/saint-or-sinner-1.1144574</p>
<p><sup><sup>[101]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_can_mayor_omalley.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[102]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_can_mayor_omalley.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[103]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_can_mayor_omalley.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[104]</sup></sup>http://www2.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=3501; http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/2416/index.php</p>
<p><sup><sup>[105]</sup></sup>http://www.ubalt.edu/jfi/jfi/reports/EBMCJobCreation0905.pdf; http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-2240408.html; http://carnegie.org/about-us/board-of-directors/kurt-l-schmoke/; http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2002-11-05/news/0211050405_1_empowerment-basu-census;</p>
<p><sup><sup>[106]</sup></sup>http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2002-11-05/news/0211050405_1_empowerment-basu-census</p>
<p><sup><sup>[107]</sup></sup>http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/2416/index.php; http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2002-11-05/news/0211050405_1_empowerment-basu-census</p>
<p><sup><sup>[108]</sup></sup> http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_can_mayor_omalley.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[109]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_can_mayor_omalley.html; http://www2.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=3501</p>
<p><sup><sup>[110]</sup></sup>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB20001424053111903480904576510794280560566; http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_can_mayor_omalley.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[111]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_can_mayor_omalley.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[112]</sup></sup>http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1633; http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1629</p>
<p><sup><sup>[113]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_can_mayor_omalley.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[114]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_can_mayor_omalley.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[115]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_can_mayor_omalley.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[116]</sup></sup>http://www2.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=12855</p>
<p><sup><sup>[117]</sup></sup>http://www2.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=12855</p>
<p><sup><sup>[118]</sup></sup>http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/blame-taxes-baltimores-rot</p>
<p><sup><sup>[119]</sup></sup>http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-02-04/news/bal-dixon-sentenced0204_1_ronald-h-lipscomb-plea-deal-perjury</p>
<p><sup><sup>[120]</sup></sup>http://www.city-data.com/city/Baltimore-Maryland.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[121]</sup></sup>http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/blame-taxes-baltimores-rot</p>
<p><sup><sup>[122]</sup></sup> http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Baltimore-Maryland.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[123]</sup></sup>http://www.bpichicago.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Beshon+Smith+presentation.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[124]</sup></sup>https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/governments/cb13-92.html; http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66</p>
<p><sup><sup>[125]</sup></sup>http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-12-18/news/bs-md-ci-tuda-results-20131218_1_common-core-trial-urban-district-assessment-average-reading-scores</p>
<p><sup><sup>[126]</sup></sup>http://www.baltimorecityschools.org/cms/lib/MD01001351/Centricity/Domain/8861/PDF/2014-LegislativePlatform.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[127]</sup></sup>http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/06/the-failure-of-american-schools/308497/?single_page=true</p>
<p><sup><sup>[128]</sup></sup>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576510794280560566</p>
<p><sup><sup>[129]</sup></sup>https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2011/08/27/are-high-property-taxes-“killing”-baltimore/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[130]</sup></sup>http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-city-police-and-fire-unfunded-pension-liabilities-grow-by-60m-20131216,0,430951.story</p>
<p><sup><sup>[131]</sup></sup>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576510794280560566; http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2013/05/second-life-some-baltimores-vacant-lots/5764/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[132]</sup></sup>http://washington.org/DC-information/washington-dc-history</p>
<p><sup><sup>[133]</sup></sup>http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/capital.htm; http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/fast_facts/1820_fast_facts.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[134]</sup></sup>http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab07.txt; http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab09.txt</p>
<p><sup><sup>[135]</sup></sup>http://washington.org/DC-information/washington-dc-history</p>
<p><sup><sup>[136]</sup></sup>http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab13.txt</p>
<p><sup><sup>[137]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/2013/23_1_washington-dc.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[138]</sup></sup>http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/10005/43-years-ago-today-dc-stopped-burning/; http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/responsible-living/stories/washington-dc-is-booming-but-racial-divide-causes-unease</p>
<p><sup><sup>[139]</sup></sup>http://www.answers.com/topic/walter-washington</p>
<p><sup><sup>[140]</sup></sup>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/dc/barry/timeline.htm</p>
<p><sup><sup>[141]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/2013/23_1_washington-dc.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[142]</sup></sup>http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-04-29/news/1991119021_1_crime-increased-violent-crime-capita</p>
<p><sup><sup>[143]</sup></sup>http://articles.latimes.com/1990-01-07/news/mn-442_1_marion-barry/6</p>
<p><sup><sup>[144]</sup></sup>http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/12/us/two-worlds-of-washington-turmoil-and-growth.html?pagewanted=print; http://articles.latimes.com/1990-01-07/news/mn-442_1_marion-barry/6</p>
<p><sup><sup>[145]</sup></sup>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36213</p>
<p><sup><sup>[146]</sup></sup>http://articles.latimes.com/1990-01-07/news/mn-442_1_marion-barry/6</p>
<p><sup><sup>[147]</sup></sup>http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/9007301339/marion-barrys-untold-legacy</p>
<p><sup><sup>[148]</sup></sup>http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+worst+city+government.-a07371279; http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97may/kennedy2.htm</p>
<p><sup><sup>[149]</sup></sup>http://articles.latimes.com/1990-01-07/news/mn-442_1_marion-barry/2</p>
<p><sup><sup>[150]</sup></sup>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/dc/barry/87prof.htm; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/dc/barry/timeline.htm; http://keywiki.org/index.php/Ivanhoe_Donaldson</p>
<p><sup><sup>[151]</sup></sup>m http://books.google.com/books?id=EUVXKwkHuaQC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;lpg=PA12&amp;dq=mayor+#v=onepage&amp;q=mayor%20&amp;f=false</p>
<p><sup><sup>[152]</sup></sup>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/dc/barry/timeline.htm</p>
<p><sup><sup>[153]</sup></sup>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/dc/barry/timeline.htm; http://www.wtop.com/41/2894587/A-timeline-of-DCs-troubled-political-past-; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/dc/barry/video.htm</p>
<p><sup><sup>[154]</sup></sup>http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&amp;dat=19900215&amp;id=CTsdAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=IKYEAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=2734,3894746</p>
<p><sup><sup>[155]</sup></sup> http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-05-20/news/1994140041_1_marion-barry-witness-barry-knew</p>
<p><sup><sup>[156]</sup></sup>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/dc/barry/timeline.htm; http://www.wtop.com/41/2894587/A-timeline-of-DCs-troubled-political-past-</p>
<p><sup><sup>[157]</sup></sup>http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113906/al-sharpton-after-trayvon-martin-end-racial-demagoguery</p>
<p><sup><sup>[158]</sup></sup>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/arts/television/10barry.html?_r=0</p>
<p><sup><sup>[159]</sup></sup> http://tinyurl.com/l6x5ph8</p>
<p><sup><sup>[160]</sup></sup>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/dcs-delinquents-top-corrupt-politicians-washington/story?id=16520422</p>
<p><sup><sup>[161]</sup></sup>http://www.wtop.com/41/2894587/A-timeline-of-DCs-troubled-political-past-; http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/45047/swagger-jack/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[162]</sup></sup>http://www.wtop.com/41/2894587/A-timeline-of-DCs-troubled-political-past-; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/01embezzle.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[163]</sup></sup>http://www.wtop.com/41/2894587/A-timeline-of-DCs-troubled-political-past-</p>
<p><sup><sup>[164]</sup></sup>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/19/AR2011021904613.html; http://www.wtop.com/41/2894587/A-timeline-of-DCs-troubled-political-past-;</p>
<p><sup><sup>[165]</sup></sup> http://tinyurl.com/pyvmsrc</p>
<p><sup><sup>[166]</sup></sup> http://tinyurl.com/pvsenj6</p>
<p><sup><sup>[167]</sup></sup> http://tinyurl.com/ms8xaa4</p>
<p><sup><sup>[168]</sup></sup>http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/former-dc-council-member-michael-brown-expected-to-plead-guilty-to-bribe-charge-monday/2013/06/10/7bf75812-d1d5-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[169]</sup></sup>http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/jeffrey-thompson-alleged-shadow-campaign-funder-is-charged-in-federal-court/2014/03/10/7bf6ca14-99a8-11e3-80ac-63a8ba7f7942_story.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[170]</sup></sup>http://www.businessinsider.com/the-25-most-dangerous-cities-in-america-2012-10?op=1</p>
<p><sup><sup>[171]</sup></sup>http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/dc/washington/crime/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[172]</sup></sup>http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Washington-District-of-Columbia.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[173]</sup></sup>http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/8tabledatadecpdf/table-8-state-cuts/table_8_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_by_district_of_columbia_by_city_2012.xls</p>
<p><sup><sup>[174]</sup></sup>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/dst2013/pdf/2014467XW4.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[175]</sup></sup>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/dst2013/pdf/2014468XW4.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[176]</sup></sup>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/dst2013/pdf/2014467XW8.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[177]</sup></sup>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/dst2013/pdf/2014468XW8.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[178]</sup></sup>http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/25/d-c-public-schools-spend-almost-30000-per-student/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[179]</sup></sup>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/education/24teachers.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[180]</sup></sup>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303362404575580221511231074</p>
<p><sup><sup>[181]</sup></sup>http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poem/2043</p>
<p><sup><sup>[182]</sup></sup>http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/about/history.html; http://www.radiomuseum.org/forum/first_car_radios_history_and_development_of_early_car_radios.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[183]</sup></sup> http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_chicago.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[184]</sup></sup> http://www.urbanophile.com/2012/06/24/state-of-chicago-the-decline-and-rise/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[185]</sup></sup> http://www.urbanophile.com/2012/06/24/state-of-chicago-the-decline-and-rise/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[186]</sup></sup>http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/projects/population/cities/chicago.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[187]</sup></sup>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/stanley-kurtz/radical-in-chief-3/; http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249390/obama%C3%ADs-radical-past-stanley-kurtz</p>
<p><sup><sup>[188]</sup></sup>http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-02-08/news/8701100450_1_jane-byrne-tax-increases-city-taxes</p>
<p><sup><sup>[189]</sup></sup>http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-11-30/news/8703300109_1_prayed-late-mayor-harold-washington</p>
<p><sup><sup>[190]</sup></sup>https://www.isba.org/committees/minorities/newsletter/2009/11/thecityofchicagorenewsitscommitmenttominorityandw; http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-05-30/news/8702090883_1_city-contracts-civil-rights-law-mayor-harold-washington</p>
<p><sup><sup>[191]</sup></sup>http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/26/opinion/harold-washington-s-chicago.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[192]</sup></sup>http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-13/opinion/ct-emanuel-byrd-bennett-cps-education-perception-s-20131213_1_cps-schools-chicago-public-schools-mayor-and-schools-chief; http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/26/opinion/harold-washington-s-chicago.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[193]</sup></sup>https://archive.org/stream/uniformcrimerepo1982unit#page/n7/mode/2up; https://archive.org/stream/uniformcrimerepoa1987unit#page/74/mode/2up</p>
<p><sup><sup>[194]</sup></sup>http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-08-19/news/9003090558_1_service-sector-manufacturing-jobs-state-employment-data</p>
<p><sup><sup>[195]</sup></sup>http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/projects/population/cities/chicago.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[196]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_chicago.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[197]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_chicago.html; http://www.cdobs.com/archive/crime/demography-and-the-shellacking-of-chicago/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[198]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_chicago.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[199]</sup></sup>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/18/chicagos-mind-blowing-33-billion-debt-and-pension-obligations/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[200]</sup></sup>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/10/chicagos-own-pension-cris_n_4418720.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[201]</sup></sup>http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130521/BLOGS02/130529975/city-halls-pension-spiral-worsens#</p>
<p><sup><sup>[202]</sup></sup>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/chicago-parking-meter-dea_n_3612219.html; http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_chicago.html; http://theexpiredmeter.com/tag/chicago-parking-meter-lease-deal/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[203]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_chicago.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[204]</sup></sup>http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chicagoans-Pay-Fifth-Highest-Taxes-194516951.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[205]</sup></sup>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/18/chicagos-mind-blowing-33-billion-debt-and-pension-obligations/; https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Chicago-to-A3-from-Aa3-affecting-82-billion&#8211;PR_278069</p>
<p><sup><sup>[206]</sup></sup>http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-11/news/ct-met-chicago-bond-rating-1112-20131112_1_government-worker-pension-pension-issue-pension-problem</p>
<p><sup><sup>[207]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_chicago.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[208]</sup></sup>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0215/Chicago-area-called-most-corrupt-in-US.-Why-Rahm-Emanuel-is-under-fire;</p>
<p><sup><sup>[209]</sup></sup> http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_chicago.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[210]</sup></sup>http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-10/business/chi-legal-climate-clouds-business-in-illinois-4-other-states-20120910_1_survey-legal-climate-institute-for-legal-reform</p>
<p><sup><sup>[211]</sup></sup>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago#Homicides_in_Chicago_by_year</p>
<p><sup><sup>[212]</sup></sup>http://pjmedia.com/blog/march-mayhem-mayor-never-waste-a-crisis-oversees-chicago-free-fall/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[213]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_1_chicago-crime.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[214]</sup></sup> http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_1_chicago-crime.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[215]</sup></sup>http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-07/local/me-2237_1_young-black-men; Mona Charen, “Liberal Tinkering Has Put Our Civilization at Risk,” <em>Conservative Chronicle</em> (August 24, 1994), p. 21.</p>
<p><sup><sup>[216]</sup></sup> http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/colin-flaherty/chicago-running-out-of-euphemisms/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[217]</sup></sup>http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1633; http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1629</p>
<p><sup><sup>[218]</sup></sup> http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_1_chicago-crime.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[219]</sup></sup>http://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2012/04/chicago-public-schools-by-the-numbers/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[220]</sup></sup>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/dst2013/pdf/2014467XC4.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[221]</sup></sup>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/dst2013/pdf/2014468xc4.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[222]</sup></sup>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/dst2013/pdf/2014467XC8.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[223]</sup></sup>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/dst2013/pdf/2014468xc8.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[224]</sup></sup>http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/chicago-high-school-graduation-rate-63-percent-209156451.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[225]</sup></sup> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/19/Chicago-Teachers-Union-rich-white</p>
<p><sup><sup>[226]</sup></sup>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703312904576146741729857936</p>
<p><sup><sup>[227]</sup></sup>http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-15/news/ct-met-2010-census-20110215_1_census-data-collar-counties-population; http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_chicago.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[228]</sup></sup> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703312904576146741729857936</p>
<p><sup><sup>[229]</sup></sup>http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/a-look-at-the-decline-of-milwaukees-middle-class-b9949923z1-214822101.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[230]</sup></sup>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/business-economy-financial-crisis/two-american-families/photos-milwaukees-industrial-past/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[231]</sup></sup>http://tinyurl.com/nnja5ke</p>
<p><sup><sup>[232]</sup></sup>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&amp;address=103&#215;223344</p>
<p><sup><sup>[233]</sup></sup>http://www.milwaukeehistory.net/education/milwaukee-timeline/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[234]</sup></sup> http://www.milwaukeehistory.net/education/milwaukee-timeline/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[235]</sup></sup> http://www.milwaukeehistory.net/education/milwaukee-timeline/; http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&amp;dat=19680109&amp;id=QX9QAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=mRAEAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=6074,2636309</p>
<p><sup><sup>[236]</sup></sup>http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/45005251/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[237]</sup></sup>http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/a-look-at-the-decline-of-milwaukees-middle-class-b9949923z1-214822101.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[238]</sup></sup>http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/free-falling-in-milwaukee-a-close-up-on-one-citys-middle-class-decline/250100/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[239]</sup></sup> http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55/5553000.html; http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[240]</sup></sup> http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Milwaukee-Wisconsin.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[241]</sup></sup> http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/milwaukees-racism-most-murders-black-on-black/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[242]</sup></sup> http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/mps-wisconsin-rank-high-in-per-pupil-spending-b9915750z1-208377331.html; http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/mps-wisconsin-rank-high-in-per-pupil-spending-b9915750z1-208377331.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[243]</sup></sup>http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/state-mps-post-improved-high-school-graduation-rates-875f3om-151883025.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[244]</sup></sup>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/dst2013/pdf/2014468XK4.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[245]</sup></sup>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/dst2013/pdf/2014468XK8.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[246]</sup></sup>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/dst2013/pdf/2014467XK4.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[247]</sup></sup>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/dst2013/pdf/2014467XK8.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[248]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_1_a1.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[249]</sup></sup>http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/12/voucher-students-soar-in-milwaukee/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[250]</sup></sup>http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100202006097/en/Study-Graduation-Rate-Milwaukee-Voucher-Students-18#.U2ARR2ByFWM</p>
<p><sup><sup>[251]</sup></sup>http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100202006097/en/Study-Graduation-Rate-Milwaukee-Voucher-Students-18#.U2ARR2ByFWM; http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/12/voucher-students-soar-in-milwaukee/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[252]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_1_a1.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[253]</sup></sup>http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7777;</p>
<p><sup><sup>[254]</sup></sup>http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922422.html; http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55/5553000.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[255]</sup></sup>http://www.milwaukeemag.com/article/1222014-AbandonedDreams</p>
<p><sup><sup>[256]</sup></sup>http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/election-results/2009-governor_results-essex.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[257]</sup></sup>http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/election-results/2008-gen-elect-presidential-results-essex.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[258]</sup></sup>http://books.google.com/books?id=lwave_qPlYUC&amp;pg=PA275&amp;lpg=PA275&amp;dq=#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false</p>
<p><sup><sup>[259]</sup></sup> http://tinyurl.com/npm34lg</p>
<p><sup><sup>[260]</sup></sup>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Newark,_New_Jersey</p>
<p><sup><sup>[261]</sup></sup> http://tinyurl.com/ltb4pcc</p>
<p><sup><sup>[262]</sup></sup>http://scholar.library.miami.edu/sixtiesChron/ch07.html; http://webatomics.com/jason/Images/thesisone.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[263]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_cory_booker.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[264]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_cory_booker.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[265]</sup></sup>http://blog.nj.com/ledgernewark/2007/07/crossroads_part_1.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[266]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_cory_booker.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[267]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_cory_booker.html; http://webatomics.com/jason/Images/thesisone.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[268]</sup></sup> http://tinyurl.com/k9vcwxa</p>
<p><sup><sup>[269]</sup></sup>http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=799&amp;dat=19730308&amp;id=jVgzAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=WlIDAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=700,4399913</p>
<p><sup><sup>[270]</sup></sup>http://webatomics.com/jason/Images/thesisone.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[271]</sup></sup>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/nyregion/30folo.html?_r=0</p>
<p><sup><sup>[272]</sup></sup> http://www.manhattan-institute.org/email/crd_newsletter07-07.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[273]</sup></sup>http://www.manhattan-institute.org/email/crd_newsletter07-07.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[274]</sup></sup> http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_new_jersey.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[275]</sup></sup>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/nyregion/14james.html?fta=y&amp;_r=0&amp;gwh=C6CF51C78E8F7038AEC410DE2C97D0CB&amp;gwt=pay</p>
<p><sup><sup>[276]</sup></sup>http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/topstories/index.ssf/2008/04/newark_exmayor_sharpe_james_fo.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[277]</sup></sup>http://www.newsweek.com/swamps-jersey-69529; http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/topstories/index.ssf/2008/04/newark_exmayor_sharpe_james_fo.html; http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/04/sharpe_james_is_released_from.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[278]</sup></sup> http://www.newsweek.com/swamps-jersey-69529</p>
<p><sup><sup>[279]</sup></sup>http://blogs.hrblock.com/2013/02/05/the-top-10-most-taxed-cities-in-america-infographic/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[280]</sup></sup>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/cory-booker-newark_n_4123455.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[281]</sup></sup>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/34/3451000.html; http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[282]</sup></sup> http://www.city-data.com/poverty/poverty-Newark-New-Jersey.html; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/cory-booker-newark_n_4123455.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[283]</sup></sup>http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/nj_school_report_cards_release.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[284]</sup></sup>http://www.waynepost.com/article/20130830/NEWS/130839998/10057/NEWS</p>
<p><sup><sup>[285]</sup></sup>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/cory-booker-newark_n_4123455.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[286]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_cory_booker.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[287]</sup></sup> http://www.edlawcenter.org/news/archives/school-funding/state-operated-newark-schools-face-staggering-$57-million-budget-deficit.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[288]</sup></sup>http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Newark-New-Jersey.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[289]</sup></sup>http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_cory_booker.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[290]</sup></sup>http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/09/high_taxes_rising_crime_push_n.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[291]</sup></sup>http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922422.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[292]</sup></sup>http://www.city-data.com/city/St.-Louis-Missouri.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[293]</sup></sup>http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922422.html; http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/projects/population/cities/stlouis.html; http://books.google.com/books?id=n7ixiFDFApAC&amp;pg=PA11&amp;lpg=PA11&amp;dq=#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false</p>
<p><sup><sup>[294]</sup></sup>http://books.google.com/books?id=n7ixiFDFApAC&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false</p>
<p><sup><sup>[295]</sup></sup>http://books.google.com/books?id=n7ixiFDFApAC&amp;pg=PA51&amp;lpg=PA51&amp;dq=#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false; http://books.google.com/books?id=XyXBLu-DolwC&amp;pg=PA87&amp;lpg=PA87&amp;dq=#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false</p>
<p><sup><sup>[296]</sup></sup>http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/PruittIgoe.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[297]</sup></sup>http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Urban_renewal.aspx</p>
<p><sup><sup>[298]</sup></sup>http://mappingdecline.lib.uiowa.edu/map/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[299]</sup></sup> http://www.stlmag.com/St-Louis-Magazine/December-2008/Mapping-the-Divide/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[300]</sup></sup> http://www.stlmag.com/St-Louis-Magazine/December-2008/Mapping-the-Divide/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[301]</sup></sup>http://mappingdecline.lib.uiowa.edu/map/; http://books.google.com/books?id=X9XG-2fWgWcC&amp;pg=PA207&amp;lpg=PA207&amp;dq=#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false; https://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[302]</sup></sup>http://www.csmonitor.com/1994/0418/19021.html/(page)/2</p>
<p><sup><sup>[303]</sup></sup>http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/article_7a896a3a-29a1-11e0-b19d-001cc4c03286.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[304]</sup></sup> http://tinyurl.com/plf4gq7</p>
<p><sup><sup>[305]</sup></sup>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities_in_the_United_States_by_population_by_decade#1950; http://mappingdecline.lib.uiowa.edu/map/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[306]</sup></sup>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities_in_the_United_States_by_population_by_decade#1880</p>
<p><sup><sup>[307]</sup></sup>http://www.newgeography.com/content/002078-city-st-louis-suffers-huge-population-loss</p>
<p><sup><sup>[308]</sup></sup>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29/29510.html; http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[309]</sup></sup>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-30-city-crime_x.htm; http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/11/st_louis_named_most_dangerous_city_2010.php</p>
<p><sup><sup>[310]</sup></sup>http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-St.-Louis-Missouri.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[311]</sup></sup> http://nextstl.com/2013/01/understanding-st-louis-homicides-2005-2012/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[312]</sup></sup>http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/12/02/st-louis-city-leader-says-police-ineffective-tells-residents-to-get-armed/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[313]</sup></sup>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/us/in-neighborhoods-like-north-st-louis-gunfire-still-rules-the-night.html?gwh=D7D202615208310C2840856196321249&amp;gwt=pay</p>
<p><sup><sup>[314]</sup></sup>http://www.showmedaily.org/2013/09/what-is-the-cost-of-not-educating-students.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[315]</sup></sup>http://www.stlparent.com/story/can-900-million-help-st-louis-drop-out-rate; http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1012/star102112.php3#.U2A2MGByFWN</p>
<p><sup><sup>[316]</sup></sup>http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/st-louis-schools-score-unaccredited-range-under-new-grading-scale-wont-lose-accreditation</p>
<p><sup><sup>[317]</sup></sup>http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/interactive-map-st-louis-city-school-test-scores/html_968f94e4-b851-529a-88fd-be036d17fcb9.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[318]</sup></sup>http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/interactive-map-st-louis-city-school-test-scores/html_968f94e4-b851-529a-88fd-be036d17fcb9.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[319]</sup></sup>http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/interactive-map-st-louis-city-school-test-scores/html_968f94e4-b851-529a-88fd-be036d17fcb9.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[320]</sup></sup>http://books.google.com/books?id=yaseH2ICEX4C&amp;pg=PA88&amp;lpg=PA88&amp;dq=#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false; http://biography.yourdictionary.com/maynard-holbrook-jackson-jr</p>
<p><sup><sup>[321]</sup></sup>http://www.atlantamagazine.com/features/anniversary/scalawag/story.aspx?ID=1454471</p>
<p><sup><sup>[322]</sup></sup>http://biography.yourdictionary.com/maynard-holbrook-jackson-jr; http://www.atlantamagazine.com/features/anniversary/scalawag/story.aspx?ID=1454471</p>
<p><sup><sup>[323]</sup></sup> http://crimevictimsmediareport.com/?p=938</p>
<p><sup><sup>[324]</sup></sup>http://biography.yourdictionary.com/maynard-holbrook-jackson-jr</p>
<p><sup><sup>[325]</sup></sup>http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/24/us/2-are-convicted-in-atlanta-in-airport-corruption-trial.html; http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/05/us/atlanta-watches-nervously-as-corruption-trial-begins.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[326]</sup></sup>http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/24/us/2-are-convicted-in-atlanta-in-airport-corruption-trial.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[327]</sup></sup>http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/05/us/atlanta-watches-nervously-as-corruption-trial-begins.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[328]</sup></sup>http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg47607.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[329]</sup></sup> http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2006/01/former-atlanta-mayor-goes-trial-fraud-and-corruption/; http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/06/13/former-atlanta-mayor-bill-campbell-sentenced-to-2-12-years-for-tax-evasio-348548466/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[330]</sup></sup>http://www.businessinsider.com/atlantas-huge-pension-overhaul-is-major-win-for-public-pension-reform-2011-7</p>
<p><sup><sup>[331]</sup></sup>http://www.city-data.com/city/Atlanta-Georgia.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[332]</sup></sup>http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/end-black-politics-we-knew-it-will-atlantas-next-mayor-be-white-should-we-even-care</p>
<p><sup><sup>[333]</sup></sup>http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookman/2014/mar/05/atlanta-breaking-poverty-cycle-proves-difficult/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[334]</sup></sup>http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013307.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[335]</sup></sup>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/dst2013/pdf/2014467XA8.pdf; http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/dst2013/pdf/2014468XA8.pdf</p>
<p><sup><sup>[336]</sup></sup>http://focusdailynews.com/oped-beverly-hall-a-classic-case-of-moral-turpitude-against-atlantas-ch-p4239-1.htm; http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/atlanta-public-schools-cheat-their-own-students/; http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/15/nyregion/state-bailout-to-rescue-financially-troubled-newark-school-district.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[337]</sup></sup>http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.php?capcode=wsmyx&amp;name=Hall,%20Beverly&amp;state=GA&amp;zip=&amp;employ=&amp;cand=</p>
<p><sup><sup>[338]</sup></sup>http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.php?capcode=wsmyx&amp;name=Hall,%20Beverly&amp;state=GA&amp;zip=&amp;employ=&amp;cand=</p>
<p><sup><sup>[339]</sup></sup> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/us/former-school-chief-in-atlanta-indicted-in-cheating-scandal.html?pagewanted=all&amp;gwh=7B8B320A9D9EA9CBE348D9500979FF97&amp;gwt=pay</p>
<p><sup><sup>[340]</sup></sup> http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas040413.php3#.U2A-jmByFWN; http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/29/us/georgia-cheating-scandal/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[341]</sup></sup>http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas040413.php3#.U2A-vGByFWN</p>
<p><sup><sup>[342]</sup></sup> http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/are-drastic-swings-in-crct-scores-valid/nQYQm/; http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/georgia-superintendent-orchestrated-cheating-scandal-article-1.1303002</p>
<p><sup><sup>[343]</sup></sup> http://tinyurl.com/od7a6qs</p>
<p><sup><sup>[344]</sup></sup> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/aps-atlanta-public-schools-embroiled-in-cheating-scandal/2011/07/11/gIQAJl9m8H_blog.html; http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2011/0705/America-s-biggest-teacher-and-principal-cheating-scandal-unfolds-in-Atlanta</p>
<p><sup><sup>[345]</sup></sup> http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/08/cheating_atlanta_schools_received_500k_in_bonuses_what_now.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[346]</sup></sup> http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/atlanta-public-schools-cheat-their-own-students/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[347]</sup></sup>http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local-education/atlanta-school-board-must-find-savings/ndcKq/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[348]</sup></sup>http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/29/us/georgia-cheating-scandal/; http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/atlanta-public-schools-cheat-their-own-students/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[349]</sup></sup>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/atlanta-public-schools-cheat-their-own-students/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[350]</sup></sup> http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Atlanta-Georgia.html</p>
<p><sup><sup>[351]</sup></sup> http://lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/crime/10-dangerous-large/</p>
<p><sup><sup>[352]</sup></sup>http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/01/gun-violence-us-cities-compared-deadliest-nations-world/4412/</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/the-new-shame-of-the-cities/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>49</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rep. Tom Cotton: &#8216;We Will Not Leave These Four Men Behind’</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/rep-tom-cotton-we-will-not-leave-these-four-men-behind/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=rep-tom-cotton-we-will-not-leave-these-four-men-behind</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/rep-tom-cotton-we-will-not-leave-these-four-men-behind/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2014 04:57:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[select committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tom Cotton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225336</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A congressman's harsh words for the Democratic Party's campaign to bury Benghazi. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Editor&#8217;s note: Below is the video of Rep. Tom Cotton&#8217;s (R-AR) response to his Democratic colleagues&#8217; reaction to the formation of the Benghazi Select Committee. Rep. Cotton&#8217;s stern remarks earned praise on <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/05/08/we-will-not-leave-these-four-men-behind-rep-tom-cotton-schools-dems-on-benghazi-video/">social media</a>. </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/XtBGnWLbD9Y" height="315" width="420" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.</b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/rep-tom-cotton-we-will-not-leave-these-four-men-behind/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge Blocks Anti-Conservative Witch-Hunt in Wisconsin</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/judge-blocks-witch-hunt-against-wisconsin-conservatives/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=judge-blocks-witch-hunt-against-wisconsin-conservatives</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/judge-blocks-witch-hunt-against-wisconsin-conservatives/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2014 04:50:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[john doe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scott Walker]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225036</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Conservative advocacy groups win key court battle -- but the Left vows to keep up the fight. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/scott-walker-cover-why-we-chose-620x395.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-225037" alt="scott-walker-cover-why-we-chose-620x395" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/scott-walker-cover-why-we-chose-620x395-450x341.jpg" width="315" height="239" /></a>The relentless efforts by Wisconsin leftists to undermine Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow conservatives—by any means necessary—has taken another hit. In a </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://media.jrn.com/documents/doeruling.pdf">26-page decision</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa granted a preliminary injunction </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/07/judge-halts-secret-probe-wisconsin-conservative-groups-in-win-for-walker/">halting</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> a politically-motivated John Doe investigation that probed campaign spending and fundraising by Gov. Scott Walker&#8217;s campaign, Eric O&#8217;Keefe, his Wisconsin Club for Growth (WCFG), and other conservative entities. &#8220;The Defendants must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation,” Randa wrote.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Randa illuminated his contempt for the investigation. &#8220;The defendants are pursuing criminal charges through a secret John Doe investigation against the plaintiffs for exercising issue advocacy speech rights that on their face are not subject to the regulations or statutes the defendants seek to enforce. This legitimate exercise of O‘Keefe‘s rights as an individual, and WCFG‘s rights as a 501(c)(4) corporation, to speak on the issues has been characterized by the defendants as political activity covered by Chapter 11 of the Wisconsin Statutes, rendering the plaintiffs a subcommittee of the Friends of Scott Walker (―FOSW‖) and requiring that money spent on such speech be reported as an in-kind campaign contribution. This interpretation is simply wrong.” </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">As a result, Randa </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://watchdog.org/143058/john-doe-judge-injunction/">ordered</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> that the plaintiffs “and others” are “hereby relieved of any and every duty under Wisconsin law to cooperate further with Defendants‘ investigation. Any attempt to obtain compliance by any Defendant or John Doe Judge Gregory Peterson is grounds for a contempt finding by this Court.” </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The ruling completely undermines the efforts of Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, a Democrat, who launched the probe in mid-2012, shortly after Democrats’ failure to remove Walker in a recall election prompted by the passage of </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/business/wisconsins-legacy-for-unions.html?_r=0">Act 10</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">. That piece of legislation limited the power of unions to collectively bargain, setting the stage for a ferocious pushback that included Democratic state legislators fleeing the state to prevent a vote on the issue, an </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/201358491.html">effort</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to effect a liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court for the purpose of overturning the law, and the attempt to remove Walker in the aforementioned recall vote that ultimately </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/guvrace06-ku5ld5b-157364555.html">failed</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The unseemly probe, led by special prosecutor Francis Schmitz, </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://capitolcityproject.com/homes-raided-subpoenas-issued-targeting-conservative-groups-and-allies-of-scott-walker/">targeted</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> Walker and 29 conservative groups. Dozens of subpoenas </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304799404579155953286552832">were issued</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> demanding documents related to the 2011 and 2012 campaigns aimed at recalling Walker and several Republican state legislators. The probe itself expanded into a five-county investigation as a result of cooperation with the Government Accountability Board (GAB), that operates as Wisconsin’s election and campaign speech regulator. Besides Walker and the WCFG, other targeted groups included the League of American Voters, Wisconsin Family Action, Wisconsin Manufacturers &amp; Commerce, Americans for Prosperity—Wisconsin, American Crossroads, the Republican Governors Association, and the Republican Party of Wisconsin.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Because the investigation took place under the state’s John Doe law, prosecutors were empowered to issue subpoenas and conduct searches, even as gag orders prevented the targets of the probe from publicly defending themselves.While the investigation was ongoing, O’Keefe told the </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Wall Street Journal</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> that he was aware of at least three of the investigation’s targets being subjected to dawn raids of their homes, with law-enforcement officers seizing computers and files.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In a testament to Democratic relentlessness, this was the second probe of Walker in the last four years. In 2010, Chisholm spearhead a Joe Doe effort to investigate whether staffers used their offices for political purposes when Walker was Milwaukee County Executive. After three years Walker </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/report-scott-walker-probe-closed-with-no-new-charges-qh8vsfb-194194091.html">emerged</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> unscathed when retired Appeals Court Judge Neal Nettesheim </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://media.jsonline.com/documents/DA+Press+Release+wAtt+2013-03-01.pdf">signed an order</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> shutting down that secret investigation.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Randa </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.humanevents.com/2014/05/07/federal-judge-shuts-down-wisconsin-witch-hunt/">described</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> the heavy-handed tactics employed by law-enforcement officials in the second probe. “Sheriff deputy vehicles used bright floodlights to illuminate the targets’ homes,” he wrote. “Deputies executed the search warrants, seizing business papers, computer equipment, phones, and other devices, while their targets were restrained under police supervision and denied the ability to contact their attorneys. Among the materials seized were many of the Club’s records that were in the possession of Ms. Jordahl and Mr. Johnson,” Randa continued. “The warrants indicate that they were executed at the request of GAB investigator Dean Nickel.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The latest injunction was a response to the civil rights lawsuit </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://watchdog.org/128317/conservative-lawsuit-civil-rights/">filed</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> in February by O’Keefe and the WCFG against Chisholm, two of his assistant DAs, Schmitz, and an investigator contracted by the Government Accountability Board. That suit alleged that the John Doe investigation constituted a violation of the targeted groups&#8217; First Amendment rights in what amounted to a partisan witch-hunt aimed at punishing Walker, et al., for their recent political success. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The prosecutors-turned-defendants attempted to derail Randa’s ruling with an emergency stay </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://watchdog.org/143044/john-doe-federal-prosecutors/">filed</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> Monday with the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. It followed Randa’s </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://watchdog.org/128037/civil-rights-john-doe-speech/">rejection</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> the previous week of a motion to stay his ruling that allowed the civil rights suit against these prosecutors to move forward. In that ruling, Randa contended the effort was nothing more than an attempt to “derail” his decision, and that he was “inclined to agree” with O’Keefe’s contention that efforts to obtain relief were frivolous. Prosecutors had contended that the federal court had no jurisdiction in the matter, citing the U.S. Constitution’s </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxi">Eleventh Amendment</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> limitation on federal judicial powers with regard to the states.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Randa didn’t buy it, asserting that “if the defendants are violating the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, the Eleventh Amendment does not apply and the plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In this latest ruling, Randa shot down the John Doe investigators’ assertion that, even though issue advocacy that rightfully omits direct advocacy for or against a candidate is permissible, it “does not create a free-speech safe harbor when expenditures are coordinated between a candidate and a third-party organization.” They sought to portray the WCFG and other targeted organizations as a &#8220;subcommittee of the Friends of Scott Walker,&#8221; and thus subject to </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/11">Chapter 11 of Wisconsin campaign finance statutes,</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> &#8220;requiring that money spent on such speech be reported as an in-kind campaign contribution.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">“This interpretation is simply wrong,” the judge wrote drawing on the recent Supreme Court decision in </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/"><i>McCutcheon</i> v. FEC</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> that invalidated </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supreme-court-takes-up-the-sequel-to-citizens-united/">aggregate limits</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> on campaign donations. Describing that ruling as a “a ringing endorsement of the full protection afforded to political speech,” Randa explained that while issue advocacy may involve like-minded entities sharing the same political philosophies as a candidate, such advocacy does not constitute quid quo pro. </span></p>
<p>“O‘Keefe and the Club obviously agree with Governor Walker‘s policies, but coordinated ads in favor of those policies carry no risk of corruption because the Club‘s interests are already aligned with Walker and other conservative politicians,” the ruling states. “Such ads are meant to educate the electorate, not curry favor with corruptible candidates.”</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">He further characterized the prosecutors’ attempt to conflate issue advocacy and express advocacy as “interpretive legerdemain.” “If correct, this means that any individual or group engaging in any kind of coordination with a candidate or campaign would risk forfeiting their right to engage in political speech,” Randa wrote.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Schmitz said late Tuesday he expects to challenge the decision by appealing to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. &#8220;I&#8217;m virtually assured we will appeal this decision,” he declared. &#8220;I have to consult with the others and my attorney&#8221; before making a &#8220;final decision.” His attorney, Randall Crocker, issued a statement saying he &#8220;will carefully review the decision of Judge Randa and address with our client his responsibilities pursuant to his appointment and his options.&#8221;</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">University of Wisconsin professor Donald Downs, who was stunned by the decision, predicts a reversal of Randa’s ruling could prompt a move to the U.S. Supreme Court. &#8220;If the Seventh Circuit reverses, it&#8217;ll go to the Supreme Court, believe me. And they&#8217;ll take it because they&#8217;re hot to trot on these issues right now,” he said.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In the meantime, another effort to derail Gov. Scott Walker has crashed and burned. Moreover, he remains favored in the 2014 race against Democrat Gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke by an </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/governor/wi/wisconsin_governor_walker_vs_burke-4099.html">average margin</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> of 5.2 percentage points. It will be interesting to see what happens to that margin now that Judge Randa has unshackled conservative advocacy groups from their would-be oppressors—oppressors who have never put Democratic advocacy groups under the same prosecutorial microscope, or subjected them to the same paramilitary raids conducted here.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">&#8220;The plaintiffs have been shut out of the political process merely by association with conservative politicians,” Randa wrote. &#8220;This cannot square with the First Amendment and what it was meant to protect.” Exactly.</span></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/judge-blocks-witch-hunt-against-wisconsin-conservatives/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Issa Report Slams Dem Collaboration with the IRS</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/issa-report-slams-dem-collaboration-with-the-irs/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=issa-report-slams-dem-collaboration-with-the-irs</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/issa-report-slams-dem-collaboration-with-the-irs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2014 04:56:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contempt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Darrell Issa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lois Lerner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[report]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=222929</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How leftist lawmakers are helping the corrupt government agency evade justice. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/darrell-issa-furious-after-democrat-releases-irs-transcript-that-blows-up-his-investigation.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-222945" alt="darrell-issa-furious-after-democrat-releases-irs-transcript-that-blows-up-his-investigation" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/darrell-issa-furious-after-democrat-releases-irs-transcript-that-blows-up-his-investigation-450x337.jpg" width="315" height="236" /></a>A bombshell </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/4-7-2014-IRS-Staff-Report-w-appendix.pdf">report</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> released by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) completely refutes Democratic Party talking points that the IRS scandal involved unwarranted targeting of both liberal and conservative groups. &#8220;Time and again, (Democrats) have claimed that the IRS targeted liberal- and progressive-oriented groups as well—and that, therefore, there was no political animus to the IRS’s actions” the report states. “These Democratic claims are flat-out wrong and have no basis in any thorough examination of the fact. Yet the Administration’s chief defenders continue to make these assertions in a concerted effort to deflate and distract from the truth about the IRS’s targeting of tax-exempt applicants.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The report reveals </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/04/07/gop-report-on-irs-only-tea-party-groups-received-systematic-scrutiny/">far more</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> about the early stages of Tea Party targeting conducted by the tax collection agency, identifying the initial three cases sent to Washington, D.C. for additional scrutiny in 2010. Two of the three abandoned their applications rather than face additional IRS questioning. The third group is </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">still</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> waiting for its case to be resolved.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Several other key findings of the report are equally troubling. Perhaps the most troubling of all was that the IRS itself  “selectively prioritized and produced” documents for the Committee to support the narrative that their targeting had been bipartisan. It noted that on June 24, 2013, Acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel asserted during a press conference that the agency misconduct was “broader” that conservative applicants, even as he refused to discuss the criteria that led him to that conclusion. Nonetheless, the IRS subsequently produced &#8220;hundreds of pages of self-selected documents that supported his assertion,” even as they had only provided the Committee with less than 2000 total pages of IRS material. &#8220;Congressional Democrats had no qualms in putting these self-selected documents to use,” the report states.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Those Democrats included Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Ranking Member Sander Levin (D-MI) , and Representative Gerry Connolly (D-VA), all of whom made “misleading statements that the IRS targeted liberal groups based on the selectively produced documents.&#8221; </span></p>
<p>Furthermore, the IRS &#8220;was not an unwilling participant” in promoting this charade. When it came time to produce these selective documents, they &#8220;suddenly reversed” their previous interpretation of a law that had prevented them from releasing confidential taxpayer information to the American public. The reinterpretation allowed the IRS to release info on three leftist groups, ACORN, Successors and Emerge.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Yet IRS agents who </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/07/committee-staff-report-no-progressive-groups-were-targeted-by-irs/">testified</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> before the Committee noted that these groups were scrutinized because the IRS believed they were old organizations attempting to apply as new ones. The report itself notes that unlike the Tea Party, such groups were not subjected to a “case sensitive report” or reviewed by the IRS’s Chief Council. And while IRS documents showed that some liberal groups were being scrutinized, “only Tea Party applicants received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs,” and “public and nonpublic analyses of IRS data show that the IRS routinely approved liberal applications while holding and scrutinizing conservative applications.”  </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The report further states that the IRS&#8217;s efforts to make their subsequent scrutiny more neutral </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/04/07/gop-report-on-irs-only-tea-party-groups-received-systematic-scrutiny/">amounted</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to little more than “cosmetic changes,” while the focus on conservative organizations continued. “Only seven applications in the IRS backlog contained the word ‘progressive,’ all of which were then approved by the IRS, while Tea Party groups received unprecedented review and experienced years-long delays,” it states. </span></p>
<p>This reality aligns with <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/2014/04/07/house-gop-report-the-irs-did-not-target-progressive-groups/">testimony</a> given by IRS officials Elizabeth Hofacre and her successor, Ron Bell. Both explicitly stated that only Tea Party groups had been targeted through the summer of 2011. They were equally explicit in rejecting the notion that progressive groups were held to anything remotely resembling the same standard. Hofacre revealed that she was on the project until October of 2011 and was “only instructed to work “Tea Party/‘Patriot’/9/12 organizations.” Bell echoed that assertion, further noting that he inherited 50-100 cases from Hofacre, all of which were Tea Party cases.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Even when the BOLO (be on the lookout for) criteria were changed by Lois Lerner, and term the “Tea Party” became “advocacy organizations,” the IRS &#8220;still intended to identify and single out Tea Party applications for scrutiny.” In further testimony, Bell noted that the change amounted to nothing significant as non-Tea Party cases were either moved to closure or further development, while Tea Party cases remained on hold—for an entire year&#8211;pending guidance from Washington. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">What about offsetting testimony? &#8220;Unlike Tea Party cases, the Oversight Committee’s review has received no testimony from IRS employees that any progressive groups were scrutinized because of their organization’s expressed political beliefs,” the report states.</span></p>
<p>One of the more devastating takedowns of Democratic contentions concerns Lerner’s initial revelation about the IRS’s nefarious efforts. The report resorts to pure logic, noting that when Lerner &#8220;publicly apologized for the IRS’s targeting of Tea Party applicants, she offered no such apology for its targeting of any liberal groups. When asked if the IRS had treated liberal groups inappropriately, Lerner responded: &#8216;I don’t have any information on that.&#8217; This admission severely undercuts Democratic ex post allegations of bipartisan targeting.”</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">A series of emails between IRS officials are included in the report, with one especially damning one penned by Lois Lerner. “Tea Party matter very dangerous,” it states. “this could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether Citizen’s United overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax exempt rules.” In addition to the obvious bias directed towards the Tea Party, this email suggests that Lerner was sympathetic, if not outright supportive, of the Americans left’s determination to undermine the Supreme Court’s </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/">decision</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> disallowing government restrictions on political advocacy spending by corporations, associations and unions.</span></p>
<p>Lerner made her position clearer <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/08/06/Lois-Lerner-Discusses-Political-Pressure-on-the-IRS-in-2010">during</a> a speech at Duke University in October of 2010, when she insisted that Citizens United “dealt a huge blow, overturning a 100-year-old precedent that basically corporations couldn’t give directly to political campaigns.” Lerner went on to reveal the pressure under which the IRS was operating as a result. &#8220;The FEC can’t do anything about it. They want the IRS to fix the problem,&#8221; she said. &#8220;Everybody is screaming at us right now: ‘Fix it now before the election. Can’t you see how much these people are spending?’&#8221;</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Who “they” are remains a mystery. Lerner has appeared before the Committee on two occasions. Both times she asserted her Fifth Amendment right, protecting her from self-incrimination. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">What happens next remains to be seen. Last Thursday, the House Oversight Committee indicated they would be </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/374983/oversight-committee-will-move-hold-lerner-contempt-eliana-johnson">holding a vote</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> this week on whether to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress. During a June hearing, a party-line vote by the Committee panel determined that Lerner had waived her Fifth Amendment rights when she made an opening statement during her first appearance last May. When she reiterated that right during her second appearance, she left herself vulnerable to a charge of obstruction. The process moves to the House, where John Boehner (R-OH) has indicated he will allow a vote on the contempt of Congress charge. If Lerner is found guilty, the matter is directed to a grand jury, where she could receive a prison sentence between a month and a year or a fine between $100 and $1,000.</span></p>
<p>The report makes it clear why Lerner’s testimony is critical. &#8220;The committee will never be able to fully understand the IRS’s actions,” it states. &#8220;Lerner has unique, firsthand knowledge of how and why” the IRS targeted conservative organizations for unwarranted scrutiny.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In the meantime, the political fault lines have been clearly illuminated. &#8220;For months, the Administration and congressional Democrats have attempted to downplay the IRS’s misconduct,” the report states in final paragraph of its executive summary. &#8220;First, the Administration sought to minimize the fallout by preemptively acknowledging the misconduct in response to a planted question at an obscure Friday morning tax-law conference. When that strategy failed, the Administration shifted to blaming &#8216;rogue agents&#8217; and &#8216;line-level&#8217; employees for the targeting. When those assertions proved false, congressional Democrats baselessly attacked the character and integrity of the inspector general. Their attempt to allege bipartisan targeting is just another effort to distract from the fact that the Obama IRS systematically targeted and delayed conservative tax-exempt applicants.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The Prescott Arizona Tea Party is the poster child for those delays. Despite being one of the first three groups targeted, they have yet to be notified about the status of their application—more than 51 months later. “I don’t see much equality under the law there,” said spokesman Rick Harbaugh. That’s because there is none.</span></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/issa-report-slams-dem-collaboration-with-the-irs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>42</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Silver Lining for GOP Senate Hopes</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/a-silver-lining-for-gop-senate-hopes/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-silver-lining-for-gop-senate-hopes</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/a-silver-lining-for-gop-senate-hopes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2014 04:23:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nate silver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prediction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=221803</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why the Left is no longer enamored with stat guru Nate Silver. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/vote-here.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-221807" alt="vote-here" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/vote-here.jpg" width="269" height="201" /></a>Statistical wunderkind Nate Silver, who analyzes baseball and elections, has bad news for Democrats. Appearing Sunday on ABC&#8217;s </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">This Week, </i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Silver </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/23/Nate-Silver-60-Chance-GOP-Takes-Back-Senate">told</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> reporter Jonathan Karl that Republicans have a 60 percent chance to win the six seats they need to regain control of the Senate in November. &#8220;What&#8217;s the projection, how many are they going pick up?&#8221; Karl asked. &#8220;Exactly six,&#8221; Silver replied. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Unsurprisingly, Democrats were not amused. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) executive director Guy Cecil </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/24/dscc-pushes-back-against-nate-silver/">fired back</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> in a memo released yesterday morning. &#8220;Nate Silver and the staff at FiveThirtyEight are doing groundbreaking work, but, as they have noted, they have to base their forecasts on a scarce supply of public polls,&#8221; Cecil declared. &#8220;In some cases more than half of these polls come from GOP polling outfits. This was one reason why FiveThirtyEight forecasts in North Dakota and Montana were so far off in 2012. In fact, in August of 2012 Silver forecasted a 61% likelihood that Republicans would pick up enough seats to claim the majority. Three months later Democrats went on to win 55 seats.&#8221;</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Cecil&#8217;s memo is deliberately selective. Silver, who is editor-in-chief of </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/">FiveThirtyEight</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">, a website he recently </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/five-thirty-eight-espn-nate-silver_n_4980024.html?utm_hp_ref=media">relaunched</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> in conjunction with ESPN, not only predicted Obama would win the 2012 election, he correctly </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/nate-silver-obama-reelection_n_2086556.html">predicted</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> the electoral outcomes in 50-out-of-50 states. That followed him getting the call right in 49-out-of-50 states in 2008, missing only Indiana, where Obama won with a razor-thin margin of 0.1 percent. Silver’s triumph in 2012 was sweet retribution for the man who had endured </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://mashable.com/2012/11/02/nate-silver-twitter/">ridicule</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> from media pundits who doubted his prognostications. &#8220;I think I get a lot of grief because I frustrate narratives that are told by pundits and journalists that don&#8217;t have a lot of grounding in objective reality,&#8221; he </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=ZDPpoOaGLK4">told</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> Charlie Rose shortly before the 2012 election.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Objective reality is the key. Silver is a </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://mashable.com/2012/11/07/nate-silver-wins/">registered</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> Democrat, but maintains strict nonpartisanship when it comes to analyzing data. That data, which includes a number of factors such as the weight and accuracy given to each poll based on its historical accuracy, is fed into a computer, where an algorithm makes the ultimate calculations.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">This year, those calculations have Democrats on edge, especially since Silver takes trending into consideration. As he </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/">noted</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> on his FiveThirtyEight political blog, his last forecast in July &#8220;concluded the race for Senate control was a toss-up.&#8221; His contention that Republican are now &#8220;slight favorites&#8221; is based on president&#8217;s sinking approval ratings, which have fallen to 42 or 43 percent from a previous average of 45 percent, and the contention that &#8220;the GOP has done a better job of recruiting credible candidates, with some exceptions.&#8221;</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Even as ABC’s Karl </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/week-nate-silver-2014-23024622">laid</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> out the parameters of the 2014 election, which includes races for 36 seats that are mostly non-competitive, he set the stage for Silver&#8217;s prediction that Republicans would pick up &#8220;at least 3 seats&#8221;: &#8220;West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana,&#8221; Silver explained. After naming those three, Silver talked about the other states where he expected the GOP to do well. These included Arkansas, which Silver gives the GOP a 70 percent chance of wining, followed by Louisiana at 55 percent, and &#8220;purple&#8221; North Carolina at 50 percent. Other states Silver sees as possible pickups for the GOP include Alaska at 45 percent, and the blue states of Michigan, Colorado and Iowa at 45, 35 and 30 percent, respectively. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Republican Scott Brown in New Hampshire? &#8220;We think the Republican opportunity is a little over-hyped,&#8221; Silver concludes. &#8220;Scott Brown was extremely popular in a different state four years ago,&#8221; he adds, rating Brown’s chances at only 25 percent.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Even as he predicted Republicans will likely gain 6 seats, Silver added a qualifier of &#8220;plus or minus 5,&#8221; meaning that they have a chance to gain &#8220;a really big win&#8221; of as many as 11 seats. He puts the odds of them getting that many victories at 30 percent.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Even before Sunday&#8217;s interview, Silver and his newfound status as an uber prognosticator was being exploited in a fear campaign conducted by Democrats. Over the last four months, Silver has been </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/who-scares-democrats-more-than-the-koch-brothers-nate-silver-20140311">featured</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> in at least 11 fundraising emails, all of which contained his name in the subject line, along with words such as &#8220;fear,&#8221; &#8220;bad news&#8221; and &#8220;doomed.&#8221; &#8220;There&#8217;s a lot of testing, particularly for subject lines, to see what has the best open rates,&#8221; said Taryn Rosenkranz, a Democratic digital fundraising consultant unaffiliated with the DSCC. &#8220;Using that name over and over suggests it&#8217;s successful, and people are opening and giving.&#8221;</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/201460-silver-republicans-slight-favorites-to-win-senate">echoed</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> that sentiment. “This is a snapshot in time,” he noted on “This Week.” “I think this is going to motivate our base.” </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">It may take more than motivation. In his blog, Silver points to a number of factors breaking in the GOP&#8217;s favor. Despite a &#8220;rough tie&#8221; between the parties on the congressional generic ballot his organization considers the &#8220;single best measure of the national political environment,&#8221; Silver explains that superior GOP turnout in mid-term elections is the equivalent of a 6 point edge. He further notes that Democrats&#8217; other problem is based on the &#8220;constitutional mathematics&#8221; of the Senate&#8217;s six-year election cycle. The year 2008 was an &#8220;extraordinarily strong year for Democrats,&#8221; and that a neutral scenario, or even one that slightly favored Democrats this time, would still produce a &#8220;drop-off relative to that base line.&#8221;</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">These calculations, which Silver calls &#8220;The National Environment,&#8221; is one of five factors that comprise his methodology. The other four include &#8220;Candidate quality&#8221; and its assessment&#8217;s of an individual&#8217;s fund-raising ability and ideology, &#8220;State partisanship,&#8221; comparing an individual states&#8217; voting patterns against the national popular vote, &#8220;Incumbency,&#8221; a huge advantage in most cases, and &#8220;Head-to-head polls&#8221; that have &#8220;some predictive power if evaluated carefully.&#8221;</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Cold numbers aside, some leftists are aghast at Silver&#8217;s prediction. Aside from the rest of Cecil&#8217;s memo, which quickly deteriorates into a familiar screed, claiming Democrats &#8220;are fighting for the middle class and Republicans are fighting for Washington special interests like the Koch Brothers, the Tea Party, and their reckless and irresponsible agenda that voters despise,” Silver was also </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/tarnished-silver/?module=BlogPost-Title&amp;version=Blog%20Main&amp;contentCollection=Opinion&amp;action=Click&amp;pgtype=Blogs&amp;region=Body">excoriated</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> by </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">New York Times</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> columnist Paul Krugman. In a piece entitled &#8220;Tarnished Silver,&#8221; Krugman contends the prognosticator’s website &#8220;looks like something between a disappointment and a disaster.” </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Other leftists didn&#8217;t need to hear Silver&#8217;s latest pronouncement. He has apparently been the piñata-of-the-month for some time. Last Friday, </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Times</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> columnist Tim Egan </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/opinion/egan-creativity-vs-quants.html?src=me&amp;ref=general">took</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> Silver to task for relying too much on mathematics, and not enough on the &#8220;messiness&#8221; of creativity to make his predictions. Two days earlier, Think Progress&#8217;s Kiley Kroh </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/19/3415984/nate-silver-science-writer-ignores-data/">hammered</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> Silver for hiring global warming skeptic Roger Pielke, Jr. to write for his website. On March 12, </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://theguardian.com/">theguardian.com</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">&#8216;s Emily Bell </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/12/journalism-startups-diversity-ezra-klein-nate-silver">whacked</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> Silver and other journalism start-ups for having too many white males in their employment. </span></p>
<p>Yet perhaps the most bizarre attack of all was penned March 19 by the New Republic&#8217;s Leon Wieseltier who ludicrously chastised Silver for his nonpartisanship. &#8220;[Silver] dignifies only facts,&#8221; Wieseltier writes. &#8220;He honors only investigative journalism, explanatory journalism, and data journalism. He does not take a side, except the side of no side….<i>He</i> is the hedgehog who knows only one big thing. And his thing may not be as big as he thinks it is.&#8221;</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Silver is the hedgehog who successfully predicted 99-of-of-100 state electoral outcomes over the course of two presidential elections. To casually, or caustically, dismiss his efforts says far more about those who do so than Silver himself. It is certainly a long way until the mid-term election, but the American left would have to be delusional to believe that ObamaCare, an economy that benefits Wall Street at Main Street&#8217;s expense, a fantastically incoherent foreign policy, and the numerous scandals that afflict the Obama administration, don&#8217;t accrue to the benefit of the GOP. Taking on Silver smacks of killing the messenger. Yet much like their similar efforts to demonize the Koch brothers, Democrats may have little else going for them.</span></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/a-silver-lining-for-gop-senate-hopes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Valerie Jarrett, the CEO of Obama Inc.</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/valerie-jarrett-the-ceo-of-obama-inc/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=valerie-jarrett-the-ceo-of-obama-inc</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/valerie-jarrett-the-ceo-of-obama-inc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2014 04:50:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chicago]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Valerie Jarrett]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White House]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=221293</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The woman behind the curtain.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/jarrett_ny_092210.jpg"><img class=" wp-image-221349 alignleft" alt="jarrett_ny_092210" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/jarrett_ny_092210-450x350.jpg" width="315" height="245" /></a>For eight years, the media envisioned Dick Cheney as the ‘evil genius’ behind the Bush White House, but few in the media have wanted to take a long look at the ‘evil genius’ behind the Obama White House.</p>
<p>The populist grass roots myth died shortly after Obama was elected and while plenty of books have been written about the internal workings of the Obama campaign and administration, unlike the books written about Bush, they rarely inform mainstream media news coverage. When these books and articles come from within the media, the authors are not attacked and their work isn’t discredited, it simply gets compartmentalized into the wonksphere and away from daily news coverage.</p>
<p>This compartmentalization is the reason why media coverage of Obama remains largely unchanged and very little attention is paid to the non-cabinet level personalities who actually make policy. Colin Powell’s dissatisfaction with his lack of influence under Bush was widely covered, while <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/clinton-insider-reveals-obamas-foreign-policy-blunders/">Hillary Clinton’s was not</a>. The Powell implosion led the media to exaggerate the role of Dick Cheney, but no one asks who really had the final say on foreign policy under Obama if Hillary Clinton didn’t.</p>
<p>The Obama White House is a radical departure from previous administrations. It’s a permanent campaign, not just for the obvious reason that it is constantly using the tactics of the campaign, fundraising, attacking and performing, but also because it operates like a campaign reducing the traditional forms of an administration to formalities.</p>
<p>Cabinet members <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/locked-in-the-cabinet-99374.html#.Uydo9_lr7J8">have little influence</a>. Decisions are made by White House staffers, many from the Center for American Progress, who are the ones running the unaccountable permanent campaign.</p>
<p>There is no Obama administration. There is an Obama campaign. And that campaign is part of an organization built around a single figure; Obama Inc.</p>
<p>Obama Inc. has more in common with the type of organization built around a celebrity like Beyonce than a conventional political organization. It can handle everything from fundraising, branding to viral marketing, but like the inner circles of top celebrities, the most influential person in the organization is the one who can soothe, pamper and cater to the celebrity’s mercurial personality.</p>
<p>Valerie Jarrett’s role as CEO of Obama Inc. confuses those who expect a more conventional arrangement. Jarrett is less Dick Cheney and more Colonel Parker or Helen Kushnick; a powerful enigmatic figure ruthlessly dedicated to her star whose power comes from his dependency.</p>
<p>Obama is the star of Obama Inc., the grinning figure who goes out on stage and cracks jokes while selling overpriced health insurance to the country. Valerie Jarrett is his manager, confidante and gatekeeper. Officially Jarrett is a senior adviser with a defined title and function, but Obama Inc. does few things officially and unofficially, Jarrett has the last word on everything.</p>
<p>Jarrett merges the personal and the political. Obama may chat with numerous advisers, but it’s Valerie who goes back to eat with Michelle and the family. A cabinet member is lucky to catch Obama’s attention once. Valerie Jarrett has it full time, day or night, leading to her nickname of “Night Stalker.”</p>
<p>If Obama skips security briefings, it’s because they, like so much of the formal infrastructure of government, are there just for show. The real briefing will come from or through Jarrett and it will be massaged into the talking points that communicate only what she wants them to.</p>
<p>The aggressive approach that Obama Inc. has come to be known for is all Valerie. Bill Clinton’s sharp edge was Hillary. It was Hillary who kept the grudges of Clintonworld burning while Bill tried to work with his rivals and enemies. In Obama Inc, Valerie Jarrett occupies Hillary’s role, urging greater ideological fealty to the left and uncompromising attacks on the right, while dominating Obama in a way that Hillary never dominated Bill.</p>
<p>Valerie Jarrett got away with too much during her time in Chicago politics to have learned caution. Where more conventional Democrats would slow down, Valerie Jarrett speeds up; a successful career of corruption and leftist politics has given her a sense of political and moral invulnerability. But that doesn’t mean that Jarrett lacks skill; like her boss, what she lacks is a sense of responsibility.</p>
<p>Obama is a political dilettante whose skills are entirely people skills. Valerie Jarrett’s people skills are negligible and concentrated on only one person, but unlike her boss, protégé and adopted son, she has the endurance and drive to pursue an issue indefinitely.</p>
<p>Barack Obama isn’t driven. Throughout his entire adult life there have been people there to open doors for him. It seemed natural for him to let Valerie Jarrett drive his political career and his administration to do the things that he lacks the attention span or the focus to do.</p>
<p>In exchange, his administration represents Jarrett’s ideological vision of a hard left turn for the country.</p>
<p>Valerie Jarrett doesn’t always get her way. She managed to talk Obama out of going after Osama three times, <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/obamas_strange_dependence_on_valerie_jarrett.html">but eventually lost the argument</a>. But Jarrett has made her mark on the country and the world by winning more arguments than she loses by leveraging her unprecedented level of access to chip away at him with her personal knowledge of his weaknesses; what Michelle Obama described as his “soft spots”.</p>
<p>Valerie Jarrett’s strength is framing political arguments in personal terms. Through her that has also become Obama’s strength. For Obama, Jarrett and the rest of the left, the political is personal. And their bond is also political and personal.</p>
<p>Jarrett and Obama are both Third Culture activists with a background in the Muslim world and left-wing politics, who came up the ladder through their involvement with corrupt political non-profits and equally corrupt Chicago politics. Both have dipped their toes in the narrow interests of the urban black community while having political agendas that transcended theirs on a global scale. And both have deep wells of resentment.</p>
<p>Obama may be married to Michelle, but he is closer to Valerie. Jarrett protects him from his job by controlling access to him. As his gatekeeper, Jarrett controls everything from dinner invites to the czars who have more power than many cabinet members. And when each meeting ends, it’s Valerie Jarrett who privately provides the final summary and makes the concluding argument to Barack Obama.</p>
<p>By becoming the gatekeeper to the Oval Office, Valerie Jarrett has more control over domestic and foreign policy than anyone else making her the closest thing to the president. Obama may be the public face of Obama Inc., but when the cameras dim and the teleprompters are turned off, it’s Valerie Jarrett who calls the shots.</p>
<p>Obama may be reading a teleprompter on stage, but Valerie Jarrett is the woman behind the curtain.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
<p><b>Make sure to </b><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/valerie-jarrett-the-ceo-of-obama-inc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>154</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Angry Left</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-angry-left/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-angry-left</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-angry-left/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2014 05:40:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[angry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HATE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSNBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=218051</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hate is the force that gives the Left meaning.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/101511_9931.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-218117" alt="101511_9931" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/101511_9931-450x341.jpg" width="270" height="205" /></a>The American left has never had it this good with two terms of an uncompromising leftist in the White House dedicated to its agenda, making and unmaking laws at a whim, siccing the IRS and federal prosecutors on his political enemies and transforming the country at a breathtaking pace.</p>
<p>Obama is what generations of the left have worked toward. This is the flicker of hope they kept alive throughout the Nixon years, Carter&#8217;s collapse and the long stretch of Reaganomics. This is what Bill Clinton robbed them of by gauging his actions against the polls instead of blasting full steam ahead regardless of what the public wanted.</p>
<p>So why is the left so angry?</p>
<p>Watch MSNBC or browse any left-wing site and you see a level of anger that would make you think that Al Gore had just conceded or Nixon had just won reelection. There&#8217;s more anger in the privileged circles of the left than in the political rearguard of the Tea Party.</p>
<p>That anger trickles from the top down. Obama&#8217;s interview with Bill O&#8217;Reilly was yet another opportunity for the most powerful man in the country to blame a vast right-wing conspiracy. A day doesn&#8217;t pass without another email from Obama, his wife, Sandra Fluke or Joe Biden warning that without another five or ten dollar contribution, the &#8220;right&#8221; will take over America.</p>
<p>The left has unchallenged control over the government, academia and the entertainment industry and yet it talks as if the country is 5 seconds away from Sarah Palin marching into Washington, D.C. at the head of an army of Duck Dynasty fans to outlaw abortion.</p>
<p>The apocalyptic political paranoia and the uncontrolled outbursts of rage haven’t changed much since 2003. Ten years later, the ideologues in power still act as if George W. Bush is serving out his fourth term. Every day on MSNBC, a stew of conspiracy theories about oil companies, Israel, the Koch Brothers, Wal-Mart and Karl Rove leaves a slimy trail across the television screen.</p>
<p>On the Internet, manufactured outrage has become the only progressive stock in trade. Did Jerry Seinfeld say that he values humor over racial quotas? He&#8217;s a racist. Did an ESPN magazine out a compulsive liar who also happened to be pretending to be a woman? Lock him up. Did Mike Huckabee say something that could be misinterpreted with enough ellipses and out of context “Twitterized” quotes? Before you know it, he&#8217;s a sexist pig.</p>
<p>It says something deeply disturbing about a progressive readership that eats up hate and doesn&#8217;t react to anything positive. The rash of fake hate crimes feeds into that same perverse need for an enemy to hate and fight. The left used to pretend that it wanted to do something positive, but now that it has the power, it can&#8217;t stop searching for someone to hate instead.</p>
<p>The left is more comfortable being angry than being anything else; it finds it easier to rally the troops against something than for something so that even its triumphs only lead to more anger. The MSNBC tweet about an interracial Cheerios commercial was revealing of a deeper problem within the left. It was assumed that the MSNBC audience wouldn&#8217;t care about an interracial ad unless it could somehow pretend to “spite” the right by watching it.</p>
<p>Obama&#8217;s awkward stumble from cause to cause, letting the old Bush policies run on Autoplay unless a crusade kicks in, as it eventually did on gay marriage and illegal immigration, is indicative of the problem with the left&#8217;s governing style. It cares less about gay marriage or legalizing illegal aliens than it does about stirring up conflict.</p>
<p>That is another reason why the left began neglecting some of its bread and butter issues after Obama won. Aside from the need to protect its own man, it wasn&#8217;t really all that interested in closing Gitmo, gay marriage or opposing the War in Iraq. The things it wants to do are never as important to it as its obsessive need to feel that it is fighting against the right.</p>
<p>For all the Obama Worship, the left is more united by hatred for Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz than by its support for its own leaders. It derives its identity more from the things that it is against &#8212; the middle class, the country, the businessman, the white male &#8212; than from the things that it is for.</p>
<p>The left&#8217;s sense of self is strongest when it is attacking, not when it is inspiring, when it is destroying, not when it is building.</p>
<p>Deprived of an external enemy, its ideologues carve out narrow orthodoxies and denounce each other for violating them. When the right and the center have been purged, the purges of the left begin and don’t end until there is nothing left except one tyrant-guru and his terrified minions.</p>
<p>The small scale bloodsport documented in the outward reaches of feminism by <i>The Nation</i> in its article &#8220;Feminism&#8217;s Toxic Twitter Wars&#8221; as transgender rights activists denounce Eve Ensler for excluding them by using the word &#8220;Vagina&#8221; and black feminists denounce white feminists for ignoring their concerns is typical.</p>
<p>When all enemies to the right have been eliminated, the left doesn&#8217;t find peace. Its ideology is a weapon, its gurus are egomaniacs and its followers joined to fight. When it wins in an arena, whether it&#8217;s academia or entertainment, the winners begins warring against each other proving that even in an ideological vacuum its ideology remains a destructive force whose followers would rather denounce and destroy, than educate and enlighten.</p>
<p>As a victorious parasite writes its own obituary, a successful left is a threat to its own existence and the only thing saving the left from a violent disintegration is the right.</p>
<p>Hating the right is the only thing that keeps the left together. When it doesn&#8217;t have Nixon to kick around anymore, it dissolves into a wet puddle of goo. If it didn&#8217;t have Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney and every other figure who took his turn starring in their grim theater of the Two Minutes Hate, it would revert back to the petty infighting of a thousand minor eccentric causes.</p>
<p>The left needs to believe in a vast right-wing conspiracy. It needs the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, Evangelical Christians, AIPAC, oil companies, defense contractors and every other element of its conspiracy theories to keep its followers focused on the &#8220;real&#8221; threat instead of purging each other for tone policing, insufficient privilege checking and any other outrage of the week.</p>
<p>Like the Salafists shooting and shelling each other in Syria, the ranks of the left are filled with dogmatic and intolerant fanatics whose only goal in life is the absolute victory of their point of view. Their mutual fanaticism and aggrieved sense of victimhood gives them more in common with each other and that very commonality is the source of their mutual hatred. Only they can understand each other well enough to truly want to kill each other.</p>
<p>It isn&#8217;t hope that animates the left’s leaders and thinkers, but the darker side of human nature. That dark side is why the left&#8217;s victories end in tragedies, why the red flags are painted with blood and why when its followers have run out of enemies to kill, they turn on each other and destroy their own movements with firing squads, gulags and guillotines.</p>
<p>Hate is the force that gives the left meaning.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>Ann-Marie Murrell</strong>&#8216;s video interview with <strong>Daniel Greenfield</strong> on <em>Robert Gates’ Revelations Confirm Horowitz&#8217;s “Party of Defeat,”</em> <em>Abandoning Iraq, </em><em> How Americans Died For a War Obama Didn&#8217;t Believe In</em>, <em>The Release of Terrorist Lawyer Lynne Stewart</em>, <em></em>and much, much more:</p>
<p><strong>Part I:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/xwp_CUfwAss" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Part II:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/TywIVHDnwxc" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe> <b></b></p>
<p><strong>To sign up for <em>The Glazov Gang,</em> <a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.</b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-angry-left/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>388</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Center of What?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/paul-gottfried/the-center-of-what/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-center-of-what</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/paul-gottfried/the-center-of-what/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 05:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Gottfried]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Center]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[middle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214730</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The disturbing encroachment of leftism into the political center. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/political-moderates1.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-214731" alt="political-moderates1" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/political-moderates1-450x300.jpg" width="315" height="210" /></a>Lately I’ve become annoyed by the fumbling attempt of historically ignorant journalists to define the “center.” The way they do this is by assigning Republicans to the right and Democrats to the left. One of our two national parties supposedly monopolizes all conservative qualities and the other all liberal ones. Those who consider themselves “undecided” or “swing voters” apparently belong to some shifting center. But as I like to remind my younger readers, both parties are well to the left of where they stood even twenty years ago on social issues.  Supporting gay marriage, which now seems acceptable to everyone but traditional Christians, would have sounded like a weird, radical idea to Republicans and Democrats alike as late as the 1980s. The feminist revolution that I have witnessed in my lifetime would have once sent Democrats for their barf bags, that is, at a time when the Democratic Party still had a very traditional Southern Protestant and Northern Catholic working-class base.</p>
<p>I won’t bother affirming all the trendy social changes as “good things” since I’m not running for political office, and since I really don’t care what the national media think of me, or even if they’re aware of my existence. I’m simply noting the obvious here, which is that this country, like other Western societies, has moved decidedly to the left over the last fifty years on major social issues. This has happened under the influence of the media, public education, and expanding government bureaucracy dedicated to fighting “discrimination.”</p>
<p>Our political culture has also gone in the same direction because “conservative” parties here and elsewhere have tried to keep up with the other side. These increasingly non-descript other parties have focused on those differences that the media and the center-left still view as “discussable.”  Obamacare is one such issue, on which sensitive people are still allowed to differ. By directing all their fire on the Democrats’ health plan, the GOP has been able to abandon truly “divisive” issues, that is, social ones that the media, entertainment industry and public educators have already decided for us. This strategy of abandonment doesn’t always work, as we saw in the last presidential race when Romney, especially during the debates with Obama, tried slavishly to take the same social positions as his Democratic rival. But at least Romney lost “with dignity,” as I heard from more than one Republican.  The Dems of course won by fighting with bare knuckles under the black flag.</p>
<p>Curiously Republican commentators have no idea of how far to the left they’re drifting, partly because they’re historical illiterates. I was flabbergasted to find one self-described conservative critic in the New York Post characterize the predecessor of the current New York City mayor as a “right of center” executive. The former mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is a lifelong liberal Democrat, who endorsed Obama, but who agreed to run as a Republican for mayor because it was a useful launching pad for his campaign. Where exactly is this “center” located that former Mayor Bloomberg moved to the right of? I’m still looking for it in vain.  Certainly Bloomberg was not as reckless in adding to the pensions of public employees or dealing with the power of the police to apprehend criminals as the new mayor, Bill de Blasio, is likely to be. But I can’t imagine what sense there is in designating someone as a “right of center” politician who holds the same views as many liberal Democrats.</p>
<p>Similarly, I was astonished to hear Jonah Goldberg on TV describe de Blasio as “so leftwing he’s almost like a Jacobin, but not quite that bad.” Goldberg, who was straining for effect, compared the newly elected mayor, who seems radical even by the standards of the Obama administration, to the radical wing of the French Revolution. The Jacobins, who took over France in 1793, were hardly moderates by late eighteenth century standards. They fell in 1794, after having produced considerable chaos and a bloodbath internally. But the Jacobins were utterly reactionary in their social views as compared to the dominant ideas of the present age. They were unabashed sexists, ultranationalists, and expressed racial opinions that Goldberg would undoubtedly denounce as fascist.  Although I don’t begrudge Goldberg his views, it is foolish to belittle those who sound only slightly more progressive than the speaker by comparing them to people who did not even operate in the same political universe.</p>
<p>This may be partly an attempt to hide how far we’ve moved in a particular political direction over the last half century. Those who take for granted what have been radical changes understate their impact and try to fit them into their own spectrum of opinion. But I only wish that I never again have to encounter someone’s made-up parallels with the past and or someone’s invented political center. Enough is enough.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/paul-gottfried/the-center-of-what/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Inequality Smokescreen</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/the-inequality-smokescreen/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-inequality-smokescreen</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/the-inequality-smokescreen/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2014 05:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inequality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214638</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How progressivism continues to discard the philosophical foundations of the Constitution.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/oi.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-214642" alt="US President Barack Obama delivers remarks on the economy" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/oi-450x292.jpg" width="315" height="204" /></a>Desperate for a diversion from the disasters of Obamacare, the president has conjured up the old leftist “income inequality” cliché. His court-pundits complain that “the richest nation on earth is starting to resemble a banana republic,” according to <i>The New Republic</i>, while Berkeley Professor Robert Reich has thundered against “casino capitalism,” blaming it for “the greatest concentration of the nation’s income and wealth at the very top since the Gilded Age of the nineteenth century, with the richest 400 Americans owning as much as the bottom 150 million put together.” Democrats, no doubt cheered by left-over-leftist Bill de Blasio’s election as mayor of New York, and excited by his Occupy Wall Street rants, apparently believe that such class-warfare rhetoric is a political winner. So be prepared for more of the same, and for demands to raise the minimum wage and gouge even more money from the “millionaires and billionaires.”</p>
<p>Fretting over income inequality, however, has little to do with economic reality. It’s a statistical sleight-of-hand that counts only “money income” and ignores non-cash transfers in order to decry how much more income the top 1% are earning compared to everybody else. In fact, when the value of government transfers such as Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit are included in calculating income, <a href="http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/123566">income inequality actually declined</a> 1.8% between 1993 and 2009. Equally revealing is the fact that in 2005 those in the bottom 20% of earners consumed almost twice their income, again because of the value of non-cash transfers. And that doesn’t count the underground economy, everything from working for cash to more unsavory occupations. That’s why the statistical <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty">poor enjoy living standards higher</a> than the average European. And that’s the real point––not how much the rich have, but how much everybody else does.</p>
<p>So what is all this hyperventilating about, apart from political demagoguery? Don’t underestimate the sheer ignorance of some people about how free-market capitalism works. They seem to think of wealth in medieval terms, as fixed resources like land, herds, forests, or precious metals that can be divided only so many times, a zero-sum process that requires some to have less for others to have more. Capitalism, of course, creates new wealth that is widely distributed, the riches of one leading to a higher standard of living for many. Microsoft founder Bill Gates is worth $78.5 billion, but his company and related businesses have created 14.7 million jobs globally. For every dollar Microsoft earns, affiliated companies earn $7.79. That’s the genius of capitalism, which allows a few to get rich and in the process make millions of others not necessarily rich, but better off than they were.</p>
<p>More important than ignorance of kindergarten economics, though, is the radical egalitarianism that has always been the bane of democracies since ancient Athens––the notion, as Aristotle said, “that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal.” Genuine equality––the equality of all under the law, and the equality of opportunity––will not satisfy the radical egalitarian. He must have equality of result, and since the most obvious and galling sign of inequality is that of property and wealth, he will then demand redistribution of property to move closer to that aim.</p>
<p>The American Founders understood this nexus of egalitarianism, the unequal distribution of property, and political strife. As James Madison put it, “The diversity in the faculties of men from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of Government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results: and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.”</p>
<p>Notice that Madison assumes that the unequal distribution of ability, hard work, virtue, or even luck, all of which create the inequality of wealth, is an unchanging fact of human nature. As a result, those with more wealth, and those with less, will form different factions that will attempt to dominate the government in order to advance their interests. The Founders were particularly wary of the majority dominating the government and using its power to redistribute the property of the better off, at the same time they understood that the rich would use political power to their advantage. As Gouverneur Morris said during the Constitutional convention, “The Rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will. The proper security [against] them is to form them into a separate interest. The two forces will then control each other . . . By thus combining and setting apart, the aristocratic interest, the popular interest will be combined [against] it. There will be a mutual check and mutual security.”</p>
<p>Hence the Constitutional order of checks and balances was created on this foundation of clashing interests in order to keep one faction from tyrannizing over everybody else.</p>
<p>Obviously, this harping on income inequality is just another example of how progressivism has discarded the philosophical foundations of the Constitution. Rejecting the unequal distribution of ability and virtue among people that Madison recognized, the Progressives under Woodrow Wilson believed that unjust social and economic institutions accounted for inequality of income, and they wanted to increase the power of the state to correct this injustice. Thus early in the 20<sup>th</sup> century Progressives pursued what in 1918 economist E.R.A. Seligman called “fiscal justice” by successfully pushing for the Income Tax. Seligman was commenting on the 1917 Tax Act, which lowered exemptions and raised rates. This increase came a year after the 1916 Revenue Act, which had nearly doubled the 7% top rate established 3 years earlier by the Sixteenth Amendment, and created an inheritance tax. The <i>New Republic </i>called this expansion “a powerful equalitarian attack upon swollen incomes.” Since then the income tax has become the ever-expanding revenue stream for achieving the progressive aim to “pass the prosperity around,” as Albert Beveridge said at the 1912 Progressive Party presidential nominating convention. A hundred years on, the progressive Democrats are still attempting to use federal taxing power to defy human nature, the free market, and the Constitution in order to mount an “equalitarian attack on swollen incomes” and to “spread the wealth around,” as Obama famously said.</p>
<p>The rhetoric of class warfare, however, exploits a more unsavory dimension of democratic man’s desire for absolute equality, one noticed by Alexis de Tocqueville in <i>Democracy in America</i>. “It cannot be denied,” Tocqueville wrote, “that democratic institutions strongly tend to promote the feeling of envy in the human heart; not so much because they afford to everyone the means of rising to the same level as others as because those means perpetually disappoint the persons who employ them. Democratic institutions awaken and foster a passion for equality which they can never entirely satisfy.” Equality of opportunity means the chance to rise as high as one’s talents, virtues, and hard work can take him. Too often those who fail will refuse to accept their lack of these qualities and blame those who possess them, and in the “acrimony of disappointment,” Tocqueville writes, find “superiority, how legitimate it may be” to be “irksome in [their] sight.”</p>
<p>This envy and resentment is readily fostered and exploited by politicians seeking support for increasing spending on welfare and entitlements in order to maintain their own power and increase that of the state. Meanwhile, welfare destroys the virtues and habits necessary for success, while punitive taxation, deficit spending, bloated government, and intrusive regulation all hurt economic growth and reduce opportunities for those who do want to better themselves.</p>
<p>Obviously, modern “income inequality” rhetoric is a political smokescreen, which explains its inconsistencies. We do not hear Obama and the Democrats decrying the bloated incomes of progressive actors, television talk-show hosts, rap moguls, or sports stars. Their demonization of Wall Street doesn’t stop them from accepting campaign contributions from investment bankers or working for Goldman Sachs after leaving government. Worse yet, they are completely indifferent to the assault on the Constitutional order this rhetoric represents, or the divisiveness sown among the citizens by stirring up destructive passions like envy and resentment. All they care about is keeping their own power and privilege no matter what the social and economic costs.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/the-inequality-smokescreen/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1535/1711 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 10:35:34 by W3 Total Cache -->