Wyoming Corruption Disturbingly Reflective of Washington

The moment the flimsy veneer of Wyoming’s “Republican” political machine is stripped away, its inner workings increasingly reflect the abhorrent abuses that characterize the administration of Barack Obama. And though back in Washington the subversive tactics of “community organizers” are largely centralized within the Democrat Party, in Wyoming government such activities are often perpetrated by politicians claiming to be on the “right.” Liberal statists masquerading as “Republicans” are at the center of the scandalous manipulations which have been undertaken for the expressed purpose of negating the official capacity of Cindy Hill as Wyoming’s duly elected Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Despite an orchestrated back-room effort from the Republican “inner circle” and abetted by the liberal media to validate Hill’s critics and thereby put her on the defensive, the facts prove quite the opposite. Cindy Hill was elected by a resounding majority back in 2010, and since that time has fulfilled her campaign promises to restore the Wyoming education establishment to its original purpose of advancing and improving the teaching of students in the state’s school system. In truth, it is her singular attention to this objective that has angered and frustrated so many entrenched bureaucrats within the bloated halls of state government. Hill’s plight is a direct consequence of their vindictive wrath which, if they are successful, will eventually negatively influence every child enrolled in Wyoming public schools.

Unable to maintain their despicable pork-barrel pipeline by which enormous public funds have been squandered under the auspices of “education,” and resentful of her opposition to increasing federal intrusion into education, Hill’s enemies reacted by instituting “Senate File 104.” This scheme involved the State Legislature in a collaborative effort to supplant Hill’s decision making authority by diverting it to a newly established education Czar who is appointed by the Governor.

Despite enormous public disapproval, SF 104 was ramrodded through the legislature in the early days of the 2013 session amid abbreviated public hearings and a highly suspicious “fast track” to the desk of Governor Matt Mead, who quickly signed it into law. Amazingly, this flagrant power grab is only the tip of the iceberg. The duplicity that surrounds the SF 104 disaster actually preceded it and continues to this day.

In one of the earlier attempts to undermine Hill, an audit was conducted on her office. To the dismay of those hoping to uncover dirt, the results of that audit were stunning, reflecting better than 99% approval of accounting practices within her agency. It would be thoroughly illuminating to see how many state legislators, senators, and other public office holders would willingly subject themselves to such an audit with any expectation of matching Hill’s standard of performance.

Meanwhile, test scores among students around the state have improved as a direct result of diligent efforts by Hill and her staff. In the minds of the citizenry, this should have been the sole assessment of her competence in her position. However, the wheels of cronyism turn at a different rate within the shadows of the entrenched bureaucracy. And its members cannot be annoyed or distracted by the inconsequential concerns of “peasants” across the state whose children will be most adversely affected when the system lapses back into its former ways.

Once SF 104 became law, and Jim Rose was appointed by Governor Mead to usurp the responsibilities and authority of Cindy Hill, it might seem reasonable to expect the perpetrators of this scam to quietly settle back into their sordid “business as usual” operating mode. However, anger among the citizenry persisted and eventually reached a crescendo, forcing Mead and his minions into damage control mode. Eventually, in a desperate maneuver designed to salvage his reputation, Mead empanelled an “investigative” committee, headed by Cathy Mac Pherson, whose purpose is to find some fault with the conduct of Hill and thereafter trumpet it as justification for the flagrant assault on the rights of voters represented by SF 104.

Consequently, the squandering of tax dollars can now continue and even expand, both within the education department and among the loyalists of the political machine, beneath the flimsy banner of approval from the state’s “Republicans.” Yet despite the best efforts of the key players to put a facade of legitimacy on their mischief, this ruse remains as transparent as cellophane.

Does anyone see a problem with the timeline of these events? In a situation that actually entails corrupt actions by a public office holder, the sequence is easily defined. First, evidence of such corruption must be uncovered, followed by a thorough investigation to determine its extent and to identify all guilty parties. Next, those parties would be removed from office per current statute and according to due process of the law, followed by criminal prosecution if warranted.

Yet no charges were ever filed against Hill. And the current inquiry, which has ensued as far more of a blind “fishing expedition,” was only undertaken in the aftermath of the SF 104 debacle, as an obvious ruse by those in charge who are frantically seeking to deflect and dissipate public anger. In stark contrast to a scenario involving real malfeasance, the present situation is far more reflective of a political system which is itself thoroughly corrupted. In its midst, any untainted individual who makes waves by refusing to participate in the chicanery inevitably becomes the target of smear campaigns and slanderous attacks.

The course that this situation will follow is entirely predictable. No doubt, something unsavory will be asserted by Governor Mead’s inquisition, to then be sufficiently blown out of proportion so as to constitute vindication for all of the underhanded excesses committed by his office and his cronies in the state legislature. When this plan fails, the wholly predictable follow-up will be a “whispering campaign” to subtly and gradually erode Hill’s reputation among the people of Wyoming who elected her with such enthusiasm in 2010. And by its insidious nature, this mode of attack is the most difficult to identify and confront.

Nevertheless, it cannot prevail against an informed public that remains involved and is ultimately concerned with the truth. Among those who have held the well-being of Wyoming’s school children as their highest priority, the track record and methods of Cindy Hill are unassailable. And if such qualities are not valued by the political establishment, but instead pose a threat to its members, it is their own motives and conduct which need to be thoroughly scrutinized.

Americans have been outraged in recent weeks over the flagrant abuses committed by Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service underlings as they deliberately suppressed Tea Party and pro-constitution organizations who were seeking tax exempt status. It needs to be understood that such offenses are clearly not limited to Washington, but can take place throughout all levels of government. And it is imperative that “We the People” identify them wherever they occur, and take the proper corrective action. The people of Wyoming now have just such an opportunity to begin this process.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Stop UN From Crushing Parental Rights

Once again the U.S. Senate is considering passing into law a very dangerous United Nations treaty that would threaten the tens of thousands of American families who care for disabled children. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or CRPD treaty, which has been rejected a number of times before, is expected to come before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the first week in June. This treaty should be unacceptable to all American families, and we must work to put an end to it.

The basic threat CRPD poses is that it could shift decisions about the health care of disabled children out of the control of parents and into the hands of U.N. bureaucrats. These U.N. “experts” would seek to apply a “best interest of the child” standard, which states, “In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” Apparently, the U.N. knows what these “best interests” should be.

By passing this treaty, the Senate would effectively make the state, not the parents, responsible for determining what is in the best interest for the caring of a disabled child. And if that notion isn’t offensive enough, the treaty does not provide a clear definition of “disability,” leaving it to an unelected, unaccountable U.N. committee of “experts” to decide who is covered and who is not. How many children might fall under their interpretation of “disabled”? Nobody knows.

Needless to say, as the parents of a child with special needs, my wife, Karen, and I find this treaty completely unacceptable. We know what is best for our 5-year-old daughter, Bella, and will continue to make decisions regarding her care and not cede authority to the United Nations. In the past, we have had “professionals” make recommendations for Bella’s care that would have hurt her. Had they had legal power, they could have overruled us as parents and shortened her life.

Sadly, many in the Senate fail to see the grave threat this treaty poses. Last fall, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., attempted to push this treaty through during a lightly attended session of the Senate. His effort failed only because Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, happened to be in the room, realized what was taking place and was able to put a stop to it.

But that didn’t deter the treaty’s supporters from trying again. Last December, it was brought forth and defeated again. This led to then-Sen. John Kerry’s voicing his anger toward me and those of us who had defeated the treaty and saying, “The United Nations has absolutely zero, zero, I mean zero ability to order or to tell or to even — I mean, they can suggest — but they have no legal capacity to tell the United States to do anything under this treaty.” Well, he is wrong.

What Kerry doesn’t seem to get is that our Constitution takes treaties very seriously. In fact, Article 6 says, “All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

And the U.N. has an alarming record of forming committees of experts. Last year, it appointed Zimbabwe dictator and brutal human rights violator Robert Mugabe as ambassador for tourism. Is it wrong to somehow presume that those in leadership at the U.N. share our values and will be looking out for our interests? We simply never should give up our sovereignty to anyone, especially to those who support Mugabe.

The U.S. is the world’s leader in ensuring that disabled people are protected and cared for. We are the ones who passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. We should be telling the U.N. how to treat the disabled, not the other way around. If I thought for a second that America’s ratifying CRPD would help people in the U.S. with disabilities or people overseas like our Bella, I would support it. But it would not.

Yet somehow the CRPD is not dead, and again it’s actively being considered by the Senate. Its supporters surely will continue to bring it up until it has the votes to pass. That is why we must take action and contact the offices of our senators and tell them the CRPD is unacceptable and would cause great harm. We will not allow the U.N. to take control from American families in caring for their disabled children. Those decisions will remain with the parents, who truly understand what’s in the children’s best interest.

Rick Santorum is a co-founder of Patriot Voices and the author of “American Patriots: Answering the Call to Freedom.” To find out more about Rick Santorum and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

Grassroots America Faces A “Lexington” Moment

For several weeks it has been nearly impossible to remain up to date on the flurry of news stories detailing the outrages committed by members of the Obama Administration against America. Reports of scandals continue to break on multiple fronts, revealing abuses of power at the highest levels of the United States Government that eclipse anything outside of third world dictatorships. And among those situations which were formerly known, lingering suspicions are continually stoked by newly emerging evidence of deeper levels of corruption which prove to be even more widespread than previously suspected.

Center stage this week has been the burgeoning firestorm over the Internal Revenue Service and its brazen discrimination against conservative political organizations that were seeking tax exempt status. Accounts of prejudicial behavior among IRS officials, involving stonewalling of applications and intrusive inquiries into the private information from the organizations have been followed on close order by revelations that such information was then funneled directly to their political enemies to be used against them.

A thorough comprehension of the scandals and ramifications of the rapidly unfolding details is often difficult to grasp. And this is by design. Lacking an information monopoly by which to wholly suppress any uncomplimentary information, the Obama White House has been forced to instead play its customary games of evasion and obfuscation. As with Benghazi, accounts vary wildly as to what actually transpired and who was responsible. And once again, amid all of the phony contrition and assurances of serving justice, the real goal of the Obama Administration looms like a specter in the shadows. Their plan is to feed testimony of wrongdoing on a precisely measured basis and thereby allow any emotions among the general public to play out and eventually dissipate, so that business as usual can then be resumed.

In short, whether the controversy in question is Benghazi, the IRS, or government infringement of the First Amendment freedom of the press, Barack Obama and his staff remain in full “cover up” mode, and have absolutely no intention of actually cooperating with investigators. Instead, they will stonewall and deflect, confident that the media will continue to provide them the necessary cover to maintain their facade and press forward with their agenda just as they have since 2009.

Unfortunately, some on the right are accepting key precepts of the Democrat strategy, and specifically the claim that Barack Obama is guilty of neglecting his responsibility to keep track of his wayward underlings, but nothing more. This theory is rooted in the notion that while Obama likes the trappings of the nation’s highest office, he would really prefer to be playing golf and using Air Force One as his own personal recreational vehicle. However, this simplistic interpretation of his actions and deeds during the last our and a half years misses the sinister reality of his premeditated determination to continually engage in such excesses and the real purpose they serve.

Aside from his unremarkable tenure at the University of Chicago Law School, seven years in the Illinois State Senate a brief stint in the United States Senate which can literally be measured in days, the overwhelming majority of Barack Obama’s adult life was spent as an Alinskyite “community organizer.” It was through this venue that he intended to reshape the world to right all of the perceived injustices of the American Ideal.

Attending the church of black separatist “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright for more than two decades, he was pumped full of leftist moralizing and “spirituality,” from which he was able to fashion a mantle of virtue for his collectivist and totalitarian thinking. As a result, he was not only motivated to fundamentally alter these great United States to conform them to his twisted worldview, but he also had gained considerable expertise in working the political machine in the manner necessary to overcome opposition and have his way. So although his fingerprints may not be legally tied to every corrupt political intrigue, it was he who put the individuals and pieces in place to ensure he achieved the desired results. Any pretense of passivity on his part is merely a continuation of the fraud which invariably cloaks his activities.

Consequently, the avalanche of wrongdoing and accusations, while seeming to be a melee of confusion and contradictions, is actually a thoroughly strategized and orchestrated effort to deflect attention from any single focus and ultimately avoid accountability. Thus, one high official asserts that nothing illegal happened while another, in complete contradiction of the first, pleads the Fifth Amendment right to refuse testimony incriminating to one’s self. If all goes as planned, interest on Main Street will eventually wane and Establishment Republicans will grow jittery of the prospect of the entire debacle being labeled a “partisan witch hunt.” At that point, Obama and his minions can gather behind closed doors and celebrate absolute victory.

Given these circumstances, it is absolutely essential for grassroots conservatives, the real target of abuses by the IRS and other government agencies, to recognize their situation and resolve not to accept it on terms dictated by Barack Obama, his lapdog Attorney General Eric Holder, or any other members of the complicit Democrat political machine.

The Tea Party movement of 2009 through 2012 represented a willingness of common citizens to gather and publicly air their grievances against the abuses of the current government. As such it has been rightly reflective of its original 1773 namesake in Boston Harbor. But now, as evidence of the malevolence of the current regime mounts, and the grim realization of its absolute determination to continue down this despotic course solidifies in the minds of patriotic Americans, they are faced with very limited options. They can continue to operate in the manner they did during the past four years, or they can step up their game to match that of their opponents.

This does not insinuate any encouragement to resort to violent or criminal activity. Yet it does require an increased resolve and deeper commitment to the cause. The whole question of pursuing tax exempt status was an attempt by Tea Partiers to play by the former rules of political discourse. The IRS response to them was a despicable succession of governmental abuses, itself an inarguable manifestation of illegal political activity perpetrated at taxpayer expense.

Wholly unrepentant, Obama has since stepped up his assault against Heartland America even beyond those criminal IRS actions. On Tuesday he deployed armed Department of Homeland Security “guards” in a wholly unnecessary show of force, the sole purpose of which is to further intimidate Tea Party protesters who had gathered at IRS offices around the country.

Clearly, common citizens have neither the time nor the resources to go toe-to-toe against the fearsome might of the Federal Government on terms dictated by it. Doing so would be tantamount to the colonists seeking a blessing from King George’s army of Redcoats. It was not by any such means that our nation was founded. If the IRS or any other government agency continues to act as Obama’s foot soldiers, let that be the banner under which “We the People” rally, with our without their “blessing” of tax exemptions, to retake our government and hold them accountable for every infraction on the American way.

The moment has come for those brave Americans of the Tea Party not to retreat, but to openly commit their “lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” to the cause.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

The Obama Crony in Charge of your Medical Records

Who is Judy Faulkner? Chances are, you don’t know her — but her politically connected, taxpayer-subsidized electronic medical records company may very well know you. Top Obama donor and billionaire Faulkner is founder and CEO of Epic Systems, which will soon store almost half of all Americans’ health information.

If the crony odor and the potential for abuse that this “epic” arrangement poses don’t chill your bones, you ain’t paying attention.

As I first noted last year before the IRS witch hunts and DOJ journalist snooping scandals broke out, Obama’s federal electronic medical records (EMR) mandate is government malpractice at work. The stimulus law provided a whopping $19 billion in “incentives” (read: subsidies) to force hospitals and medical professionals into converting from paper to electronic record-keeping systems. Penalties kick in next year for any provider who fails to comply with the one-size-fits-all edict.

Obamacare bureaucrats claimed the government’s EMR mandate would save money and modernize health care. As of December 2012, $4 billion had already gone out to 82,535 professionals and 1,474 hospitals; a total of $6 billion will be doled out by 2016. What have taxpayers and health care consumers received in return from this boondoggle? After hyping the alleged benefits for nearly a decade, the RAND Corporation finally admitted in January that its cost-savings predictions of $81 billion a year — used repeatedly to support the Obama EMR mandate — were, um, grossly overstated.

Among many factors, the researchers blamed “lack of interoperability” of records systems for the failure to bring down costs. And that is a funny thing, because it brings us right back to Faulkner and her well-connected company. You see, Epic Systems — the dominant EMR giant in America — is notorious for its lack of interoperability. Faulkner’s closed-end system represents antiquated, hard drive-dependent software firms that refuse to share data with doctors and hospitals using alternative platforms. Health IT analyst John Moore of Chilmark Research, echoing many industry observers, wrote in April that Epic “will ultimately hinder health care organizations’ ability to rapidly innovate.”

Question: If these subsidized data-sharing systems aren’t built to share data to improve health outcomes, why exactly are we subsidizing them? And what exactly are companies like Faulkner’s doing with this enhanced power to consolidate and control Americans’ private health information? It’s a recipe for exactly the kind of abuse that’s at the heart of the IRS and DOJ scandals.

As I reported previously, a little-noticed HHS Inspector General’s report issued last fall exposed how no one is actually verifying whether the transition from paper to electronic is improving patient outcomes and health services. No one is actually guarding against GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). No one is checking whether recipients of the EMR incentives are receiving money redundantly (e.g., raking in payments when they’ve already converted to electronic records). And no one is actually protecting private data from fraud, theft or exploitation.

But while health IT experts and concerned citizens balk, money talks. Epic employees donated nearly $1 million to political parties and candidates between 1995 and 2012 — 82 percent of it to Democrats. The company’s top 10 PAC recipients are all Democratic or left-wing outfits, from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (nearly $230,000) to the DNC Services Corporation (nearly $175,000) and the America’s Families First Action Fund Democratic super-PAC ($150,000). The New York Times reported in February that Epic and other large firms spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying for the Obama EMR “giveaway.”

Brandon Glenn of Medical Economics observes “it’s not a coincidence” that Epic’s sales “have been skyrocketing in recent years, up to $1.2 billion in 2011, double what they were four years prior.”

It’s also no coincidence, as a famous Democratic presidential candidate once railed, that the deepest-pocketed donors “are often granted the greatest access, and access is power in Washington.” That same candidate, Barack Obama, named billionaire Democratic donor Faulkner as the only industry representative on the federal panel overseeing the $19 billion EMR “incentives” program from which her company benefits grandly.

The foxes are guarding the Obamacare henhouse. The IRS vultures are circling overhead. The shadow of tyranny and the stench of corruption are unmistakable. If you see something, say something. BOLO is our watchword.

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

Pitfalls of Obama’s Current Political “Perfect Storm”

In a sane world, Barack Obama would already be facing the prospect of impeachment over his mishandling and subsequent cover-up of the Benghazi fiasco. But in a sane world, an inconsequential Illinois State Senator who overwhelmingly voted “present” in order to duck hard issues and who then served only a matter of months in the United States Senate would never have been elevated to the nation’s highest office, even if his rival for that office was as hapless as John McCain.

Unfortunately, a significant portion of America’s populace was willing to take a chance on the Obama platitudes of collectivism and wealth redistribution. Worse yet, despite the glaring disaster that ensued as a direct result of his policies, at reelection time in 2012, America tacitly chose to accept another four years of the same.

In many ways, it seemed that he had become immune to any consequences for his words and actions. His two nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, sailed through the confirmation process with relative ease despite their liberal agenda-driven “credentials,” buoyed only by the contemptible forces of ethnic and gender politics. He has never been held accountable for squandering the nation’s finances in a misbegotten and fraud laden pursuit of a green energy socialist utopia, leaving a trail of billion dollar abuses such as the failed Solyndra enterprise. And the list goes on.

Given these circumstances, it is entirely understandable that conservatives and patriots might be anticipating an Obama day of reckoning from the recent convergence of three major recent scandals, Benghazi, Internal Revenue Service abuses, and Obama Justice Department wiretaps of Associated Press reporters. However, it is far too soon to presume that the game has changed and conditions are now right for justice to prevail over an administration that has flaunted its lawlessness during the past four years with total impunity.

Admittedly, the Benghazi episode vastly eclipses every aspect of Watergate. This is a scandal in which the “cover up” actually began before the main event, and in many ways directly contributed to it. Fears by White House political strategists that the deteriorating situation in Libya might redound negatively to Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, a decision was made to deny the necessary security reinforcements fervently and repeatedly requested by Ambassador Chris Stevens. At the risk of Stevens’ safety, Obama sought to maintain a facade of diplomatic success in the Middle East.

Ever since the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks, and continuing to this day, the entire focus of Obama and his underlings, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has been to deceive the American people and evade culpability for what actually happened and what might have been done to prevent it. Hillary’s now infamous “What difference does it make?” response in last January’s Senate hearing was the most flagrant attempt to make the case that a thorough review of the Administration’s misdeeds is both unnecessary and unproductive.

Yet the reality is quite the opposite. With each passing day, new evidence is uncovered which reveals an abhorrent Administration negligence and indifference to the imminent peril faced by Stevens. With total disregard for him, the White House and State Department were willing to gamble that nothing major would happen which might undercut Obama’s assertions of diplomatic prowess in the Arab world. Even after the Al Qaeda attacks blew that fabrication apart, the sole focus of the Administration has remained on “damage control.

Each new inquiry results in strangely disconnected stories of what happened on that night and why critically flawed decisions were made. In the most telling contradiction the Administration was ostensibly befuddled for weeks as to actual motivation for the attacks, steadfastly blaming an anti-Muslim video on YouTube as the catalyst of Muslim hostilities until that absurd story fell completely apart. In stark contrast however, those same officials instantly knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that a vigorous United States military response would be futile and therefore ordered American security forces to “stand down” (refuse assistance) despite pleas from the doomed Consulate.

At what seemed the most inopportune moment for Obama, another scandal suddenly erupted. Reports have surfaced from Ohio that various conservative organizations were targeted for harassment and prejudicial treatment by the Internal Revenue Service. Shortly after this news broke, IRS officials made a ridiculous effort to diffuse the controversy by offering an “apology.” Aside from being a tantamount admission of guilt, as a remedy for criminal wrongdoing this effort was obscene. One need only imagine private citizens offering the IRS “apologies” in lieu of tax payments to properly gauge the absurdity of this ploy.

Once again, all official responses have sought to deflect attention from the upper levels of government. And once again, with each new bit of evidence the situation becomes more incriminating to high office holders. Though early accounts described the abuses as occurring at “low levels” of the organization, further investigation has already connected the dots back to Washington. Predictably, those ultimately responsible are in full “cover up” mode.

To the amazement of many, a third scandal has since erupted. It seems that the Justice Department has been spying on members of the Associated Press. As a grotesque violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable search and seizure,” this revelation of wrongdoing might seem to thoroughly eclipse all of the others. After all, media complicity is crucial to Obama’s ruse of avoiding accountability for previous assertions, while making new promises that he has no intention of keeping. Without a thoroughly compliant and supportive press, his house of cards would quickly collapse in on itself.

So is this latest disclosure the final straw for his media allies? Or is it something even more sinister. When the Benghazi attack occurred, all media efforts were in complete concert with the White House strategy, which was to suppress any news of the event.

Eventually, that effort failed, and in this week’s turbulent congressional hearings, the lid blew off of the Benghazi cover-up. Immediately, attention has been deflected to the IRS scandal, but even before any responsible party could be identified, the entire focus again shifted to the AP. Americans should remember how successfully Hillary Clinton was able to generate a “scandal overload” and by constantly changing the subject, managed to protect the thoroughly compromised administration of her husband, Bill Clinton, from any repercussions for his malfeasance and innumerable violations of the law.

It is not likely that the recent inexplicable chain of events has been completely orchestrated by the Obama White House in order to navigate the gauntlet it currently faces. But neither is it even remotely plausible that media minions and former accomplices in governing agencies are honestly and sincerely “coming clean” at Obama’s expense. In any case, it is dangerously naive to presume that these entities will diligently pursue truth and demand justice. The responsibility to stay on target in the face of Democrat scandal and media bias remains as it has always been, with grassroots organizations and conservatives in the alternative media.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

The Crucifixion of Jason Richwine

How low will supporters of the Gang of Eight immigration bill go to get their way? This low: They’ve shamelessly branded an accomplished Ivy League-trained quantitative analyst a “racist” and will stop at nothing to destroy his career as they pave their legislative path to another massive illegal alien benefits bonanza.

__ Jason Richwine works for the conservative Heritage Foundation. He’s a Harvard University Ph.D. who co-authored a study that pegs the cost of the Ted Kennedy Memorial Open Borders Act 2.0 legislation at $6.3 trillion. Lead author Robert Rector is a senior research fellow at Heritage, a former United States Office of Personnel Management analyst and the intellectual godfather of welfare reform. He holds a master’s degree in political science from Johns Hopkins University.

Both Democrats and Republicans leaped to discredit the 102-page report without bothering to read it. The Washington Post falsely claimed the study did not take into account increased revenues from amnestied illegal alien workers. It did. Haley Barbour immediately proclaimed that the Heritage assessment of government costs incurred by amnestied illegal aliens was “not serious.”

__They want to talk gravitas? Let’s talk gravitas. Blowhard Barbour is a career politician and paid lobbyist for the government of Mexico who has carried water for open borders since the Bush years. Richwine received his doctorate in public policy in 2009 from Harvard University’s prestigious Kennedy School of Government. He holds bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and political science from American University. Before joining Heritage in 2010, he worked at the American Enterprise Institute on a dissertation fellowship.

Richwine’s 166-page dissertation, “IQ and Immigration Policy,” is now being used to smear him — and, by extension, all of Heritage’s scholarship — as “racist.” While the punditocracy and political establishment sanctimoniously call for “honest discussions” on race, they rush to crush bona fide, dispassionate academic inquiries into the controversial subjects of intelligence, racial and ethnic differences, and domestic policy.

Richwine’s entire thesis is now online here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/140239668/IQ-and-Immigration-Policy-Jason-Richwine. Part One reviews the science of IQ. Part Two delves into empirical research comparing IQs of the native-born American population with that of immigrant groups, with the Hispanic population broken out. Richwine explores the causes of an immigrant IQ deficit that appears to persist among Hispanic immigrants to the U.S. through several generations.

The thesis analyzes social policy consequences of these findings and uses a model of the labor market “to show how immigrant IQ affects the economic surplus accruing to natives and the wage impact on low-skill natives.”__

The smug dismissal of Richwine’s credentials and scholarship is to be expected by liberal hacks and clown operatives. But a reckless and cowardly pileup of knee-jerk dilettantes on the right — including former McCain campaign co-chair Ana Navarro and conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin — have joined the character assassins of the Soros-sphere, MSNBC and Mother Jones in deeming Richwine a “racist.” The drooling attack dogs of the far-left blog Daily Kos have now launched a pressure campaign against the JFK School demanding to know “why the school awarded Richwine a Ph.D. and what they plan to do in the future to prevent it from happening again.”__

No researcher or academic institution is safe if this smear campaign succeeds. Richwine’s dissertation committee at Harvard included George Borjas, Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy. The Cuban-born scholar received his Ph.D. in economics from Columbia. He is an award-winning labor economist, a research associate with the National Bureau of Economic Research and the author of countless books, including a widely used labor economics textbook now in its sixth edition.

Richard J. Zeckhauser, the Frank P. Ramsey Professor of Political Economy at JFK, also signed off on Richwine’s dissertation. Zeckhauser earned a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard. He belongs to the Econometric Society, the American Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine (National Academy of Sciences).

The final member of Richwine’s “racist” thesis committee is Christopher Jencks, the Malcolm Wiener Professor of Social Policy at Harvard’s JFK School. He is a renowned left-wing academic who has taught at Harvard, Northwestern, the University of Chicago and the University of California, Santa Barbara. He edited the liberal New Republic magazine in the 1960s and has written several scholarly books tackling poverty, economic inequality, affirmative action, welfare reform and, yes, racial differences (“The Black-White Test Score Gap”).

The willingness of Republican Gang of 8’ers to allow a young conservative researcher and married father of two to be strung up by the p.c. lynch mob for the crime of unflinching social science research is chilling, sickening and suicidal.

These are serious people doing serious work. The crucifiers of Jason Richwine pretend to defend sound science. But if it is now inherently racist to study racial and ethnic differences among demographic groups, then it’s time to shut down every social sciences department in the country.

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

Gosnell Trial Reveals Much About America’s Downfall

In retrospect, it is safe to surmise that had the liberal media been more aware of the facts surrounding the Boston Marathon bombings and the loyalties of Tsarnaev brothers who set the bombs, the story would have received scant coverage. The left was in overdrive in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, exuberantly constructing every possible scenario by which the murder and mayhem might be linked to conservative America. But the moment liberals discovered to their surprise and dismay that the terrorism had been perpetrated by militant Islamists of foreign birth (Imagine that!) every attempt was made to downplay the influence of culture and religion on their abhorrent actions. If such an assessment of modern media seems severe, consider their virtual media/press blackout of the Kermit Gosnell trial in Philadelphia.

“Dr.” Kermit Gosnell has been in the national spotlight for numerous unspeakable crimes and atrocities, and is currently on trial for the murder of “aborted” babies who survived the procedure only to be brutally slaughtered by such means as having their spinal chords severed. The testimony of witnesses reads like the script of a “B” rated horror movie, except that the principals involved were very real. Joseph Mengele of Hitler’s death camps would find it difficult to exceed the vicious cruelty of Kermit Gosnell.

Nevertheless, throughout the trial, the nightly news has been virtually devoid of any coverage of this topic. Pictures taken in the courtroom and disseminated throughout the alternative media reveal a press section that shamefully is entirely empty. In this manner, members of America’s liberal media are seeking to bury any discussion of the gruesome business Gosnell conducted, since such a discussion would certainly be bad publicity for the abortion business in general.

Liberal “reporters” are hopeful that the public is still sufficiently programmed to remain indifferent to events of the day or to react emotionally, based solely on how stories are presented to them over the airwaves. This explains why as time passes, the nightly “news” contains less and less information, but significantly more editorializing. Thus, the participation of Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick in the brutal pastime of dog fighting made headlines for weeks and resulted in his being universally condemned, while the ghoulish actions of Gosnell are hardly discussed by average Americans. In contrast to Vick, Gosnell was actually described as “an elegant gentleman” in a despicably slanted account of his trial by Maryclaire Dale of the Associated Press.

Despite the fervent attempts at media suppression, this case is peeling back the veneer that for decades has been so meticulously established and diligently maintained over the entire abortion debate. Every aspect of the issue has been enshrouded in “politically correct” rhetoric that does not merely sugarcoat it, but obsessively avoids even the slightest allusion to the hideously ugly reality of human abortion. Thus, according to official press guidelines, abortion proponents are “pro-choice,” and benevolent advocates of women’s “reproductive rights,” while the pro-life community is consistently and scornfully labeled “anti-abortion,” a term often followed by “anti-woman.”

To the dismay of the political left and the counterculture, the specifics of the Gosnell case are being widely circulated throughout the alternative media. Consequently, people across the nation are slowly and perhaps grudgingly being awakened to a true horror that has been occurring in their midst on a wide scale basis for two generations. As the grisly truth continues to be revealed from that Philadelphia courtroom, the unspeakable reality of what Gosnell was perpetrating with impunity for so many years has jolted Americans into consideration of just what the abortion industry actually entails.

For starters, it is total fantasy to presume that the abortion business represents any noble effort to uplift the plight of women. The single demographic most emphatically supportive of abortion is young men who, rather than bear the costs of court-imposed child support, prefer to let women be physically mutilated in the wake of being sexually exploited. Every contrived notion that abortion somehow “liberates” women is thoroughly overshadowed by the manner in which it cheapens their role and purpose in the eyes of self-serving men. And any doubters need only recount the testimony of female witnesses regarding the maltreatment they suffered at the hands of Gosnell. Liberals have no more concern for the well-being of women than they do for minorities or any other group to which they sometimes shamelessly pander, since they will just as quickly discard and debase these constituencies the moment they become a political liability.

Of even greater significance are the ugly truths of abortion itself, which have become inescapable as the testimony in the Gosnell trial ensues. Gosnell is noted for the deliberate killing of children who survived abortions and were born alive. Yet this is hardly an isolated activity. Abortion “clinics” are designed and operated with the intention of moving as many women through them as possible, since it is on this basis that their profits are maximized. They are never set up to contend with the medical needs of premature babies, which means that unintended births are invariably dealt with in the same despicable manner as did Gosnell.

Indeed, the entire abortion industry in America is essentially making this case by its show of support for Gosnell. Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion mill franchise, steadfastly refuses to condemn his barbaric actions, which can only mean that the organization sees nothing objectionable in squalid conditions, exposure of young women to septic filth, and of course the slaughter of innocent unborn children. Gosnell’s principles are their principles and define them as well as all of their supporters, including Barack Obama who attended their celebratory Planned Parenthood “gala” and gave his blessing to everything the organization represents. It should be remembered that in one of the rare instances in which then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama did take a political stand, he voted to give abortionists legal cover for the very actions in which Gosnell was engaged.

Nor can the nightmarish accounts of the events inside Gosnell’s compound leave any shred of doubt that he knew exactly what he was doing to tiny, helpless human beings. Across the entire spectrum of the abortion debate, those who are most keenly aware of the undeniable humanity of an unborn child are the abortionists themselves. But they are comfortable knowing of the selective “awareness” among a counterculture which happily exonerates them. Officially, their brutality against those tiny lives is shrouded in a grim mantle of “legitimacy” and fully sanctioned by the state.

Eventually, the liability that Gosnell represents to the abortion industry will become too great a burden for them to bear, at which point they will attempt to discard him like an “unviable fetal tissue mass” and distance themselves from everything he represents. This fraud cannot be allowed to happen. The blood on their hands is of the exact shade as the blood Gosnell bears on his, and the American people are seeing this situation for what it is. The ghastly business in which America’s abortionists engage can only be differentiated from the dreadful deeds of Kermit Gosnell by a matter of degree, if at all.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Obama’s Blink on Syria Could Bring Peril to Allies

“We’re eyeball to eyeball, and I think the other fellow just blinked,” Secretary of State Dean Rusk famously said during the Cuban missile crisis.

Barack Obama has been doing a lot of blinking lately. On Syria especially.

“There would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movements on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons,” he said back in August 2012. Chemical weapons were a “red line.”

Presumably the president hoped that his statement would deter Bashar Assad’s embattled regime from using chemical weapons. And presumably he hoped that his demand in 2011 for Assad to relinquish power would be obeyed.

Obama surely hoped back then that the Syrian dictator would be overthrown quickly, as his counterparts in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya had been. Unfortunately, Assad has proved to be tougher and more ruthless.

Last December, the U.S. consul in Istanbul reported evidence of chemical gas attacks in Syria to the State Department. Last week, it was reported that all U.S. intelligence agencies believe that sarin gas has been deployed there.

But Obama has been unwilling to change his policies significantly. He has not ordered imposition of a no-fly zone, as Bill Clinton did in Kosovo in the 1990s.

He has not pledged support for the Syrian rebels. Instead, he has indicated that intelligence “assessments” are not conclusive.

“We’ve got to do everything we can to investigate and establish with some certainty” — an interesting standard — “what exactly has happened in Syria,” he said at a press conference on Tuesday.

“We will use all the assets and resources that we have at our disposal. We’ll work with the neighboring countries to see whether we can establish a clear baseline of facts. And we’ve also called on the United Nations to investigate.”

These are conditions that seem impossible to meet. The United Nations will not act because of the veto of Assad-supporting Russia.

Other nations’ intelligence services have already chimed in, concluding that chemical weapons are indeed being used in Syria. Our ability to “investigate and establish with some certainty what exactly has happened in Syria” is limited.

This president, like his predecessors, has to make decisions based on incomplete and imperfect information. It comes with the job.

The red line has been crossed, but the president has decided not to change the game.

This could have perilous consequences. Will Israeli leaders take seriously Obama’s pledge that he will not allow Iran to deploy nuclear weapons?

Will our Asian allies be confident of our backing in their disputes with China over islets in the East China Sea? Will China be deterred from attacking them?

Blinking at the evidence that Syria has crossed what he called a “red line,” Obama may be hoping to avoid getting bogged down in a military quagmire there. But weakness is provocative, and appeasement can lead to a wider war.

Last week, Obama also blinked on the sequester, as Senate Democrats led the charge to give the Federal Aviation Administration explicit flexibility after the agency furloughed air traffic controllers.

He had said earlier that he would veto legislation giving administrators flexibility in adapting to spending cuts. But — blink — he signed the bill, instead.

“The Democrats have lost on sequestration,” wrote the liberal Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein. By agreeing to “ease the pain,” he said, “Democrats have agreed to sequestration for the foreseeable future.”

That’s probably right. Obama’s prediction of dire consequences from sequester cuts was undermined by the administration’s two most visible cuts in service.

The idea that mandatory cuts required cancelling White House tours didn’t meet the laugh test. Fodder for late-night comics.

And the idea that a 4 percent cut in FAA funding required delaying 40 percent of airline flights was equally laughable.

It antagonized two classes of strategically placed frequent flyers: members of Congress and members of the press. No way they were going to tolerate needless flight delays.

Obama’s acceptance of the sequester means ratcheting spending levels down in the future, just as the Obama Democrats’ stimulus package ratcheted spending up.

That’s a policy defeat for liberals, but the general public will probably not suffer much from Obama’s sequester blink. The consequences of his Syria blink could be much more ominous.

Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com), is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Reality Perpetually At Odds With Liberal Agenda

If any American still doubts that liberal ideology is built entirely upon a foundation of lies and fraud, the news of the past week should put the notion completely to rest. Major events, and in more specifically the disjointed and prejudicial manner in which those events have been covered, stand as proof that in the eyes of the liberal politicians and their media parakeets, “reporting” is not a matter of informing the people, but is instead an opportunity to indoctrinate them with a decidedly leftist worldview. Unfortunately for the left, when the facts become known, their empty fabrication quickly implodes.

Foremost in the minds of Americans was the April 15 terrorist bombing of the Boston Marathon. People hoping to enjoy a pleasurable outdoor spring event instead experienced unimaginable carnage and death. The nation is rightfully angered by the attacks, but it should also be outraged by the manner in which members of the press, ostensibly acting as guardians of an open and informed society, were busily and shamelessly striving to exploit the horrific event to the benefit of the liberal/Democrat agenda.

Among the most deplorable examples of this behavior was the column by David Sirota at Salon.com, entitled “Let’s Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber is a White American.” From the first moments after news of the bombing broke, liberals have been struggling to warp and twist the disaster into an occurrence that somehow validates their version of what America and the world should be. However, none was so brazen and loathsome in their attempts to recast the actual occurrence according to the leftist belief system as Sirota. Yet in a perverse sense, by displaying his unvarnished arrogance and detachment from reality, he ultimately did Real America an enormous favor.

Sirota lamented that unless the perpetrator turned out to be one of those villains from the ranks of grassroots conservatives, the resultant bad publicity would undermine all of the great and wonderful changes the left has planned for America. In essence, he feared that the facts would once again prove to be at odds with the utopian fantasy to which he and other leftists vainly cling. And of course when the identities and motivation of the perpetrators became known, his fears proved to be absolutely well founded.

As was fully predictable among thinking Americans, the villains of the Boston Marathon bombing turned out to be a couple of stridently anti-American Chechnyan Muslims. Now, those in the “mainstream” (read: liberal) media and their counterparts on Capitol Hill are backtracking and tap-dancing away from the event and its real connotations, since once again the underlying circumstances that led to murder and mayhem in Boston flatly refute the liberal belief system while reinforcing the principles and concerns of the American Heartland.

The reality of events in Massachusetts likewise came crashing down on MSNBC host Chris Matthews who, in a mindless rant that was typically devoid of facts, attempted to associate the mayhem in Boston with thinking of those on “the far right.” In retrospect, it is much more accurate to assert that by such comments from Matthews (and with the assent of his like-minded cronies) it is the American left which proves to be the biggest enabler of the terrorists.

Absurd speculations offered by media liberals, frantically seeking to establish some oblique connection between the bombings and anything conservative, indeed proved to be flatly wrong. More importantly, this has invariably been the case each time an assault of this nature takes place. Nevertheless, with each ensuing episode, leftist ideologues obsessively cling to the hope that perhaps this time, the cards will fall in their favor and the venom they regularly spew against traditional America will finally be justified. Of course this is never the case, but it is hardly a coincidence or matter of mere bad luck for well intentioned liberals. Instead, it is part of a growing body of proof that the entire liberal philosophy is rotten to the core and simply cannot be advanced on its own merits. Thus, it must be shrouded in deception and pretense.

So, rather than conceding the perils of a burgeoning Islamist movement based in the Middle East and dangerously encroaching on all of Western Civilization, prominent liberals continue to focus on the ostensible faults of our country as the real culprit in any ongoing hostility among cultures. Unwilling to “profile” radical Muslims and the precepts of Islam that motivate and drive them, America’s own liberal political and media establishment is entirely willing to essentially “profile” all of the good people of this country and lay the blame at their feet for their incompatibility with the Islamists.

In the wake of the September 11, 2012 Al Qaeda attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi Libya, in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and four other Americans were brutally tortured and murdered, the entire response of the Obama Administration was fabricated around the premise that an obscure anti-Muslim video on YouTube had fomented the anger of the attackers. Eventually, when pressed by members of a Senate Committee investigating the incident, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton disparaged legitimate concerns of Senators with her infamous “What difference does it make?” evasion. During the interim, Barack Obama pandered and groveled in a speech at the United Nations, reaffirming the Administration’s phony excuse of the YouTube video as the catalyst for the murderous attacks by asserting that “the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Unfortunately for liberal dreamers, the determining factors behind the deaths in Benghazi strongly align with the real circumstances underlying the deaths in Boston, as well as those of eleven years ago in New York City, Washington D.C. and western Pennsylvania. Barack Obama’s strategy of “peace through weakness” has been no more successful or founded on truth than the entire “green energy” debacle, the economic “stimulus,” or the bogusly named “Affordable Healthcare and Patient Protection Act.

Conversely, fanatical and malicious liberal attempts to discredit grassroots conservatives and the “Tea Party” as dangerous domestic subversives have proven to be without merit. Their contempt is no more likely to undermine that organization than could all of the liberal adulation give credence to the debased and malignant “Occupy” movement.

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, liberals find themselves at a precarious crossroads. The nation might be on the verge of awakening from its “politically correct” stupor and starting to recognize the threats facing it, along with those who willingly seek to keep it ignorant and therefore vulnerable to those threats. The prospect of an America that can discern who is with it and who is against it would constitute the worst imaginable nightmare to liberals. It is no wonder they are so obsessive in their effort to prevent this from happening.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.