The Wisconsin Gestapo

From George Will, at the Washington Post, "Wis. prosecutors abuse the law for partisan ends" (with the headline snagged from Elizabeth Price Foley at Instapundit).

The piece excoriates the Wisconsin Democrats' now-curtailed "John Doe" campaign finance investigations, which had virtually no chance of obtaining convictions. Their purpose was pure intimidation:

Liberals inveighing against “dark money” in politics mean money contributed anonymously to finance political advocacy. Donors’ anonymity thwarts liberals’ efforts to injure the livelihoods of identifiable conservatives by punishing them for their political participation and thereby deterring others from participating...

RTWT.

Daily Beast's @OliviaNuzzi Hammered on #DonaldSterling Hypocrisy — #LiberalRacism

Well, here's an interesting follow-up to my earlier post, "Daily Beast Correspondent Olivia Nuzzi: 'I really don't care about this debate very much..." — #DonaldSterling."

Last night I saw Ms. Nuzzi tweeting out left-wing loser Michael Tomasky's transparent and disgusting propaganda on Donald Sterling's politics. Indeed, she was yammering cluelessly like some first-year sorority pledge about how OMG! "relevant" is Donald Sterling's so-called "Republican registration."

Of course that was after Ms. Nuzzi had already claimed that "I really don't care about this debate very much." Naturally, Ms. Nuzzi didn't "care about this debate" when the actual facts showed Sterling's campaign contribution going exclusively to Democrats and far-left ballot measures.

So, I called her out:

.@Olivianuzzi I thought you didn't "care about this debate very much"? https://t.co/tGLQYK3T02 @tkurlan @mtomasky

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) April 30, 2014

.@Olivianuzzi Seems like you "care" that #Sterling's a "registered Republican." But how 'bout his poltical giving? @tkurlan @mtomasky

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) April 30, 2014

.@Olivianuzzi #DonaldSterling: "Thirty years of leftist, Democrat-supporting hate and ignorance." http://t.co/JEYrUKjzdl @tkurlan @mtomasky

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) April 30, 2014

.@Olivianuzzi Please be honest. There's enough sleazy propaganda right now. #Sterling's a Beverly Hills liberal. @tkurlan @mtomasky

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) April 30, 2014

That was that. Or so I thought. I didn't hear back from her (the sleazy hypocrite), although earlier today I saw former U.S. Spokesman at the United Nations Richard Grenell calling out Ms. Nuzzi as well:

suddenly Olivia doesn't care #Sterling #Democrat @Olivianuzzi @AmPowerBlog I really don't care about this debate. direct tweets elsewhere.

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) April 30, 2014

@Olivianuzzi @AmPowerBlog you cared about Bundy's racism but suddenly became uninterested with the Democrat's #Sterling

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) April 30, 2014

. @Olivianuzzi let's start with the same condemnation you gave to the republican racist......

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) April 30, 2014

@Olivianuzzi he gave money to democrats.

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) April 30, 2014

. @Olivianuzzi so do you think you get to write bias without getting pushback? nobody is "attacking" you. it's called accountability.

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) April 30, 2014

@Olivianuzzi I hope you start writing like a fair journalist or switch to be an opinion writer.

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) April 30, 2014

why all the #UniteBlue followers, @Olivianuzzi?

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) April 30, 2014

. @Olivianuzzi the left loves you, Olivia. Keep up the Blue work! just think, there's 2 years left to become an Obama spokesman....

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) April 30, 2014

Political junkies might remember that Ms. Nuzzi is a former intern for Anthony Weiner's disastrous New York mayoral bid. She wrote a kiss-and-tell-all exposé slamming the corruption and inexperience of the doomed campaign organization. Barbara Morgan, Weiner's classy communications director, attacked Ms. Nuzzi as a "cunt" and a "slutbag." Morgan resigned. I wrote about it here: "Olivia Nuzzi 'Slutbag'."

Funny, though, how "slutbag" doesn't sound so inaccurate now. It turns that Ms. Nuzzi really does "care about this debate," at least when it comes to smearing conservatives and Republicans for backing Cliven Bundy. Here's her piece up today at Daily Beast, "What Cliven Bundy’s Famous Backers Said, Before and After." And notice the dramatic subtitle:

"The Nevada rancher’s breathtakingly racist comments Wednesday left Republican supporters racing to distance themselves. What they’re saying now."

Well, no doubt Ms. Nuzzi would know something about folks "racing to distance themselves" from the racist comments made by ideological partisans. As soon as I pointed out to her that Donald Sterling's a dyed-in-the-wool Beverly Hills liberal, she hightailed it for the tall grass!

The fact is Olivia Nuzzi's way more than ready to smear conservatives when it serves her leftist political and ideological program. Seriously, you've gotta give it up for this woman's astounding liberal racist hypocrisy. She's way down deep in the Democrat tank, a rank leftist hack with a byline. Maybe Barbara Morgan had her pegged all along.

Rush Limbaugh: Donald Sterling's a 'Typical Hollywood Liberal...'

Heh, Rush Limbaugh nails it!

See, "Mock Shock: Donald Sterling is a Typical Hollywood Racist -- and Everyone Knew It."



Actually, I'm just calling out Sterling as the ultimate RINO, lol.

.@hiltzikm #DonaldSterling is literally RINO, since ALL his contributions go to #DEMS AND far-left ballot measures: http://t.co/569f1LsTgs

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) April 29, 2014

PREVIOUSLY: "Desperate Leftists: Beverly Hills Liberal Donald Sterling Is 'Registered Republican' OMG! TAKE THAT!! BLARGH!! OMG!!!"

#NBA Expected to Fine and Suspend Racist Beverly Hills Liberal Donald Sterling

Sterling's eventually gonna go the Marge Schott route. It's only a matter of time.

It's like Charles Barkley said: It's a "black league."

What can I say? Couldn't happen to a more classic West Los Angeles liberal.

At LAT, "Table set for NBA action on Sterling as sponsors flee":

A stream of sponsors cut ties with the Los Angeles Clippers, and Mayor Eric Garcetti called for the harshest possible punishment Monday as NBA Commissioner Adam Silver prepared to announce the results of his investigation into remarks about blacks attributed to team owner Donald Sterling.

Sterling's purported comments were widely condemned, and the commissioner, after three months as leader of the 30-team league, confronts one of the most unsettling crises the NBA has faced in recent years.

Although NBA bylaws give the pro basketball league the power to oust owners in limited circumstances, experts said Silver would more likely hit the Clippers' owner with a sizable fine and a lengthy suspension, perhaps with the intent of pressuring the real estate magnate into selling the franchise he has owned for 33 years.

"He'll tell Sterling, 'If you choose to stay, I won't let you go to any games,' " predicted Andrew Zimbalist, a Smith College economics professor and a former consultant to the NBA players association. "'I won't let you make any personnel decisions. I won't let you communicate with the general manager, hire anybody in the front office, or talk to the media. You could do that, or sell the team … and walk away with a $700-million capital gain.' "

Sterling paid $12 million in 1981 for the team in San Diego and three years later moved the Clippers to Los Angeles. Years of losing would ensue, but the team's fortunes and value have risen precipitously in the last few years. Forbes magazine recently valued the team at $575 million, though some in the sports world think the franchise could sell for as much as $700 million.

The websites TMZ and Deadspin posted audio recordings over the weekend of a man they identified as Sterling chastising a female friend for making public her association with blacks. The conversation took place after the woman, V. Stiviano, posted an Instagram photo of herself posing with Lakers great Magic Johnson.

On Monday, 15 Clippers advertisers said they have terminated or suspended their sponsorship, although most expressed their continued support for the team's players, coaches and fans...

Continue reading.

Previously Donald Sterling liberal racism blogging here.

Daily Beast Correspondent Olivia Nuzzi: 'I really don't care about this debate very much..." — #DonaldSterling

LOL!

Leftists don't really seem to "care about this" anymore when the facts show that racist Donald Sterling contributes exclusively to Democrats and far-left ballot measures.

@AmPowerBlog I really don't care about this debate very much. Please direct tweets elsewhere.

— Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) April 29, 2014

PREVIOUSLY: "Desperate Leftists: Beverly Hills Liberal Donald Sterling Is 'Registered Republican' OMG! TAKE THAT!! BLARGH!! OMG!!!"

Desperate Leftists: Beverly Hills Liberal Donald Sterling Is 'Registered Republican' OMG! TAKE THAT!! BLARGH!! OMG!!!

OMG this is hilarious!

Desperate, depraved and deluded leftists have "proved" that racist Democrat Donald Sterling's actually a "registered Republican."

And how do we know? Well, for one thing idiot leftists have been swarming my Twitter feed today, attempting to flay me with OMG! RACIST!! REPUBLICAN!!! taunting neener-neener tweets for hours.

Here's the big "gotcha" post from some brainless leftist at Mother Jones, "Donald Sterling Is a Registered Republican." If you follow the links, you can go to the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters and plug in Sterling's information --- and up pops search results that claim the Clippers owner is a "registered Republican"!!

Who knows what party he's registered with, really? Maybe he registered Republican when he was depressed a few years and never punched a single ticket for a GOP candidate? He's had loads of legal and marital problems. He's been sued for his Democrat "plantation style" racism before. And only changed his registration to Republican in 2008? Maybe the far-left Democrat primaries that year --- with all the attendant collectivist, confiscatory socialist proposals --- freaked him out like he was going to lose his assets.

Whatever. That fact is, as I've been saying for days now, Sterling's a dyed-in-the-wool far-left Beverly Hills liberal of the first order. All --- and I mean all --- of his political campaign finance contributions have been to Democrat candidates, and not just "25 years ago" like the loser leftists are screaming until the cows come home.

Indeed, Jaime Fuller at the Washington Post, has a beautiful rundown of Sterling's political giving to far-left Democrats and liberal environmental causes:

Although Sterling is a registered Republican he has supported Democratic candidates in the past. He gave $5,000 to Gray Davis' gubernatorial campaign in 2002, and $1,000 in support of a group pushing for Proposition 2 in 2008, which sought to give farm animals larger living quarters. He gave another $1,000 to Davis in 1991, a year when he also gave $1,000 to Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy. In 1989, he gave $2,000 to former basketball player and Democratic senator from New Jersey Bill Bradley. If Republicans wanted to go really deep, they could also mention that Sterling attended the wedding of Jeff Greene in 2007, who ran in the 2010 Democratic Senate primaries in Florida -- to disastrous result.

In 2009, the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP gave Sterling a Lifetime Achievement Award, and he won the NAACP Presidents Award in 2008. His 2009 award coincided with Baylor's lawsuit. The NAACP chapter's president told the Los Angeles Times, "We can't speak to the allegations, but what we do know is that for the most part [Sterling] has been very, very kind to the minority youth community." He was scheduled to receive another Lifetime Achievement Award this week, but the chapter changed its mind.

Typically, WaPo's Fuller draws unsubstantiated conclusions when she closes by arguing, "What does all of this say about Sterling's political affiliation?"

Actually, we can say a lot about Sterling's "political affiliation" from the information she's provided. I mean, seriously. Sterling gave "$1,000 in support of a group pushing for Proposition 2 in 2008"?

Right. Well, according to Ballotpedia, "Proposition 2, or the Standards for Confining Farm Animals, was on the November 4, 2008 ballot in California as an initiated state statute, where it was approved."

Oh, Prop. 2 was on the ballot in November 2008, six months after Sterling supposedly registered for the "Republican" primary? Again, Sterling was probably depressed and registered in the GOP primary without a second thought. But when it comes to making political donations, well money talks, as they say. And what "group" did Sterling support with that $1000 contribution? Fuller doesn't say, but Ballotpedia lists Proposition 2's major sponsors, which lists like a who's who of far-left interest group organizations:

The YES! on Prop 2 campaign was run by Californians for Humane Farms, sponsored by The Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, and other animal protection groups, family farmers, veterinarians and public health professionals.

Joe Ramsey was the official sponsor of the initiative. In addition to humane societies and animal welfare groups, the measure was also backed by the California Veterinary Medical Association, the Center for Food Safety, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Consumer Federation of America, Clean Water Action, the Sierra Club, the United Farm Workers, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Proposition 2 was also endorsed by several politicians, including the California Democratic Party and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Jennifer Fearing was the campaign manager for the "Yes on Prop 2" campaign...

OMG! totally Republican or something!!

Radical leftist Jennifer Fearing is the California Senior State Director for the Humane Society of the United States. And here's the list of Prop. 2's far-left supporters, including the California Democrat Party.

But TOTALLY MAN! Donald Sterling is really a "registered Republican" OMG!! BLARGH! RACIST!!!

LMFAO: Racist Clippers Owner Is Far, Far Left #Dem About to Be Given NAACP Lifetime Achievement Award http://t.co/cUUgsxBhvx via @PatDollard
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) April 27, 2014

.@Stinarichard OMG! It's Westside L.A. LOL! It's veritable liberal land ROTFLMFAO. But don't change. Reality is hard, lol!
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) April 27, 2014

The truth is that the racist Clippers owner is a classic, typically far-left liberal from L.A.'s typically progressive westside.

Desperate leftists can take that to the bank the idiot losers.

Scapegoating the Koch brothers

I'm surprised the editors at LAT even published this letter, much less at the top of the letters section. From yesterday's paper, "Letters: Scapegoating the Koch brothers":

Re "In campaigns, Democrats target Kochs," April 4.

So the mudslinging begins.

Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch are no more guilty of buying influence or pushing a partisan agenda than are George Soros, big labor, the Hollywood elites or any number of others who wish to advance the Democratic Party's agenda.

In any case, why are the Democrats so worried about the Koch brothers? Is their collective memory so short that they've forgotten that President Obama raised and spent more than $1 billion in the 2012 election, and that he has twice eschewed public financing because of the restrictions it would impose on his own fundraising efforts?

W. Adrian Sauvageot
Tustin

More.

Donald Trump Pledges to Spend Whatever It Takes for 2016 Presidential Bid

Donald Trump's like a circus barker, but if it was between him and the Democrat-Socialists it'd be no choice.

And he's willing to spend $500 million? Man, that's mind-boggling.

At ABC News, "Donald Trump: Sen. Ted Cruz ‘Perhaps Not’ Eligible for White House ‘If’ Born in Canada."



More at Scared Monkeys, "Donald Trump Warns GOP at Family Leadership Summit in Iowa … Immigration Bill (Amnesty) “Could Be a Death Wish’ for Republican Party”." (Via Memeorandum.)

How Romney Lost

There are all kinds of reasons for Romney's defeat, and I'm sure most folks have their own theories (I don't think Romney ran an effective campaign, personally), but this report's fascinating, at WSJ, "How Race Slipped Away From Romney":

BOSTON—Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest men ever to run for president. And yet the lack of money earlier this year stalled his campaign, and he never really recovered.

The GOP nominee emerged late last spring from a long and bruising Republican primary season more damaged than commonly realized. His image with voters had eroded as he endured heavy attacks from Republicans over his business record. He also felt compelled to take a hard line on immigration—one that was the subject of debate among his advisers—that hurt his standing with Hispanic voters.

More than that, Mr. Romney had spent so much money winning the nomination that he was low on cash; aides, seeing the problem taking shape, had once considered accepting federal financing for the campaign rather than rely on private donations.

The campaign's fate led on Wednesday to second-guessing and recriminations among Republicans chagrined that a seemingly winnable race slipped away. Some Republicans wondered whether the Romney campaign had misjudged the power of President Barack Obama's coalition, while others were questioning Mr. Romney's and the party's approach to immigration.

Back in spring, the Romney campaign's biggest worry was money. So the campaign's finance chair, Spencer Zwick, huddled with political director Rich Beeson to craft a complex schedule that took Mr. Romney to the cities that were prime real estate for fundraising.

It meant visits to places like California, Texas and New York—none of which were important political battlegrounds—while only allowing for quick side trips to swing states that Mr. Romney would need to win to become president.

On one level the strategy worked: Mr. Romney ultimately garnered some $800 million or more, putting him in close competition with Mr. Obama's robust fundraising effort.

But Mr. Romney paid a deep political price. The fundraising marathon reduced his ability to deliver his own message to voters just as the Obama campaign was stepping in to define the Republican candidate on its terms. Mr. Romney's heavy wooing of conservative donors limited his ability to move his campaign positions to the center, to appeal to moderate and independent donors.

The search for cash led him to a Florida mansion for a private fundraiser where Mr. Romney would make the deeply damaging, secretly recorded remarks where he disparaged and dismissed the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes.

In the end, Mr. Romney lost nearly every swing state. Other factors contributed to his defeat, of course, including difficulty making voters warm to him and a dearth of support among Hispanics.

But in the eyes of top aides in both campaigns, that early summer period when Mr. Romney was busy fundraising was perhaps the biggest single reason he lost the election.

The Obama campaign spent heavily while Mr. Romney couldn't, launched a range of effective attacks on the Republican nominee and drove up voters' negative perceptions of Mr. Romney.

The problem: Mr. Romney had burned through much of his money raised for the primaries, and by law, he couldn't begin spending his general-election funds until he accepted the GOP nomination late in the summer.

The money crunch didn't totally take the Romney camp by surprise. Long before Mr. Romney secured the nomination, his closest advisers began plotting what it would cost to wage an effective campaign against Mr. Obama in the general election. Mr. Zwick, his finance chief, assumed the best way to handle cash needs would be to raise money from private donors, rather than accept the public financing the government offers presidential candidates, advisers said.

Mr. Zwick looked at fundraising markets in every state and sketched out a schedule for Mr. Romney, his wife Ann, and his yet-to-be-named running mate. He decided the payoff from fundraising was worth the investment of the candidate's time. Analytical decisions like that one were the campaign's mantra. In interviews, staffers called it the "Bain way."

In August, when Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan was announced as Mr. Romney's vice presidential pick, Mr. Ryan's fundraising schedule was released the same day: 10 events by the end of the month.

Mr. Romney's finance team was vigilant in its efforts to ensure fundraising jaunts would be worth his time. Every other month the campaign's state finance chairmen met for a roughly four-hour meeting with Romney staffers. During the meeting, fundraisers had to stand in front of their peers and report whether they had hit their fundraising target.

Keep in mind, while Romney was struggling, the Democrats were simultaneously running ads in those very swing states, hammering the GOP nominee as a greedy, rapacious capitalist downsizing jobs and destroying middle class prosperity. Places like Ohio were inundated with these attacks. The progressives lied ruthlessly. It was unrelenting, merciless, and literally evil in its single-minded focus on character assassination. Romney wasn't ready for it. I wrote about some of Romney's problems in September, but I had no idea about the money deficits.

Corruption: Exposing Barack Obama's Illegal Foreign Campaign Money Loophole

From Katie Pavlich, at Townhall:

A new report obtained by Townhall from the non-partisan Government Accountability Institute [GAI] shows the Obama campaign has potentially violated federal election law by failing to prevent the use of fraudulent or foreign credit card transactions on the official Obama for America [OFA] donation webpage.

For the past eight months, GAI has been investigating the potential influence of foreign online campaign donations in House, Senate and presidential elections. The report was conducted using spidering software and found thousands of foreign sites linking to campaign donation pages. The investigation was conducted with the guidance of a former U.S. attorney. GAI is led by Peter Schweizer, who recently exposed congressional insider trading in his book Throw Them All Out.

“As FBI surveillance tapes have previously shown, foreign governments understand and are eager to exploit the weaknesses of American campaigns,” the report says. “This, combined with the Internet’s ability to disintermediate campaign contributions on a mass scale, as well as outmoded and lax Federal Election Commission rules, make U.S. elections vulnerable to foreign influence.”

OFA seems to be taking advantage of a “foreign donor loophole” by not using CVV on their campaign donation page. When you donate online to the Obama campaign using a credit card, the contribution webpage does not require donors to enter a secure CVV number (also known as CSC, CVV2 or CVN), the three-digit securing code on the back of credit cards. This code, although not 100 percent effective, is used to ensure a person making a purchase physically possesses the card. According to the report, 90 percent of e-commerce and 19 of the 20 largest charities in the United States use a CVV code, making its use standard industry practice in order to prevent fraud. Another anti-fraud security measure includes software, better known as an Address Verification System, to verify a donor’s address matches the address on file with the credit card company. The investigation could not determine whether OFA is using this type of software to prevent fraudulent or illegal donations.

Hmm...

Sounds familiar. I wonder where I've heard this story before?

Oh yeah: "Obama’s Fundraising Fraud."

Maybe the dead-tree press will do something about it this year? You know, like reporting it.

There's more from Pavlich at the link.

I'm not holding my breath. The FEC never goes after campaign finance fraud. The system's a joke.

Paul Ryan, Fundraising Powerhouse

I didn't know this about Ryan, and it says more about scaling the heights inside the Congress than anything else. Although the major corporate backing for the GOP ticket is a huge plus.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Paul Ryan runs well-oiled fundraising machine":

WASHINGTON — Rep. Paul D. Ryan has cultivated his "affable wonk" persona into an effective moneymaker, winning over CEOs and K Street lobbyists to build a fundraising machine that has boosted his standing on Capitol Hill and helped make him one of the GOP's most influential figures.

In 2002, the Wisconsin congressman established a so-called leadership PAC, a fund that allows him to raise money to give to other lawmakers, but the fund did little until 2006, when he began his rapid rise in the House Republican hierarchy. That year, Ryan's PAC distributed $322,000 to Republicans, a 607% increase in giving from the cycle before, according to the nonpartisan campaign finance group Center for Responsive Politics.

After the 2006 election, Ryan, who is now the GOP vice presidential candidate, became the top Republican on the House Budget Committee.

"Part of what you do when you're a member of Congress who has ambitions and wants to become committee chair is you start raising money and you start giving money to your colleagues," said Steve Northrup, a Republican healthcare lobbyist who has hosted several Ryan fundraisers.

"You can't divorce that from his personality and his smarts," Northrup added.

The high-profile post and the exposure it has brought has helped Ryan raise even more, which, in turn, has allowed him to cement ties to his congressional allies. In this election cycle, he has brought in $8.5 million to his campaign account and political action committee combined. Of that, Ryan still has more than $6 million in the bank, a notably high reserve compared with his congressional colleagues.

The PAC so far has given more than $539,000 to Republican candidates and lawmakers, a figure that ranks among the top 10 leadership PACs in contributions to federal candidates, alongside prolific congressional fundraisers Reps. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).

"Even the most idealistic members of Congress realize that the way to power is to raise money and to spread it around to your colleagues," said David Donnelly, executive director of Public Campaign Action Fund, a campaign finance reform group. Ryan "certainly learned that early on."

Ryan has become one of the most requested fundraising surrogates for House Republicans. And he has invested in a multimillion-dollar direct mail campaign that has bolstered his name recognition and given his finance network a national scope.

RTWT.

VIDEO CREDIT: The Other McCain, "Paul Ryan in Roanoke, Virginia: ‘This is President Obama’s Imaginary Recovery’."

Michelle Malkin at Defending the American Dream Summit

Check the video at Gateway Pundit, "Michelle Malkin Brings Down the Roof at AFP Defending the American Dream Summit (Video)."

Plus, "BREAKING: Hating Breitbart & Gateway Pundit to Make Major Announcement at AFP Event Saturday."

It might have something to do with this, at The Hill, "Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity plan $24M swing-state ad buy." I like "Koch-backed." That adds a nice touch of conspiracy.

Glenn Reynolds Talks to David Horowitz About His New Book, The New Leviathan: How the Left-Wing Money-Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America’s Future

I've been actually skeptical about Horowitz's new book, The New Leviathan: How the Left-Wing Money-Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America's Future. It's a good thing to expose the left, but the solutions to the progressive money machine end up sounding like the solutions the left proposes to silence the so-called right-wing money machine: to stanch the flow of money in politics, especially corporate money. Horowitz, however, is focusing on non-profits, which set up tax-exempt charitable organizations under IRS rules. At the clip below Horowitz advocates legislative changes, but that's going to affect both sides, potentially limiting conservative non-profits from advocating for political causes. So it's a balancing thing, and I sense the remedy is worse than the disease, as awful as it is.

Part of the first chapter is available at the Amazon page, and it's a familiar story about the stealth power of institutional progressivism. And this reminds me of the old saw about political money: if you dam up the river the water eventually backs up and bubbles over, finding a way to keep flowing. When the McCain-Feingold Act banned soft money contributions to parties, the 501(c) charities took off as a new big money vehicle, because some of the activities could be directed to political advocacy. What Horowitz is calling for is a new round of political finance regulation. At the clip he mentions that Planned Parenthood ran ads in Wisconsin, warning about the impact of Scott Walker's agenda on abortion rights. Okay. But the ad cited was placed by Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin, which is a 501(c)(4) organization promoting political action. And what happened? They lost. Scott Walker defeated all the unions and the progressive interest groups like Planned Parenthood. That is, progressives got their money out there in a big way --- they were not out-funded by conservatives, as the lying hacks on MSNBC claimed --- but still lost in the marketplace of ideas. My sense is that for all the worry about this huge leftist money machine, Horowitz has lost his confidence. The best remedy is to get the facts out there and rebut the left's charitable institutions, not shut them down.

So again, that's why I'm skeptical of the basic outlines of the book, but check back with me when I've read the whole thing.

In any case, via Instapundit:

ADDED: Instapundit links. Thanks!

Despite Months of Negative Ads, Voters Not Buying Obama's Dishonest Attacks on Mitt Romney

Hey Dems, your despicable anti-capitalist attacks aren't working.

The Weekly Standard has it, "New York Times/CBS Poll: Romney 47, Obama 46."

And from the Times, "Poll Shows Economic Fears Undercutting Obama Support" (via Memeorandum):

Declining confidence in the nation’s economic prospects appears to be the most powerful force influencing voters as the presidential election gears up, undercutting key areas of support for President Obama and helping give his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, an advantage on the question of who would better handle the nation’s economic challenges, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Despite months of negative advertising from Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies seeking to define Mr. Romney as out of touch with the middle class and representative of wealthy interests, the poll shows little evidence of any substantial nationwide shift in attitudes about Mr. Romney.

But with job growth tailing off since spring and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, wondering aloud whether the labor market is “stuck in the mud,” the poll showed a significant shift in opinion about Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy, with 39 percent now saying they approved and 55 percent saying they disapproved.

In the Times/CBS poll in April, when the economy seemed to be gaining momentum, 44 percent approved and 48 percent disapproved.

For all of the Washington chatter that Mr. Romney’s campaign has seemed off-kilter amid attacks on his tenure at Bain Capital and his unwillingness to release more of his tax returns, the poll shows that the race remains essentially tied, with 45 percent saying they would vote for Mr. Romney if the election were held now and 43 percent saying they would vote for Mr. Obama.

Including voters who lean toward a particular candidate, Mr. Romney has 47 percent to Mr. Obama’s 46 percent.

Continue reading.

And the raw data are here, "Results of The New York Times/CBS Poll."

Nearly two-thirds of respondents say the country's on the wrong track (64 percent). Fourty-four percent approve of Obama's job performance, and just 39 percent approve of the president's economic performance (55 percent disapprove). Seventy-three percent think the economy is fairly bad (39 percent) or very bad (32 percent). All of this is bad for Obama, as incumbents whose public approval numbers fall below 50 percent are not reelected.

Historically, the best predictor of a president’s re-election chances has been approval rating. Since World War II, every president with an approval rating at least a few points above 50 percent has won re-election. Every president with a rating clearly below 50 percent has lost.

That said, these are national polling numbers, and the election's going to come down to the decisions across a few battleground states. While the Times survey has some danger warnings for Romney, the race is essentially tied. As always, the trick will be for Romney to deflect the left's unscrupulous smears and regain the narrative.

RELATED: At the Washington Times, "In Ohio, fired-up Romney pledges to 'fight for soul of America'."

Sarah Silverman Offers Financier Sheldon Adelson 'Traditional Lesbian Sex' if He Gives $100 Million to Barack Obama

You have to admit, Obama's fundraising is lacking.

ABC News reports, "Comedian Sarah Silverman's 'Indecent' Political Proposal to Romney-Backer Adelson."

And the Hollywood Gossip has the unedited video clip, which is NSFW, "Sarah Silverman Makes Indecent Proposal to Sheldon Adelson."

And anti-Zionist Peter Beinart must think this reflects badly on the Jewish community (something of which he'd know about), at the Daily Beast, "Where Sarah Silverman Goes Wrong."


RELATED: At The Other McCain, "The Democrat Agenda 2012":

Far be it from me to be intolerant or judgmental, you understand, but when I check Memeorandum and see a story like this . . .

Web campaign targets Romney’s ‘extreme anti-LGBT agenda’
A pair of liberal super PACs are teaming up on a new Web campaign that accuses Mitt Romney of advancing an “extreme anti-LGBT agenda” that would make life worse for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans.

More at that link.

It's the Rocky Horror demographic.

Barack Obama's Stealth Money Operation Inside Bain Capital (VIDEO)

This is a big story, first reported in May, but back in the news as bloggers hammer Obama's epic hypocrisy.

See Gateway Pundit, "Oops!… Obama’s Top Bundler Jonathan Lavine Was In Charge of Bain During GST Steel Layoffs" (via Memeorandum), and Kerry Picket, at the Washington Times, "Obama bundler at Bain opens Obama camp to more criticism from Dems over Bain attacks."

And Jim Geraghty had this yesterday, "Obama: $34,250 in Donations from Bain Employees This Cycle":

Each time an Obama apologist tells you that Bain Capital is the root of all evil in the economy, remind them that President Obama has accepted $34,250 from employees of Bain Capital so far this cycle.

Most of the donors are senior executives who were with Bain when it made all of those allegedly controversial decisions from 1999 to 2002 that the Obama campaign is so focused upon.

Obama’s donors include managing director Joshua Bekenstein (at Bain since it began, including the Romney years); chief compliance officer Alan Halfenger; managing director & chief investment officer Jonathan Lavine (an Obama “bundler” of large donations from multiple donors), who has been with Bain since 1993; managing director Seth Meisel (began in 1999); managing director Mark Nunnelly (began in 1993); managing director Stephen Pagliuca (began in 1989); deputy general counsel Ranesh Ramanathan; and managing director Ted Berk (joined in 1997).

Of the above, Halfenger, Lavine, Meisel, Nunnelly, Pagliuca, and Ramanathan have donated the legal maximum of $5,000; two separate payments of $2,500 to Obama’s primary and general-election campaigns.

Jonathan Lavine is still at Bain. He's listed as a Managing Director & Chief Investment Officer."

And the Bain homepage staff listings are here.

The video above ran at CNN about six weeks ago. See: "Bain employees donate $ to Obama camp," and "Bain employees may have paid for TV ads bashing the company."

More at NewsBusters, "CNN Examines Obama's Donations From Bain Employees – But How Much Have They Actually Reported on It?":

Obama raised almost $125,000 from Bain Capital employees, including three who gave the maximum amount of cash the law allows. One of the donors was even helping the campaign raise money from other sources. "$125,000 is a lot of money from people who work at a company the Obama campaign and its allies vilify," Bash pointed out.

It is one thing for Obama to be a hypocrite by knocking Romney and Bain Capital while raising money from the financial sector and from the head of a private equity firm. It is an even bigger story, however, if he railed against Bain's practices and yet raised money directly from Bain employees. That is exactly what Bash reported, and yet that story has been largely – if not entirely – ignored by CNN.

Although CNN questioned the Obama campaign's attack ad on Romney and Bain, which first aired May 14, they did not report his donations from Bain employees in the hours after the ad broke.

Well, the bloggers are back on the story now. And CNN's actually been doing some solid reporting on the Bain lies this last week, so we'll see how it goes.

More at Memeorandum.

Who Is Elizabeth Warren? Sean Hannity Covers Massachusetts Senate Race

Let me recommend folks go over to the full Fox New video here.

Michelle Fields is easier to look at than the screen image of Elizabeth Warren at Fox's upload, ha!

And compare Hannity's segment to competition's: "MSNBC's Chris Matthews Interviews Elizabeth Warren: Completely Ignores 'Fauxcahontas' Scandal, Offers to Help 'Minority' Candidate Instead."

MSNBC's Chris Matthews Interviews Elizabeth Warren: Completely Ignores 'Fauxcahontas' Scandal, Offers to Help 'Minority' Candidate Instead

It's not like Matthews is in the tank, or anything.

This is the full interview, but at 3:45 minutes Matthews exclaims, "Let me help you on this. I, as a journalist, can help you...":

RELATED: From Anne Sorock at Legal Insurrection, "Should Elizabeth Warren be in “cultural appropriation” exhibit at Brown Univ. museum?" And here's William at LI, "Were charges of “scientific misconduct” against Elizabeth Warren ever fully vetted?", and "Native American Harvard alumna and lifelong Dem accuses Elizabeth Warren of “ethnic fraud”."

BONUS: At Big Government, "The Academic Scandal Elizabeth Warren and Harvard Don't Want You to Know About."

Chris Matthews doesn't want us to know about it either --- he doesn't want folks to know anything about Elizabeth Warren. Man, what a waste of cable air time. That is definitely not journalism. I'm shaking my head in disgust as I write this.

Linked by An Ex-Con's View. Thanks!

Ezra Levant on Abolishing Canada's Section 13 Human Rights Commission

A follow up to my previous entry: "Tories Set to Repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act."

This is amazing:

Also at Maclean's, "The Internet hates Section 13."

Tories Set to Repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

A victory for freedom of speech in Canada.

At the National Post, "Tories repeal sections of Human Rights Act banning hate speech over telephone or Internet." And see Jonathan Kay, "Good riddance to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act":

Five years ago, during testimony in the case of Warman v. Lemire, Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) investigator Dean Steacy was asked “What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?” His response: “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.”

Those words produced outrage. But there was a grain of truth to what Mr. Steacy said: For decades, Canadians had meekly submitted to a system of administrative law that potentially made de facto criminals out of anyone with politically incorrect views about women, gays, or racial and religious minority groups. All that was required was a complainant (often someone with professional ties to the CHRC itself) willing to sign his name to a piece of paper, claim he was offended, and then collect his cash winnings at the end of the process. The system was bogus and corrupt. But very few Canadians wanted to be seen as posturing against policies that were branded under the aegis of “human rights.”

That was then. Now, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the enabling legislation that permits federal human-rights complaints regarding “the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet,” is doomed. On Wednesday, the federal Conservatives voted to repeal it on a largely party-line vote — by a margin of 153 to 136 — through a private member’s bill introduced by Alberta Conservative MP Brian Storseth. Following royal assent, and a one-year phase-in period, Section 13 will be history....

Till the middle part of the last decade, the Canadian punditariat was dominated by professional columnists who were socially, ideologically, and sometimes professionally, beholden to the academics, politicians, and old-school activists (from Jewish groups, in particular) who’d championed the human-rights industry since its inception in the 1960s. But in the latter years of Liberal governance, a vigorous network of right-wing bloggers, led by Ezra Levant, began publicizing the worst abuses of human-rights mandarins, including the aforementioned Dean Steacy. In absolute numbers, the readership of their blogs was small at first. But their existence had the critical function of building up a sense of civil society among anti-speech-code activists, who gradually pulled the mainstream media along with them. In this sense, Mr. Levant deserves to be recognized as one of the most influential activists in modern Canadian history.

And at Blazing Cat Fur, "Mark Steyn: Re-Education Camp."