The hate-filled, gutter fight over Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's political future left a string of casualties in the wake of a bitter recall election. Public sector unions tried to bully elected officials and failed. Teachers exploited students and forfeited their credibility. Democrats shamelessly smeared the governor with raunchy sexual allegations and were shunned by their own president.
Despite unprecedented baseless attacks on a sitting governor, Walker emerged victorious. But in the end Wisconsin's public school students were the real losers. They were treated to a civics lesson of what happens in a democracy when vengeful union officials decide their interests come before fiscal responsibility.
This was not a recall about malfeasance in office. Public sector unions were ruffled after Governor Walker led a legislative battle to make changes in the pensions, benefits and bargaining rights of teachers and other state employees as part of a crusade to reduce Wisconsin's bloated budget deficit.
Like spoiled brats the unions stamped their feet in outrage. How dare the people's elected representatives tell them what to do! To show their disgust, they occupied the Wisconsin legislature's chambers in Madison and trashed the place and left it looking like a bus station rest room.
This sickening display of utter disrespect by union thugs was hailed in the media as a show of strength in the face of a power-hungry legislature. Nothing could have been further from the truth. It was a petulant, abhorrent misuse of union muscle which many voters never forgot.
The main culprit in this vendetta of mayhem was the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the bargaining agent for the state's 98,000 teachers and support personnel. On its website, the council describes its role as a "strong voice for its members and for the 885,000 children" in public schools.
What a joke!
The council's "advocacy" for children included such abuses as exploitation of minors, fraud and a blatant disregard for professional ethics.
During the nasty campaign, the union called a massive sickout, which cost taxpayers about $6 million. Teachers used faked notes from doctors to justify their absence from school. When teachers act like truants, what message do they send to their students?
News reporters uncovered how one teacher organized a bogus "field trip" to the state Capitol to demonstrate against the governor. In Madison, high school students were "recruited" by teachers to participate in protest marches. When teachers use students as pawns for union purposes, what does it say about their priorities?
The Milwaukee teachers union's chief coordinated an effort to stuff political materials into the backpacks of students, including kindergartners, to take home to their parents. The unwitting children were nothing more than union mules. When teachers take advantage of their students for political reasons, what does it say about their respect for them?
The recall campaign tactics were so malodorous that the stench reached all the way to the White House. President Obama, an avowed public sector union advocate, refused to spend what precious little political capital he has to even make a public appearance in Wisconsin. It was a political not moral choice for Obama, who recognized the recall effort had denigrated into cesspool politics with no winners.
The mainstream talking heads and keyboarding print drones spun the election results in a manner which suggested the governor had merely "survived" the recall. He did more than "survive." Walker defeated his Democrat opponent by a wider margin than when the same two gubernatorial campaigners faced-off in 2010.
The truth is the citizens of Wisconsin turned out in record numbers to send a message to the union's sore losers who campaigned to oust the governor for purely spiteful reasons. Voters are fed up with elephantine budgets and swollen deficits. They want reform of public sector union perks that are out of line with private industry benefits.
Wisconsin's recall vote represents a teachable moment for President Obama and his Democratic Party allies. A new day has dawned in America. Voters yearn for courageous politicians who will stand against powerful union interests determined to bankrupt states with their outlandish demands.
Are you listening President Obama?
Monday, June 11, 2012
Monday, June 4, 2012
Who's The Bigger Crook? Morgan or Government?
When news of J.P. Morgan Chase's $2 billion trading loss reached Washington, federal regulators and Congress were apoplectic. The banking giant was called on the carpet by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Congress launched a series of hearings. The White House harrumphed.
Too bad the same kind of righteous outrage has not accompanied the billions in losses suffered by green energy firms siphoning taxpayer dollars. Unlike clients of J.P., taxpayers cannot withdraw their money when glaring investment decisions are exposed.
Although the demise of solar panel manufacturer Solyndra was trumpeted nationally, dozens of other government-backed companies have quietly gone belly up without so much as a peep in the mainstream media. The mounting taxpayer losses are a national disgrace that deserves public airing.
Solyndra went bankrupt last year, taking with it a $535 million government loan that was part of President Obama's phony stimulus package designed to "put Americans back to work." Scores of jobs were lost when the solar firm shuttered its doors.
Unfortunately, Solyndra is only the tip of a hidden iceberg of deception about President Obama's use of taxpayer funds to prop-up the so-called green energy industry in the name of economic stimulus.
Many cash-flush green energy companies used taxpayer money to fatten the wallets of executives. Several firms took the funds and opened facilities overseas, costing Americans jobs. Criminal investigations have followed in a handful of cases. Yet the media has remained silent.
Here are some of the most egregious examples of the toxic mix of failed government oversight, corporate debauchery and executive malfeasance:
ECOtality: The Obama Administration doled out $141 million in stimulus money to this manufacturer of electric vehicle charging stations. During 2011, the firm hiked executive and director compensation by 150 percent. The company has racked up more than $45 million in losses and its executives are under investigation for insider trading.
First Solar: The solar power operator received nearly $1.5 billion in stimulus-backed loans from the Department of Energy. The company recently fired 30 percent of its workforce in the face of a deepening financial crisis. Yet the company paid its chief executive officer a whopping $32 million in salary and bonuses over three years. He was fired this year after First Solar's stock plummeted 30 percent. In November of last year, the firm spent $223 million to expand its factory in Germany.
A123: The electric battery manufacturer scooped up nearly $250 million in stimulus funds. Despite the company's warning of an impending financial disaster, the company's top three executives were gifted with a 20 percent increase in salaries last year and were handed generous stock awards. In a recent SEC filing, the firm warned that without more taxpayer money its future would be "adversely" affected.
SpectraWatt: The solar cell company received a $500,000 grant from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory as part of the stimulus package. The firm was an abject failure, filing for bankruptcy in August of last year after barely two years of operation
Evergreen Solar, Inc: The solar panel installation company grabbed $5.3 million of funds in the stimulus gold rush. The firm collapsed into bankruptcy last year. According to news reports, Evergreen plans to emerge from from bankruptcy and focus on building its manufacturing facility in China.
Beacon Technology: This energy storage company went bankrupt in 2011, just one year after it was given a $43 million Department of Energy loan guarantee as part of the stimulus package. At the time of its Chapter 11 filing, Beacon was saddled with $47 million in debt and declared its revenues were insufficient to support ongoing operations. Its assets were acquired by a private investment firm this year.
These and scores of other failed stimulus-supported firms stand as testimony to the government's deplorable record of bungled investments. Unlike J.P. Morgan Chase, the Obama Administration has not been called to account for the billions of wasted taxpayer dollars.
There should be no double standard. J.P. Morgan Chase's losses have been publicly scrutinized and investigated. The company's CEO has assumed full responsibility for mishandling of funds.
Americans deserve a scrupulous accounting of stimulus spending on green energy. However, in today's culture of media complicity and political corruption, government accountability is as allusive as honest answers from the Obama Administration.
Too bad the same kind of righteous outrage has not accompanied the billions in losses suffered by green energy firms siphoning taxpayer dollars. Unlike clients of J.P., taxpayers cannot withdraw their money when glaring investment decisions are exposed.
Although the demise of solar panel manufacturer Solyndra was trumpeted nationally, dozens of other government-backed companies have quietly gone belly up without so much as a peep in the mainstream media. The mounting taxpayer losses are a national disgrace that deserves public airing.
Solyndra went bankrupt last year, taking with it a $535 million government loan that was part of President Obama's phony stimulus package designed to "put Americans back to work." Scores of jobs were lost when the solar firm shuttered its doors.
Unfortunately, Solyndra is only the tip of a hidden iceberg of deception about President Obama's use of taxpayer funds to prop-up the so-called green energy industry in the name of economic stimulus.
Many cash-flush green energy companies used taxpayer money to fatten the wallets of executives. Several firms took the funds and opened facilities overseas, costing Americans jobs. Criminal investigations have followed in a handful of cases. Yet the media has remained silent.
Here are some of the most egregious examples of the toxic mix of failed government oversight, corporate debauchery and executive malfeasance:
ECOtality: The Obama Administration doled out $141 million in stimulus money to this manufacturer of electric vehicle charging stations. During 2011, the firm hiked executive and director compensation by 150 percent. The company has racked up more than $45 million in losses and its executives are under investigation for insider trading.
First Solar: The solar power operator received nearly $1.5 billion in stimulus-backed loans from the Department of Energy. The company recently fired 30 percent of its workforce in the face of a deepening financial crisis. Yet the company paid its chief executive officer a whopping $32 million in salary and bonuses over three years. He was fired this year after First Solar's stock plummeted 30 percent. In November of last year, the firm spent $223 million to expand its factory in Germany.
A123: The electric battery manufacturer scooped up nearly $250 million in stimulus funds. Despite the company's warning of an impending financial disaster, the company's top three executives were gifted with a 20 percent increase in salaries last year and were handed generous stock awards. In a recent SEC filing, the firm warned that without more taxpayer money its future would be "adversely" affected.
SpectraWatt: The solar cell company received a $500,000 grant from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory as part of the stimulus package. The firm was an abject failure, filing for bankruptcy in August of last year after barely two years of operation
Evergreen Solar, Inc: The solar panel installation company grabbed $5.3 million of funds in the stimulus gold rush. The firm collapsed into bankruptcy last year. According to news reports, Evergreen plans to emerge from from bankruptcy and focus on building its manufacturing facility in China.
Beacon Technology: This energy storage company went bankrupt in 2011, just one year after it was given a $43 million Department of Energy loan guarantee as part of the stimulus package. At the time of its Chapter 11 filing, Beacon was saddled with $47 million in debt and declared its revenues were insufficient to support ongoing operations. Its assets were acquired by a private investment firm this year.
These and scores of other failed stimulus-supported firms stand as testimony to the government's deplorable record of bungled investments. Unlike J.P. Morgan Chase, the Obama Administration has not been called to account for the billions of wasted taxpayer dollars.
There should be no double standard. J.P. Morgan Chase's losses have been publicly scrutinized and investigated. The company's CEO has assumed full responsibility for mishandling of funds.
Americans deserve a scrupulous accounting of stimulus spending on green energy. However, in today's culture of media complicity and political corruption, government accountability is as allusive as honest answers from the Obama Administration.
Monday, May 28, 2012
The 1.8 Percent That Matters This Election
While President Obama obsesses over the wealthy one-percent, Republican challenger George Romney is courting the 1.8 percent of the nation's 131 million voters who tipped the electoral scales in the 2008 election. These Americans reside in nine battleground states targeted by the GOP.
Obama claimed victory by a combined margin of 2,372,750 votes in these key states: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana, Colorado and Iowa. In all but three, the president had an edge of 4.5 percent or less of the total votes cast.
Without these wafer-thin wins, Barrack Obama would have spent the last four years in the U.S. Senate. If the nine states had swung to John McCain, the Republican would have won the electoral vote 305 to 233 instead of losing 365 to 173. This year, like 2008, the closely contested race is expected to turn on these same states.
Much has changed since Obama claimed the presidential prize, particularly in the nine pivotal states where the GOP has chalked up decisive gains in state and Congressional elections. Here is a look at the state-by-state issues that could alter the political landscape this election.
Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Michigan account for 78 electoral votes, which represents 28 percent of the total needed to win the presidency. To underscore how close the last election was, Obama won North Carolina's popular vote by 14,177 out of 4.2 million ballots.
Obama claimed victory by a combined margin of 2,372,750 votes in these key states: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana, Colorado and Iowa. In all but three, the president had an edge of 4.5 percent or less of the total votes cast.
Without these wafer-thin wins, Barrack Obama would have spent the last four years in the U.S. Senate. If the nine states had swung to John McCain, the Republican would have won the electoral vote 305 to 233 instead of losing 365 to 173. This year, like 2008, the closely contested race is expected to turn on these same states.
Much has changed since Obama claimed the presidential prize, particularly in the nine pivotal states where the GOP has chalked up decisive gains in state and Congressional elections. Here is a look at the state-by-state issues that could alter the political landscape this election.
Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Michigan account for 78 electoral votes, which represents 28 percent of the total needed to win the presidency. To underscore how close the last election was, Obama won North Carolina's popular vote by 14,177 out of 4.2 million ballots.
The Big Four are fertile ground for the Republicans this time around. Voters in Florida, Ohio and recently North Carolina have approved bans on same sex marriage by overwhelming majorities. The president thumbed his nose at these voters by "evolving" his position to pro-gay marriage.
Republicans have more than social issues going for them. Unemployment rates in Michigan, Florida and North Carolina exceed the national average of 8.1 percent as the recession lingers. Florida, Michigan and Ohio rank in the top ten worst states for home foreclosures.
In Virginia, the president's margin of victory over GOP nominee John McCain was 234,527 out of 3.7 million ballots. Since the last presidential election, Virginia voters green-lighted a ban on same-sex marriage. Voters in two other swing states, Colorado and Wisconsin, also came down on the same side of the issue.
Home foreclosures also have swamped Wisconsin. It ranks tenth nationally among the hardest hit states. Republicans have flexed their political muscles in Wisconsin, picking a fight with public sector unions. Contrary to pundit opinion, the brouhaha may end up harming Democrats worse than the GOP.
Not much has been made in the mainstream media about the issue of the Catholic Church's legal assault on behalf of religious freedom. As the controversy festers, it could become a defining issue for voters in states like Wisconsin, where more than 40 percent of the population is Catholic.
Not much has been made in the mainstream media about the issue of the Catholic Church's legal assault on behalf of religious freedom. As the controversy festers, it could become a defining issue for voters in states like Wisconsin, where more than 40 percent of the population is Catholic.
Indiana was another squeaker for Obama. He posted a razor-thin margin of 28,397 votes out of 2.75 million ballots. Hooiser state voters had voted Republican in every presidential election since 1972 until Obama's upset in 2008. Republicans now control the governor's mansion and other key offices.
In Iowa, the political winds are shifting after Democratic Party presidential candidates eked out wins in five of the last six general elections. Obama's victory margin was less than 10 percent of all the ballots cast. Republicans now hold most of the state's top elective offices, including the governorship.
Obama has deep divisions within his own party, too. As evidence, an imprisoned felon received 41 percent of the vote in West Virginia's Democratic Party presidential primary. Obama narrowly won the Arkansas primary after an unknown Tennessee lawyer garnered 42 percent of the vote. In Kentucky, "uncommitted" finished second to Obama with 42 percent of the ballots.
That's why it is comical to watch the president harp on the one-percent in every speech. His arrogance misleads him to believe Americans owe him another term in office. The president is in for a rude awakening.
In Iowa, the political winds are shifting after Democratic Party presidential candidates eked out wins in five of the last six general elections. Obama's victory margin was less than 10 percent of all the ballots cast. Republicans now hold most of the state's top elective offices, including the governorship.
Obama has deep divisions within his own party, too. As evidence, an imprisoned felon received 41 percent of the vote in West Virginia's Democratic Party presidential primary. Obama narrowly won the Arkansas primary after an unknown Tennessee lawyer garnered 42 percent of the vote. In Kentucky, "uncommitted" finished second to Obama with 42 percent of the ballots.
That's why it is comical to watch the president harp on the one-percent in every speech. His arrogance misleads him to believe Americans owe him another term in office. The president is in for a rude awakening.
Monday, May 21, 2012
An Open Letter To President Barrack Obama
Dear Mr. President:
You must be feeling like an aging rock star whose adoring fans have abandoned him. People no longer faint during your dreary speeches recited off a teleprompter. News media people don't get a tingling feeling at the sound of your cacophonous voice. Instead of bouquets, people are sprinkling verbal brickbats at your feet. It must wound your ego to know Lady GaGa has a higher favorable rating.
Perhaps, I could offer a couple of suggestions. Start by firing every single speechwriter, political adviser and strategist. Get some new talking-points. Find someone who understands economic growth. Hang out with some real working folks instead of chatting up the moneyed Hollywood elite.
Your precarious political position can hardly get worse. Based on public opinion data, the American people are fresh out of hope and the only change they embrace is one that involves your swift departure from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
A couple of shocking political gaffes haven't helped matters.
After your dunderhead Vice President Joe "Plugs" Biden announced his support for gay marriage, you felt cornered and decided to recalculate your position. Despite all the fawning media coverage, it was frankly like watching Dumb and Dumber.
No one was fooled.
A New York Times/CBS poll found that most Americans (67%) believe your about-face was done for strictly political reasons. Even worse for you, 26 percent of people claim your announcement will make them less likely to vote for you, including 23 percent of independents.
But, hey, there was a ray of sunshine. Newsweek magazine anointed you the "First Gay President." That must have come as a shock to the First Lady.
The ruckus makes me wonder if you are getting political advice from Michael Dukakis.
Your gay marriage flip-flop tips several swing states into the GOP column. The only people inspired by your clumsy 'evolution' are naive voters who already were in your camp. That gusher of cash from George Clooney and his Beverly Hills cronies may feed your narcissism, but it won't buy victory.
Bashing America's wealthy hasn't worked out either. A Gallup Poll this month revealed that more than 60 percent of Americans think the country benefits from having a class of rich people. By the way, that is unchanged from 22 years ago in spite of your unflagging demonizing of the wealthy.
In fact, Gallup's researchers saw "no signs" that "Americans are becoming more and more negative" about the wealthy, even with all the envy-baiting in the media and the pseudo protests orchestrated by your shaggy surrogates in the Occupy Movement.
It turns out, Mr. President, that 63 percent of Americans want to be rich, according to Gallup's survey. Imagine that! After listening to your speeches, I figured most people would rather be poor and dependent on the government. Apparently, not many Americans grow up wanting to be destitute.
I hear that you blame the American people for being too dumb to really "get" you. But based on research, it appears they have gotten over you.
The most recent New York Times/CBS poll shows Romney ahead by 46 percent to 43 percent.
This does not bode well for a second term. If I could be so timid as to offer a final piece of advice: when the movers show up at the White House in January, try to put on a happy face.
Oh, and, I hate to be the bearer of more bad news, but you might want to withdraw that $1 million in your investment account at J.P. Morgan, assuming it's still there. News outlets are reporting the banking monolith has sustained $2 billion in trading losses.
That money may come in handy in retirement.
Best wishes on finding a new career,
Drew
You must be feeling like an aging rock star whose adoring fans have abandoned him. People no longer faint during your dreary speeches recited off a teleprompter. News media people don't get a tingling feeling at the sound of your cacophonous voice. Instead of bouquets, people are sprinkling verbal brickbats at your feet. It must wound your ego to know Lady GaGa has a higher favorable rating.
Perhaps, I could offer a couple of suggestions. Start by firing every single speechwriter, political adviser and strategist. Get some new talking-points. Find someone who understands economic growth. Hang out with some real working folks instead of chatting up the moneyed Hollywood elite.
Your precarious political position can hardly get worse. Based on public opinion data, the American people are fresh out of hope and the only change they embrace is one that involves your swift departure from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
A couple of shocking political gaffes haven't helped matters.
After your dunderhead Vice President Joe "Plugs" Biden announced his support for gay marriage, you felt cornered and decided to recalculate your position. Despite all the fawning media coverage, it was frankly like watching Dumb and Dumber.
No one was fooled.
A New York Times/CBS poll found that most Americans (67%) believe your about-face was done for strictly political reasons. Even worse for you, 26 percent of people claim your announcement will make them less likely to vote for you, including 23 percent of independents.
But, hey, there was a ray of sunshine. Newsweek magazine anointed you the "First Gay President." That must have come as a shock to the First Lady.
The ruckus makes me wonder if you are getting political advice from Michael Dukakis.
Your gay marriage flip-flop tips several swing states into the GOP column. The only people inspired by your clumsy 'evolution' are naive voters who already were in your camp. That gusher of cash from George Clooney and his Beverly Hills cronies may feed your narcissism, but it won't buy victory.
Bashing America's wealthy hasn't worked out either. A Gallup Poll this month revealed that more than 60 percent of Americans think the country benefits from having a class of rich people. By the way, that is unchanged from 22 years ago in spite of your unflagging demonizing of the wealthy.
In fact, Gallup's researchers saw "no signs" that "Americans are becoming more and more negative" about the wealthy, even with all the envy-baiting in the media and the pseudo protests orchestrated by your shaggy surrogates in the Occupy Movement.
It turns out, Mr. President, that 63 percent of Americans want to be rich, according to Gallup's survey. Imagine that! After listening to your speeches, I figured most people would rather be poor and dependent on the government. Apparently, not many Americans grow up wanting to be destitute.
I hear that you blame the American people for being too dumb to really "get" you. But based on research, it appears they have gotten over you.
The most recent New York Times/CBS poll shows Romney ahead by 46 percent to 43 percent.
This does not bode well for a second term. If I could be so timid as to offer a final piece of advice: when the movers show up at the White House in January, try to put on a happy face.
Oh, and, I hate to be the bearer of more bad news, but you might want to withdraw that $1 million in your investment account at J.P. Morgan, assuming it's still there. News outlets are reporting the banking monolith has sustained $2 billion in trading losses.
That money may come in handy in retirement.
Best wishes on finding a new career,
Drew
Monday, May 14, 2012
Dems Stealth Plan To Nab an UnFair Share
A shadowy Democratic Party campaign masquerading as a nonpartisan grassroots effort has sprung up in states across the country to canvass neighborhoods, raise money and organize voter registrations on behalf of the reelection of President Obama.
The Diatribe has learned that the community activist group Fair Share Alliance has launched a massive summer recruiting drive on college campuses to enlist young people in fundraising, public education, petition drives and membership campaigns to promote the president's agenda.
The Alliance, registered as a tax-exempt, non-profit organization in Denver, Colorado, has opened offices in Texas, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Washington, Nevada, New York, Illinois, New Mexico and dozens of other states. The alliance also has offices in the heart of Washington, D.C.
In an email obtained by the Diatribe, the Texas state coordinator for Fair Share prodded a San Antonio college professor send an announcement to students about "hiring" opportunities. The email described the group as a "non-profit advocacy organization" without mentioning political party affiliation.
An investigation of public documents uncovered a murky trail that suggests Fair Share is a vestige of ACORN, the defunct activist group disbanded in 2010 after it became embroiled in a scandal that ended with it being stripped of taxpayer funding. The group also pleaded guilty to voter registration fraud.
At its peak, ACORN claimed more than 500,000 members and 1,200 neighborhood chapters. President Obama once worked with the organization in Illinois as a "leadership trainer." In 1995, Obama and several Chicago attorneys won a voter suit on behalf of the community activist group.
ACORN, an acronym for Association of Community Organizations For Reform Now, was once affiliated with Progressive Future, another Democratic Party support group. Progressive Future later morphed into Fair Share Alliance with many of the same former players.
Fair Share's tentacles stretch all the way to the White House. The organization's program director Adam Lioz, formerly with Progressive Future and MoveOn PAC, visited the White House as recently as November of last year to meet with senior presidential speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz, according to records.
Most of the organization's top leaders are ex-Democratic Party operatives, including executive director Brad Martin, a former regional political leader with the Democratic National Committee who also served as the executive director for the party in Montana.
Yet the alliance claims non-partisan status in state registration documents, despite boasting on its own website that it helped "elect Barrack Obama in 2008" by hustling a "get out the vote" campaign for the president.
In words that could have been ripped from one of the president's speeches, the group describes its mission to "create a system in which every American gets a fair shot, everyone pays their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules."
Despite its obvious Democratic Party linkage, Fair Share was chartered in Colorado under Internal Revenue Service rules that allow the creation of "charitable" organizations to lobby for legislation and to participate in political campaigns.
Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to trace the money trail for Fair Share. Democrats made certain of that in 2010 when a bill to require disclosure of donations to these type organizations was defeated in the party-controlled Senate after it was approved in the House of Representatives.
Fair Share Alliance is a poster child for what's wrong with the current election process.
Campaigns have become cesspools of shady political offshoots disguised as non-partisan altruists; IRS-sanctioned charitable status for political party siblings; and, no public accounting for millions of dollars funneled into quasi-party outfits.
What more evidence do Americans need of political chicanery before they demand changes in the current system?
The Diatribe has learned that the community activist group Fair Share Alliance has launched a massive summer recruiting drive on college campuses to enlist young people in fundraising, public education, petition drives and membership campaigns to promote the president's agenda.
The Alliance, registered as a tax-exempt, non-profit organization in Denver, Colorado, has opened offices in Texas, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Washington, Nevada, New York, Illinois, New Mexico and dozens of other states. The alliance also has offices in the heart of Washington, D.C.
In an email obtained by the Diatribe, the Texas state coordinator for Fair Share prodded a San Antonio college professor send an announcement to students about "hiring" opportunities. The email described the group as a "non-profit advocacy organization" without mentioning political party affiliation.
An investigation of public documents uncovered a murky trail that suggests Fair Share is a vestige of ACORN, the defunct activist group disbanded in 2010 after it became embroiled in a scandal that ended with it being stripped of taxpayer funding. The group also pleaded guilty to voter registration fraud.
At its peak, ACORN claimed more than 500,000 members and 1,200 neighborhood chapters. President Obama once worked with the organization in Illinois as a "leadership trainer." In 1995, Obama and several Chicago attorneys won a voter suit on behalf of the community activist group.
ACORN, an acronym for Association of Community Organizations For Reform Now, was once affiliated with Progressive Future, another Democratic Party support group. Progressive Future later morphed into Fair Share Alliance with many of the same former players.
Fair Share's tentacles stretch all the way to the White House. The organization's program director Adam Lioz, formerly with Progressive Future and MoveOn PAC, visited the White House as recently as November of last year to meet with senior presidential speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz, according to records.
Most of the organization's top leaders are ex-Democratic Party operatives, including executive director Brad Martin, a former regional political leader with the Democratic National Committee who also served as the executive director for the party in Montana.
Yet the alliance claims non-partisan status in state registration documents, despite boasting on its own website that it helped "elect Barrack Obama in 2008" by hustling a "get out the vote" campaign for the president.
In words that could have been ripped from one of the president's speeches, the group describes its mission to "create a system in which every American gets a fair shot, everyone pays their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules."
Despite its obvious Democratic Party linkage, Fair Share was chartered in Colorado under Internal Revenue Service rules that allow the creation of "charitable" organizations to lobby for legislation and to participate in political campaigns.
Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to trace the money trail for Fair Share. Democrats made certain of that in 2010 when a bill to require disclosure of donations to these type organizations was defeated in the party-controlled Senate after it was approved in the House of Representatives.
Fair Share Alliance is a poster child for what's wrong with the current election process.
Campaigns have become cesspools of shady political offshoots disguised as non-partisan altruists; IRS-sanctioned charitable status for political party siblings; and, no public accounting for millions of dollars funneled into quasi-party outfits.
What more evidence do Americans need of political chicanery before they demand changes in the current system?
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Voter ID: Picture This Eric Holder
It is no coincidence that Attorney General Eric Holder recently declared open season on state voter identification laws. It is a tactic from the Democrat Party playbook designed to make it easier for ineligible voters to break the law by obtaining a ballot in the upcoming presidential election.
At a staged media event, Holder castigated states' voter ID laws alleging the rules disenfranchise minorities and vowed to use the vast resources of the Justice Department to block their enforcement. His gambit casts a long shadow over the general election in light of allegations of voter fraud in the 2008 contest.
It has been well documented that discredited community activist organization ACORN registered thousands of new voters who helped Obama claim the White House. Last year, ACORN officials pleaded guilty of running an illegal voter registration scheme in Nevada. The group faced similar accusations in other states.
Meanwhile, there is fresh evidence the nation's voting roles are replete with errors and inaccuracies. For instance, the non-partisan Pew Center issued a report in February that showed there are 1.8 million dead people still carried on the voting roles.
Researchers also discovered about 25 million voter registrations were either invalid or contained inaccuracies. That is 13 percent of the nation's total registered voters. More than 2.75 million people are registered in more than one state, Pew reported.
The requirement of a picture identification would eliminate most of the problems unearthed by the Pew Center, while ensuring the integrity of elections.
However, voter ID opponents are unmoved. The ACLU recently declared voter fraud is virtually non-existent and harangued states for enacting ID requirements that stifle turnout, particularly among minorities. Apparently, the ACLU believes only minorities are ill-equipped to secure a valid ID.
The ACLU's claims ring hollow. The organization filed suit in Georgia after the 2008 election, fuming over state ID laws because they prevented minorities from exercising their right to vote. A federal judge tossed the case because the liberal group could not produce a single person who would testify that he or she was unable to vote because of the ID law.
That's why Holder's battle to overturn ID laws is nothing more than a political smokescreen. The dour-faced attorney general wants to create the impression that the administration cares more about protecting minority voters than Republicans. Only the most gullible would fall for such deceit.
No one, including the attorney general, has presented a shred of evidence that minorities are disadvantaged by voter ID laws. Opponents often cite the cost of obtaining ID as a roadblock. Yet many states offer picture identification cards for free, including Texas.
Besides, it is virtually impossible to function as a U.S. citizen without a picture ID. A photo identification is required to fly on an airplane, to drive a car, to purchase cigarettes and liquor, to open a bank account, to validate credit card purchases and to take a college entrance exam.
And the list goes on and on. Illinois recently approved a law that makes it mandatory to produce a photo ID to purchase drain cleaners.
Moreover, photo identification is needed to enter many business offices and government buildings, including the Justice Department. Using Holder's own logic, the attorney general is turning away minorities from his taxpayer-funded building because they can't obtain a valid ID.
A journalist recently exposed the fallacy of Holder's voter ID doctrine. The writer obtained a ballot for a District of Columbia election by simply providing Holder's name and address. The stunt should have embarrassed the nation's top law enforcement officer.
Holder was nonplussed. The nation's voters can draw only one logical conclusion from his reaction. The attorney general isn't interested in fair elections where only legally eligible voters can participle.
Shame on Eric Holder. He is guilty of putting sleazy politics ahead of honest elections. Americans can no longer trust him to uphold the nation's laws.
At a staged media event, Holder castigated states' voter ID laws alleging the rules disenfranchise minorities and vowed to use the vast resources of the Justice Department to block their enforcement. His gambit casts a long shadow over the general election in light of allegations of voter fraud in the 2008 contest.
It has been well documented that discredited community activist organization ACORN registered thousands of new voters who helped Obama claim the White House. Last year, ACORN officials pleaded guilty of running an illegal voter registration scheme in Nevada. The group faced similar accusations in other states.
Meanwhile, there is fresh evidence the nation's voting roles are replete with errors and inaccuracies. For instance, the non-partisan Pew Center issued a report in February that showed there are 1.8 million dead people still carried on the voting roles.
Researchers also discovered about 25 million voter registrations were either invalid or contained inaccuracies. That is 13 percent of the nation's total registered voters. More than 2.75 million people are registered in more than one state, Pew reported.
The requirement of a picture identification would eliminate most of the problems unearthed by the Pew Center, while ensuring the integrity of elections.
However, voter ID opponents are unmoved. The ACLU recently declared voter fraud is virtually non-existent and harangued states for enacting ID requirements that stifle turnout, particularly among minorities. Apparently, the ACLU believes only minorities are ill-equipped to secure a valid ID.
The ACLU's claims ring hollow. The organization filed suit in Georgia after the 2008 election, fuming over state ID laws because they prevented minorities from exercising their right to vote. A federal judge tossed the case because the liberal group could not produce a single person who would testify that he or she was unable to vote because of the ID law.
That's why Holder's battle to overturn ID laws is nothing more than a political smokescreen. The dour-faced attorney general wants to create the impression that the administration cares more about protecting minority voters than Republicans. Only the most gullible would fall for such deceit.
No one, including the attorney general, has presented a shred of evidence that minorities are disadvantaged by voter ID laws. Opponents often cite the cost of obtaining ID as a roadblock. Yet many states offer picture identification cards for free, including Texas.
Besides, it is virtually impossible to function as a U.S. citizen without a picture ID. A photo identification is required to fly on an airplane, to drive a car, to purchase cigarettes and liquor, to open a bank account, to validate credit card purchases and to take a college entrance exam.
And the list goes on and on. Illinois recently approved a law that makes it mandatory to produce a photo ID to purchase drain cleaners.
Moreover, photo identification is needed to enter many business offices and government buildings, including the Justice Department. Using Holder's own logic, the attorney general is turning away minorities from his taxpayer-funded building because they can't obtain a valid ID.
A journalist recently exposed the fallacy of Holder's voter ID doctrine. The writer obtained a ballot for a District of Columbia election by simply providing Holder's name and address. The stunt should have embarrassed the nation's top law enforcement officer.
Holder was nonplussed. The nation's voters can draw only one logical conclusion from his reaction. The attorney general isn't interested in fair elections where only legally eligible voters can participle.
Shame on Eric Holder. He is guilty of putting sleazy politics ahead of honest elections. Americans can no longer trust him to uphold the nation's laws.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
TV Networks Doomed To Extinction
Television networks, once dominant providers of home entertainment and news, are fast becoming superfluous as viewership shrinks and consumers flee to content available on the Internet. The seismic shift spells doom for the unwieldy networks: ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX.
It wasn't too long ago there were only three over-the-air network channels, black-and-white sets and one television perched in the living room. Over the last five decades, there has been a sea change yet the network dinosaurs have failed to keep pace with fluctuating viewing habits.
A look at viewership data offers a stunning rebuke for network television. In 1950 at the dawn of the television age, the top rated weekly program Texaco Star Theater attracted 61.6 percent of television households, according to data compiled by media tracking firm Nielsen.
By comparison, Nielsen's top-rated network weekly program last year was American Idol, which captured a measly 8.1 percent of television households. That translates into about 23.9 million people in a nation of more than 300 million. Outside the top ten programs, viewership falls off the cliff to less than 4 million people for most network shows.
Where have all those viewers gone? They are scampering to the Internet. A recent Forrester Research study found that American households have increased their time online by 121 percent since 2005. By comparison, the time spent watching television has remained virtually unchanged.
For the first time, consumers are devoting as much time to online activities as they are to watching TV, according to the study. Viewers are turning to the Internet to watch video on their computer, smartphone, tablet or game player. Many Internet videos are churned out by amateurs, rather than Hollywood studios.
Nielsen data underscores the burgeoning demand for non-traditional content. For example, an estimated 111.1 million people watch videos each month on YouTube. Some of the featured entertainers on YouTube attract millions of viewers each day, dwarfing network television audiences.
Other players in this new arena include Hulu, which streams video of TV shows, movies and other content, along with lesser-known VEVO, which offers music videos. Hulu draws 13.1 million viewers each month, while VEVO, despite its lower profile, pulls in 34.5 million people.
Movie provider Netflix grabs 7.4 million viewers monthly, while 29.8 million people watch videos on social networking site Facebook. No wonder network television is losing all those eyeballs.
While its programming has been licensed from the networks, Hulu shook up the industry this year with its own original fare. The popular online service aired two dramas and has indicated it plans to create more shows. YouTube recently announced it will bankroll 100 new channels this year with an investment of $100 million.
Rumors are swirling about Apple's plans to acquire content. The technology leader may be planning a new venture into television that would include original programing. If Apple enters the fray, it will surely change the landscape forever.
While the networks offer standard entertainment supported by paid commercials, the content available elsewhere often is delivered with no or little advertising and some providers supply video on a subscription only basis, such as VEVO and Netflix.
The network TV business model was built on paid commercial advertising. However, more viewers are recording shows for later viewing and skipping the ads. More than 62 percent of viewers report having watched a TV program either via their DVR, internet or on-demand channel. That's a 61 percent increase over the previous year, according to TV Pulse Survey.
As this data suggests, consumers are abandoning "live" entertainment for delayed viewing. They want their entertainment on their time schedule, not dictated by a network broadcaster. Increasingly, consumers aren't passive viewers either; instead they prefer to play an active role in programming.
That trend will drive viewers to abandon the networks in droves in search of an interactive experience. These videophiles will want to be more involved with shows and the cast, while sharing their experience live with others online. In the future, viewers will contribute ideas for shows and plots.
Video fare will follow users from the big screen (television) to the little screen (smartphone), streaming seamlessly from one device to another. Content will likely reside on a cloud, a computer server accessible via the Internet or other high-speed connections.
None of this bodes well for the hide-bound networks.
Those three-letter dinosaurs (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) won't become extinct overnight. But their size, content and reach will slowly ebb. Then they will vanish from the earth just like those reptiles from the Mesozoic Era.
It wasn't too long ago there were only three over-the-air network channels, black-and-white sets and one television perched in the living room. Over the last five decades, there has been a sea change yet the network dinosaurs have failed to keep pace with fluctuating viewing habits.
A look at viewership data offers a stunning rebuke for network television. In 1950 at the dawn of the television age, the top rated weekly program Texaco Star Theater attracted 61.6 percent of television households, according to data compiled by media tracking firm Nielsen.
By comparison, Nielsen's top-rated network weekly program last year was American Idol, which captured a measly 8.1 percent of television households. That translates into about 23.9 million people in a nation of more than 300 million. Outside the top ten programs, viewership falls off the cliff to less than 4 million people for most network shows.
Where have all those viewers gone? They are scampering to the Internet. A recent Forrester Research study found that American households have increased their time online by 121 percent since 2005. By comparison, the time spent watching television has remained virtually unchanged.
For the first time, consumers are devoting as much time to online activities as they are to watching TV, according to the study. Viewers are turning to the Internet to watch video on their computer, smartphone, tablet or game player. Many Internet videos are churned out by amateurs, rather than Hollywood studios.
Nielsen data underscores the burgeoning demand for non-traditional content. For example, an estimated 111.1 million people watch videos each month on YouTube. Some of the featured entertainers on YouTube attract millions of viewers each day, dwarfing network television audiences.
Other players in this new arena include Hulu, which streams video of TV shows, movies and other content, along with lesser-known VEVO, which offers music videos. Hulu draws 13.1 million viewers each month, while VEVO, despite its lower profile, pulls in 34.5 million people.
Movie provider Netflix grabs 7.4 million viewers monthly, while 29.8 million people watch videos on social networking site Facebook. No wonder network television is losing all those eyeballs.
While its programming has been licensed from the networks, Hulu shook up the industry this year with its own original fare. The popular online service aired two dramas and has indicated it plans to create more shows. YouTube recently announced it will bankroll 100 new channels this year with an investment of $100 million.
Rumors are swirling about Apple's plans to acquire content. The technology leader may be planning a new venture into television that would include original programing. If Apple enters the fray, it will surely change the landscape forever.
While the networks offer standard entertainment supported by paid commercials, the content available elsewhere often is delivered with no or little advertising and some providers supply video on a subscription only basis, such as VEVO and Netflix.
The network TV business model was built on paid commercial advertising. However, more viewers are recording shows for later viewing and skipping the ads. More than 62 percent of viewers report having watched a TV program either via their DVR, internet or on-demand channel. That's a 61 percent increase over the previous year, according to TV Pulse Survey.
As this data suggests, consumers are abandoning "live" entertainment for delayed viewing. They want their entertainment on their time schedule, not dictated by a network broadcaster. Increasingly, consumers aren't passive viewers either; instead they prefer to play an active role in programming.
That trend will drive viewers to abandon the networks in droves in search of an interactive experience. These videophiles will want to be more involved with shows and the cast, while sharing their experience live with others online. In the future, viewers will contribute ideas for shows and plots.
Video fare will follow users from the big screen (television) to the little screen (smartphone), streaming seamlessly from one device to another. Content will likely reside on a cloud, a computer server accessible via the Internet or other high-speed connections.
None of this bodes well for the hide-bound networks.
Those three-letter dinosaurs (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) won't become extinct overnight. But their size, content and reach will slowly ebb. Then they will vanish from the earth just like those reptiles from the Mesozoic Era.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)