Elizabeth Warren Rakes in Millions from Wall Street

I thought Elizabeth Warren was all about transparency. We are all still waiting for her to file the required financial disclosure form.

The Oklahoma Professor has been criticizing Scott Brown for being “Wall Street’s favorite Senator.” She has also denounced “Wall Street cash in politics.”

But it turns out she may be indirectly accepting Wall Street money. The Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is helping the Harvard Professor, has taken over $40 million from Wall Street during the last 7 years according to records from OpenSecrets.org. In fact, Wall Street is the biggest contributors to them. They beat lawyers and labor union. Just during this election season the DSCC has already received $1.5 million from Wall Street.

If Lizzy Warden is truly opposed to Wall Street money, then shouldn’t she reject the DSCC’s money? Otherwise she is just using the DSCC to funnel in Wall Street money.

Sheriff Arpaio announces re-election bid in Arizona

Most people know him simply as “Sheriff Joe” – the self-proclaimed toughest lawman in the United States. And, apparently, the five-term boss of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in Phoenix wants another four years.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio formally announced his re-election campaign Thursday, boasting a record $6 million war chest and promising to “continue to protect the citizens of Maricopa County by enforcing all the laws.” That would include immigration law that has gotten the sheriff and his department crosswise with the Justice Department in Washington.

“It is an honor and a privilege to serve as sheriff of Maricopa County,” said the embattled 79-year-old sheriff, who had considered a run for the U.S. Senate seat in Arizona being vacated by Republican Sen. Jon Kyl but determined “there was still much work to do as sheriff.”

Despite recent criticism and “brazen political stunts” carried out by his perennial detractors, he said he remained committed to serving as sheriff by “unapologetically enforcing the rule of law and being tough on crime.”

Being tough on crime, particularly illegal immigrants, has gotten the attention of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, which last month accused the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in a scathing Justice Department report of violating federal law and the Constitution in its handling of Hispanics arrested and held in jail.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, who heads the department’s Civil Rights Division, said during a Dec. 15 news conference that a three-year civil investigation found that the sheriff and his deputies engaged in unconstitutional conduct and violations of federal law that jeopardized his “commitment to fair and effective” law enforcement.

The investigation resulted in a decision by Homeland Security to strip Sheriff Arpaio and his deputies of their authority to determine whether jailed inmates were in the country illegally and restricted the office’s use of a federal fingerprint program to identify illegal immigrants.

The sheriff’s office is expected to respond to the Justice Department report by Jan. 18. A separate federal grand jury investigation of the office also is continuing.

Read more here.

Why Hating Jews Is Becoming So Popular

For the first time since the end of World War II, classic anti-Semitic tropes – “the Jews” control the world and are to blame for everything that goes wrong, including the financial crisis; “The Jews killed Christian children in order to use the blood to bake matza; the Holocaust never happened – are becoming acceptable and legitimate subjects for academic and political discussion.

To understand why these absurd and reprehensible views, once reserved for the racist fringes of academia and politics, are moving closer to the mainstream, consider the attitudes of two men, one an academic, the other a politician, toward those who express or endorse such bigotry. The academic is Prof. Brian Leiter. The politician is Ron Paul.

You’ve probably never heard of Leiter. He’s a relatively obscure professor of jurisprudence, who is trying to elevate his profile by publishing a gossipy blog about law school professors. He is a colleague of John Mearsheimer, a prominent and world famous professor at the University of Chicago.

Several months ago Mearsheimer enthusiastically endorsed a book, really a pamphlet, that included all the classic anti-Semitic tropes.

It was titled The Wandering Who and written by Gilad Atzmon, a British version of Louisiana’s David Duke, who plays the saxophone and has no academic connections. Atzmon writes that we must take “very seriously” the claim that “the Jewish people are trying to control the world.”

He calls the recent credit crunch “the Zio punch.” He says “the Holocaust narrative” doesn’t make “historical sense” and expresses doubt that Auschwitz was a death camp. He invites students to accept the “accusations of Jews making matza out of young goyim’s blood.”

Books and pamphlets of this sort are written every day by obscure anti-Semites and published by disreputable presses that specialize in this kind of garbage.

No one ever takes notice, except for neo-Nazis around the world who welcome any additions to the literature of hate. What is remarkable about the publication of this hateful piece of anti-Semitic trash, is that it was enthusiastically endorsed by two prominent American professors, John Mearsheimer and Richard Falk, who urged readers, including students, to read, “reflect upon” and “discuss widely” the themes of Atzmon’s book.

Never before has any such book received the imprimatur of such established academics. I was not shocked by these endorsements, because I knew that both of these academics had previously crossed red lines, separating legitimate criticism of Israel from subtle anti-Semitism.

Mearsheimer has accused American Jews of dual loyalty, and Falk has repeatedly compared Israel to Nazi Germany. Both were so enthusiastic about Atzmon’s anti-Zionism – he has written that Israel is “worse” than the Nazis – that they were prepared to give him a pass on his classic blood libel anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. No great surprise there.

What was surprising – indeed shocking – was the fact that Mearsheimer’s relatively apolitical colleague, Brian Leiter, rushed to Mearsheimer’s defense. Without bothering to read Atzmon’s book, Leiter pronounced that Atzmon’s “positions [do not mark him] as an anti-Semite [but rather as] cosmopolitan.”

Leiter also certified that Atzmon “does not deny the Holocaust or the gas chambers.”

Had Leiter read the book, he could not have made either statement.

Atzmon himself credits “a man who… was an anti-Semite” for “many of [his] insights” and calls himself a “self-hating Jew” who has contempt for “the Jew in me.”

If that’s not an admission of anti-Semitism, rather than “cosmopolitanism,” I don’t know what is. As far as the Holocaust is concerned, Atzmon asserts that it is not “an historical narrative.”

And as for the gas chambers, he doubts that the “Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz- Birkanau.”

Leiter went so far as to condemn those who dared to criticize Mearsheimer for endorsing Atzmon’s book, calling their criticism “hysterical” and not “advance[ing] honest intellectual discourse.” And he defended Mearsheimer’s endorsement as “straight forward.”

Read more here.

Planned Parenthood: Murdered 329,455 babies in 2009-2010

The First Church of Planned Parenthood, one of Barack Obama’s favorite government-funded religious organizations, released its annual report for fiscal year 2009-2010. Compliments of the American taxpayer, the President’s beloved charity received $487.4 million in tax monies and used a portion of that money to legally deny 329,455 human beings the right to be born.

The report states that Planned Parenthood received “government health services grants and reimbursements” totaling $487.4 million. In 2010, that is equivalent to 308,745,538 American citizens contributing $1.58 apiece to subsidize the running of a left-wing slaughterhouse.

What exactly does that $1.58 pay for? In “2006, Planned Parenthood did 289,750 abortions; in 2007, it did 305,210; in 2009, it did 221,796; and in 2010, it did 329,4445.” Thus, the latest annual report indicates a five-year growth of 14% in the number of the abortions performed at Planned Parenthood clinics across America.

In 2010 there was a life saving -0.71% decrease from the prior year. Meaning, that year afew thousand individuals escaped the red biohazard bag, but not because the organization’s adoption referrals went up. Quite the contrary – based on the report, referrals advising mothers to let the baby live went down 82.8% since fiscal year 2007-2008.

Instead of counseling women to choose life and magnanimously surrender an unwanted child to a loving home, between 2006 and 2010 the number of abortions increased. Moreover, the atrocious procedure was paid for with an increase in funds collected from the nation’s majority who, according to Gallup, “believe abortion is morally wrong [and that] legal access to it should be restricted.”

Speaking on behalf of Planned Parenthood, one spokesperson admitted, “90 percent of government funding the organization gets is from the federal government or from Medicaid.”

In other words, the government, headed up by the most pro-choice President in American history, could care less whether the nation is opposed to the disposal of pre-born infants. Obama’s all for funding it anyway.

Against the will of the majority, the President not only sanctions the use of tax dollars to support the reprehensible, but couched in the hidden crevices of Obamacare is wording which indicates that, once the law is implemented, further abortion funding will be available. Thus, if Obama is reelected and the Affordable Health Care Act is not repealed, the only patients seeing a doctor of their choice will be those visiting a physician whose practice is located in a federally-funded abortion clinic.

In the meantime, Planned Parenthood defends its abortion mill status by saying that abortion services only make up 3% of the “medical services” they so generously provide. The organization claimed to offer services to 3 million women in 2010, 329,445 of whom received an abortion. Simple math indicates that that’s about an 8% error in the Planned Parenthood abortion-versus-medical services equation.

As a point of reference on how many human beings the federal government assisted Planned Parenthood in eliminating last year, think: New Orleans, population 343,829; St. Louis, 319,294; and Pittsburgh, population 305,704, with Corpus Christi close behind at 305,215.

In fact, Pittsburgh is the western Pennsylvania city where concerned citizens rallied on behalf of an organization that wiped out a number greater than their entire populace in one year. If Planned Parenthood had concentrated their “medical services” efforts solely in Pittsburgh, and if the timing was right, there could have been fewer marchers carrying pink signs in the pro-Planned Parenthood parade.

Nevertheless, it’s important for Americans to realize that in many parts of the country it’s prohibited to express faith or patriotism by praying in the public square, saying Merry Christmas at work, or wearing an American flag T-shirt to school on Cinco De Mayo day.

Yet abortion, an act of violence heartily endorsed by Barack Obama, is regularly performed on an altar maintained by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Thus, every time those who oppose abortion pay federal income tax, they’re placing a small contribution in the collection plate and being forced to participate in a federally-funded, religiously-pursued assault on the sanctity of life.

Obama to Destroy Our Military in Order to Hurt Republicans

President Barack Obama’s proposal to dramatically reduce the size of the U.S. military has to do with more than high blown strategic considerations. More than budget-cutting. More than the old liberal bias against the military. Slashing the size of the nation’s armed forces — to the tune of half a million soldiers — strikes at a cohort that tends to vote Republican. So why wouldn’t a Democratic president push cuts that hurt Republicans?

There’s always politics in politics, for the uninitiated. Underlying Mr. Obama’s military strip down are fundamental political calculations.

Gallup reported back in 2009 that military veterans, regardless the age cohort, are inclined to vote Republican. Most veterans didn’t start voting for the GOP after their military service.

There are reasons why the nation’s soldiers lean Republican.

The armed forces provide a culture. Today, particularly, absent a draft, military culture is self-selecting; meaning that there are reasons most young men and women choose to enter military service. Yes, for training, jobs, and careers, but many enlistees come from families that emphasize patriotism, duty, and tradition. Military service is still a draw for these young people despite every effort in recent years by the political class to turn the armed forces into a Petri Dish of politically correct experiments.

Military service reinforces, not diminishes, enlistees’ natural conservatism. And one suspects that those men and women who enter the armed forces less conservative or more liberal leave duty more oriented toward conservative values.

Note well that Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats have fiercely resisted reforms and budget cuts impacting entitlements, welfare, and the size of Washington government (outside the military). Yes, there are philosophical and ideological underpinnings that lead Democrats to want big, nonmilitary government. Yes, since the Vietnam War, Democrats have evinced varying degrees of hostility to the nation’s military.

But the tawdry underbelly of Mr. Obama’s move to slash the budgets and size of the armed forces has to do with votes. His voters are big government beneficiaries. Restructuring entitlements, reforming welfare, and making net reductions to the federal workforce do no favors to Democrats trolling for votes every two years from base constituencies.

So, why not go after that part of the government where there’s the highest concentration of GOP voters? Doing so reduces downsides and risks for the Chicago politics-schooled Mr. Obama and his Democrats.

Mr. Obama’s proposed military cuts permits him to stump for reelection arguing that he’s seeking ways to reduce the size of government. Aren’t most Americans in favor of cutting Washington spending and shrinking government? Mr. Obama will attempt to fend off GOP attacks on his proposal by continuing to argue that a strategic realignment of the military was long overdue… that America’s national defense will be enhanced, not harmed, by a leaner military.

Sound too cynical? Well, politics is a cynical business. One would hope that the president and his party wouldn’t permit political calculations to solely guide their actions regarding the nation’s defense. The hope is that there is an element of authenticity to Mr. Obama’s aim to strategically reposition the military — no matter how much in error his aim is. No one wants to believe that a president would sacrifice the nation’s defense on the altar of cheap political calculations.

But who knows? The nation has long left times where Americans, regardless of political stripe, were united in their support for the military and the imperative of maintaining a second-to-none national defense.

‘More Than Just Sex’: Half-Million Dollar, Taxpayer-Funded Video Graphically Teaches Teens Dangers of ‘Raw-Dogging’