Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke Revisited

Although lots of us may have thought it when listening to Sandra Fluke’s ridiculous comments, it was wrong for Rush to say it out loud. We all should just have laughed at her stupid attempt to buttress Obama’s unconstitutional attack on the Catholic Church. Upon consideration, I think we are all laughing now. It has been calculated that to spend $3000 over three years on birth control measures, even if she used both birth control pills and a condom, Sandra would need to have sex 7 times a day and 10 times on Sundays. Work it out. Walmart charges $9 per month for the pills, and Amazon charges 33 cents apiece for condoms.

Limbaugh Sees Heat Over Comments Turn Down

By Paul Farhi, Wednesday, March 28, 2012 The Washington Post (Excerpt)

“The dark clouds hanging over Rush Limbaugh appear to be lifting.

Exactly one month after the conservative radio host sparked outrage by calling Georgetown law-school student Sandra Fluke “a slut” and “a prostitute” in a three-day diatribe, stations are standing by him, advertisers are trickling back to his program and the news media have moved on.” Washington Post

Trayvon Martin, Duke Lacrosse and Tawana Brawley

The real question here is why President Obama jumps right in and takes the side against a white Cambridge cop just doing his duty by arresting a disorderly black college professor - and now jumps in against a white American who may have been defending his life against a black thug. We still don't know the facts about this case, but it is certainly starting to look more and more like an anti-white, racist rush to justice like the Duke lacrose case and the Tawana Brawley travesty. After the Brawley case I have always wondered why anyone would pay any attention to anything that Al Sharpton had to say.

Trayvon Martin Case: New Details Emerge As Teen’s Record Comes Into Question; Case Compared to Duke Lacrosse Scandal

By IBTimes Staff Reporter Tuesday, March 27, 2012 YahooNews

New details about Trayvon Martin's record as well as his personal interactions on Facebook and Twitter accounts have emerged recently, as George Zimmerman supporters defend his actions.

Zimmerman, of white and Peruvian descent, shot and killed the 17-year-old African American on Feb. 26 while he was walking to his father's house in Sanford, Fla., after going to a nearby store to buy candy. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, has not been charged with any crime. He claims that he shot the unarmed Martin, with a Kel-Tec 9mm handgun, in self-defense.

The Sanford Police Department has been criticized for its handling of the killing.

Police did not conduct an alcohol or drug test on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was allowed to keep his registered handgun even after the killing. Also, a witness said one of the officers "corrected" her when she said she heard Martin screaming for help, reported Yahoo! News.

But the tide may be turning as more details emerge about the case from Zimmerman's side of the fence (or at least from those who do not want to jump to any conclusions).

Most recently, a police report from the Trayvon Martin case was leaked to the Orlando Sentinel, detailing George Zimmerman's account of the confrontation. "With a single punch," the Orlando Sentinel reported Monday, citing police sources. "Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer ... climbed on top of [him] and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered."

Ever since the case erupted into a national story, George Zimmerman has been fingered as a villain and a cold-blooded killer. According to a CNN poll released on Monday, 73 percent of Americans think police should arrest him.

Three School Suspensions

New details have emerged about Trayvon Martin's record. The 17-year-old had been suspended three times from Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School in North Miami-Dade.

His first suspension was a result of tardiness and truancy, his family admitted, according to the Miami Herald.

Trayvon Martin's second suspension occurred on Oct. 21. Initially, it was reported that this suspension came after Martin and his friends spray-painted "WTF" on a locker at school. However, the Miami Herald reports that the real reason Martin was suspended in October was that he was caught with a "burglary tool" -- a flathead screwdriver -- and 12 pieces of jewelry, reported the Miami Herald. Martin insisted that the jewelry belonged to a friend.

"Trayvon was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to the report. School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation," reported the Miami Herald.

Finally, Trayvon Martin was suspended on Feb. 26 for 10 days. On Feb. 21, Martin's cousin tweeted to him about an incident with a bus driver: "Yu ain't tell me you swung on a bus driver." However, his father denied this purported incident had anything to do with Martin's February suspension. "He was not suspended for something dealing with violence or anything like that," his father said. "It wasn't a crime he committed, but he was in an unauthorized area [on school property]," declining to offer more details.

A family spokesman told the Associated Press on Monday that Martin was suspended because marijuana residue was found in his book bag.

Ben Crump, a lawyer for Trayvon's parents, said, "We think everybody is trying to demonize him."

A Pushback Against the Media's Portrayal of Slain Teen

Photos of Trayvon Martin were culled from his Facebook account along with messages from his Twitter feed. Dan Linehan of Wagist.com compiled photos from Martin's social networking pages and raised the question of whether or not the teen's image has been distorted in the media.

"Even though Trayvon was only 17, he already was sporting gold teeth, and several large tattoos. This one was on his wrist, apparently of his girlfriend's mother's name," wrote Linehan. Linehan showed images that Trayvon Martin posted to his Twitter account, with the handle @NO_LIMIT_N----, depicting his multiple tattoos.

"Almost all of this is in stark contrast to the media's central narrative that Trayvon was a normal, happy, well-adjusted teenager. Instead of that, we are seeing long suspensions from school, tattoos, racially charged epitaphs [sic] and violence," wrote Linehan.

Michael Brendan Dougherty of BusinessInsider.com compared the Trayvon Martin case to the Duke lacrosse rape accusations of 2006. "They [skeptics of the media's portrayal] remember the outrage about the Duke Lacrosse rape story, in which white students were accused of raping a black woman, turned into a feeding frenzy, and indicted in the public mind of heinous racism and abuse when they weren't guilty of much other than being pigs," wrote Dougherty. "They are suspicious of any story that attracts the moralizing of Al Sharpton, owing to his association with things like the Tawana Brawley case, in which a New York girl claimed to have been sexually assaulted and abused and then was later found to have been lying."

"But let's get real. No one knows what really happened," he wrote. "The Trayvon Martin story is just a distressing collection of disconnected facts. The media and social justice activists have told one story with them: of a murder motivated by racism that was covered up by the cops. Now people are pushing back on it. But we don't have definitive answers to all the questions."

Others have taken offense at the immediate public indictment of George Zimmerman when many facts of the case are still unknown.

"Oh how little we have learned," David Shane wrote on PolicyMic.com. "The media has rushed to judgment yet again. Now, it's quite possible that Zimmerman is guilty of everything his worst foes accuse him of. There is plenty about this case that troubles me. But that's exactly the point: I don't know. Neither does anyone else, and both the scope and tone of the media coverage ought to reflect that fact."

Conflicting Stories in Trayvon Martin's Death

As a holder of a Concealed Carry Permit, I cringed when I first heard of Trayvon Martin's death and the manner in which it supposedly happened. It is true that the legal requirements placed on permit holders have recently been loosened, but the initial reports did not seem to fit the circumstances under which a permit holder may use deadly force.

Until today all news reports indicated that Zimmerman chased Martin and then shot him. That is murder.

Now we have an entirely different story that has just come out. Hopefully we will get to the truth of the matter before someone else is hurt. A local branch of the Black Panthers has been reported to place a bounty on the kidnapping of Mr. Zimmerman, and rabble-rousers, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, are stirring up a whirlwind they will not be able to control.

Trayvon Martin Killing: George Zimmerman's Attorney and Friend Speak Out

By DAVID MUIR and OLIVIA KATRANDJIAN March 25, 2012 ABC News

The attorney counseling George Zimmerman, who shot unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin as he was walking home from the store with a bag of Skittles, says if charges are filed, Zimmerman will argue that he acted in self-defense and that Florida's stand-your-ground law applies.

Attorney Craig Sonner said the public is only hearing part of the story, and when all the facts come out, it will be clear that Zimmerman acted in self defense. A grand jury is scheduled to begin hearing the case April 10.

"George Zimmerman suffered a broken nose, and had an injury to the back of his head, he was attacked by Trayvon Martin on that evening," Sonner said. "This was a case of self defense."

When asked why Zimmerman went after Martin, even though a 911 dispatcher told him not to, Sonner said: "Those are questions that will be answered."

Trayvon Martin Case: Timeline of Events

Sonner said the so-called stand-your-ground law, under which a person who feels threatened is not required to retreat and can "meet force with force" if attacked, will be applicable in the case.

Sonner insisted that Zimmerman is not a racist, pointing out that he and his wife mentored for two black children for free.

"When I asked this mother [of the mentees], who trusted [Zimmerman and his wife], and she's an African-American, if she trusted George Zimmerman, she said she did, and I asked her if there was anything that caused her to believe that she was a racist, and she said, 'Absolutely not.' And I said, went further, 'Did you ever hear him use racial slurs in any time that you'd been around him?' And she said, 'no' as well," Sonner said.

Joe Oliver, a family friend of Zimmerman's who spoke with him this weekend, told ABC News that as a volunteer community watch commander, Zimmerman had to look out for suspicious-looking people.

"There are people who have accused George of profiling, well, I would think as a watch commander you are keeping an eye out for people you don't recognize in your neighborhood," Oliver said.

"The reason why he was following this suspicious person that he saw was because the neighborhood had a rash of break-ins," he said. "George had no intention of taking anyone's life. He cried for days after."

Oliver said the headlines have taken a toll on Zimmerman, his wife, and his family.
"He's moved, they've disconnected their phone numbers, they're in hiding, they're fearful," Oliver said.

The Zimmerman family friend also denied that a word the watchman is heard blurting out on one of the 911 tapes is the racial slur, "coon." Oliver said the word he hears Zimmerman saying is "goon."

"As far as, I mean as far as George being racist, I didn't take it as a racist term.

I heard 'goon' and talking to my teenage daughter, apparently goon is a term of endearment in high school these days," he said.

"He wasn't talking to Trayvon when that comment was made. He was speaking a generality in that this suspicious person was someone who he – lumped in -- as always getting away -- goon, coon. I mean, the bottom line, he thought he needed to keep an eye on this individual for whatever reason," Oliver said.

Oliver said he believes the voice screaming for help on the 911 tape is Zimmerman's.
After talking with Zimmerman, Oliver says he's convinced that it came down to a final life-or-death moment: "At that point, either George or Trayvon was going to die."

A Festival of Lies

Below I cite two excellent and similar articles on our problems and the world’s problems with the Middle East. They are both worth reading, but it is interesting that neither can offer much of an answer to our dilemmas there. It is also interesting that the first article was written by a major contributor to the liberal New York Times.

I can offer some suggestions: 1. recognize that the main problem is Islam and the ignorance and savagery that go with it, 2. eliminate our dependence on middle-eastern oil by increasing domestic drilling and approving the Keystone pipeline, 3. keep a sizable contingent of combat troops in Iraq, as we all thought would be the case and as has been the case in Germany, Japan and Korea. The nonsense now going on between their Shia president and their Sunni vice-president would not be allowed.

A Festival of Lies

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN March 24, 2012 New York Times

THE historian Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote a brutally clear-eyed piece in The National Review, looking back at America’s different approaches to Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan and how, sadly, none of them could be said to have worked yet.

“Let us review the various American policy options for the Middle East over the last few decades,” Hanson wrote. “Military assistance or punitive intervention without follow-up mostly failed. The verdict on far more costly nation-building is still out. Trying to help popular insurgents topple unpopular dictators does not guarantee anything better. Propping up dictators with military aid is both odious and counterproductive. Keeping clear of maniacal regimes leads to either nuclear acquisition or genocide — or 16 acres of rubble in Manhattan. What have we learned?

Tribalism, oil, and Islamic fundamentalism are a bad mix that leaves Americans sick and tired of the Middle East — both when they get in it and when they try to stay out of it.”

And that is why it’s time to rethink everything we’re doing out there. What the Middle East needs most from America today are modern schools and hard truths, and we haven’t found a way to offer either. Because Hanson is right: What ails the Middle East today truly is a toxic mix of tribalism, Shiite-Sunni sectarianism, fundamentalism and oil — oil that constantly tempts us to intervene or to prop up dictators.

This cocktail erodes all the requirements of a forward-looking society — which are institutions that deliver decent government, consensual politics that provide for rotations in power, women’s rights and an ethic of pluralism that protects minorities and allows for modern education. The United Nations Arab Human Development Report published in 2002 by some brave Arab social scientists also said something similar: What ails the Arab world is a deficit of freedom, a deficit of modern education and a deficit of women’s empowerment.

So helping to overcome those deficits should be what U.S. policy is about, yet we seem unable to sustain that. Look at Egypt: More than half of its women and a quarter of its men can’t read. The young Egyptians who drove the revolution are desperate for the educational tools and freedom to succeed in the modern world. Our response should have been to shift our aid money from military equipment to building science-and-technology high schools and community colleges across Egypt.

Yet, instead, a year later, we’re in the crazy situation of paying $5 million in bail to an Egyptian junta to get U.S. democracy workers out of jail there, while likely certifying that this junta is liberalizing and merits another $1.3 billion in arms aid. We’re going to give $1.3 billion more in guns to a country whose only predators are illiteracy and poverty.

In Afghanistan, I laugh out loud whenever I hear Obama administration officials explaining that we just need to train more Afghan soldiers to fight and then we can leave. Is there anything funnier? Afghan men need to be trained to fight? They defeated the British and the Soviets!

The problem is that we turned a blind eye as President Hamid Karzai stole the election and operated a corrupt regime. Then President Obama declared that our policy was to surge U.S. troops to clear out the Taliban so “good” Afghan government could come in and take our place. There is no such government. Our problem is not that Afghans don’t know the way to fight. It is that not enough have the will to fight for the government they have. How many would fight for Karzai if we didn’t pay them?

And so it goes. In Pakistan, we pay the Pakistani Army to be two-faced, otherwise it would be only one-faced and totally against us. In Bahrain, we looked the other way while ruling Sunni hard-liners crushed a Shiite-led movement for more power-sharing, and we silently watch our ally Israel build more settlements in the West Bank that we know are a disaster for its Jewish democracy.

But we don’t tell Pakistan the truth because it has nukes. We don’t tell the Saudis the truth because we’re addicted to their oil. We don’t tell Bahrain the truth because we need its naval base. We don’t tell Egypt the truth because we’re afraid it will walk from Camp David. We don’t tell Israel the truth because it has votes.

And we don’t tell Karzai the truth because Obama is afraid John McCain will call him a wimp.

Sorry, but nothing good can be built on a soil so rich with lies on our side and so rich with sectarianism, tribalism and oil-fueled fundamentalism on their side. Don’t get me wrong. I believe change is possible and am ready to invest in it. But it has got to start with them wanting it. I’ll support anyone in that region who truly shares our values — and the agenda of the Arab Human Development Report — and is ready to fight for them. But I am fed up with supporting people just because they look less awful than the other guys and eventually turn out to be just as bad.

Where people don’t share our values, we should insulate ourselves by reducing our dependence on oil. But we must stop wanting good government more than they do, looking the other way at bad behavior, telling ourselves that next year will be different, sticking with a bad war for fear of being called wimps and selling more tanks to people who can’t read.

- - - - - - - - - -

We Give Up

By Victor Davis Hanson March 8, 2012 National Review

Americans — left, right, Democrats, and Republicans — are all sick of thankless nation-building in the Middle East. Yet democratization was not our first choice, but rather a last resort after other methods failed.

The United States long ago supplied Afghan insurgents, who expelled the Soviets after a decade of fighting. Then we left. The country descended into even worse medievalism under the Taliban. So after removing the Taliban, who had hosted the perpetrators of 9/11, we promised in 2001 to stay on.

We won the first Gulf War in 1991. Then most of our forces left the region. The result was the mass murder of the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites, twelve years of no-fly zones, and a failed oil-for-food embargo of Saddam’s Iraq. So after removing Saddam in 2003, we tried to leave behind something better.

In the last ten years, the United States has spent more than $1 trillion, and thousands of American lives have been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both places seem far better off than they were before American intervention — at least for a while longer.

Yet the Iraqis now bear Americans little good will. They seem friendlier to Iran and Syria than to their liberators. In Afghanistan, riots continue over the mistaken burning of some defaced Korans, despite serial American apologies.

How about the option of bombing the bad guys and then just staying clear? We just did that to the terrorist-friendly Gaddafi dictatorship in Libya. But now that Gaddafi is gone, there is chaos. Islamic gangs torture and execute black Africans who supported the deposed regime, according to press reports. British World War II cemeteries that were honored during 70 years of Libyan kings and dictators could not survive six months of a “free” Libya. In Benghazi, gangs just ransacked and defaced the monuments of the British war dead.

Not having boots on the ground may ensure that endless chaos will consume the hope of a calm post-Gaddafi Libya. That was also true of Somalia and Lebanon after American troops were attacked and abruptly left.

How about another option: aid and words of encouragement only? We have urged Egyptian reform, under both George W. Bush and now Barack Obama. When protesters forced the removal of dictator Hosni Mubarak, the United States approved. It even appears likely that we will keep sending Egypt annual subsidies of more than $1.5 billion — as we have for more than 30 years. Yet anti-American Islamists are now the dominant force in Egyptian politics. American aid workers were recently arrested and threatened with trial by new Egyptian reformers.

Still another American choice would be not to nation-build, bomb, or even to get near a Middle Eastern country — as we seem to be doing with Iran and Syria. The United States has not had diplomatic relations with Iran since the shah left in 1979.

Until the Obama administration desperately tried to reestablish contacts with the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria by appointing a new ambassador, there had been nearly six years of estrangement.

Yet Iran is nearing its goal of obtaining a nuclear weapon both to threaten Israel and to bully other oil-exporting regimes of the Persian Gulf. The Syrian government is now butchering thousands of its own citizens with impunity.

A final option would be to return to the old policy of reestablishing friendly relationships with Middle East dictatorships regardless of their internal politics — and then keeping mum about their excesses. We did that with Pakistan, which has both received billions in U.S. aid and produced a nuclear bomb. Yet it is hard to imagine a more anti-American country than nuclear Pakistan, without which the Taliban could not kill Americans so easily in Afghanistan.

The United States once saved the Kuwaiti regime after it was swallowed up by Saddam Hussein. We have enjoyed strong ties with the Saudi monarchy as well. Neither country seems especially friendly to the U.S. It is still a crime to publicly practice Christianity in Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the 19 mass-murdering hijackers of 9/11 were Saudis. Oil in the Middle East costs less than $5 a barrel to produce; it now sells for over $100, largely because of the policies of our allies and OPEC members.

Let us review the various American policy options for the Middle East over the last few decades. Military assistance or punitive intervention without follow-up mostly failed. The verdict on far more costly nation-building is still out. Trying to help popular insurgents topple unpopular dictators does not guarantee anything better.

Propping up dictators with military aid is both odious and counterproductive.

Keeping clear of maniacal regimes leads to either nuclear acquisition or genocide — or 16 acres of rubble in Manhattan.

What have we learned? Tribalism, oil, and Islamic fundamentalism are a bad mix that leaves Americans sick and tired of the Middle East — both when they get in it and when they try to stay out of it.

Ripple Effects of the Housing Crash

We have all seen the devastating effects of the housing crash as friends and neighbors have lost their homes and jobs as this catastrophe plays out. Not only our neighbors have been hurt; all of us have seen significant amounts of our wealth vanish as 1/3 to ½ of the value of our homes disappears.

But sometimes the effects of the housing situation are more subtle. As a case in point, here is what is happening at the condominium complex in Florida that I help to manage:

I purchased my unit in 2002 for $77,000 in a period of rapidly rising prices. We were devastated by Hurricane Charley in 2004, but by the middle of 2005, our condo complex was completely repaired. In 2006, units (all units are the same) were selling for $135,000, and by 2007, we probably would not have sold our unit for less than $150,000.

In the last year, units have sold anywhere from $65,000 (the owners had both lost their jobs and were desperate for cash) to $105,000, and three units have gone empty, two from the deaths of the owners and one from a walk-away.

In one case the owner had arranged a $195,000 reverse mortgage guaranteed by Fannie-May; in the second case the owner had a $97,000 first and a $43,000 second mortgage; in the third case the owner had received a $102,000 mortgage and had run into serious financial difficulties. All of these mortgages had been taken out in the 2005-2008 period of incredible and unsustainable housing price increases.

All three units are underwater, and no fees are being collected on them. Since they are underwater, there is no point in placing liens on them; unpaid fees will never be recovered. All three units have been visited by “mortgage-service” companies who have broken into the units and changed the locks without notice and without providing a key to the condo association as they are required to do.

A further complication is that the electricity and the air conditioning have been shut off, and if there is no A/C for the summer, these three units will fill with mold and mildew and become uninhabitable. Mold spores will also affect the health of residents of adjoining units.

Attempts to speak with representatives of the mortgage-holders lead nowhere; probably there are so many similar situations that they are overwhelmed. Our association has just decided to do three things: 1. we passed a special assessment to cover the fees we will not be collecting, 2. we will break into the units and change the locks, and 3. we will turn back on and pay for the electricity so we can air condition these units from April through October and protect them from mold. Stay tuned.

If This Were a Conservative Country

Various pundits keep quoting surveys that they say show that a majority of Americans are conservative in their political and societal beliefs.

I disagree.

If this were a conservative country, casual sex and gratuitous violence would not be glorified on television and the movies, and you would not hear “ass”, “son-of-a-bitch”, “bastard” and a thinly disguised “f**k you” on television every night.

If this were a conservative country, we would have drilled for oil off our coasts, in ANWR and on other federal lands, gasoline would sell for $1.00 a gallon, we wouldn’t buy any oil from the Arabs nor care what they did to one another, the cost of living would be way down and the value of the dollar way up.

If this were a conservative country, an idiot movie star like Mel Gibson would be finished after he hurled obscenities at Jewish-Americans, and everyone would laugh when Alec Baldwin or Michael Moore opened their mouths.

If this were a conservative country, there would be no federal Department of Education, local boards would run their schools to educate children who would learn some math and history instead of how to use condoms and why their country is in the wrong about everything imaginable; and colleges would be educating students instead of turning out anti-American activists and community organizers. We would all have a good laugh at the nonsense Sandra Fluke spews.

If this were a conservative country, loan officers in banks would not have been forced to hand out mortgage loans to deadbeats and speculators who had no credit or terrible credit. Age-old methods of evaluating ability to pay would have continued to be combined with down payments and reasonable appraisals of housing values, while bankers would not have had to figure out ways to protect their depositors and stockholders from the inevitable crash which has taken us all down.

If this were a conservative country, an inept and inexperienced manager with a hidden history and a hidden agenda would not now be imposing his radical socialism on this country, nor would the Constitution that has protected us for more than 230 years be under assault from his buyout methods and his attacks on religious freedom.

Even the Left Questioning Obamacare

When a left-wing source of political news starts to worry about the unpleasant effects of Obamacare, it adds to the belief that this hated program (you'll find out what's in the bill after we pass it) is in real trouble. The problem is, if Obamacare is not repealed, we'll all be in big trouble.

Four hard truths of health care reform

By: David Nather March 16, 2012 Politico

President Barack Obama promised over and over during the health care debate that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

It turns out that, for a lot of people, that isn’t true.

A Congressional Budget Office report issued this week says that 3 to 5 million people could move from employer-based health care plans to government-based programs as the Affordable Care Act takes effect. And in the worst-case scenario, it could be as many as 20 million.

For Obama, it’s an inconvenient truth at a really inconvenient time — coming less than two weeks before the Supreme Court begins oral arguments on the law and just as the administration touts the law’s early benefits on its second anniversary.

And it’s not the only hard truth Obama and the law’s supporters are facing. No matter what they said about rising health care costs, those costs aren’t actually going to go down under health care reform. The talk about the law paying for itself is just educated guesswork. And people aren’t actually liking the law more as they learn more about it — and some polls show they are just getting more confused.

But it’s Obama’s signature promise — “If you like it, you can keep it” — that’s most likely to get thrown back in his face. Here are the four hard truths of health care reform as the law approaches its March 23 anniversary:

1) Some people won’t get to keep the coverage they like.

For Republicans, the CBO report is a giant “I told you so” moment — and they’re lining up to tell you so.

“President Obama repeatedly promised during the health care debate, ‘if you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it,’” House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans said in a statement Friday. “Even under CBO’s ‘best estimate,’ President Obama will have broken his promise to 3 million to 5 million Americans each year, but unfortunately, that number could be much higher.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) cited the 20 million figure, saying: “This law keeps getting worse and worse; it needs to be repealed.”

Supporters of the law say it’s not as bad as all that. The 20 million figure is the extreme scenario, they point out — CBO says that 3 million to 5 million is more likely. And that’s out of the 161 million Americans who would have had workplace health insurance before the law was passed.

Even there, the number is misleading, according to Topher Spiro of the Center for American Progress, because CBO says about 3 million wouldn’t be forced out. They would leave their workplace coverage voluntarily — possibly for better coverage, with subsidies, through the law’s new health insurance exchanges.

And for the rest, Spiro said, employers will have to take the responsibility for what happens — because they’ll still have plenty of incentives to offer coverage to their workers, especially once the individual mandate requires everyone to have it. “If they decide to drop coverage, that will be their decision, and they should not blame the health care law,” Spiro said.

But try explaining all that over the 30-second Republican campaign ads that are sure to come. And it’s not what Obama promised as he pushed for the new law two years ago.

“If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won’t have to do a thing,” Obama promised at a press briefing in June 2009. “You keep your plan; you keep your doctor. If your employer’s providing you good health insurance, terrific. We’re not going to mess with it.”

The 3 to 5 million estimate is also a net figure, so it masks some bigger changes in both directions.

For one thing, CBO says 11 million Americans won’t get employment-based health insurance they would have had before the law — so they will be forced out (technically by their employer, not by the president, but the context will be the changes brought about by the health law). Another 9 million would gain coverage — but everyone who loses it will see their lives disrupted, and it will be used as more evidence of broken Obama promises.

But all of that assumes CBO is right. For the law’s supporters, the dream scenario is that employment-based coverage will go up — which is what happened in Massachusetts under Mitt Romney’s health care reform law, which (as his Republican rivals have been known to point out) also has an individual mandate. According to the state’s figures, the percentage of employers that offer health coverage has increased from 70 percent to 77 percent since 2005.

2) Costs aren’t going to go down.

The video released by the Obama campaign Thursday has a graph that shows health insurance premiums climbing and climbing — way above general inflation. Giving families and businesses relief was a big part of Obama’s sales pitch for health care reform.

“Health care costs had been rising three times the rate of inflation, crushing family budgets and choking businesses. And he knew that he couldn’t fix the economy if he didn’t fix health care,” narrator Tom Hanks says in the video.

But no matter what happens with the law, the line on that graph isn’t going to go down. If the law works as the administration hopes, premiums may not rise as fast. But they’re not going to plummet.

That’s because the main drivers of rising costs — including technology, expensive new drugs, an aging population, a surge in chronic diseases, and Americans’ propensity to use a lot more health care than many other countries even if it doesn’t make them any healthier — have nothing to do with the law.

It’s not clear whether a lot of people actually expected premiums to go down — but there’s already a perception that the law has increased the cost of insurance, which is feeding the negative attitudes. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released this week found that 49 percent believe the law has “significantly increased the price of health insurance.”

That’s not true. An Aon Hewitt survey of health plans found that health insurance premiums on average rose 12.3 percent in 2011 — but only an average of 1.5 percent can be attributed to the health law. And health premiums had been rising for years before the law was passed.

But what is true is that what most people pay for their insurance — either through higher premiums or bigger co-pays and deductibles — aren’t rising more slowly. The law creates lots of experiments for delivering health care more efficiently, but those are just getting underway. If those don’t work, and costs keep rising, the law will get blamed for it.

3) It’s just a guess that the law can pay for itself.

The Obama administration insists that the health care law will actually reduce the deficit — which sounds like a fantasy to many people, since the law will clearly increase spending through insurance subsidies and an expansion of Medicaid.

But that’s what CBO says. And it’s because the budget office believes the law will pay for itself through cuts in Medicare payments and various new taxes, including fees that health insurers and medical device makers will pay.

Like everything else CBO does, though, those estimates are mostly educated guesses — and they assume Congress is actually going to let the Medicare cuts happen. For example, the law is supposed to save $157 billion over 10 years by increasing Medicare payments more slowly for inpatient hospital, home health and skilled nursing facility services. The law expects those providers to become more productive and more efficient. But watch for plenty of lobbying pressure on Congress to cancel those cuts.

4) “The more they know, the more they'll like it” isn’t happening.

When the bill passed, Democrats were convinced that Americans would like the health care reform law more once they were able to see its benefits. When then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress had to “pass the bill so you can find out what is in it” — an inartful phrase that Republicans have happily quoted ever since — her aides insisted that’s what she meant: People would find out about its benefits once the controversy died down.

Except the controversy has never died down, and people don’t like the law any more now than they did then.

The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 41 percent had favorable views of the law, while 40 percent had unfavorable views. That’s down from the 46 percent who favored the law in April 2010, right after Obama signed it.

And people actually seem to know less about what’s in the law than they did then.

Only 56 percent now know that people will get subsidies to pay for health insurance, compared to the 75 percent who knew in April 2010. Just over half of Americans knew that people with pre-existing conditions will be guaranteed coverage, compared to the 64 percent who knew it in 2010.

The part the most people knew about is the individual mandate — the least popular part of the law. And once the Supreme Court starts hearing the health care reform case on March 26, they’ll hear about that part even more.

Followup to Birth Certificate - Phase III

Occasionally Obama takes some action that is designed to give the impression that he is working in the interests of all Americans – just enough to keep support and, he hopes, win him reelection. For example, he authorized a “surge” in Afghanistan, but he reduced the number of troops far below that requested by General McChrystal, and he simultaneously announced a withdrawal date almost guaranteeing that the “surge” would fail. He appointed a “debt-reduction, blue-ribbon” commission, and then ignored all their recommendations while creating more debt than all other presidents combined. There are numerous other examples of these sleight of hand tricks.

If Obama's Past Isn't A Concern, Why Cover It Up?

Posted 03/14/2012 Investors Business Daily

Public Trust: The Beltway elite mock critics who say the president's hiding his radical past from voters. They say there's nothing there, move along. But if there's nothing to hide, why is so much hidden?

And if the White House isn't worried about the public seeing another side of President Obama, why is it trying to reinforce the image of him as a post-racial, pro-American moderate with a slick new Hollywood-produced 17-minute documentary?

The answer, of course, is that it is very much concerned.

The Obama campaign knows its carefully manicured narrative is wearing thin against the drip-drip-drip of revelations about his extremism. And it can't risk the incumbent being reintroduced to voters this election as an untrustworthy imposter who's hiding things about himself and his agenda.

Indeed, these are things that must be hidden from the average voter. They are unpatriotic and unelectable things. Things that would concern any red-blooded American, if not the parlor Bolsheviks inside the Beltway media and the Ivory Tower.

The videotape of Obama praising and hugging his America-bashing, Constitution-trashing law professor Derrick Bell isn't the only evidence that's been hidden from the public. A 1998 video of Obama praising the late Marxist agitator Saul "The Red" Alinsky alongside a panel of hard-core Chicago communists also exists. Yet it, too, has been withheld.

So has a 2003 video of Obama speaking at a Chicago dinner held in honor of former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi. Anger at Israel and U.S. foreign policy were expressed during the private banquet.

Why have Obama's remarks and actions during the controversial event been suppressed? Perhaps it's because the radical Khalidi — a close friend and neighbor of Obama, who held a 2000 political fundraiser in his home for him — has strongly defended the use of violence by Palestinians against Israel, while expressing clearly anti-American views.

If there's nothing to hide, why keep these tapes under wraps? Why not release them?
Obama's supporters pretend there's nothing all that radioactive about Khalidi or Alinsky, who authored the Left's bible, "Rules for Radicals."

But if Alinsky is not a problem, why did Obama disguise the name of his radical Alinsky trainer Jerry Kellman in his memoir? And why did he also try to shield from readers the identity of his Alinsky mentor John McKnight, who wrote him a letter of recommendation to Harvard?

If his Alinskyite indoctrination is of no concern, why did Obama leave out his weeks-long training at Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation in Los Angeles? This station of the cross for Alinsky acolytes is strangely missing from all 500 pages of his tediously detailed memoir.

For that matter, the late Alinsky is not cited by name in either of the president's autobiographies, even though leftist activists confess this father of community organizing had a powerful influence on Obama.

Moreover, if communist Frank Marshall Davis wasn't a controversial factor in Obama's life, why did Obama also mask his identity in his first memoir? If listening, spellbound, at the feet of a known subversive isn't a red flag, why keep his real profile a secret?

Obama also couldn't find room in "Dreams From My Father" to mention the most striking thing about his father's politics. Obama Sr. was a pro-Soviet socialist, who as a government economist wrote a communist tract for Kenya in 1965.

If this published paper wasn't a big deal, as Obama apologists have suggested, why is it conveniently missing from the 143-page section Obama devoted to boast about his father's career in Kenya?

Likewise, if the papers Obama Jr. himself wrote at Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School are not just as radical and offensive to average Americans, why not release them, along with the transcripts (or at least the titles) of the courses he took at these schools? Why the massive gap in disclosure concerning his academic years?

Harvard professor Bell had a huge influence on Obama, who in turn taught his own law students the radical theories he learned from Bell. Yet he never mentioned Bell or the Harvard strike he led on his beloved professor's behalf in either autobiography.

If he wasn't trying to fool people, why leave this seminal event out?

Even more radical — and influential — than Bell was Harvard law professor Robert Unger, who taught Obama a couple of courses, including one called "Reinventing Democracy." Like Bell, Unger called U.S. jurisprudence a sham system designed to protect the rich at the expense of the poor. But Unger also taught Obama how to dismantle it. He argued for seizing all private capital and redistributing it.

Obama kept up communications with Unger long after he graduated, but those contacts stopped in 2008. "I am a leftist, and by conviction as well as by temperament, a revolutionary," Unger explains. "Any association of mine with Barack Obama in the course of the campaign could do only harm."

There you have it.

If Obama thought he could disclose all these radical associations to the American people and still get re-elected, he probably would, proud man that he is. But he wisely, if cynically, stays mum.

Some argue that linking him to this vast underground network of radicals is "guilt by association." Actually, it's guilt by participation.

Obama at one point was an employee of the radical shakedown group Acorn, and later trained its goons in Alinsky agitation tactics. He also worked with Pentagon-bombing Marxist Bill Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund, where the two comrades doled out cash to other radical groups.

In other words, Obama didn't just rub elbows with radicals, he operated as a one. It's now plain he and his fellow travelers are intentionally suppressing information that could provide the voting public a clearer link between the incumbent and radicalism.

Obama's new campaign infomercial, ironically titled "The Road We've Traveled," is just another attempt to suspend disbelief before the election.

Birth Certificate Question-Phase III

I have never been a birther, especially since the evidence of the two live-birth announcements in the Honolulu newspapers seemed conclusive, but I have always thought that some dark mystery was behind Obama's withholding of his official birth certificate for three years - and especially his unbelievable suppression of his school and travel records. Even now we know less about him than we know about any other president. My guess was always along the lines that he, Obama, may have renounced his US citizenship at some point, or took on dual citizenship, in order to qualify for a scholarship that was only available to foreigners. I have no evidence of this; it has always been just a guess.

This has all changed, however. Both Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Selwyn Duke are serious people, worthy of attention and what they say is worthy of further investigation.

Why Obama's Birth Certificate Matters, Especially Now

By Selwyn Duke March 14, 2012 American Thinker

There was a time when someone could perhaps justify sitting on the fence on the matter of Barack Obama's birth certificate. There were those on the left who could chalk doubts about its authenticity up to conspiratorial internet paranoia. As for the right, there was every reason to worry about being the victims of an Alinsky-style setup designed to marginalize opponents. In other words, let the other side double down on an incredible claim, and then, at the most opportune time (October surprise?), provide irrefutable evidence to the contrary and make them look like deluded wackos. So, for a long time, there might have been reason to watch, wait, and let the wheels of investigation render their judgment.

That judgment is in, and the time for waiting is over.

With the results of Maricopa County, AZ sheriff Joe Arpaio's "Cold Case Posse," an incredible claim has become an incredible situation: a team of professional investigators, commissioned by a major law-enforcement agency, has determined that the alleged birth certificate produced by the president of the United States is a probable forgery.

Process that for a moment. The regime of the world's most powerful nation -- a republic that prides itself on adherence to the rule of law -- is likely peddling a forged document. What say you, citizen?

Note that I didn't claim that the president isn't natural-born. Rather, I claim nothing but am only stating a fact: there is now no denying that the birth-certificate matter warrants further investigation, and it is time for other law-enforcement agencies and the media to show due diligence. And I will spell out the possibilities here:

1. The Arizona investigators are correct.
2. They are mistaken.
3. They are lying.

For the record, I don't believe the last for a moment, but I do want to cover all the bases. And home plate is this: the answer may be number one or two, and it's incumbent upon us to find out through further investigation. And, for those who dislike Sheriff Arpaio, what if the answer is three? Well, if a major law-enforcement agency is producing fraudulent evidence for the purposes of damaging a sitting president, wouldn't that warrant investigation, too? The undeniable, irrefutable fact here is that there is smoke. And we need to find out who started the fire.

In response to these facts, the left will sometimes mount an argument for why Obama is, in fact, natural-born. But this issue is at the moment secondary. And about it I will merely state that there are only two possibilities. First, if the allegedly forged birth certificate relates to the president's natural-born status, then it's clear that the Obama administration is concerned about that status. And what if it doesn't relate to whether the president is natural-born?

Then it relates to something else.

You don't present a forged a document for no reason. Again, the undeniable, irrefutable fact here is that there is smoke. And we need to find out what is feeding the fire.

Remember, too, that document forgery is a crime. If you were found benefiting yourself through it, you'd be prosecuted. Should the president be held to a lower standard?

In point of fact, on the part of the media and citizenry, he must be held to a higher one. We're not talking here about some kid who forged an ID so he could drink at 18 in a bar. This is the most powerful man in the world, who, it appears, is passing off a forgery for some mysterious -- or not so mysterious -- reason. This mystery needs to be solved.

Also consider the consequences of allowing this alleged high crime to go unanswered. If Obama is willing to fob off a forgery on the American people, what else is he capable of? If he gets away with it, what else will he do? Remember that in every case in history in which a leader amassed more power for himself by gradually undermining his nation's democratic system, he had millions of enablers.

These were the crowds Cicero spoke of that cheered "ambitious scoundrel" Julius Caesar as he paved his way to dictator. These are the "good men" Edmund Burke referred to who do nothing in the face of evil. Sometimes, of course, they're simply scared. Other times they may not want to seem like a nutty Chicken Little saying the sky is falling. Or they may not want to accept that the sky actually is falling, so they rationalize and dress the naked emperor with their eyes. After all, when a problem is daunting or scary, the self-delusion that allows one to ignore it can be appealing.

Most people also don't want conflict; they may fear a constitutional crisis. But know that if Obama is peddling a forged document, it may simply be another example of how we already are in a constitutional crisis. The only question now is whether we're going to fight the fire or continue to fiddle while the Constitution burns.

The Real Conspiracy on Oil Prices

Both Bill O’Reilly and President Obama blame ‘speculators’ for the run-up in oil prices. O’Reilly just doesn’t know any better; you can decide for yourself what Obama’s motives are. Speculators are people who buy and sell futures contracts either to make money or to protect themselves from future shortages and/or price swings. When I was in the wool business we bought futures to guarantee a supply at a known price. There is nothing illegal or immoral about speculation in a commodity.

The main ingredients pushing up the price of oil are twofold: 1. fear of shortages from closing the Straits of Hormuz or an embargo, and 2. the declining value of the dollar due to Obama’s massive borrowing and spending. The real conspiracy is discussed below:

Oil and Gasoline Prices

By Seldon B. Graham, Jr. March 12, 2012 American Thinker

Actual oil prices are unknown to most Americans. The only oil price reported by the media is the Wall Street speculators' guess of the price of oil six months in the future. A guess about the price of oil six months in the future should not be the basis of emotional and unreliable opinions given to the public about the rising prices of gasoline (not "gas," which is natural gas). The American public deserves more.

The truth is that we do not know what the actual oil prices are. A few of us know that the price of U.S. crude oil is always cheaper than the price of foreign OPEC crude oil. Some of us know that because we have followed "World Crude Oil Prices" on the website of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy for years.

On November 11, 2011 (probably while I was marching as a World War 2 veteran in the Veterans Day Parade), the EIA shut down the World Crude Oil Prices website. EIA did not even leave up the valuable historic data on the website. The Obama administration has hidden actual oil prices from the public. That should be a scandal.

U.S. crude oil prices have always been lower than foreign OPEC crude oil prices because of "posted prices," a concept unknown to Bill O'Reilly and the Democrats. Long before there was an oil commodities market on Wall Street, the definition of a "posted price" was that price which a buyer makes public to give notice that the buyer is prepared to pay a certain sum for a barrel of crude oil. In the past, U.S. refiners used to post at the gate of their plant the price at which they were prepared to buy a barrel of crude oil on a given day.

Today, posted prices of crude oil buyers are often found on the internet. Examples: Chevron, ExxonMobil. Posted prices of a certain crude oil buyer tend to become permanent with oil producers since it can be extremely expensive for the oil producer to build a new gathering line from the producing field to a different crude oil pipeline.

U.S. oil producers do not sell their oil to the highest bidder, like Bill O'Reilly has told his audience for years.

Last November, when EIA removed the data from the World Crude Oil Prices website, the actual average foreign OPEC oil price was $112.51 per barrel and the actual average U.S. oil price was $106.04 per barrel, a $6.47-per-barrel difference. At that difference in price, American consumers would save $21.8 billion annually if U.S. oil replaced foreign oil.

Clearly, Americans need to demand that the U.S. Department of Energy provide actual oil prices as it provided before November 11, 2011. These actual prices would show the need to expedite U.S. oil drilling on federal lands.

In the meantime, there is a way to immediately lower gasoline prices. Remove the ethanol mixed with gasoline at the pump. Refineries are having to pay millions of dollars for cellulosic ethanol waivers because there is no cellulosic ethanol production. This causes gasoline prices to be higher than they should be. Ethanol has only 61% of the energy of gasoline, so it gets very poor mileage. Removing the mandate which forces ethanol to be mixed with gasoline at the pump would result in cheaper gasoline, which would travel farther and cost less per mile of travel.

Ethanol production in 2010 was less than 10% of foreign oil imports and can never replace foreign oil imports. Using ethanol emits more carbon dioxide into the air than using gasoline. It's the ethanol, stupid. Ethanol is increasing gasoline prices. Get rid of the ethanol mix in the gasoline at the pump.

Today's Letter to the Editor

My letter today to the Charlotte Sun:

"Several letters complain about readers who call President Obama a communist. Perhaps that is too strong a term, but unless you have had your head in the sand or in the clouds, there is no question that he is a radical socialist whose agenda dismays traditional Americans. He was a loving student of Saul Alinsky, William Ayers, Derrick Bell and Rev. Wright.

His bailout methods and his attempt to interfere with religious freedoms all indicate willing subversion of our Constitution. Obamacare, the centerpiece of his program is hated by a majority of Americans and probably is also unconstitutional. His double-crossing of U.S. allies Israel, Poland and the Czech Republic, his strange apologies to Muslims and his refusal to support the Iranian freedom-fighters are inexplicable, to say the least.

His financial policies have created so much debt that he has placed us in the position of Greece and weakened the dollar so much that the price of oil and gasoline is skyrocketing (the world market for oil is dollar-denominated).

We are experiencing the longest and the worst recession since World War II – a recession that was the direct result of liberal-Democrat policies (supported by Obama, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) that forced banks to give mortgages to deadbeats and speculators, while the tens of thousands of new regulations are strangling business and prolonging this economic disaster.

Maybe he is not a communist, but, please, let’s get rid of him before he does any more damage."

The Bizarro Attack on Religious Liberty

The American people, in overwhelming numbers, want Obamacare stopped, and the issue of the constitutionality of a federal mandate is now before the Supreme Court. So what do the Democrats do? They blow away the religious freedom specified in our Constitution by framing this great issue as a “women’s health issue”, mandating that the Catholic Church must provide abortifactants and contraceptives (do not be fooled by Obama's so-called modification).

They lied about Republicans wanting to end Medicare and then stuck a $500 billion Medicare cutback in the Obamacare bill; they lied about Republicans wanting to end Social Security and then forced a cutback in payroll taxes that threatens the viability of that program. They make me sick.

This whole bizarre effort is designed to win an election and save Obamacare.

Wag the Coed

By Ron Ross on 3.7.12 American Spectator

This whole bizarre episode demonstrates just how desperate the Democrats are.

The world is spinning out of control and the spin rate is accelerating.

Having to pay for your own contraceptives has suddenly become a national crisis. In one way it is beyond belief and in another it is totally predictable.

Sandra Fluke, a third-year law student at Georgetown law school, in testimony before a congressional committee argued that she and forty percent of her fellow students are "struggling financially" because they have to pay for their own contraceptives.

The Democrat-media complex, rather than laughing in her face, is making Ms. Fluke a hero. She even got a phone call from President Obama urging her on.

How did we get to this point? Birth control is not a significant budget item.

Recreational sex is not a necessity. Sex with contraceptives is not imperative for survival of the species.

If the cost of contraceptives is straining Ms. Fluke's budget I have some simple suggestions, ones she may have even considered herself. For example, why not ask your sexual partners to share the expense? As a liberated woman I assume you don't always expect them to pay for dinner. Besides you, your sexual partners are the primary beneficiaries of your intimacies. You're obviously not too timid to broach the subject. Politely explain to them that from now on if they want to play they will have to pay. If you've ever taken an economics class you can explain to them that there's no such thing as free sex. Sharing the cost would be a kind of "user fee." What could be fairer than that? It's simple voluntary exchange. Seems to me it's a whole lot fairer than asking the rest of us to bear the expense.

The fact that contraceptives have become a hot political issue is bizarre beyond belief. Before the January 7 Republican debate in New Hampshire it was nowhere on the political horizon. In that debate moderator George Stephanopoulos badgered Mitt Romney about whether or not states have the constitutional authority to ban contraceptives. Romney was understandably befuddled by the question. In retrospect it is now clear that there was a method to the madness of Stephanopoulos' question.

The Urban Dictionary defines "wag the dog" as follows: "When something of secondary importance improperly takes the role of primary importance.… To start a war or military operation to divert negative attention away from yourself." President Obama cannot run on his record. His reelection team knows that. "We don't want to talk about the economy, Obamacare, or gasoline prices. Let's talk about contraceptives or Rush Limbaugh." In the movie Wag the Dog the president did not start an actual war, he faked one.

Ms. Fluke has become a hero of the Democrats. For what? For whining about the tragedy of having to pay for her own contraceptives? She is the latest in a long line of pathetic people who have been used to further their despicable objectives.

Ms. Fluke has allowed herself to be used as a Democrat prop. Like those who have preceded her she will soon be dumped on the land-fill of no-longer useful chumps.

Cindy Sheehan and Monica Lewinsky are two names that come to mind. For the rest of her life Ms. Fluke will be known first and foremost as the woman who publicly pleaded for free contraceptives. I feel sorry for her. I'm extremely thankful that she is not my daughter. Ms. Fluke is a sad commentary on our dysfunctional educational system. Her bachelor's degree was in "Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies." What a joke!

The controversy employs some of the favorite tactics of the Democrats, one of which is complete corruption of the language. We are told, for example, that the contraception debate is about women's "reproductive freedom." Is anyone on the right advocating interference with anyone's freedom to reproduce? Isn't what the Democrats want the prevention of reproduction? Democrats will claim all manner of bogus connections if it helps them further their agenda. If you're against forcing insurance companies to pay for contraceptives, it's because you're a misogynist and you don't care about women's health. As Mona Charen points out, "Democrats are geniuses at muddying the waters and twisting the debate in a direction they find congenial." If the mainstream media came within shouting distance of its responsibilities, Democrats would never get away with such absurdities.

Nevertheless, Republicans should not be discouraged. This whole bizarre episode demonstrates just how desperate the Democrats are. As the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto says, "There seems to be wide agreement that the Sandra Fluke kerfuffle handed the left a major victory. We respectfully dissent." Maybe the world isn't spinning out of control.

They’ll Never Forgive Andrew Breitbart

We conservatives know we have lost a hero and an irreplaceable asset in the death of Andrew Breitbart, who died, somewhat mysteriously, earlier this week, at the age of 43.

Breitbart was a dedicated, conservative journalist who was passionate about exposing corruption – especially the corruption of leftist ideas and causes. He brought down the disgusting Anthony Weiner, and exposed one of the most corrupt schemes to steal taxpayer dollars with his coverage of the Pigford scandal.

Our biggest debt to Andrew, though, was his exposure of the ACORN corruption, the organization devoted to providing Democrat candidates with the votes of non-existent and deceased voters. It was largely through Breitbart’s efforts that ACORN was defunded.

While many are applauding Breitbart for his efforts, and some are honoring the tradition not to speak ill of the dead, many liberal talking heads have no such compunction or scruples: