Advance Indiana

Dan Burton Not Seeking Re-Election

2012-01-31T11:17:00.000-05:00

There has been speculation for some time that U.S. Rep. Dan Burton didn't really intend to seek re-election to his seat, but up to now he has steadfastly denied those stories. One of his opponents had recently raised questions about why Burton was campaigning for Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign in Florida but skipping candidate forums for the 5th District congressional candidates attended by his opponents. Today, Burton broke the news that he will not seek re-election, citing a family health problem as the reason for his announcement. From WRTV:

U.S. Rep Dan Burton, who represents Indiana's fifth congressional district, announced his retirement Tuesday morning.

Burton, 73, made the announcement at the Indiana Statehouse, citing a family health problem. He declined to provide details.

Burton, a Republican, who began his career in the U.S. House in 1983, has served 15 terms.

With Burton out of the race, question becomes whether others may decide to enter an already crowded field of candidates. Burton did not endorse any candidates in announcing his withdrawal from the race. Some had speculated that Sen. Mike Delph, a former aide to Burton, might enter the race if Burton chose not to seek re-election. By waiting so late to announce, Burton has left little time for late entrants to enter the race and raise the funds necessary to mount a serious campaign. Former U.S. Rep. David McIntosh, former Marion Co. Coroner John McGoff, former U.S. Attorney Susan Brooks and attorney Jack Lugar have all been campaigning for the job for months. McGoff, who has twice sought to unseat Burton in the primary, has been running nonstop for the job for the past five years.

Howey Politics notes that Sen. Delph was the first to tweet Burton's plan to resign this morning after Delph and Burton's brother, State Rep. Woody Burton, met for coffee this morning at the Marriott Hotel. Burton formally announced his retirement on the floor of the Indiana House of Representatives where he first began his political career many years ago as a state representative. Delph declined to answer a reporter's question about whether he will enter the race. "Today is about Congressman Burton and his service to the state and nation," Delph told Howey.

Daily Caller: Richard Lugar Doesn't Live Here Anymore

2012-01-31T08:06:00.003-05:00

As Secretary of State Charlie White's trial in Hamilton County gets underway, the Daily Caller dares to touch a story none of the media in Indiana will touch: Richard Lugar doesn't live here anymore. Lugar admits to the Daily Caller's Will Rahn (son of former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan) that he sold his only home in Indiana more than 35 years ago and relies on an Attorney General's opinion issued to him in 1982 to claim a registered voting address at his former home as his residence for voting purposes.

Indiana Republican Sen. Richard Lugar is running for re-election in a state he has not lived in for over 30 years.

Lugar sold his home at 3200 Highwoods Court in Indianapolis shortly after first assuming office in 1977. But due to a loophole in Indiana law, both he and his wife Charlene Lugar are still registered to vote at that address . . .

Richard and Charlene Lugar’s drivers’ licenses, Wright found, say they live at 3200 Highwoods Court even though they have lived in the affluent Washington, D.C. suburb of McLean, Va., for decades. And when Sen. Lugar registered to run for president in 1996, he listed Highwoods Court as his address.

A spokesman for Lugar confirmed to TheDC that he has not owned any property in Indiana since 1977, but said it was still perfectly legal for him to live elsewhere while representing the state.

"He does not have a house in Indiana but that is immaterial to this,” the spokesman said. “This has always been his legal residence in terms of voting and for his driver’s license and everything else.”

“The attorney general for the state of Indiana has made rulings on this in the past,” he said.

Indeed, a 1982 letter to Lugar from then-Indiana Attorney General Linley Pearson said that the senator is not required to actually live in the state he represents because he is acting “on business of this state or of the United States.” According to the Indiana constitution, such persons cannot lose their voting rights in the state.

TheDC was unable to verify Monday evening whether this is also the opinion of Indiana’s current Attorney General, Greg Zoeller, or ascertain how the law applies to Sen. Lugar’s wife.

Lugar is unique among Indiana's congressional delegation in his belief that he doesn't have to maintain some type of residence to which he can return in order to vote and maintain his inhabitancy within the state because of some alleged loophole in the law. The U.S. Constitution requires all members of Congress to be inhabitants of their states at the time of their election. Other members of Indiana's congressional delegation at least maintain an apartment in their name at which they can register to vote, obtain a driver's license and register their cars, even if their primary residence is in the nation's capital. The law only protects Lugar from losing his residency in Indiana by living primarily in Washington, a necessity for all members of Congress given the year-round congressional calendar. As I've previously discussed, Lugar has failed the inhabitancy test the last five times he was re-elected to the Senate, and both he and his wife, Charlene, are arguably committing vote fraud by casting votes from an address at which they haven't resided in more than 35 years.

The current occupant of Lugar's home tells the Daily Caller that she was surprised to learn Lugar still claims her home as his residence, but she said it does explain why she still occasionally receives mail addressed to the Lugars.

Lugar’s spokesperson dismissed questions about the senator’s residency as old news that is well known to Indiana’s voters. But the news did come as surprise to Betsy Hughes, the current owner of 3200 Highwoods Court, who did not know Lugar was voting from her address until Wright told her.

“I knew [Lugar] built it,” Hughes told TheDC. “Every now and then we get his mail, and we couldn’t figure out why after all these years we were still getting his mail every now and then. And now we know why.”

“I was surprised, but I was more surprised that no one seemed that interested,” she added.

Hughes, a Republican who has voted for Lugar in the past, said she doesn’t know whether she will vote for him again in the GOP primary, or if his residency situation will impact her decision.

“If it’s illegal then yeah it will make a difference, but if it’s not then he’s within his rights I guess,” she said.

The Daily Caller's story was prompted by a complaint certified fraud examiner Greg Wright filed with the Indiana Election's Division questioning how Lugar and his wife can be registered to vote at a place at which they neither own nor have a possessory interest.

For his part, Wright is concentrating on getting the word out that Lugar no longer lives in Indiana, which he believes to be a genuine scandal.

“It’s just so amazing to me that the elite press has not picked up on this,” Wright said. “It’s just absolutely amazing.”

I'm not sure which is the bigger scandal. The fact that Lugar has been getting by with this for more than 35 years, or that the same news reporters who want to publicly hang Charlie White for voting at his ex-wife's home for a few month period prior to his election as the state's secretary of state don't see a story here.

Rodman Resigning As County Treasurer

2012-01-30T19:17:00.003-05:00

Marion Co. Treasurer Mike Rodman (D) is stepping down tomorrow as county treasurer in order to devote time to caring for an ailing family member. Marion Co. Democratic precinct committeepersons will choose a successor to complete his term. Observers expect the party to pick its slated candidate for the position. Rodman supports the candidacy of his chief deputy, Tom Creasser, to fill his position, but Marion Co. Democratic Party Chairman Ed Treacy is reportedly backing the candidacy of Claudia Fuentes, a late entrant into the race. Fuentes, who works in the Marion Co. Auditor's office, has been telephoning PCs seeking their support. Fuentes' boss, Marion Co. Auditor Billie Breaux, is also supporting her candidacy. Marion Co. Republicans slated Jason Woodruff as their candidate for county treasurer on Saturday. Democrats will hold their slating convention on February 11.

Lugar Raised Another Three-Quarter Million In Fourth Quarter

2012-01-29T20:19:00.001-05:00

Sen. Richard Lugar's campaign for an unprecedented seventh term will report raising more than $761,000 during the fourth quarter of last year. Lugar's campaign raised nearly $3.5 million last year and now has $4 million on hand to spend in his re-election campaign this year.

No word yet on how much his opponent Richard Mourdock's raised during the fourth quarter. Mourdock's campaign had raised less than $800,000 in contributions as of the last reporting period with less than $300,000 on hand.

UPDATE: An observant reader notes a news report over the weekend that indicated Mourdock's campaign will report raising $386,000 during the fourth quarter and have just $290,000 on hand. That's not good news at all. His campaign is spending money as fast as it raises it and lacks the resources needed for an extended media buy that it will need to make prior to the May primary.

Star Discusses Charlie White Case Without Discussing The Law And How It Has Been Applied Differently To Other Politicians

2012-01-29T09:06:00.006-05:00

The Star's Carrie Ritchie has a story this morning telling you a lot about who Charlie White is, the fact that he is facing trial on seven criminal charges arising out of an allegation that he improperly voted at his ex-wife's home for a very brief period of time and that he steadfastly maintains his innocence, but it is devoid of any discussion of the law that would provide any perspective to the newspaper's readers of the oddity of his predicament and why he is justified in believing he is innocent. That would have required a discussion of multiple other prominent Indiana politicians who have and are committing far worse transgressions, if they are to be described that way, than Charlie White is accused of doing.

Sen. Mike Delph and Fishers Town Council President Scott Fautless, to their credit, stood up for White in the story unlike numerous other hypocritical politicians like Gov. Mitch Daniels, who have called for his resignation. Yet Ritchie's story chose not to include the explanation for why Delph believes White is innocent of the charges because that would have meant discussing what other politicians do that is no different than what White did. The close as she comes to addressing the legal issue is a mention by Fautless that White didn't commit theft by drawing a Fishers Town Council salary because he was a "de facto" member of the Town Council who continued to serve his council duties, even if he lived outside his district for a period of a few months.

Many municipalities have local ordinances, for example, requiring their employees to live within the city. An employee discovered to be living outside the city is forced to give up his or her job. No employee has ever been charged with theft for drawing a salary for a job they were performing. Former Indianapolis City-County Councilor Patrice Abduallah used an abandoned home as his registered voting address instead of the address he actually lived outside the district for nearly four years. He was permitted to resign, never repaid any of his salary and faced no criminal charges for his actions.

The fact remains that after a full blown hearing, a bipartisan Recount Commission unanimously concluded White was legally registered to vote at the time of his nomination as secretary of state and, therefore, was eligible to hold the office to which he was elected. The media reacted with scorn to the decision because it was not the outcome they wanted. They reacted with triumph when Marion Co. Circuit Court Judge Louis Rosenberg, a Democrat whose daughter had first made the public case for White's removal from office, when he reversed the Commission's ruling by ignoring decades-old case law on White's side, including the most notable case brought against former Indiana Gov. Evan Bayh. The Star has never bothered to discuss the large holes in Rosenberg's ruling that will likely be overturned by the state's Supreme Court.

I have examined each of the criminal charges brought against White. The grand jury which brought those charges was either totally ignorant of the law or under a complete misapprehension of the law because of misinformation provided to them by an out-of-control special prosecutor determined to bilk the case for all its worth at taxpayers' expense (I believe the latter to be the case). As White pointed out, one of the special prosecutors, Dan Sigler, did the exact same thing as he accused White of doing. In fact, he stopped his work during the middle of the grand jury proceedings to run back home and change his voter registration when it dawned on him that he was asking the grand jury to indict White for the exact same thing he was doing at that very moment--voting at a place other than the place he should have been voting. The media scoffed at White's suggestion that Sigler had violated the law, and the Allen Co. prosecutor refused to investigate the allegations. The media has similarly dismissed allegations White has made against others, including Gov. Mitch Daniels and Sen. Richard Lugar. Daniels lives in a new home that he built in Carmel after being elected as governor, but he is registered to vote at the governor's residence in Indianapolis. Sen. Lugar sold his home in Indianapolis more than 35 years ago but has continued to vote at that same home since despite neither having an ownership nor a possessory interest in it. One of his aides matter-of-factly acknowledged that he stays in hotels when he visits Indiana.

The conspiracy of silence among the media in this state about the total unfairness in the way White has been singled out and turned into a pariah is the real troubling aspect of this story. Nothing surprises me much these days. A court hearing was held in Georgia this past week where unequivocal evidence was offered to the court proving that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and that he is holding office in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Even worse, there was compelling evidence proffered to the court that he was using a dead person's social security number and that he has presented to the public as a an authentic birth certificate one that a number of document experts have concluded is a bad forgery. The national news media completely ignored the hearing or only derisively mentioned it as another "birther" lawsuit. It's sometimes hard to believe this is the United States of America.

Marion County GOP Slating

2012-01-28T13:27:00.006-05:00

Judge Carole Orbison Loses Out In Slating
Marion County Republicans held their slating convention for this year's May primary election this morning at Ben Davis High School. The only contested race was for the ten spots on the Marion Superior Court. Only eleven candidates competed for the ten positions. The losing candidate at today's slating was incumbent Judge Carole Orbison, a criminal court judge on the bench for the past twelve years. Judge Orbison, who was not recommended for re-slating by the party's leadership, pleaded with precinct committeepersons to cast their votes independently and support her re-election. She made no attempt to hide her displeasure with the party leadership's decision not to back her for re-slating. There have been indications Judge Orbison will run in the primary for re-election without the party's backing, as any qualified candidate is eligible to do.

The judicial candidates were each given one minute to address the convention prior to the vote, a time limit that was strictly enforced. Judge Lisa Borges was the only candidate absent for the slating convention. She broke her leg in an automobile accident this past week and was not able to attend. The PCs cast their votes by paper ballot. According to the rules, each ballot had to contain votes for ten of the eleven candidates on the ballot or it would be disregarded. The ten winning candidates won on the first ballot with fewer than 20 votes separating the highest vote-getter from the lowest vote-getter of the winning candidates. The actual number of votes cast for the losing candidate, Judge Orbison, was not announced.

The slated candidates include four new-comers: Helen Marchal, James Joven, Clayton Graham and Amy Jones. The full list of slated candidates include:

Judge Sheila Carlisle
Judge Robert Altice, Jr.
Judge Lisa Borges
Judge Michael Keele
Judge Clark Rogers
Judge William Nelson
Helen Marchal
James Joven
Clayton Graham
Amy Jones

The candidates slated uncontested in other races are as follows:

State Senator:

Sen. Scott Schneider, District 30

Sen. Pat Miller, District 32

Sen. Mike Young, District 35

Sen. Brent Waltz, District 36

State Representative:

Luke Bosso, District 86

Rep. Cindy Noe, District 87

Speaker Brian Bosma, District 88

Rep. Cynthia Kirchhofer, District 89

Rep. Mike Speedy, District 90

Rep. Robert Behning, District 91

Tim Motsinger, District 92

Rep. Dave Frizzell, District 93

AJ Feeney-Ruiz, District 97

Scott Keller, District 100

Marion County Coroner:

Ed Eppler, M.D.

Marion County Treasurer:

Jason Woodruff

Marion County Surveyor:

Jeff Kondy

Super Bowl Celebration Kicks Off

2012-01-28T00:27:00.001-05:00

A very large crowd turned out tonight for the opening of the Super Bowl Village in downtown Indianapolis. A fireworks display kicked off Bret Michael's performance at the Verizon Stage in front of Bankers Life Fieldhouse. The zip line on Capitol Avenue and the light show on the Circle are proving to be popular draws. The heat warmers on Georgia Street work quite well but weren't really needed on a relatively mild night like tonight. Plenty of stations to buy beer, but the price was a little steep. Gubernatorial hopeful Rupert Boneham was spotted working the crowd near the Circle tonight.

How Much Did Ener1 Bust Cost The Taxpayers?

2012-01-27T19:58:00.001-05:00

Despite the Indianapolis Star's attempt to put lipstick on the pig that is Ener1, the electric car battery manufacturer, the use of federal, state and local tax dollars to prop up this private endeavor has turned into one big bust. The company this week filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Star went with reassuring statements from the company that there would be "no layoffs or workforce reductions. Instead, we're told the company will be back on its feet with a reorganization plan already in the works in no time. To get the real story, you had to look outside the state of Indiana. The Chicago Tribune's Julie Wernau provides this more accurate assessment:

The view from inside Think City's plant here is the worst nightmare for politicians betting on electric vehicles to drive job growth: 100 cars, most of them not finished, lined up with no word on their future.

Only two years ago the tiny Think cars (two can fit in a regular parking space) were expected to bring more than 400 jobs to this ailing city and a lifeline to suppliers who once made parts for gas guzzling recreational vehicles.

"We've said we're out to make Indiana the electric vehicle state. It's beginning to look like the state capital will be Elkhart County," Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels said in January 2010 in announcing government incentives used to lure Think to his state.

Instead, the Hoosier state's big bet has been a bust. The plant is devoid of activity; there are just two employees. A Russian investor who recently purchased Think's bankrupt parent in Norway has been silent about its future. A government-backed Indianapolis battery-maker that was to supply Think wrote off a $73 million investment in the car company and Thursday declared bankruptcy. Two unrelated electric truck-makers that Indiana planned to nurture have yet to get off the ground.

Indiana's foray into electric vehicles is a cautionary tale for states in hot pursuit of high-tech manufacturing jobs. Think's story illustrates how politicians so badly wanted to stimulate job growth that they showered it and the battery supplier with tax breaks and incentives while at the same time failing to determine whether there was a market for the car: a plastic two-seater with a top speed of about 65 miles an hour and a price tag approaching $42,000.

The state of Indiana dumped a bunch of money in this company but is now claiming how much it gave the company is confidential information that can't be disclosed:

Indiana's total losses aren't immediately known. Katelyn Hancock, a spokeswoman for the Indiana Economic Development Corp., the state's economic development arm, declined to disclose how much battery-maker Ener1 and Think had received in taxpayer-funded credits and incentives, saying such information is confidential. Ener1 also declined to provide the information.

The Chicago Tribune did manage to put together this useful graph that gives a hint just how much in public dollars were dumped into this useless business. The Obama administration put $130.3 million in federal stimulus dollars that Sen. Richard Lugar helped obtain for the company. The state gave the company $21.1 million in performance-based credits and $200,000 in grants. The state gave another $7.6 million in performance-based credits to subsidiaries of Ener1, Think Holdings and Electric Motors Corp. Hancock County gave Ener1 $30 million in tax abatements and other incentives, and Indianapolis, Elkhart and Noblesville kicked in tax abatements to sweeten the incentives.

Fifteen Competing For Supreme Court Vacancy

2012-01-27T17:19:00.005-05:00

The Judicial Nominating Commission just announced it has received 15 applications for the vacancy created by the retirement of Chief Justice Randall Shepard. They include the following candidates:

Hon. Robert R. Altice, Jr., Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division 2
Hon. Cynthia J. Ayers, Marion Superior Court, Civil Division 4
Hon. Cale J. Bradford, Indiana Court of Appeals
Hon. Maria D. Granger, Floyd Superior Court 3
Mr. Mark S. Massa, Indianapolis
Ms. Patricia C. McMath, Indianapolis
Hon. Robyn L. Moberly, Marion Superior Court, Civil Division 5
Mr. Karl L. Mulvaney, Indianapolis
Mr. Rory O’Bryan, Indianapolis
Hon. Michael N. Pagano, Lake Superior Court, County Division 3
Ms. Mary K. Reeder, Indianapolis
Mr. Steven R. Schultz, Columbus
Ms. Jane A. Seigel, Indianapolis
Mr. Les C. Shively, Evansville
Ms. Rebecca A. Trent, West Lafayette

Some of the candidates for the last vacancy filled by Steven David have filed again, including Marion Superior Court Judges Robyn Moberly and Cynthia Ayers and Indianapolis appellate lawyer Karl Mulvaney. Moberly and Mulvaney were among the three finalists recommended by the Commission last year for the seat filled by Justice David. Two former close advisers to Gov. Mitch Daniels, who will ultimately make the choice from among three candidates nominated by the Judicial Nominating Commission, Steven Schultz and Mark Massa, have applied for the position. Both men served as Daniels' chief counsel. Court of Appeals Judge Cale Bradford, who was Daniels first appointee to the appellate courts, is competing for the open position as well. The list of candidates is much smaller than the number of candidates who filed the last time around, 34, which may suggest someone already has an inside track on the appointment.

Marion Superior Court Judge Robert Altice, Jr. is up for re-election this year. He is running to be slated at tomorrow's Marion Co. Republican slating convention. Daniels is likely to have a decision made prior to this year's May primary. If Altice is re-slated and then later appointed to the Supreme Court, the Republicans would be one candidate short assuming nobody other than the slated candidates file to run in the May primary, which is typically the case. The Marion Co. Republican Party would then pick Altice's replacement, who would be guaranteed a seat on the court because all of the Republican and Democratic candidates nominated in the primary automatically win election to the court.

The first round of interviews will take place on February 8th and 9th. The Commission will meet in executive session immediately following the interviews and narrow the list to semi-finalists. On February 22, the Commission will interview the semi-finalists and then recommend three finalists to send to Gov. Daniels for consideration. A new chief justice will probably not be named until after March 4 according to the Commission's press release.

Burton Campaigning For Gingrich While Ignoring 5th District Voters McGoff Claims

2012-01-27T17:07:00.000-05:00

Fifth district Republican congressional candidate Dr. John McGoff is slamming U.S. Rep. Dan Burton for spending time campaigning for Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign in the Florida primary while ignorning the voters in his congressional district. Burton, who is facing stiff opposition in this year's Republican primary as he has in the past two elections, has been skipping candidate forums being held in the district. McGoff's press release reads:

On Thursday night during the GOP presidential candidates’ debate, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich mentioned during one of his responses that Congressman Dan Burton was in Jacksonville campaigning for him.

"When I heard that, I wish I could say that I was surprised that Congressman Burton was too busy campaigning for someone else, while ignoring the voters in his own district by not participating in candidate forums here at home," said Dr. John McGoff a candidate for the 5th Congressional District seat. "The fact that he was in Florida in January, where golf courses are plentiful, was not lost on me either."

In the last two weeks, there have been two candidate forums: one in Howard County and one in Pike Township in Marion County. Congressman Burton was invited to both but declined to participate. At these events the candidates answered questions from the audience regarding national issues affecting voters in the 5th District.

"Congressman Burton takes the 5th District voters for granted and has for years," McGoff said. "He's been in Washington since 1982, and until I ran against him in the 2008 primary, he never had a challenger. Since he didn't have to campaign for re-election he stayed in Washington. Most people will tell you Congressman Burton makes only obligatory visits to the District."

At last week’s Howard County GOP Century Club Forum, Howard County GOP Chairman Craig Dunn said, "The 2012 Congressional election will not be about politics as usual. The Howard County Republican Party and the Republican voters of the 5th Congressional District are deeply disappointed by the Congressman's failure to participate."

As of today, there are four more candidate forums scheduled throughout the District and the Congressman has indicated he will not be participating in any of these events.

Burton seems to be counting on a crowded field of candidates to allow him to sneak back in again this year as happened two years ago when he narrowly won in a four-way race. You have to think Burton's luck is about to run out. Avoiding public appearances in his district leads one to conclude that he really doesn't care whether he wins re-election, which begs the question of why he decided to run again if he doesn't want to campaign. In addition to McGoff, Burton faces opposition from former U.S. Attorney Susan Brooks, former U.S. Rep. David McIntosh and attorney Jack Lugar (no relation to Sen. Lugar).

Indiana's Tax Climate Ranks 11th In The Nation

2012-01-27T13:51:00.000-05:00

Indiana's tax climate ranks 11th in the nation according to the Tax Foundation, the same position it held in last year's rankings of the 50 states. Neighboring Illinois' rating moved the most, falling from 16th place in 2011 to 28th place in 2012. "A state that raises sufficient revenue without one of the major taxes will, all things being equal, have an advantage over those states that levy every tax in the state collector's arsenal," the Tax Foundation report concludes. The states with the best tax climates in order are:

1. Wyoming
2. South Dakota
3. Nevada
4. Alaska
5. Florida
6. New Hampshire
7. Washington
8. Montana
9. Texas
10. Utah

The states with the worst rax climates are:

41. Iowa
42. Maryland
43. Wisconsin
44. North Carolina
45. Minnesota
46. Rhode Island
47. Vermont
48. California
49. New York
50. New Jersey

Notice that almost all of the states with favorable tax climates are red states, while almost all of the states with unfavorable tax climates are blue states. You can view the background paper prepared by the Tax Foundation here.

Judge Makes Key Rulings In Indiana's Lawsuit Against IBM

2012-01-27T09:29:00.001-05:00

The Indiana Lawyer is reporting that Judge David Dreyer has made some key rulings in the costly litigation between IBM and the state of Indiana over the cancellation of the contract FSSA entered into with IBM for the privatization of the agency's welfare services. On one summary judgment motion in favor of IBM, Judge Dreyer ruled the company is entitled to up to $40 million in subcontractor assignment fees provided under the contract if it prevails in its claims against the state.

Judge Dreyer ruled against IBM's motion for summary judgment for $43 million in deferred fees it claims it is entitled to receive as a result of the termination, as well as $9.3 million in equipment the state retained that IBM says it purchased. In another favorable ruling for the state, Judge Dreyer denied the company's motion for summary judgment on its claim that its poor performance should be excused because of an economic downturn and flooding that occurred after the contract was signed.

The Indiana Lawyer observes that the state of Indiana could still recover up to $125 million in damages on its remaining claims against IBM if it prevails in the litigation. If IBM prevails, however, the state could owe IBM $100 million per a termination clause in the contract.

Judge Dreyer granted a motion by IBM's attorneys to depose Gov. Mitch Daniels as part of ongoing discovery in the case. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer to hear the appeal directly. Oral argument on the appeal is scheduled for February 13.

Politico Wants You To Think Banks Are Bankrolling Mourdock's Campaign

2012-01-27T08:40:00.001-05:00

This has to rank as one of the most gratuitous "let's help Dick Lugar win a seventh term to the Senate" efforts by the media to date. Politico runs with the headline, "It's payback time as banks boost Dick Lugar rival." The story gives the impression banks have started raising all kinds of money for Richard Mourdock's campaign because Lugar voted against the banks on an amendment to legislation that would have blocked caps on swipe fees charged by banks on ATM cards. "The banking industry is making an example of Sen. Dick Lugar," the story claims in mentioning an "inside the beltway fundraiser" the industry recently held on Mourdock's behalf. According to the story, retailers are appalled that the bankers are going after lawmakers who sided with them in the legislative battle.

For their part, retailers said they are appalled by the tactic.

“That’s absurd. Debit swipe fee reforms passed because thousands of merchants, small and large, fought back against an unfair and anticompetitive system,” Retail Industry Leaders Association’s Brian Dodge said. “If the banks and card networks don’t yet recognize that these reforms passed on their merits and have no plans to change their behavior, then extending these reforms to credit cards will be easier than we thought.”

If you failed to read the page after the jump, you would have missed this revealing item: "RILA President Katherine Lugar is the senator’s daughter-in-law." Yeah, that might tell us more about the motive behind Lugar's vote than anything else. How many of Lugar's relatives are working as lobbyists in Washington? His son, David, is a lobbyist for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Technology. Lugar told CBS News that his son never lobbies him or his staff personally.

The Politico story only identifies a single $5,000 the banking industry has donated to Mourdock's poorly-funded campaign against Lugar's giant multi-million dollar warchest. The ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), who rakes in a lot of money from the banking industry, gave Lugar $5,000. The story opines that the Republican Party will have to spend a lot of money to save the seat if Mourdock upsets Lugar in the primary.

Ballard's Mass Transit Plan Killed In The House

2012-01-26T23:04:00.000-05:00

The surest sign that Mayor Greg Ballard's mass transit plan was dead on arrival was the fact that not a single member of the Marion County legislative delegation signed on as a sponsor. Instead, the legislation's sponsors were legislators from rural areas, Rep. Jeff Espich (R-Uniondale), the chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee and Rep. Peggy Welch (D-Bloomington). Espich had told reporters a week ago he doubted there was sufficient support for the bill because it would lead to higher income taxes in Marion and Hamilton Counties. The debate in committee today, however, focused on the bill's provisions concerning the use of union labor. The IBJ discussed the debate over the bill's labor provisions that helped lead to its 11-10 defeat in committee today:

Espich acted to delete the common-wage provision but left the right-to-work language in place.

“I am here to try to act as much as I can in the spirit of compromise,” Espich said. “I will support the bill with the provision out or with the provision in. My preference is to have this provision in.”

Rep. Bill Crawford, D-Indianapolis, said the labor provisions in the bill that focused indirectly on employees’ right-to-work were “purely political.”

“I would vote against the bill if in fact that language remains in the bill,” Crawford said.

Rep. Winfield Moses, D-Fort Wayne, said the labor provisions led him to vote no as well.

Rep. Cherrish Pryor, D-Indianapolis, was also concerned about the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s opposition to the labor language. “To shove the labor language down their throats is insulting,” Pryor said.

Obama And His Attorney Will Ignore Georgia Judge's Order To Appear In Ballot Eligibility Challenge

2012-01-25T23:11:00.005-05:00

Secretary of State Warns of Consequences of Not Participating
A hearing will be conducted tomorrow morning in an Atlanta administrative court hearing a complaint filed by several Georgia citizens that Barack Obama is ineligible to appear on the state's presidential election ballot because he's not a natural born citizen, but neither Obama nor his attorney plan to attend despite an order issued by Judge Michael Malihi commanding their appearance. Instead, Obama's attorney fired a letter off to the state's Secretary of State condemning the administrative law judge's decision to go forward with the hearing. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:

Democrats, including the attorney representing President Barack Obama, have made a last-minute decision to boycott the Thursday hearing to consider a “birther” effort to remove Obama from the March 6 presidential primary ballot.

“They can tilt at windmills on their own,” said state Democratic spokesman Eric Gray on Wednesday night.

Last week, in a surprise ruling, a Georgia state administrative judge declined to quash a subpoena directing Obama to attend a hearing Thursday at the Fulton County courthouse on a challenge to strike him from the Georgia ballot this fall on claims he is not a natural born U.S. citizen.

Among tomorrow’s no-shows will be Michael Jablonski, the Atlanta attorney serving as counsel to Obama. He’s written a letter to Secretary of State Brian Kemp, a Republican, asking him to intervene and bring the circus to a halt.

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp responded to Jablonski's last minute letter demanding the hearing be cancelled with a firm warning: Participate in the hearing or ignore it at your own peril. Here's his response:

“As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As the referring agency, the Secretary of State’s Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearings scheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, I do not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.”

He continued, “I expect the administrative law judge to report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.”

He also had a warning about the costs of simply not showing up for a court hearing.

“Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

UPDATE: Today's hearing is being streamed live courtesy of Article II SuperPac. Click here to watch.

UPDATE II: Judge Michael Malihi concluded the evidentiary part of the hearing this morning. Attorneys for the complainants presented evidence that Obama's father, Barack Obama, Sr., was never a U.S. citizen, and offered evidence of the applicable law for determining a person's natural born citizenship status during the first half of the hearing. In the second half, California attorney Orly Taitz offered witnesses and evidence to support her contention that Obama is using a social security number that was never issued to him, that the birth certificate the White House posted online last April was a forgery, that he had used other aliases, including Soetoro, and that he had been identified as an Indonesian citizen presumably adopted by his step father, an Indonesian citizen. A certified fraud examiner and two document imaging experts testified as to their conclusions concerning Obama's alleged fraudulent use of another person's social security number and a forged Hawaiian birth certificate. A retired immigration and customs official with the U.S government testified that his research of the passport and immigration records of his parents and Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate rose to the level that would warrant a further investigation of Obama for potential document and immigration fraud. Nobody representing Obama was present for the hearing to rebut or object to any of the evidence that was offered. One of the blogs following the case closely claims Judge Malihi called the complainants attorneys into his chambers prior to the hearing to advise them of his intention to enter a default judgment against Obama because of his and his attorneys' absence from today's hearing. According to the blogger, the attorneys requested that they first be able to get their evidence they wished to offer into the record, which he agreed to do.

The American Thinker's Cindy Simpson has provided this listing of the evidence entered into the official record yesterday, in addition to the testimony of witnesses:

P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425
p3. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing Obama's alleged true and correct copy of his birth certificate to be a computer generated forgery
P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify
p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister
p7. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing that Obama is using CT SSN 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns
p9. Hawaiian birth certificate 61-00637 of Susan Nordyke, born a few hours after Obama in Kapiolani Hospital, looks completely different from alleged copy of birth certificate of Obama
p10. Passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, mother of Barack Obama, showing Obama listed in her passport under the name Barack Obama Soebarkah, attached affidavit by Chris Strunk, recipient of Obama's passport records under FOIA
p11. Barack Obama's Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia....
Amicus Brief. Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Five House Republicans Vote Against Passage Of Right To Work

2012-01-25T18:29:00.001-05:00

The controversial right to work legislation passed the Republican-controlled House today by a vote of 54-44 with five Republicans joining 39 Republicans in casting votes against it. The five Republicans voting against HB 1001 were: Rep. Ron Bacon (Dist. 75); Rep. Thomas Dermody (Dist. 20), Rep. Mike Karickhoff (Dist. 30); Rep. Thomas Saunders (Dist. 54); and Rep. Ed Soliday (Dist. 4). One Republican lawmaker, Rep. Mark Messmer (Dist. 63), and one Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Phil Pflum (Dist. 56) were excused from voting.

No Rules Of Respect Apply When Media Covers Health Problems Of Republicans

2012-01-25T08:26:00.002-05:00

Once upon a time, the media shied away from placing much credence in what ex-spouses have to say about politicians fully aware that bitterness and a motive for revenge can sometimes taint their objectivity. Of course that rule didn't apply to Newt Gingrich's ex-wife, who many close to him believe simply fabricated a story of him asking for an open marriage out of whole cloth in an effort to derail his presidential campaign. She had as much said during one interview years ago that she would do anything she could to destroy him if he ever decided to run for president. As mean-spirited as the news media can be towards conservatives and Republicans in general, the Chicago Magazine's story immediately following news that Illinois' freshman senator, Mark Kirk, had suffered a life-threatening stroke, hit a new low. Carol Felsenthal contacted Sen. Kirk's ex-wife, Kimberly Vertolli, and broke the news to her that her former husband had just suffered a stroke. Felsenthal described Vertolli, who was shopping with her father at Staples at the time she received her call as being shocked by the news, but a few minutes into the conversation she unloaded on his alleged unhealthy lifestyle, essentially blaming the stroke on his poor health.

Vertolli described a man who had difficulty sleeping and suffered from panic attacks, relentless levels of stress, and debilitating migraines that required him to retreat into a dark room. “There were a lot of indications I saw that told me that he had to slow down or alter his behavior or lifestyle,” she said. “He doesn’t take care of himself and doesn’t take breaks. To him, fun is editing papers; he has to always be doing something.” Vertolli recalled that on their honeymoon to Italy and France, Kirk—then in the first of five terms in the U.S. House—did relax, but “pretty much slept the entire time.”

She recalled her ex-husband as “not a person who places fitness as a priority.” He belongs to a health club in Lake Forest, she said, but he only went every few months. When Vertolli went out for a run in the morning, she went alone, as Kirk was “out of breath after the simplest thing.” She also mentioned a “terrible diet,” heavy on muffins, cookies, ice cream, donuts, and red meat. “He ate what was put in front of him,” she said. He didn’t have time to prepare food or to shop. But, she added, he never smoked, and he “barely drank—socially, that’s it.” Common risk factors for a stroke include physical inactivity, high blood pressure, diabetes, and being overweight.

First of all, the reporter having covered Mark Kirk for a number of years, knows that he is not overweight, doesn't smoke, doesn't consume much alcohol and is a Naval reserve officer who has served several tours of duties in Afghanistan in recent years. Kirk's doctor, who has known him for years, had an entirely different opinion of his health. “He works out regularly. He eats a reasonably good diet and takes care of himself. He had to pass his Navy physical twice a year. So he had to be in reasonably good shape,” Dr. Richard Fessler said. “But I don’t think that this event has anything to do with either stress or his diet. It’s just one of those unfortunate disasters that happen to people sometimes,” he added. Fessler explained to the media that Kirk's stroke was brought on as a result of a dissected carotid artery in his right neck, which caused swelling in his brain. Emergency surgery over the weekend was performed to correct the problem.

Felsenthal would have done her readers a big favor if she had chosen to rely on the opinion of medical experts rather than an embittered ex-spouse to explain Kirk's stroke. After a number of online commenters attacked her story as "despicable" and "a sad day for journalism", Felsenthal posted the following comment in response:

Since I posted the above reaction yesterday from Kimberly Vertolli, Sen. Mark Kirk's ex-wife, to the news of his stroke, we have received comments/complaints from readers who are upset that during the height of Sen. Kirk's serious illness we would post an interview with his ex-wife commenting on what she described as his unhealthy lifestyle.

When Vertolli and I spoke, there was admiration in her voice, but also sadness as, in her opinion, this kind of schedule was not healthy.

Vertolli was clearly identified in the post as Kirk's ex-wife, and readers, I would think, understand that that fact carries with it the potential for some bitterness. However, I have found her, since I started to speak to her in the summer of 2010 when she was volunteering on her ex-husband's campaign, to be a reliable source on his life, family, and career.

She has repeatedly characterized him to me as a dedicated public servant, too dedicated in that he does not relax or take time to take care of himself. It was that message that she was trying to convey, and I quoted her as such.

All in all, I saw this as an opportunity both to give a more personal perspective on the senator¹s illness and as a means to deliver some cautionary news about the role that stress and overwork can play in illness. As I was interviewing Vertolli and writing up the interview, I recalled the news coverage of the death by heart attack of Mayor Harold Washington and the lessons about diet and exercise that millions took from that. I also recalled the thousands of women, myself included, who picked up the telephone and made appointments for mammograms after the news broke of Nancy Reagan's breast cancer.

I'm having a difficult time believing that former Mayor Harold Washington's death by heart attack or Nancy Reagan's breast cancer were on her mind as she was discussing Kirk's personal health with his bitter ex-wife, who had a past history of saying less than nice things about him to this very same reporter. One of the commenters hit the nail on the head: "I don't remember Harry Reid getting this kind of treatment when he suffered a similar stroke."

NFL Decides To Add 5,000 Temporary Seats At Lucas Oil Stadium For Super Bowl

2012-01-24T15:08:00.000-05:00

Recent news stories discussed how NFL officials had opted against adding nearly 7,000 temporary seats at Lucas Oil Stadium for this year's Super Bowl game as had been proposed by the Indianapolis host committee in its winning bid. Instead, the NFL chose to add only 254 temporary seats, meaning that this year's 63,000 attendees would be the lowest-attended game in 20 years. The IBJ's Anthony Schoettle says the NFL had a change of heart and decided to add 5,000 temporary seats for the game. It doesn't look like the NFL is going to have trouble with last minute fire marshal concerns as happened at last year's Super Bowl game in Dallas that left many ticketholders seatless.

The National Football League has decided to make room for 5,000 extra ticketholders for the Super Bowl in Lucas Oil Stadium.

NFL officials on Monday told IBJ that they plan to expand the stadium capacity to 68,000 during the Feb. 5 event in Indianapolis. Capacity for Colts games is typically 63,000.

The decision was made after the league evaluated how much room it would need for media auxiliary seating and for NBC’s production facilities within the venue . . .

Most of the extra capacity will come from additional standing-room tickets sold for each suite and by filling platforms that are not normally used during Colts games with padded chairs.

A club area in the stadium’s north end zone will be used for the NFL’s City View Club. Those tickets, McCarthy said, will be used for NFL on Location ticketholders. That area will include 254 temporary seats . . .

All the temporary seats have been inspected and approved by the city’s Department of Code Enforcement, McCarthy said. No bleachers or temporary structures will be built to accommodate the additional capacity, he said.

At last year’s Super Bowl in Dallas, a problem with meeting safety standards for some of the temporary seating meant 850 ticketholders were moved in Cowboys Stadium. Another 400 didn’t end up with seats despite buying a ticket and showing up for the game. Those fans were forced to watch the game on monitors in a lounge area.

Those 400 were given refund of triple face value—$2,400 per ticket. But many of the displaced fans complained that the NFL’s refund was less than they paid for the tickets on the secondary market.

Indianapolis Capital Improvement Board Executive Director Barney Levengood said that issue shouldn’t come up this year since there has been no construction needed to accommodate the increased capacity inside Lucas Oil Stadium . . .

Let's hope public safety concerns with the extra seating at the facility aren't being compromised for the sake of maximizing profits for the billionaire NFL team owners. All of the revenues from ticket sales to the game are kept by the NFL. The NFL is getting free use of Lucas Oil Stadium and the entire convention center, as well as 16,000 parking spaces downtown for its exclusive use during the Super Bowl festivities. The NFL is paying nothing to the city of Indianapolis for millions of dollars in added public safety costs associated with the event.

Speaking of the free use of parking spaces by the NFL, some IUPUI students are hopping mad about a decision by university officials to take away at least 4,000 parking spaces purchased by students who attend classes at the school for the NFL's use during the extended Super Bowl weekend. That decision has led many faculty members to cancel classes. The only possible reason for the use of these parking spaces is the fact that the AFC's New England Patriots team is staying at the University Place Hotel on the campus. WRTV has the story:

Some Indiana University Purdue University-Indianapolis students are speaking out against the school's plan to accommodate Super Bowl activities, limiting students' parking options and canceling some classes.

IUPUI made special arrangements with Indianapolis to allow the city to use 4,000 of its 16,000 parking spots on a few days surrounding the Super Bowl, RTV6's Ericka Flye reported . . .

"I think the Super Bowl is great for the city. I just think that it shouldn't hinder our education," said student Chris Gault. "It seems the school is putting the outsiders and the Super Bowl attendees before the students and their educations."
Parking has long been a contentious issue on the IUPUI campus, which has had trouble with having enough spaces to meet student demand.

"They're selling our parking spaces that are paid permit holder spaces," said student Andrew Reno. "A lot of us have taken out loans to pay for our classes, and now we're being given less time in the classroom."

Classes that would have been on Super Bowl weekend are canceled, and faculty was given flexibility to cancel or adjust classes on the Friday before the game and Monday after the game.

"(We're) trying to make it as easy as possible on students by not requiring them to attend face-to-face classes if their professor thinks that's best," said Rich Schneider, IUPUI spokesman.

Journal-Constitution Finally Reports On Eligibility Case

2012-01-24T09:05:00.002-05:00

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution decided to put up a story late yesterday discussing the fact that a judge in its state had refused to quash a subpoena ordering President Obama to appear at a hearing considering whether he is constitutionally eligible to appear on Georgia's presidential primary election ballot as a presidential candidate. The AJC's Bill Rankin doesn't take the challenge seriously and doesn't think Obama should either. Rankin reports on Obama's plans for Thursday:

Even though President Barack Obama has been summoned to a court hearing here Thursday, don’t expect the Commander in Chief to come.

Obama will embark on a three-day trip following his State of the Union address Tuesday evening, White House press secretary Jay Carney said during a press briefing Monday. The White House has said that Obama will be in Las Vegas, Denver and Detroit this Thursday.

Rankin, like so many of his media colleagues, has chosen to lie about the key contention of the eligibility lawsuit. Rankin calls Judge Michael Malihi's order refusing to quash the subpoena issued against Obama "surprising" in "a challenge to strike him from the Georgia ballot this fall on claims he is not a U.S. citizen." Again, Rankin apparently is another glaring example of how our school systems apparently no longer teach civics to students. Word to Rankin, a person can be a citizen and still not be a "natural born citizen."

Rankin wants you to know that 68 other challenges against Obama's eligibility filed around the country have been dismissed and are viewed as "baseless" allegations by "birthers." Rankin also found a law professor at Georgia State University who is equally ignorant of the U.S. Constitution. He claims the lawsuits are litigating "the issue of president's nationality." He says the case is "frivolous" and should be dismissed like the other lawsuits, all of which were dismissed on standing grounds, not the merits of the plaintiffs' contention that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

As I pointed out, during the 1968 presidential election, major newspapers like the New York Times wrote dozens of stories discussing the issue of whether George Romney, father of Mitt Romney, was a natural born citizen despite the fact that he was born to two U.S. citizens because he was born in Mexico. Not a single one of those stories suggested Romney wasn't a citizen. None of those stories suggested the persons doubting Romney's eligibility were anti-Mormon or anti-Mexican. Romney was eventually hounded out of the race before a single vote was ever cast in that election under the threat of litigation over his eligibility to claim natural born citizenship status.

Nothing in the constitution has changed in the past 50 years concerning presidential eligibility. What has happened in the ensuing fifty years is that the U.S. Constitution has simply been amended in the court of public opinion to mean something the framers never intended it to mean. If they can rewrite the natural born citizenship requirement without an amendment, think what else they can write out of the constitution without an amendment. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down yesterday an attempt by the Obama administration to further erode our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government through the use of warrantless tracking devices. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court allows him to get away with abolishing habeus corpus as he did by signing into law the National Defense Authorization Act late last year. By allowing the public to be fooled into thinking this debate is just another bigoted attack against Obama by people unwilling to accept an African-American president, we are taking a trip down the slippery slope of becoming a nation of men, not a nation of laws as was envisioned and adopted by our Founders.

UPDATE: What do you know? Mr. Rankin revised his online story to state that the complaint contended Obama was not a "natural born citizen" as opposed to a citizen after I e-mailed him and pointed out his mistake and he replied "gotcha" and was correcting the story immediately. I'll give him credit for correcting his error, although the updated story doesn't mention the earlier mistatement.

Nine Republican Senators Vote Against Right To Work

2012-01-23T20:43:00.001-05:00

The Republican-controlled Senate in Indiana passed right to work legislation contained in SB 269. That comes as no surprise. What is surprising is that nine of the Senate's 37 Republicans joined the chamber's 13 Democrats in voting against it. The nine Republicans voting no were: Vaneta Becker, R-Evansville; Richard Bray, R-Martinsville; Ed Charbonneau, R-Valparaiso; Johnny Nugent, R-Lawrenceburg; Sen. Sue Landske, R-Cedar Lake; Brent Steele, R-Bedford; Jim Tomes, R-Wadesville; Brent Waltz, R-Greenwood; and John Waterman, R-Shelburn.

The Republican-controlled House finished up second reading action on its version of right to work contained in HB 1001. Judging by the largely party-line votes rejecting amendments offered by Democrats, it appears the House Republican caucus is more supportive of right to work than the Senate Republican caucus. The Democrats caucused as soon as work on the bill was completed today. It remains to be seen whether they will resume their boycott in an effort to block a third reading vote on the bill. They are angry because they weren't allowed to offer more than the dozen or so amendments they offered today, including an unconstitutional attempt to leave it to the state's voters to determine at a referendum whether right to work should be enacted into law.

Media Pretends Georgia Eligibility Case Isn't Happening

2012-01-23T18:09:00.002-05:00

In the past, every time another court dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president because he is not a natural born citizen, the mainstream media always weighed in with snarky coverage sprinkled with the obligatory name-calling of those behind the lawsuits as "birthers", "right-wing conspiracists" and garden variety racists who couldn't accept an African-American as president. When a judge down in Georgia considering a challenge to Obama's eligibility to appear on the state's presidential primary ballot refused to dismiss the case on standing grounds, as had occurred in every single lawsuit to date, the media took a different tact. It just decided the case wasn't newsworthy and ignored it.

A hearing in the case has been scheduled for this Thursday. Obama's lawyers attempted to quash a subpoena requesting Obama's appearance and seeking production of documents establishing his natural born citizenship status. Remarkably, Judge Michael Malihi denied the motion to quash the subpoena and commanded President Obama's appearance at the hearing. The judge's order seemed to reflect his disfavor with the disdain shown by the filings in opposition to the proceedings by Obama's attorneys. Judge Malihi wrote, in part:

Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority. Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party's preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced."

In reading Judge Malihi's Order denying Obama's motion to dismiss the proceeding challenging him to prove he is a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution, you could detect a similar disfavor he was showing to the President's attorney's disdain towards the state proceedings:

In the instant motion, Defendant contends that Georgia law does not give Plaintiffs authority to challenge a political party's nominee for president in a presidential preference primary because Code Section 21-2-5 does not apply to the presidential preference primary.

Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the "first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language." Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). "Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning." Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other "natural and reasonable construction" of the statutory language, this Court is "not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning." Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted) . . .

Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has
been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

Despite the significance of the case playing out in Georgia, the state's newspaper of record, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, has not filed one independent story on the case. Instead, it ran a brief, three-paragraph story filed by the Associated Press, the same story reported in some major newspapers and news organizations across the country. One Atlanta TV station ran a story claiming the persons behind the lawsuit contend that Obama is not a U.S. citizen, an often-repeated lie by the mainstream media throughout the country who count on the American people being too stupid to understand our constitution makes a distinction between ordinary citizens and natural born citizens when it comes to serving as president of the United Sates. Only the latter are eligible to hold the highest office in the land. The American Thinker's Cindy Simpson futilely tried to make the point of explaining the narrowly-drawn contention of the citizens filing the Georgia complaint against Obama in an earlier post:

The matter before this Court has nothing to do with the birth place of the Defendant, nor does it assert that he is not a citizen of the United States. In fact, limited to this challenged primary election, the Plaintiff will stipulate that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. The Plaintiff makes no assertion regarding the Defendant's passports, or social security number, or any other fact related to the Defendant, other than the one fact asserted at the beginning of this opposition: that the Defendant's father was not a U.S. citizen.

Contrary to the Defendant's assertions, the issue presented by the Plaintiff is grounded on one uncontestable fact, and one clear definition from the U.S. Supreme Court. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875).

New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio has been doing yeoman's work researching the relevant law and history in an effort to teach people the true meaning behind the words, "natural born citizen" at his blog. Donofrio has filed a compelling amicus brief in the Georgia case that's well worth the read. You can view it here. Donofrio's brief makes clear the Minor v. Happersett decision is the only controlling case from the U.S. Supreme Court on the meaning of those words, a case that has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the court over the years. He also does a thorough job of explaining why the argument proffered by a number of legal observers that the U.S. adopted the British common law view on natural-born subjects simply doesn't hold water.

The American Thinker's Cindy Simpson reports that Obama has no intention of going anywhere near the Atlanta hearing on Thursday despite the court-ordered appearance. In case you haven't figured it out yet, Obama is above the law. Instead, he plans to promote his agenda for re-election in Las Vegas and Denver. Last week, the media melted when Obama sang a small line from Al Green's "Let's Stay Together" at New York's Apollo Theater. Simpson thinks the song "Georgia On My Mind" should be the song Obama is humming during his trip out west while the hearing in Atlanta proceeds in his absence.

Gingrich Surges To Lead In Florida

2012-01-23T09:21:00.001-05:00

So much for the best laid plans. Mitt Romney's campaign had counted on wrapping up the Republican presidential nomination by the Florida primary. Despite polls within the last week showing him with a double-digit lead there, a new poll released by Insider Advantage today shows Gingrich surging ahead of Romney in Florida with an 8-point, 34% to 26% lead. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum trail way behind with 13% and 11%, respectively. The sudden collapse of Romney's popular support among Republican voters is going to create a lot of consternation for top Republican officials. National tracking polls are similarly showing a collapse in support for Romney as support for Gingrich grows.

Super PACs To Play A Major Role In Lugar-Mourdock Race

2012-01-23T07:42:00.001-05:00

A former aide to Sen. Richard Lugar is heading up a newly-created Super PAC, Indiana Values SuperPAC, to assist his well-funded campaign in defeating his Republican primary opponent, Richard Mourdock. FreedomWorks for America, will aide Mourdock in dislodging Lugar, who has already served six consecutive terms in the Senate. The Journal-Gazette has a story today that begins:

Super PACs, the boon and bane of Republican presidential candidates, will try to sway GOP voters in Indiana when they choose a nominee for the U.S. Senate.

Supporters of Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., have formed a super political action committee named Indiana Values SuperPAC. Lugar’s challenger in the May 8 primary election, state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, is getting a boost from a super PAC called FreedomWorks for America.

Super PACs “are just part of the lay of the land these days,” said Andy Klingenstein, a legislative aide to Lugar in the early 1980s and the treasurer of Indiana Values SuperPAC.

Federal court rulings in the past two years have allowed for the creation of the groups, which operate independently of candidate campaigns and can raise and spend unlimited sums of money to try to elect or defeat candidates.

For all the criticism laid at SuperPACs, the reality is that the only reason the candidacies of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have an opportunity to compete in this year's Repubican presidential nomination battle is because of all the money SuperPACs have dumped into the race on their behalf to offset the money advantage of Romney's campaign, and to a lesser extent, Ron Paul's campaign, have over their poorly-financed campaigns.

Churches Joining Fight In Indiana Against Right To Work

2012-01-22T18:27:00.001-05:00

An AFL-CIO advisory this weekend announces a number of churches who are joining the fight to defeat right to work legislation being pushed by Governor Mitch Daniels and Republican state legislators. Several churches across the state were scheduling events following today's Sunday services to push for the defeat of the legislation. It seems rather odd for churches to be wading into this debate, but a cross section of churches are doing just that. From the press release:

Congregations from across Indiana are joining in the fight to defeat the deceptively named “right to work” law. Following Sunday services, several churches will be hosting letter writing sessions encouraging House Speaker Brain [sic] Bosma and other legislators to end their push for the controversial legislation.

The following churches will host events Sunday.

Evansville
Independence Baptist Church
2301 West Virginia Ave.
Evansville
12:30 p.m.

Fort Wayne
Union Baptist Church
2200 Smith St.
Fort Wayne
1:00 p.m.

St. John Lutheran Church
729 W. Washington Blvd.
Fort Wayne
2:00 p.m.

Indianapolis
First Christian Church of Beach Grove
5521 Churchman Ave.
Indianapolis
6:30 p.m.

Broadway UMC
609 E. 29th St.
Indianapolis
Noon

South Bend
Laymen Chapel CME
303 S Kenmore St.
South Bend
10:00 a.m.

Gingrich Upsets Romney In South Carolina

2012-01-21T23:51:00.002-05:00

No sooner had the polls closed in South Carolina than the major news networks called Newt Gingrich the big winner in tonight's critical primary election where 25 delegates are at stake over Mitt Romney, who had led in polls by a wide margin only a week ago. The Palmetto State has a perfect record to date in picking the eventual winner of the Republican nomination. Gingrich captured 40% of the vote to Romney's 28%. Rick Santorum trailed with 17% and Ron Paul finished in fourth place with 13% of the vote. Interestingly, exit polling data showed Gingrich winning big among voters who described themselves as tea party members or evangelical Christians.

Take a deep breath. I don't for one minute think Gingrich will wind up the winner of the Republican nomination. After three tests, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich each have a victory, although Gingrich's win tonight was the largest to date for any of the candidates. In the all important delegate count, Romney is leading narrowly with 31 delegates, followed by Gingrich's 26 delegates, Paul's 10 delegates and Santorum's 8 delegates. The fact remains that, unlike the campaigns of Romney and Paul, Gingrich does not have a campaign organization or money to handle the heavy schedule of upcoming primaries and caucuses. The next primary is in Florida where Romney currently has a big lead, but as we've seen tonight, Romney's support is very soft and can be challenged. Paul and Santorum aren't competitive in Florida, and Paul's campaign says he may skip the state altogether and focus on upcoming caucus votes in Nevada and Minnesota where he believes his chances are better.

Romney still has to be considered the odds on favorite. He has the money and the organization the other campaigns, except Paul, are lacking, which is critical for any candidate to win a drawn out fight for the nomination. Having said that, Paul's campaign has to be very disappointed with his poor fourth place showing tonight. A Republican presidential candidate has to have appeal among southern voters in order to win a general election. His 13% share of the vote in South Carolina suggests he will have a tough road ahead of him in the remaining primaries in the South. What tonight's upset win for Gingrich does is give pause to many prominent Republican leaders about Romney's status as the presumptive nominee. If Gingrich is able to reverse Romney's lead in Florida as he did successfully in South Carolina, then you can expect Republican leaders across the country to view Romney as the nominee with trepidation.

Pundits are already talking about the possibility of a late entrant into the presidential race, but the reality is that it is too late because any candidate entering at this late date has already missed the filing deadline to get on the ballot in many of the upcoming primary elections. What party leaders may hope, instead, is that a drawn out nomination battle may result in no candidate having a majority of the delegates by the time the convention rolls around next summer. Because delegates are being awarded proportionally instead of the winner-take-all rules of past elections, losing candidates can still win delegates as long as they are earning a significant share of the vote in the states in which they are competing. The best hope a late entrant candidate could have is a convention where no candidate has enough delegates to win on the first ballot, in which case the nomination could be opened up to other candidates. It's been a long time since either party produced a nominee through a brokered convention. The Republican Party hasn't had a brokered convention since Thomas Dewey won the nomination in 1948.

Fair Finance Trustee Sues Durham's Mother And Attorneys To Recover Money For Defrauded Investors

2012-01-21T19:53:00.003-05:00

The bankruptcy trustee for Fair Finance has filed dozens of lawsuits against businesses and individuals it claimed received transfers of money from indicted Ponzi schemer Tim Durham in fraud of the company's investors. One of the largest lawsuits is against Durham's mother, Mitza Durham, claiming that Durham transferred more than $831,000 to her without any consideration. The trustee is also suing prominent Indianapolis law firms that took retainer fees from Durham, including high profile criminal defense attorney Jim Voyles and Rubin & Levin. Voyles is being sued for $25,000, and Rubin & Levin is being sued for $40,000. The Sanders Group, a local media company, is being sued for $30,000. Other individuals being sued by the trustee to recover money transferred to them include James Pace ($135,000), Cindy Landeen ($140,000), Scott Solem ($84,000), Erica Jiles ($33,000), Colleen Barone ($152,000) and Robert Shoemake ($26,000).

Marion County Democrats Stealth Candidate For County Treasurer

2012-01-21T13:56:00.001-05:00

Marion Co. Democrats are looking for a replacement for outgoing county treasurer, Mike Rodman, who has been highly regarded for the professional manner in which he has run the office the past eight years. Observers had hoped the party would look to his chief deputy, Tom Creasser, to run to fill his boss' shoes because he was probably the most qualified candidate for the job. The party bosses have someone else in mind. Richard Hunter, an employee of Marion Co. Auditor Billy Breaux's office, is the only other announced Democratic candidate who is actively running for the position. An informed source tells me that Hunter is operating under the false impression that he will be slated by the party. The actual candidate the party plans to slate as its candidate for county treasurer I'm told is Claudia Fuentes, a fellow employee of Hunter's in the auditor's office. It's just that nobody has bothered to tell Hunter yet.

Whistle Blower Says Daniels Administration Rigged Bid To Favor John Bales

2012-01-21T13:31:00.003-05:00

The IBJ's Cory Schouten has another great story today detailing the lengths the Daniels administration went to in order to create the impression it was conducting a competitive bidding process to award a contract to handle real estate leasing for state agencies when it had already made an advance decision to award the contract to John Bales' Venture Real Estate. The administration could have simply given the contract to Bales without conducting a public bidding process since it was a contract for services. Instead, it had the Department of Administration put out for bid a 20-page request for services to more than 400 potential bidders with a 65-point scoring process for evaluating proposals. According to a whistle blower, Marsha White, a former BMV employee who served on the selection committee, the DOA changed the scoring not once but twice after the selection committee scored the proposals to make Bales' company the winner.

Venture wound up with 50.82 points, according to an IDOA memorandum obtained through a public records request. Next up was Resource Commercial Real Estate, with 49.2 points, followed by NAI Olympia Partners with 47.78 points.

"They changed the values to make Venture win," said Martha White, a member of the selection committeee who at the time handled leasing for the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. "Not until the third try did Venture actually win."

A second member of the selection committee confirmed White's account of what happened to Schouten but wished to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. The person's fears seem well-founded. White no longer works for the BMV and Bea Tate, the state's former director of leasing, quit her job after she was demoted for tangling with Bales over the manner in which he was handling state real esate leasing deals according to Schouten. Tate told Schouten that Bales bragged about his close relationship with Daniels and how he had his personal cell phone number. She said Daniels appointees distrusted anyone like her who had worked in state government before they arrived. "They wanted to hand it over without any accountability," Tate told Schouten. "Venture got by with everything--they did whatever they wanted to do."

Ironically, the Daniels administration would have avoided a lot of embarrassment had it simply been willing to listen to people like Tate and White. Tate told Schouten the test she applied to every decision made during her 17 years with the state was "whether a deal could embarrass the commissioner or the governor--was thrown out with Bales." Last month, of course, Bales and his business partners were indicted by federal prosecutors in northern Indiana because of the undisclosed ownership interest Bales had in a commercial real estate property in Elkhart for which he brokered a real estate lease on behalf of the state. Schouten reports that the state continued to do business with Bales firm until the FBI started investigating the Elkhart deal despite the "parade of state officials" who had raised questions about Bales' business practices.

Schouten's efforts to obtain public records from the Daniels administration in support of his latest investigative research was met with stonewalling. The administration cited an exemption from the state's public records law for "deliberative documents" that would have confirmed White's claim that DOA changed the scoring for the bids midstream to ensure the contract was awarded to Bales. Nonetheless, he was able to obtain a memorandum written by then-Deputy Commissioner Rob Wynkoop recommending Bales' firm for the contract that suggested a different scoring process was utilized than what had been outlined in the original request for proposals. Whoops.

In an unrelated story, Schouten reports that Daniels' chief of staff, Earle Goode, who formerly ran DOA when the contract was awarded to Bales' firm, purchased a residential lot from Bales in an upscale Indianapolis subdivision on the city's far north side for $450,000. It doesn't appear Goode got any special treatment in the real estate transaction. Bales had acquired the lot from his former business partner, Samuel Smith, two years earlier for $285,000. Goode and his wife had intended to build a home on the lot according to Schouten, but they instead are now trying to sell it for a substantial loss with an asking price of $399,000.

Obama Campaign Staffer Charged With Identity Theft In Effort To Smear Iowa Secretary Of State

2012-01-21T11:11:00.000-05:00

Zachary Edwards

This is what it has come to in American politics under Barack Obama's leadership. A media campaign strategist for Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, who now works for a Democratic consulting firm, has been arrested and criminally charged with identity theft in an effort to implicate Iowa's Republican Secretary of State in illegal or unethical behavior in office. A press release from the Iowa Department of Public Safety describes the charges against 29-year-old Zachary Edwards:

Today, Friday, January 20, 2012, Zachary Edwards, age 29, from Des Moines, Iowa, was arrested and criminally charged with Identity Theft, an Aggravated Misdemeanor (Iowa Code 715A.8(2)). Edwards turned himself in to Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) agents this afternoon at the Polk County Jail. He was then booked into the jail with a set bail of $2,000, cash or surety.

According to the Criminal Complaint, on June 24, 2011, Edwards fraudulently used, or attempted to use, the identity of Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz and/or Secretary Schultz’s brother, Thomas Schultz, with the intent to obtain a benefit, in an alleged scheme to falsely implicate Secretary Schultz in perceived illegal or unethical behavior while in office.

If convicted, Edwards faces a maximum penalty of two years in prison, and a maximum fine of $6,250. A criminal allegation is merely an accusation and any suspect is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty. The Iowa Secretary of State’s Office discovered the alleged scheme on June 24, 2011 and subsequently reported the information to authorities. DCI continues to investigate the incident, and the case is being prosecuted by the Polk County Attorney’s Office.

According to the Iowa Republican blog, Edwards joined the Obama campaign early in 2007 as an intern working in Nevada. He eventually joined the campaign's New Media department and directed the campaign's activities in five other primary states. He served as Obama's Iowa Director of New Media during the 2008 general election campaign. Following the 2008 campaign, Edwards joined Link Strategies, which provides campaign consulting advice to Democratic candidates including Sen. Tom Harkin (D).

The Iowa Republican reports on Democratic efforts to impugn Secretary of State Matt Schultz since his upset win in the 2010 election. A Democratic blog in Iowa launched a three-part investigative series based on documents it obtained through a public records request questioning Schultz "ability to remain independent and ensure election integrity." Within days of the Democratic Party filing an ethics complaint against Schultz in June, Edwards' alleged identity theft scheme against Schultz was launched. The ethics complaint against Schultz was later dismissed.

A copy of the criminal complaint against Edwards can be viewed here.

Rove-Like Dirty Tricks Appear In South Carolina

2012-01-20T19:42:00.002-05:00

In New Hampshire, it was the campaign of Ron Paul who was the victim of a dirty tricks operation to make it appear his campaign was behind a controversial video portraying Jon Huntsman as a "Manchurian candidate." In South Carolina, it is New Gingrich who is the victim of a dirty tricks operation sending fake e-mail messages to the state's Republican voters. One of the spoofed e-mails appeared to be a CNN Breaking News alert claiming that Gingrich's ex-wife had accused him of forcing her to get an abortion before the two were married. A second spoofed e-mail claimed to be from Gingrich himself confessing to supporters that he had once asked his ex-wife to get an abortion. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has the details:

South Carolina's reputation as a haven for political dirty tricks reared its ugly head as a pair of e-mails were sent to Republican voters here claiming Newt Gingrich forced his ex-wife to have an abortion.

Gingrich told reporters that whomever sent the emails should be prosecuted and the state's House majority leader, Republican Kenny Bingham of Lexington, called on the state's attorney general to investigate.

The first e-mail, made to look like an official CNN breaking news alert, claimed Marianne Gingrich, the candidate's second ex-wife, alleged he "forced her to abort a pregnancy conceived during the affair that preceeded her marriage to Gingrich," according to a copy of the message obtained by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

CNN acknowledged the email on air Friday, but said the network did not send it out.

The AJC also obtained a copy of a second fake e-mail sent to Gingrich supporters that appears to be a message from Gingrich confessing to the charge. It features Gingrich's graphics and even has an "unsubscribe" option that makes it appear real.

A Gingrich spokesman confirmed that the e-mails are fake . . .

The state has a history of these types of shenanigans. In the 2000 GOP primary, U.S. Sen. John McCain was hit by last-minute anonymous smears that helped deliver the state, and the nomination, to then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush.

These last minute smear campaigns are straight out of the Karl Rove play book. The Jon Huntsman video helped stall Paul's surge in the New Hampshire primary where he finished a distant second behind Romney after getting within striking distance of Romney in the Granite State according to some polls taken shortly after the Iowa caucus. Polls taken in the Palmetto State in recent days have shown a surge in support for Gingrich, who is now leading Romney according to polls released the last couple of days after trailing him by double-digits as recently as a week ago. You have to look at the Romney campaign as being behind these smear efforts in both cases. Karl Rove is backing Romney, although he claims he is not working directly for his campaign so he can pretend to be an objective paid political consultant for Fox News, which has operated as an extension of the Romney campaign the past couple of months.

UPDATE: The Daily Caller has more details on the origins of the e-mails:

The email’s graphics included a message claiming that it was “paid for by Newt 2012.” The sender substituted the number “1” in “2012” with a lowercase letter L.

The email originated from the phony Internet domain “newt20l2.org,” which uses the same letter-for-number substitution. The domain was registered shortly after 11 a.m. eastern time on Friday morning, according to records available online. The owner used Domains By Proxy, a division of the Internet registrar GoDaddy that allows anonymous registration and guarantees its customers’ privacy.

The fake email was sent roughly four hours later.

Todd Kincannon, a South Carolina lawyer and former executive director of the South Carolina Republican Party, received the email at 3:11 p.m. Kincannon told The Daily Caller that he firmly believes the email is a concentrated effort from the campaign of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to squelch Gingrich’s surge.

“If I were on a jury, there would be no doubt in my mind that Romney did it,” he said. “I mean, the circumstantial evidence is there. Romney’s the person who’s trying to stop Newt.”

“Ron Paul wouldn’t do it,” Kincannon told TheDC. “Paul wants Newt to win. Paul thinks he’s got a shot at a brokered convention. I don’t think the Santorum people would do it. It’s just not their style. But it is definitely the Romney people’s style.”

Indianapolis Bar Association Releases Meaningless Judicial Ratings

2012-01-20T18:44:00.004-05:00

The Indianapolis Bar Association has released survey results for 23 declared judicial candidates, including 17 judges seeking re-election and 6 candidates seeking election for the first time. According to the survey of attorney members of the IBA, the candidates were rated as high as 96.7% and as low as 30.7%. The highest rated judicial candidate is Marion Superior Court Judge Robert Altice, Jr. The lowest rated judge is Marion Superior Court Judge Becky Pierson-Treacy, wife of Marion Co. Democratic Chairman Ed Treacy. The percentages assigned to each candidate reflects the percentage of participating bar members who recommended the candidate as qualified to serve as a judge. Only Judge Pierson-Treacy received a failing recommendation, although a number of other candidates scored only slightly better than 50%. Here's how they fared from top to bottom:

Robert Altice, Jr. (R) 96.7%
Mark D. Stoner (D) 95.7%
Heather Welch (D) 95.6%
Michael D. Keele (R) 95.4%
Sheila Carlisle (R) 94.2%
Helen Marchal (R)* 86.3%
William Nelson (R) 84.9%
Amy Jones (R)* 84.8%
Clark Rogers (R) 84.0%
Jose Salinas (D) 79.0%
Grant Hawkins (D) 78.8%
John Chavis (D)* 78.8%
Carol Orbison (R) 72.6%
Linda Brown (D) 69.9%
Lisa Borges (R) 69.8%
Steven Eichholtz (D) 68.8%
Thomas Carroll (D) 68.5%
James Joven (R)* 68.1%
John Hanley (D) 67.0%
Clayton Graham (R)* 60.0%
Mark King (D)* 53.4%
Greg Bowes (D)* 52.7%
Becky Pierson-Treacy (D) 30.7%

* Denotes a candidate not currently serving on the Superior Court.

The ratings are meaningless for all practical purposes because there are 20 judicial positions to be filled, 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans. If all of the candidates' names appear on the May primary ballot, all but two of the Democratic candidates will win and all but one of the Republican candidates will win. Because of the slating practice of each party, candidates who are not slated typically withdraw their names resulting in no competition in the primary or general election. Three previously announced candidates have already withdrawn their names from consideration, probably because they were told they would not be slated. In a manner of speaking, voters in Marion County have absolutely no say in the election of their judges. Precinct committeepersons (PCs) of each party have a very limited role as a handful of political insiders handpick the candidates they back for slating before the PCs even meet for the slating convention and very seldom does a candidate not backed by the political insiders wind up getting slated by the PCs. That's because most of the PCs who vote at the slating convention are appointed by the party chairman. It's usually a waste of time for a PC to even bother showing up for the slating convention.

Fellow blogger Paul Ogden has reported that Judge Carol Orbison supposedly told party leaders that she would not rule out running in the primary if she is not slated, which may have doomed her chances of being slated at the convention at the end of this month. The Republicans failed to re-slate three sitting judges four years ago, all of whom chose not to run in the primary following their defeat at the slating convention. Both political parties require judicial candidates to pay a large slating fee as a condition to being considered as a slated candidate at the slating convention. The parties claim the slating fee is a voluntary contribution to the party, but everyone knows that a judicial candidate will never be slated if he or she doesn't pay the slating fee. Ogden notes a 1992 advisory opinion issued by the Judicial Qualifications Commission that makes quite clear that a mandatory payment of a slating fee as a condition to a judicial candidate being slated is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. They all pay to play figuring that there's safety in numbers violating the rule.

Georgia Judge Denies Obama's Motion To Quash Taitz Subpoena In Ballot Eligibility Case

2012-01-20T15:11:00.003-05:00

California attorney Orly Taitz has been the butt of many jokes and roundly criticized by the mainstream media for her dogged pursuit of proving that Barack Obama was never eligible to serve as president of the United States because he is not a natural born citizen. After dozens of lawsuits, Taitz finally found a judge in Georgia who is allowing one of her eligibility challenges to be heard on the merits. Judge Michael Malihi first denied a motion to dismiss Taitz' complaint filed in Georgia challenging his right to appear on the 2012 Democratic primary ballot for the state of Georgia. Today, Judge Malihi denied a motion filed by Obama's attorneys seeking to quash subpoenas she served on Obama to appear at a hearing on January 26, 2012 and produce original documents Taitz has asked the President to produce, including his birth certificate, social security application, aliases and school records. Here's the text of Judge Malihi's Order:

Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.

In support of his motion, Defendant argues that "if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States" to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority. Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party's preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced." Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5).

Defendant further alludes to a defect in service of the subpoena. However, the Court's rules provide for service of a subpoena upon a party, by serving the party's counsel of record. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(4). Thus, the argument regarding service is without merit.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to quash is denied.

SO ORDERED, this 20th day of January, 2012.

I don't see President Obama's attorneys allowing him to comply with this state judge's order for one minute. I anticipate that an emergency appeal of this ruling is already in the works. It would be hard to imagine a state court judge forcing Obama to produce documents and otherwise prove his eligibility to serve as president when no federal court judge to date has been willing to take that step, even if that is what is required of them as judges to uphold the oath they took to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

7,000 Fewer Tickets For Super Bowl Being Sold Than First Promoted

2012-01-20T08:18:00.004-05:00

Planners for hosting the Super Bowl in Indianapolis this year had originally planned to add temporary seating at Lucas Oil Stadium that would have added another 7,000 seats to the stadium's 63,000 permanent seats to allow 70,000 tickets to be sold to the event. WRTV reports that the number of temporary seats has been reduced down to 254, making this year's Super Bowl the smallest one in 20 years.

"The original bid planned for up to 7,000 temporary seats. As with most major productions, plans are refined as the event nears,” McCarthy said.

In February 2011, Lucas Oil Stadium officials showed RTV6 exactly where the proposed 4,000 extra seats would be placed.

Stadium Director Mike Fox said NFL officials simply changed their minds in regards to the extra seats, putting Indy on track to host one of the smallest Super Bowls in the league’s history.

In 2011, 103,000 fans attended the Super Bowl in Dallas and in 2010, 74,000 fans attended the game in Miami.

The last time a Super Bowl had just 63,000 fans in attendance was Super Bowl 26 in Minneapolis, officials said.

McCarthy said the temporary seats added to Lucas Oil Stadium should be in place by Saturday and the NFL has the final say on the total number of additions.

To put it in perspective, there will be 40% fewer fans attending the game than attended the Super Bowl in Dallas last year. That's a difference of 40,000 people who will be needing hotel rooms. Don't get me wrong. This is still going to be a big event for the city, but in comparison to the number of visitors who come here every year to attend the Indianapolis 500, it's a much smaller event. The Colts have had plenty of sold out games over the past several years that have drawn as many visitors downtown. Clearly, Super Bowl planners are banking on a whole lot of fans coming into town to experience the atmosphere of the big game, who don't have tickets to the event. Given the marketing campaign for the Super Bowl Village in Central Indiana, planners expect to draw most of those additional visitors from the local market.

A local Super Bowl blog shows advanced reservations for parking near Lucas Oil Stadium are up 20% so far compared to the number of reservations placed for last year's Super Bowl game in Dallas. Nearly a quarter of those reservations were purchased by persons from Central Indiana according to the blog, which suggests many visitors to the event will be local. Ten percent of the reservations were made by people living in the Chicago area. The blog reports there are still 12,000 parking spaces available for the event.

Paul's Campaign Sues Maker Of Huntsman "Manchurian Candidate" Video

2012-01-19T22:51:00.000-05:00

A YouTube video uploaded to the Internet in the crucial period leading up to the New Hampshire primary where Ron Paul's support was surging is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by the presidential campaign of Ron Paul. The anonymous poster using the identity "NHLiberty4Paul" uploaded a video attacking Jon Huntsman as a "Manchurian candidate" purporting to be produced on behalf of Paul's campaign. The media immediately pounced all over Paul, blaming him for the actions of one of his supposed supporters. Paul's campaign says no one associated with its campaign produced the video and believes it was a dirty trick played by one of Paul's political opponents. Bloomberg reports on the lawsuit filed in a federal district court in northern California.

A video uploaded from a Twitter account to YouTube on Jan. 4 called “Jon Huntsman’s Values” questions the ex-governor’s religious faith, refers to him as “China Jon” and ends with a fictitious depiction of Huntsman in a Mao Zedong uniform and the text “American Values and Liberty -- Vote for Ron Paul,”according to a complaint filed yesterday in federal court in San Francisco.

The makers use the pseudonym NHLiberty4Paul, “which further implies that plaintiff created endorsed or is affiliated in some way with the video and its contents,” the Paul campaign’s lawyers said in the complaint.

Press coverage of the video has been “scathingly negative” toward Paul because of the assumption that he was behind it, the lawyers said . . .

“This is a classic case of dirty politics resulting from the unlawful use in commerce of an underhanded and deceptive advertisement designed to tarnish plaintiff’s reputation,”according to the complaint. The identities of the videos creators are unknown, according to the lawsuit.

The complaint for false designation, false advertising and defamation seeks unspecified punitive damages and a court order barring use of Paul’s name and trademarks and requiring the video to be taken down and destroyed.

It should prove interesting to learn who was behind this video. Paul's campaign is doing the right thing in pursuing legal action against the anonymous poster. Persons responsible for these drive-by shootings that are all too common on the Internet need to be held accountable for their actions.

Tonight's CNN debate for the four remaining Republican presidential candidates in the South Carolina primary was true to form. The moderator, John King, pretended Ron Paul was just standing on the stage to listen to the other candidates whom he obviously deemed more worthy of standing on the stage. This has happened in every debate without exception. Ron Paul has received more votes than any of the other candidates besides Romney, and he's raised more money than any of the other candidates except Romney. Yet each debate appearance plays out the exact same way. The other candidates are called on first, second and third and given all the time they want to rebut each other's comments. Paul is only occasionally allowed to throw in a brief comment as mere filler while the other candidates catch their breath and review their notes. It's total BS. Paul is the only candidate offering thought-provoking solutions to the problems that ail this country, but he obviously doesn't support the agenda of the New World Order so it is necessary to censor him as much as possible. The follow up after the debate included interviews with Romney, Gingrich and Santorum but not Paul. Hell, you wouldn't even know that Paul had participated in the debate listening to the egg heads CNN included in its post-debate discussion.

Kodak Moment A Time To Remember

2012-01-19T19:04:00.001-05:00

Eastman Kodak Company used to be the king of all things related to photographic equipment and photo imaging. When I was growing up in the 70s, the company controlled 90% of the photographic film sales, a shining example of America's role as the world's leader in manufacturing and cutting edge technology. Its catch phrases like "Kodak moment" and the company jingle, "Times of Your Life," later recorded as a popular hit song by Paul Anka, became part of the American lexicon. Today, the more than 120-year-old company founded in Rochester, New York by George Eastman filed for bankruptcy, sinking under the burden of billions of dollars in debt. It's ability to emerge from bankruptcy as a viable business is very much in doubt according to Forbes. Does any one else share the view that the only good memories of this country left are those we left behind long ago? My favorite president, Ronald Reagan, was fond of saying that "America's best days are ahead of us." I used to belive it without hesitation. No more.

Santorum Probably Won Iowa Caucus

2012-01-19T11:39:00.004-05:00

This will become one of those footnotes in history, but it's very bothersome considering that it involves the election of a president. It now looks like Rick Santorum and not Mitt Romney won the Iowa caucus. After all the votes were tabulated on election night earlier this month, we were told Romney had pulled off a win over Santorum by about 9 votes. If you were paying close attention at the time, there were indications that tabulating errors were made and that Santorum was the true winner. Nonetheless, Romney has been going about his campaign as the declared winner. New results actually show Santorum the winner by 34 votes. Yet election officials say it can't be certainly declared that he actually won because the vote results from ~~four~~ eight precincts have turned up missing. It only goes to show that the reliability of elections in this country has improved little, if any, since the 2000 presidential race between Al Gore and George W. Bush that was decided by only a few hundred votes in the state of Florida after the Supreme Court essentially declared the system state officials were using to recount the votes cast on election day so badly flawed that the certified result showing Bush the winner should stand.

Santorum's apparent win in Iowa is an inconvenient fact for the state-run media to absorb. The corporate media giants have already anointed Romney as the GOP candidate to be the fall guy and deliberately throw the 2012 presidential election to Barack Obama, who was never constitutionally eligible to hold the office since he is not a natural born citizen, a convenient fact overlooked by the media and made possible by the abdication by members of the Supreme Court and Congress of their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. By the time this election is over, The One should have solidified his control to the point of declaring the constitution null and void and permanently replaced with his new monarchy and sending members of Congress and the Supreme Court away on a permanent vacation compliments of the ~~citizens~~ subjects of King Barack.

In case you missed it, a foreign company will now control the tabulation of votes cast in U.S. elections.

In a major step towards global centralization of election processes, the world's dominant Internet voting company has purchased the USA's dominant election results reporting company.

When you view your local or state election results on the Internet, on portals which often appear to be owned by the county elections division, in over 525 US jurisdictions you are actually redirected to a private corporate site controlled by SOE software, which operates under the name ClarityElections.com.

The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable spreadsheet format. As reported by BlackBoxVoting.org in 2008, the bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA. And growing.

As local election results funnel through SOE's servers (typically before they reach the public elsewhere), those who run the computer servers for SOE essentially get "first look" at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.

In 2004, many Americans were justifiably concerned when, days before the presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell redirected Ohio election night results through the Tennessee-based server for several national Republican Party operations.

This is worse: This redirects results reporting to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global. A mitigation against fraud by SOE insiders has been the separation of voting machine systems from the SOE results reports. Because most US jurisdictions require posting evidence of results from each voting machine at the precinct, public citizens can organize to examine these results to compare with SOE results. Black Box Voting spearheaded a national citizen action to videotape / photograph these poll tapes in 2008.

With the merger of SOE and SCYTL, that won't work (if SCYTL's voting system is used). When there are two truly independent sources of information, the public can perform its own "audit" by matching one number against the other.

These two independent sources, however, will now be merged into one single source: an Internet voting system controlled by SCYTL, with a results reporting system also controlled by SCYTL.

With SCYTL internet voting, there will be no ballots. No physical evidence. No chain of custody. No way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes, chain of custody, or the count.

SCYTL is moving into or already running elections in: the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia.

SCYTL is based in Barcelona; its funding comes from international venture capital funds including Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker.

Yep, the Republic is dead. Learn to accept the New World Order.

Big Bucks Flowing Into Governor's Race

2012-01-19T08:13:00.000-05:00

U.S. Rep. Mike Pence has raised more than $5 million in his bid to succeed Gov. Mitch Daniels compared to $1.7 million raised by his likely Democratic opponent, former House Speaker John Gregg. Pence's campaign financial disclosure statements show he has $3.7 million on hand to spend, while Gregg has more than $1.2 million. It looks like Pence's campaign is proving very costly to run, even if he does have a big money advantage over Gregg. His opponent had a more sharply worded response to Pence's money advantage according to the Star's Mary Beth Schneider:

"If you're a sitting member of probably the most unpopular elected body in the United States, you'd need more money to get people to vote for you. You've got to get the stink off of you," Gregg said. "It's going to take a lot of cash to scrub that congressional whiff off of him."

Pence, unlike Gregg, faces a well-financed primary opponent. Businessman Jim Wallace has raised more than $1 million, most of which came in a form of a loan from the candidate. Wallace has more than $786,000 on hand. Libertarian Rupert Boneham's nontraditional, third party candidacy has raised only $16,000 to date. Boneham begins the race with very high name recognition due to his successful appearance as a "Survivor" contestant.

It really bothers me how campaigns are becoming increasingly expensive, and the major party candidates are relying more and more on a handful of very wealthy individuals to finance their campaigns. Many of Pence's large donations are coming from people who don't even live in Indiana. It doesn't offer much hope to the discontented masses that their voices will be heard by those elected to office. Last year's Indianapolis mayor's race cost close to $9 million. At the pace the gubernatorial candidates are going, the cost of this year's governor's race will break all-time records. Pence is already out-pacing Daniels' record-setting fundraising from his first campaign for governor.

Brainard Does About Face On Libman

2012-01-19T07:51:00.000-05:00

Just days after the release of an audit that found no wrongdoing by the former executive director of Carmel's Regional Performing Arts Center, Steven Libman, Mayor James Brainard has offered praise for the accomplishments of Libman during his short tenure and acknowledges that an audit looking into the nonprofit's financial affairs had been initiated by Libman before his departure. The Star provides the details on the written statement issued by Brainard:

In his statement Wednesday, Brainard sought to clarify his position on Libman after seeing what he said was the "sensational" focus of reporting on Libman's sudden resignation from the center last year and the details of the internal review.

Brainard said the focus on those details ignores the "pivotal role" that Libman played in developing the arts center and The Palladium, a task that was accomplished with little time to recruit a staff and put together a successful program, two challenges that Libman noted in an interview Tuesday with The Indianapolis Star.

"Mr. Libman hit the ground running and strategically assembled an excellent, competent staff of professionals, worked with the architects, acousticians and City officials, and collaborated with Artistic Director, Michael Feinstein, to develop outstanding programming for both the first and second seasons," Brainard said in the prepared statement.

The mayor said Libman's efforts also were key to securing "several large donations and pledges to the Center."

Brainard also sought to clarify that the financial audit was a regular annual audit that Libman initiated while still with the center. "(It was) not a special audit of any kind. To the extent that there are rumors or reports saying something different, they are not accurate," he said.

In response to Brainard's public praise of him, Libman told the Star the audit "wiped away the rumors and accusations" and [t]he gracious statement by Mayor Brainard closes the books." There had been hints that Libman might sue Brainard for defamation because of the public accusations he made against him after hiring a private investigator at taxpayers' expense to pry into his personal life. Brainard had relied on rumors to suggest Libman may have been misspending the nonprofit's money on an alleged mistress, a former employee of the nonprofit. In light of the statements issued by Brainard and Libman, it would seem the two have put their differences behind them and are moving on.

GOP Presidential Candidates Prove They Aren't Cut Throat Like Obama

2012-01-18T20:21:00.000-05:00

Barack Obama once told his supporters that if your opponent brings a knife to a fight, you bring a gun. He meant it. Obama won his two elective offices in Illinois prior to running for president by default. When he ran for the state sentate, he hired a team of lawyers to challenge the petitions filed by the long-time respected incumbent, Alice Palmer, and got her, along with every other primary opponent he faced, tossed from the primary election ballot for deficiencies in their petitions. As we now know, Obama's campaign forged its way onto the Indiana ballot. But for hundreds of forged signatures, he would have never made the Indiana ballot in 2008 and could well have lost the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton as a consequence of that misstep.

When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate, his political guru David Axelrod, former political editor for the Chicago Tribune, convinced his former employer to go to court to get the divorce records of a self-financed candidate polls showed winning the primary race. Damning, but unproven allegations by his ex-wife, contained in the documents sunk his campaign. Facing another self-financed attractive candidate in the general election, Axelrod got his newspaper buddies to unseal that opponent's divorce records containing unproven allegations made by his ex-wife, forcing him to leave the race when party leaders decided they didn't want to even make an attempt to defend the first-time candidate. Obama wound up facing a carpetbagger, loser candidate, Alan Keyes, who even the state GOP chairman refused to support.

It's quite a different story in Illinois today where the Republican presidential candidates faced tough filing requirements in order to make the ballot. Gathering enough signatures to get the candidate's name on the ballot is only half the battle. Each candidate must also field a slate of delegate candidates that run separately in each of the state's 18 congressional districts. The delegate slates in each district must have a minimum of 600 signatures on their petitions to secure a spot on the ballot in every district statewide. Without the delegate candidates, it makes no difference how many votes a candidate receives in the popular vote. Only the winning delegates pledged to support a chosen candidate get to cast the votes that matter at the national nominating convention. Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich each filed petitions to field a full slate of delegate candidates in the 18 congressional districts. Rick Santorum only managed to file petitions for delegate slates in 14 of the districts, and of the 14, only 4 contained the minimum 600 petition signatures.

So the Republican sharks managing the opposing campaigns could smell the blood in the water. Would they go in for the kill? No. Each of the campaigns reached a pact not to challenge each other's candidate petitions. Santorum's campaign released the following statement:

Leadership from the Romney campaign (Dan Rutherford), Gingrich campaign (Bruce Hansen and Nick Provenzano), Paul campaign (Chris Younce) and Santorum campaign (Al Salvi and Jon Zahm) have agreed today to withdraw all petition challenges in Illinois against one another’s statewide and delegate petitions.

What is it they say? Nice guys finish last. Obama believes it and lives it.

Gingrich's College Teaching Records Disclosed, Where Are Obama's Records?

2012-01-18T17:17:00.001-05:00

I don't get it. No bit of information is left undisclosed when it comes to other presidential candidates. Rick Perry's grade transcripts from Texas A&M were publicly disclosed. Oodles of information about Mitt Romney has surfaced over the years from his years at Bain Capital and as governor of Massachusetts or while heading up the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Even the opposition research file the 2008 campaign of John McCain prepared four years ago on Romney is out there for all to read and absorb. Every unproven, uncharged accusation of marital infidelity or sexual harassment allegation against Herman Cain was thoroughly discussed in an effort to force him out of the race. Armies of reporters descended on Alaska to unearth every piece of dirt they could possibly find, mostly unproven, to ensure Sarah Palin had no future in politics. And now the Wall Street Journal shares the personnel file of Newt Gingrich from his days of teaching at West Georgia College, which provides more insight into the man than one might initially think. It's a good read I highly recommend.

You can find out just about anything you want to know about any of the major presidential candidates, past and present with one exception. Virtually no documented historical information about Barack Obama is accessible to the public. Want to see Barack Obama's college transcripts from Occidental, Columbia or Harvard? Off limits. What exactly did Obama do at his first job out of college at Business International? It's any one's guess. How about anything he wrote as either editor of the Harvard Law Review or as a constitutional law instructor at the University of Chicago? Not a single piece of writing exists bearing his name. How about a copy of his Illinois law admissions records? No way. Want to see any of his records from his service in the Illinois Senate? Sorry, they were all destroyed. I really would like to hear a presidential historian explain why it is acceptable that so much about this man who occupies the highest office in the land remains under lock and key or totally shrouded in mystery. The only thing we have are ghost-written auto-biographies that completely fabricate his biographical narrative to fit his political ambitions and aims.

Oh My, Romney Donates Millions To His Church

2012-01-18T10:47:00.004-05:00

ABC News' story about the millions of dollars Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has donated to his church is simply an effort to report how generous the multi-millionaire is with his money. Or is it? Reading between the lines, it doesn't take much to surmise that this story is a less than thinly-veiled effort to stoke anti-Mormon fears and prejudices and remind voters that Romney is a member of that church that is different than other churches.

Underscoring the prominent, if little discussed role that Mitt Romney played as a Mormon leader, the private equity giant once run by the GOP presidential frontrunner carved his church a slice of several of its most lucrative business deals, securities records show, providing it with millions of dollars worth of stock in some of Bain Capital's most well-known holdings.

Romney has always been a major donor to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which requires that members "tithe," or give 10 percent of their income to the church. His family charity, called the Tyler Foundation, has given more than $4 million to the church in the past five years, including $1.8 million in 2008 and $600,000 in 2009. But because Romney, whose fortune has been estimated at $250 million, has never released his personal tax returns, the full extent of his giving has never been public.

Note how the news story wants to not only convey to you that he's a Mormon but also a leader in the church, "a little discussed role" ABC News explains. The set up implies something more sinister going on with "millions more [in contributions] than has previously been disclosed," suggesting hidden donations lurking in all of those large business transactions conducted while Romney ran Bain Capital.

As part of just one Bain transaction in 2008, involving its investment in Burger King Holdings, filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission reveal that an unnamed Bain partner donated 65,326 shares of Burger King stock to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, holdings then worth nearly $1.9 million. And there were numerous others, giving the church a stake in other Bain properties, such as Domino's Pizza, the electronics manufacturer DDi, the phosphates company Innophos Holdings, and Marquee Holdings, the parent to AMC Theaters.

The Republican presidential candidate's campaign staff confirmed that some of the stock transactions were at Romney's direction, but they would not say which ones.

"Mitt Romney has publicly stated that he regularly tithes to his church," said Andrea Saul, a Romney campaign spokeswoman, when asked about the Bain contributions. "Some of those church contributions have come through the Tyler Foundation. Others have been donations of stock through Bain. Any shares donated by Mitt Romney are personal shares owned by him."

The ABC News story practically laments the fact that "[q]uestions about Romney's faith have remained largely subdued during the 2012 campaign," quite the opposite protectionist role the media took whenever anyone raised questions about Obama's Muslim background or the farcical rantings of his controversial Christian minister in 2008, or the role Kennedy's Catholicism played in the 1960 presidential race. The story includes the obligatory quote from the candidate assuring us that his religion does not "define my candidacy." The church's authority is limited to church affairs and "ends where the affairs of the nations begins" he tells the probing reporter. Debate over? Not quite. The reporter goes out of his way to find a religious professor at our own Indiana University-Purdue University to sound the alarm.

The Mormon church is distinct from many other American denominations in what it asks from adherents in money, time and commitment -- and not just because it asks young Mormon males to spend two years proselytizing for the faith as missionaries, said Jan Shipps, a religion professor at Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis, and one of the preeminent non-Mormon authorities on the church.

Romney has spoken about the 30 months he spent in France as a missionary, but his role within the church as an adult is largely unexplored. Shipps said Romney has held several significant posts within church leadership, including bishop and "stake" president, a leadership post that covers a sizeable geographic area and requires a significant commitment of time.

Beyond that, Romney appears to have lived up to rigid financial requirements within the church that asks parishioners to contribute 10 percent of their annual earnings.

In other words, the story is trying to convey to you that Mormons are not like other Christian churches, the only real reason behind the story. You can bet that this will be just one of many stories that will surface in mainstream media reports discussing Romney's religion for less than pure motives. The media will assure us it's just to inform the voters, not to foment prejudice against the candidate and his religion. That can only be the case when one is discussing a liberal Democratic candidate.

George Romney's Natural Born Citizenship Problem: A Different Era

2012-01-17T20:55:00.006-05:00

During last night's Fox News Republican presidential debate for the South Carolina primary, liberal panelist Juan Williams asked a very pointed question of Mitt Romney about his position on immigration reform that drew heckles from the audience. “Governor Romney, your father was born in Mexico. You still have family there — yet you have taken the hardest line of anyone on this stage on immigration reform,” Williams said. Although Williams' question didn't mention the natural born citizenship cloud hanging over President Barack Obama' presidency, the question was a back-handed way of throwing the issue in Romney's face. Although Mitt Romney clearly was born to U.S. citizen parents in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, Internet blogs and chain e-mails have been making the rounds trying to cast doubt about Romney's natural born citizenship status. Williams has been very vocal in his view that the so-called "birther" debate surrounding Obama's eligibility was all about racism. Liberals immediately tried to cast the audience reaction as a sign of anti-Mexican bigotry within the Republican Party.

When Mitt's father, George Romney, ran against Richard Nixon for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968, there was a very intense public debate over whether Mitt's father met the constitutional eligibility requirement because of his birth in Mexico. George's parents, Gaskill and Anna Romney, were both U.S. citizens born in Utah, but George's grandfather, a practicing polygamist, had fled with his family to Mexico in the 1800s to escape prosecution for the outlawed practice. George's parents, who were monogamous, were married in Mexico and George was born there in 1907. George's parents fled Mexico with their children during the Mexican Revolution when he was five years old. Census data indicated that all of the family members were listed as U.S. citizens, including George, despite his birth in Mexico.

The We The People of the United States blog contrasts the news media's treatment of the debate over Romney's natural born citizenship status in 1968 compared to the media's virtual blackout of the issue during the 2008 presidential campaign. The New York Times, for example, featured a number of serious stories on the subject starting in 1967 and continuing right up to the time Romney dropped out of the race in 1968. In one of the stories, a very prominent Democratic member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Emanuel Celler, who served in the House for 50 years and chaired the House Judiciary Committee, elevated the debate. Celler, a practicing lawyer who was considered an expert on immigration law matters, was very outspoken in his view that Romney's natural born citizenship status was "a wide open question" that demanded further inquiry. Celler suggested the establishment of a special commission to rule on his eligibility without any hint that his motives in so requesting were less than honorable:

Representative Emanuel Celler expressed “serious doubts” yesterday as to whether Gov. George Romney of Michigan is eligible for the Presidency. Mr. Celler called it a “wide open question” and suggested that the Republican party appoint some sort of commission to “come up with an answer to this situation. … Mr. Celler, who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said that although he had no plans to challenge Mr. Romney’s eligibility, the question should not be allowed to go unanswered. … Most constitutional experts have held that he is eligible since his parents were United States citizens. … The Romneys never gave up their citizenship and returned to the United States … George Romney was 5 years old. … Mr. Celler suggested that a commission to rule on Mr. Romney’s eligibility be composed of “eminent professors of law, retired jurists and lawyers.

One story published by the NY Times discussed a New York Law Journal article authored by Isidor Blum, a retired constitutional law professor at NYU, that concluded Romney was not a natural born citizen. "Blum asserts that the framers of the Constitution intended to exclude all foreign born persons from the Presidency," the Times reported. The journal's editor, Myron Kandel, told the Times that it was "an extremely significant question" and that "dialogue is necessary." "What if Romney gets elected and the courts decide he can't be president?" Kandel asked.

By the time the campaign heated up in 1968, the Times speculated that a court case over the issue was imminent. It even quoted Romney advisers as saying the candidate himself was willing to test the issue in the courts if an opponent didn't file a case against him first. The conservative newspaper editor of the Manchester Union-Leader, William Loeb, was very vocal about his opposition to Romney's candidacy and threatened to take the issue to court himself to have Romney removed from the New Hampshire primary ballot if Romney moved forward with his campaign. In the end, Romney pulled out of the race two weeks before the nation's first presidential primary in New Hampshire as his support in public opinion polls plummeted before the case could be heard by a court, rendering the issue moot. The Secretary of State of Oregon had a pending request to his state's Attorney General to rule on the question of whether Romney should be removed from Oregon's ballot when Romney dropped his bid.

What's interesting about the newspaper articles that discussed Romney's eligibility was the open view that any citizen could go to court to challenge his eligibility to serve as president. With respect to Obama's eligibility, dozens of lawsuits brought by citizens and members of the military who questioned Obama's authority to serve as their commander-in-chief, have been summarily dismissed without hearing the merits of their legal argument on the basis that they lacked standing to challenge Obama's eligibility. One newspaper report actually cited the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision upon which defenders of Obama's eligibility have relied to support their contention that he is a natural born citizen notwithstanding the fact that his father was a Kenyan national, making him a dual citizen at birth. The writer contended that the decision in that case meant only that Romney was a citizen at birth as a result of an act of Congress making children of U.S. citizens born abroad citizens at birth as opposed to a natural born citizen.

The "We The People of the United States" blog notes the disparaging way the New York Times has discussed persons raising questions about Obama's eligibility, always using the negative term "birther" to describe them. "She looks like a young Carol Channing, sounds like an overexcited Zsa Zsa Gabor, and has the ability to make absurd accusations with a completely straight face," the Times said of Orley Taitz, the attorney who has filed a number of lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility. How's that for a sexist description of a Russian female immigrant from the politically correct Times? The Times criticized news organizations that had covered the issue of using "the risible pretext of needing to be fair to both sides of an issue about which there was nothing up for debate--at least not in the real world." The law certainly didn't change during the 50-year intervening period between Romney's 1968 campaign for president and Obama's 2008 campaign, only the way the Times and the rest of the media chose to frame the debate--at least as far as Obama was concerned. The Times had no problem publishing stories questioning John McCain's eligibility on the exact same basis that Romney's eligibility had been questioned by the newspaper 50 years earlier.

Carmel Performing Arts Audit Fails To Produce Smoking Gun

2012-01-17T14:34:00.001-05:00

Carmel Mayor James Brainard spent more than $8,000 of taxpayer money on a private investigator in an attempt to prove that Steven Libman, the former executive director of Carmel's Regional Center for Performing Arts, had misspent the nonprofit's money on entertaining another female employee of the center with whom he was accused of having an inappropriate relationship. Yet an audit found the female employee had accompanied Libman on only a handful of trips to New York costing the nonprofit a little more than $1,100. The audit did, however, fault the female employee's failure to separately submit her own travel reimbursement requests rather than billing them to a credit card issued to the nonprofit. Fox 59 News' Ann Yeager, who has been doggedly pursuing this story from the beginning, got this reaction from other Carmel officials, who wondered if the public humiliation and firing of Libman was all justified and pointed out that Brainard himself had taken a female city employee along with him on at least one of those trips to New York:

Former City Councilor John Acceturro said that is chump change.

“Libman's travel expenditures for meals indicated in the review were small considering it was for two and in the New York City area,” said Accetturo. “Hotel costs were also within range.”

Critics also question that on at least one trip to New York, Mayor Jim Brainard brought Nancy Heck, who is his community affairs specialist, with him on travel but never mentioned it publicly.
Due to a concern of a potential sexual harassment lawsuit, Mayor Brainard hired private investigators at taxpayer expense to follow Libman and his assistant at the tune of $8,000.

Councilors said the audit revealed no wrongdoing.

Fox59 contacted Mayor Brainard who is in Washington, DC. We asked him if this was a witch hunt, and he replied ‘no comment’.

Brainard defends hiring private investigators, because he feared Libman’s mistress would sue the city for sexual harassment. However, she has not . . . “

There’s nothing in there, no evidence of financial misdealing or fraud,” said Acceturro. “The only thing the audit tells me that there is no evidence.”

The biggest criticism of the nonprofit's management in the audit was its failure to obtain advance board approval for a PBS special to promote the center that resulted in a net loss of $400,000.

When Libman's abrupt resignation from the nonprofit was first announced last year, Mayor Brainard had publicly accused him of misspending money on his mistress. He told the Star:

"Some sources have indicated that Mr. Libman was consistently flying to other cities in the country with his assistant at the (art center) foundation's expense to supposedly view shows he might want to bring to the Palladium," Brainard said. "These sources have indicated they believe it was nothing more than to cover for expensive dates out of town." . . .

Ironically, Yeager uncovered travel expenses submitted by Carmel city attorney, Doug Haney, for reimbursement for staying overnight in hotels in Indianapolis on numerous occasions when he attended seminars. Haney racked up about as much in costs for his hotel stays in Indianapolis only thirty-five miles from his home as was involved with the female employee's travel to New York.

For his part, Libman issued this statement to Current In Carmel lauding the findings of the audit:

“Today’s release of the regular annual audit of The Center for the Performing Arts, Inc. fills me with both pleasure and pride. It gives me pleasure because this regular annual audit demonstrates that through the end of the Center’s 2010-11 fiscal year, financial matters were handled with the high standards of care and professionalism that I demanded as President and Chief Executive Officer. Pride because the positive operating results and cash balances demonstrate the extremely fast development of the Center from a building and a vision into a vibrant, successful regional asset for performing arts through the hard work of the Center’s staff.

“Finally, I am especially proud of the Center for ending each of the first two years of operation with a surplus – a great accomplishment for a start-up performing arts center. This wonderful achievement was possible due to the very talented senior staff that I recruited and hired. Their dedication and leadership is what has enabled the Center to continue to move forward successfully.

“I congratulate the Board and the present staff for the Center’s solid performance and wish them the best of luck in the future.

“With respect to the internal review reported by Board Chairman Rollin Dick, I believe any organization needs to increase the sophistication of its financial controls as it grows and matures. At the start-up of the Center, we had a small staff and a very short time to prepare a season. We followed all Center procedures that were in place at the time. Given the success of the Center over the past two years, such items as expense reporting, human resources and contract procedures should be improved.

Mourdock Ad Hits Lugar For Being "Obama's Favorite Republican"

2012-01-17T07:53:00.001-05:00

Sen. Richard Lugar is airing ads trying to convince Hoosier voters that he's doing his best to fight the policies of President Barack Obama in Washington, while his Republican primary opponent, State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, is trying to convince them he's Obama's favorite Republican. Lugar, who has a large campaign war chest, will air his ads statewide, while Mourdock's media buy is very small and will only air a few times on cable news channels. The Star's Maureen Groppe writes of the dualing ads:

Mourdock's ad repeats his main argument against Lugar -- that he isn't conservative enough. The ad cites several of Lugar's votes, including those for Supreme Court justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan; for the 2008 financial bailout; and to raise the limit on U.S. borrowing authority.

"No wonder he's called 'Obama's favorite Republican,' " the ad says . . .

Lugar was among a minority of Republicans who voted for Obama's Supreme Court nominees. But his vote in August to raise the debt ceiling, which Obama signed into law, was in line with a majority of his GOP colleagues. And most Republicans also voted for the 2008 financial bailout, which Republican President George W. Bush signed into law.

Most recently, Lugar voted with Obama on 62 percent of the 89 Senate votes for which the president took a clear position last year, according to Congressional Quarterly, a nonpartisan publication that has been tracking vote statistics since 1953. Senate Republicans as a group voted with Obama an average of 53 percent of the time last year . . .

Is it just me or does Mourdock appear to be running a stealth campaign? Lugar's campaign puts out a steady stream of press releases compared to the lackluster messaging by Mourdock's campaign. Some of his most ardent supporters express complete disillusionment at the way his campaign is being managed.

Fair Finance Trustee Gives Big Break To Daniels On Durham Contributions

2012-01-17T07:41:00.001-05:00

Gov. Mitch Daniels' Mitch for Governor campaign committee pocketed more than $200,000 in contributions from Ponzi schemer Tim Durham, his largest single contributor, but he will repay just $3,000 of that money to the bankruptcy trustee charged with marshaling assets for the benefit of the investors who were defrauded out of more than $200 million by Durham according to the Indianapolis Star. In contrast, former Marion Co. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, who received a similar sum in contributions, repaid more than $195,000 to the trustee. Daniels said earlier that he felt no obligation to repay the money because it was all spent and his gubernatorial campaign committee account had since been closed. Daniels is a multi-millionaire worth more than $50 million.

A political action committee controlled by Daniels, Aiming Higher PAC, will return $10,000 it received in contributions from Durham. The Indiana Republican Party has also agreed to repay $87,875 in contributions from Durham, representing most of the $92,500 it received from Durham. The amount repaid by Daniels probably didn't even cover all the money charged by attorneys for the trustee negotiating with Daniels for repayment of the money. You can bet Daniels will sleep well knowing those unfortunate small investors in Ohio lost their entire life savings, and you can bet the news media in this state won't bother giving him a rough time for caring so little about their plight.

CIB Expects To Lose Money From Super Bowl

2012-01-16T15:20:00.001-05:00

This should come as no surprise. All the giveaways the City of Indianapolis provided to the NFL so it could having bragging rights for hosting a Super Bowl is going to wind up costing the Capital Improvement Board more than $800,000. The IBJ's Scott Olson explains:

Scores of businesses in and around Indianapolis are licking their chops in hopes of scoring a windfall from the city’s hosting of the Super Bowl on Feb. 5.

But the city entity that manages Lucas Oil Stadium, where the game will be played, expects to lose money.

The Capital Improvement Board of Marion County is budgeting for total Super Bowl expenses of $8 million and revenue of nearly $7.2 million, leaving a loss of $810,000.

The largest expenditure is the $4 million CIB has agreed to reimburse the city for providing police security for an estimated 150,000 visitors. It also budgeted almost $2 million to pay full-time employees overtime and union members who have been hired temporarily.

The CIB's chief financial officer assures Olson there's no cause for concern because all the extra money from out-of-town visitors will generate more than enough in higher tax revenues from the hotel tax and the food and beverage tax to offset the loss.

CIB anticipates pocketing $3 million from the Super Bowl in additional tax revenue: $2.4 million in hotel taxes, $440,000 in food and beverage taxes, and $100,000 in auto-rental taxes.

An additional $794,000 in collected taxes will be paid the state of Indiana to help pare down debt related to the cost of building the stadium and convention center.

The total tax revenue generated during the days surrounding the Super Bowl equates to what the board typically earns from taxes in an entire month, Huge said.

The additional tax revenues may be about equal to one month's worth of typical revenues collected by the CIB from these taxes, but you have to also consider that the CIB is losing convention center business that could have otherwise been booked during the two to three week lead-up to the Super Bowl that had to be blacked out in order to prepare for the event. Most of those out-of-town visitors will only be in town during the extended weekend of the Super Bowl in early February, which means a loss of hotel room night bookings during the extended blackout period. The CIB is turning over the convention center to the NFL free of charge, space that would have otherwise been rented out by paying conventioneers.

As I've also reported previously, a special tax break afforded to the NFL during the Super Bowl could mean a loss of tens of millions of dollars in tax revenues the city would have otherwise collected from this event. The CIB is giving up about $2 million in admissions taxes alone that it won't collect on ticket sales to the game. The NFL has also been given control of government-owned parking garages and lots that it will be allowed to rent out during the Super Bowl, and the NFL gets to keep the parking revenues generated during the event.

It goes without saying that the Super Bowl will be a boon to the hospitality industry in Indianapolis and Central Indiana. A true economic analysis of the event's benefit, however, has to take into account all of the public expenditures and tax breaks made in order to land the event to determine its overall benefit. I doubt you will ever see that analysis performed. I suspect that it would show that the true economic benefit is not nearly as large as touted by city leaders.

U.S. Is No Longer Land Of The Free According To Turley

2012-01-16T12:16:00.000-05:00

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley offers ten reasons why the United States is no longer the land of the free in a column that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post and reposted on his blog. You can read the full column here, but this is a short summary of what he writes about:

The President's declaration of a right to assassinate American citizens he deems terrorists or those who aid terrorists.
Congressional authorization granting the President authority to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens accused of terrorism or aiding terrorists without due process of law as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
The President's arbitrary right to decide whether a person is entitled to a trial in a U.S. civil court or military tribunal.
The President's expanded authority to conduct warrantless searches in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The use of "secret evidence" protection to shield from disclosure evidence used to detain and try persons accused of crimes that disclosure of which the government claims would harm national security.
The refusal to investigate or prosecute war crimes committed by the through of unlawful interrogation methods.
The use of secret foreign intelligence courts.
Immunity from prosecution granted to companies which assist the U.S. government in warrantless searches of citizens.
The use of GPS systems to monitor the movement of citizens without any court order or review.
Extraordinary renditions that allows the President to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to other countries in order that tortures methods may be carried out against suspects.

The following passages from Turley's column best sums up why you should be concerned about the loss of these fundamental rights:

An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.

The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powel confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His response was a bit chilling: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”

Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.

The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama. While the president had promised to veto the law over that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill, disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention.

Dishonesty from politicians is nothing new for Americans. The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free.

Fifth Circuit Opinion Suggests Lugar Was Ineligible Five Of Six Times He's Been Elected To U.S. Senate

2012-01-15T11:23:00.004-05:00

The U.S. Constitution requires that a U.S. Senator "when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen," the identical requirement provided for persons elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. The inhabitancy standard set for members of Congress is a much less exacting requirement than the residency requirement imposed on candidates for state and local office. The debate over whether a candidate for a congressional seat or senate seat is eligible has played out many times before. Hillary Clinton faced the carpetbagger argument when she moved to New York from Arkanas to run for an open senate seat as did Al Franken when he moved back home to the state of Minnesota to run for a senate seat. As long as the person has been a U.S. citizen for the minimum number of years, seven for representatives and nine for senators, and meets the minimum age requirement, 25 for representatives and 30 for senators, a person is eligible to run for any house or senate seat anywhere in the United States. No residency requirement is imposed; however, the person must be an inhabitant of the state from which he or she is elected at the time of the election. Under that low standard, Indiana's U.S. Senator Richard Lugar was eligible when he was first elected to the Senate in 1976, but he was not eligible at the time of his re-elections in 1982, 1988, 1994, 2000 and 2006, respectively, because he had ceased to be an inhabitant of the state of Indiana.

A Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 2006 is instructive on the meaning of the inhabitancy requirement in the U.S. Constitution. On April 3, 2006, U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay announced that he would be resigning his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives after he had won re-nomination by the Republican Party to his congressional seat in the March state primary election. The Chairman of the Texas Republican Party sought to declare DeLay ineligible to run for the House seat so she could remove his name from the Texas general election ballot and replace him with another candidate chosen by the party. DeLay sent the party's chair a letter stating that he had moved to Virginia and was no longer eligible for the office. DeLay sent proof to the party's chair that he had changed his voter registration, driver's license and employment tax withholding form to the state of Virginia as proof of his ineligibility. Based on this information, the Texas Republican Party declared DeLay ineligible to run for the House of Representatives pursuant to state law and announced its intention to replace him with another candidate on the general election ballot. The Texas Democratic Party filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that DeLay was eligible to run for the office and injunctive relief to prevent the Republican Party from replacing him with another candidate.

The Democratic Party argued that whether DeLay was an eligible inhabitant of the state had to be determined on facts known at the time of his election, not information about where he lived prior to the election. A U.S. federal district court agreed that DeLay was still constitutionally eligible for the Texas ballot and granted a permanent injunction prohibiting his replacement on the general election ballot. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling in Texas Democratic Party v. Benkiser, 459 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2006). The Fifth Circuit Court, interpreting the qualifications clause, held that "[t]he plain language of the inhabitancy requirement of the Qualifications Clause shows that a candidate for the House of Representatives must only be an inhabitant of the state 'when elected.'" U.S. CONST. art. 1, § 2, cl. 2. The court explained how the question of DeLay's inhabitancy could not be conclusively established until the date of the election:

These documents do not conclusively establish whether DeLay will be an inhabitant of Texas on November 7, 2006. DeLay could be a current resident of Virginia, as the documents above provide, and nonetheless move back to Texas before November 7. Indeed, Benkiser admitted in her testimony that the public records could not prove DeLay's residency on election day and that DeLay could move back to Texas before election day.

Information that was before Benkiser showing DeLay's eligibility supports this conclusion. Benkiser had before her DeLay's original candidacy application, in which he swore that he was eligible for office. In terms of the Qualifications Clause, such a declaration necessarily contained an implicit promise that DeLay would be an inhabitant of Texas on election day. It is also likely that Benkiser knew—because the RPT confirmed his eligibility in prior elections—that DeLay had been an inhabitant of Texas for decades. Under these circumstances, the public records provided by DeLay could not have conclusively established his future residency. Predicting DeLay's future inhabitancy would have required a finding of fact, which the RPT had no authority to make.

In its analysis, the court noted that the framers of our constitution had specifically rejected imposing a minimum residency requirement for house and senate members, having "specifically rejected seven-year, three-year and one-year requirements." The Fifth Circuit cited an 1808 case in which the House of Representatives had declared a representative elected from Maryland, who had only moved to the state "a mere two weeks before his election" constitutionally eligible to hold the office "because he was an inhabitant of that state as of election day." By considering the public records DeLay had sent to the Texas Republican Party chair prior to the election to consider his eligibility, the Texas chair had impermissibly "created a pre-election inhabitancy requirement." Simililarly, the Firth Circiut noted that the Ninth and Tenth Circuits have both declared state laws imposing pre-election residency requirements on congressional candidates unconstitutional. In Schaefer v. Townsend, the Ninth Circuit held that a Nevada resident could not be blocked from filing nominating papers to run for a California House seat because he did not reside in the district at the time he filed to run for the office. The Tenth Circuit in Campbell v. Davidson ruled that the Colorado secretary of state could not keep a candidate off the ballot because he was not a registered voter at the time he filed his nominating papers. The Campbell court cited a 1972 federal court decision, Dillon v. Fiorina, 340 F. Supp. 729 (D.N.M. 1972) striking down a New Mexico statute that had the effect of imposing a two-year residency requirement on candidates for the U.S. Senate.

Given what we know about Richard Lugar, it cannot be doubted that he was an inhabitant of the state of Indiana when he first ran for the U.S. Senate in 1976, including the date on which he was elected. It is undisputed that he resided at 3200 Highwoods Court in Indianapolis. It is also undisputed that he sold his Indianapolis home on July 6, 1977 and thereafter maintained only a single home in McLean, Virginia where he and his wife have since resided. One of his own advisers conceded that the Lugars stay in hotels when they return to Indiana. Yet, Lugar and his wife have used the 3200 Highwoods Court property in which they gave up an ownership interest in 1977 as the address for their voter registration, obtaining an Indiana driver's licenses and registering their motor vehicles for the past 35 years. Based on this evidence, certified fraud examiner Greg Wright has filed a complaint with the Indiana Elections Division charging that the Lugars have repeatedly committed vote fraud by casting votes using an address at which neither has lived for 35 years. Lugar relies on a 1982 Attorney General Opinion prepared for him by former Attorney General Linley Pierson claiming that Lugar was no longer required to maintain any residence in Indiana following his election to the Senate. The opinion reads, in part:

If such a person was entitled to vote in this state prior to departing for service in Congress, whatever residence that person possessed for voting purposes prior to such departure remains his or her residence. There is no requirement that such a person maintain a house, apartment, or any fixed physical location.

Pierson relied on a state constitutional provision that protects a person from losing their residency in the state by virtue of their absence from the state while conducting business of the state or federal government. Article 2, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution reads: "No person shall be deemed to have lost his residence in the State, by reason of his absence, either on business of this State or of the United States." A state residency law, however, can only be applied to candidates for state or local office. As the Fifth Circuit and many other federal court decisions have held, the U.S. Constitution alone determines the eligibility requirements for members of Congress. According to Benkiser, Tom DeLay could have been deemed ineligible to be elected as a member of the House of Representatives from Texas if he was no longer an inhabitant of the state of Texas on November 7, 2006 despite the fact that he had been deemed an inhabitant of the state since his first election to Congress in 1984. DeLay presented proof that he had changed his residence to the state of Virginia as of May, 2006, but the Benkiser court determined that the determination of his inhabitancy had to be based on conclusive evidence establishing where he resided on November 7, 2006, the date of the election. Because Lugar had no residence in Indiana at any of the five elections at which he was elected subsequent to his initial 1976 election, it is arguable that Lugar was ineligible to serve Indiana in the Senate because he was not an inhabitant of the state. If someone challenged his eligibility this year, Lugar could remedy the problem by simply renting a home within the state by the date of this year's general election, which is November 6, 2012.

As to Wright's contention that the Lugars have committed vote fraud by not maintaining an Indiana residence since 1977, Pierson's 1982 opinion also must be questioned. The state constitutional provision arguably is simply an acknowledgment of the fact that persons elected to represent Indiana in Congress are required to spend the majority of their time living and working in Washington, D.C. in order to perform their constitutional duties. Indiana's constitution protects members of Indiana's congressional delegation from having their residency challenged because they primarily reside in Washington; it should not be read to exempt them from having any place of residence within the state to where they can return for the election held once every two years for members of the House of Representatives and every six years for members of the Senate. Members of a state's congressional district have traditionally maintained some form of residence within their states, even if their primary residence is in the nation's capital for no other reason than to have a place where they can receive mail, file their taxes, register their motor vehicles, obtain driver's licenses and register to vote. Otherwise, a person potentially runs afoul of numerous other laws by claiming a residence where none exists. In recognition of this reality of having to maintain at least two residences, Congress has enacted a special tax law that permits members of Congress to take a deduction for their living expenses in Washington, a tax break not afforded to ordinary taxpayers.

It is interesting to note that Terre Haute elections lawyer, Jim Bopp, represented the Texas Republican Party in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision concerning Tom DeLay's eligibility to run for Congress from Texas. Bopp also successfully represented Secretary of State Charlie White in the Recount Commission case brought by the Indiana Democratic Party contesting his eligibility to be elected to the office based on the argument that he wasn't "legally" registered to vote at the time of his nomination for the office. Even the Democratic Party concedes that White was a legally registered voter at the time of his election at the November, 2010 election. Democrats waited until after the election to contest his eligibility based on his registered voting address at the time of his nomination by the Indiana Republican Party at its state convention in June, 2010. Based on the Bennett v. Burke decision decided by the Indiana Supreme Court, the Democrats should lose their challenge against White because he was not ineligible at the time of his election. Nonetheless, Marion Co. Circuit Court Judge Louis Rosenberg, a Democrat, has ruled that he is ineligible to hold the office because Rosenberg deemed that he was not legally registered to vote at his "permanent residence" at the time of his nomination. Believe it or not, Indiana's constitution does not even expressly impose any residency requirement for a person to be secretary of state, let alone be a registered voter of the state. The General Assembly, by law, has imposed that additional requirement. One could argue that the General Assembly is without authority to impose qualifications on candidates for statewide office beyond those expressly required by the state's constitution.

When Richard Lugar Left Indiana

2012-01-14T16:46:00.007-05:00

Richard Lugar defeated former Sen. Vance Hartke for re-election in the 1976 general election, winning 59% of the vote. About six months after taking office as Indiana's junior senator, Lugar and his wife Charlene sold their family home at 3200 Highwoods Court in Indianapolis to David and Sandra Gootee on July 6, 1977 and ceased to be residents of the state of Indiana. The Lugars made 7841 Old Dominion Road in McLean, Virginia as their new home not far from the nation's capital. Sandra Gootee spoke to certified fraud examiner Greg Wright on the telephone today about the home she and her husband purchased from the Lugars nearly 35 years ago.

David Gootee, who is suffering from brain cancer, was unable to talk to Wright. Sandra told Wright she and her husband learned the Lugars' home was for sale through a local real estate agent. When the Gootees closed on the purchase of their new home, only Charlene was present. Sandra recalled Charlene, who she described as "a nice enough person," insisting that a storage barn located on the property was not included with the sale. The Gootees were assured it would be removed a short time after the sale. Sandra indicated disappointment that the Lugars waited a few years before they got around to removing the storage barn.

The Gootees owned the former Lugar home on Highwoods Court until they sold it to David and Elizabeth Hughes in 1989. Sandra told Wright the Lugars retained no ownership interest in the property and did not rent any part of the home from the Gootees. When Wright told Sandra that the Lugars still voted, registered their vehicles and had Indiana-issued driver's licenses listing the 3200 Highwoods Court address as their residence, she was surprised. "I do not think that is right," she told Wright. Sandra described herself as politically "conservative", but she believed it was improper for the Lugars to claim as a residence a home they haven't owned since 1977.

Indiana's Secretary of State, Charlie White, has been declared by Marion Co. Circuit Court Judge Louis Rosenberg to be ineligible to run for the office to which he was elected in a landslide election in the 2010 general election because he allegedly "illegally" used his ex-wife's home where he formally lived as his registered voting address for a short period of time when he was nominated by the Republican Party as its candidate for secretary of state. A special prosecutor has charged him with seven felony counts, including vote fraud, marriage application fraud, mortgage fraud and theft because he claimed his ex-wife's home as his residence while serving on the Fishers Town Council. White could lose his job, face jail time and be stripped of his license to practice law if he's found guilty. Sen. Lugar and his wife, however, have been allowed to cast votes, register their vehicles and obtain driver's licenses while claiming a residence at which they haven't resided in 35 years. He is seeking re-election this year to an unprecedented seventh term. What's wrong with this picture?

Marion County Judge Upholds Constitutionality Of Indiana's School Voucher Law

2012-01-13T18:12:00.000-05:00

Supporters of Indiana's school voucher law won a big case today challenging the constitutionality of the law because it allows state education dollars to flow to religious-supported parochial schools. The Indiana State Teachers Association, which brought the lawsuit, contended the law should be declared unconstitutional because of the state constitution's prohibition on public dollars being used to support a religious institution. Marion Co. Superior Court Judge Michael Keele ruled that the law doesn't violate the constitutional prohibition because the state isn't directly funding the parochial schools with the voucher program; rather, the state gives the vouchers to parents, who get to choose where to use them. There are about 4,000 students enrolled in Indiana's school voucher program. ISTA plans to appeal today's ruling.

Obama Justice Department Questioning Accuracy Of Indiana's Voter Registration Rolls

2012-01-13T10:50:00.005-05:00

The Indiana Legislative Insight's Ed Feigenbaum has an interesting story in the latest edition of his subscriber-only newsletter indicating that the Voting Section in the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division has written a letter to Secretary of State Charlie White compliance with the National Voter Registration Act's requirements for the timely removal of ineligible voters from the state's registered voter list. According to the letter, the Justice Department complains that "the active voter registrations exceeds the voting age population in 10 percent or more of Indiana's counties." The letter further complains that a large percentage of Indiana's counties had failed to "report undertaking certain standard and expected list maintenance activities."

The Obama Justice Department has recently stepped up efforts to scrutinize state-enacted voter ID laws. The Department is seeking to block enforcement of a recently-enacted voter ID law in the state of South Carolina that is similar to the one Indiana enacted several years ago, which was upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Earlier this week, I reported on a Project Veritas undercover video expose' during Tuesday's New Hampshire presidential primary election showing how individuals posing as dead voters were able to request and be offered ballots to cast in the election without showing identification. When the persons offered to show photo identification, the election workers told them it was not necessary because New Hampshire has no voter ID law. Democrats are now pressing law enforcement officials in New Hampshire to prosecute the Project Veritas crew members for attempting to procure ballots under false pretenses and recording the election workers without their consent. The state's Attorney General has said he is investigating the matter, while Republican lawmakers in the Granite State are urging renewed efforts to enact a voter ID law. The state's governor last year vetoed a voter ID bill passed by the state legislature.

According to Feigenbaum's report, the Justice Department demanded a complete copy of the state's voter registration list by mid-month. Secretary of State Charlie White's office responded to the Justice Department letter by saying the request was "misdirected" because NVRA statutory authority and responsibility is vested in the Indiana Elections Division and the state's 92 county election boards over which White's office has no control. Feigenbaum further reports that the Election Division's staff contests the Justice Department's allegations and conclusions about Indiana's voter registration lists. Feigenbaum wonders whether the letter is a prelude to an effort by the Obama Justice Department to launch a new assault on Indiana's voter ID law.

Ironically, fellow blogger Paul Ogden has recently written about progress that has been made in recent years in Marion County, the state's largest county, to purge ineligible voters from the registered voter list. In 2008, Ogden found that the number of registered voters in Marion County exceeded by at least 5% the number of persons residing in the county of voter registration age according to census data. Three years later, Ogden reported that Marion County had pared down the number of registered voters by nearly 79,000 voters, meaning that about 89% of the county's eligible voters were registered to vote.

Amos Hints GOP Tried To Pull Coup In Council President's Race

2012-01-13T08:34:00.001-05:00

Radio talk show host Amos Brown hints in his latest column in the Indianapolis Recorder that Republicans on the Indianapolis City-County Council tried to plot with an African-American Democratic member of the council to elect a council president other than the candidate chosen by the Democratic caucus to lead the council, Maggie Lewis. Brown writes:

Did Republicans on the City-County Council and the mayor's office approach an African-American councilor to defect? I'm hearing buzz the Black council member was urged to vote for a white Republican for council president. But the GOP scoundrels couldn't get another Democrat to go along with the scheme.

While it may sound a bit far fetched at first blush, it cannot be discounted entirely. The last time the Republicans were in the minority during Mayor Bart Peterson's second term, Republican councilors enticed a couple of Democratic councilors to defect and elect then-Councilor Steve Talley as President over the Democratic-controlled council's president, Rozelle Boyd. When the council met for its organization meeting, the Republican caucus nominated and then provided the votes necessary to give Talley a majority of the votes to oust Boyd from the council leadership position. Republicans did not nominate a competing candidate for council president at Monday night's meeting, but they did nominate Talley for council vice president over the Democratic caucus' choice, Brian Mahern. When Talley withdrew his name, the Republicans attempted to nominate Vop Osili, who also declined the nomination. Talley, it should be pointed out, was awarded with the job of running Animal Care & Control during the early part of Mayor Greg Ballard's first term. He was forced out of the job due to concerns over deplorable conditions at the animal shelter and concerns about his management of the agency. It seems more likely the Republicans would have been trying to elect their preferred Democrat for the top job, not one of their own as suggested by Brown.

Lugar's Problems Don't Include Not Having A Residence In Indiana According To Tully

2012-01-12T08:00:00.003-05:00

It's the big elephant in the room Indiana's mainstream news media wants to pretend isn't there when it comes to Sen. Richard Lugar. I'm talking about the fact that Lugar hasn't maintained a residence in Indiana for more than three decades. Instead, he lives in hotels when he visits the state. Yet reporters like Matt Tully want to malign voters and political opponents every time they discuss Lugar's difficult challenge in winning re-election to an unprecedented seventh term. In his mind, they're just too angry and too stupid to know what a great thing they have in Lugar.

Tully's latest defense of the out-of-touch senator, instead, focuses on reminding us that he's "civil, statesmanlike" who needs to figure out how to get non-Republicans to come out in this year's primary to vote for him without "alienating conservatives". Tully resumes his role as Lugar's number one fan by telling him that he needs to emphasize to Republican voters that he's the candidate "most likely to win the general election" though he acknowledges that being in the Senate "for nearly 40 years" has its disadvantages given the current national mood. Tully assures us that Lugar is working "to mend relationships with local party leaders and activists", but it's "not a natural area of strength."

What is Tully? A paid campaign adviser for Lugar, or a political columnist? People are sick and tired of this gratuitous and condescending ass-kissing of a man by the news media who has been given more than enough time in the Senate to stroke and soothe his personal ego. Every time Tully writes another story about what a great statesman Lugar is, he spits on the Pulitzer prize-winning, former reporters at the Indianapolis Star whose investigative reporting uncovered the depths of the corruption within the City of Indianapolis when Lugar served as its mayor. In a five-part series, a fellow blogger, John Michael Vore, portraits Indianapolis under Lugar as being wide open to criminal syndicates to operate during the Lugar years based largely on the reporting and retelling of those years by Dick Cady in his book "Deadline: Indianapolis." Forget the the mythological BS you've been fed for years about how Lugar built the city up from a backwater naptown. Learn the real history, something Tully and most of the other reporters in Indiana today are obviously incapable of doing.

The South Bend Tribune's Kevin Allen has an equally gratuitous piece today touting Lugar's re-election in an opinion piece masquerading as a news story.

Coroner's Office Employee Blows Whistle On Morgue Conditions

2012-01-12T00:00:00.002-05:00

Here's a story that shouldn't come as any surprise. The Marion County Coroner's Office, the nation's worst, maintains a morgue one would expect to find in a third world country. An employee of the office became so disgusted that he recorded a video of the conditions inside the morgue and sent it to WRTV's Jack Rinehart. It shows open body bags with rotting bodies leaking hazardous blood and bodily fluids onto the floor. Some of the bodies have been in the morgue for more than a year.

An employee at the facility sent RTV6 a 60-second video showing the inside of the refrigerated storage vault at the morgue.

In an accompanying letter, the anonymous employee said that some bodies have been at the morgue for more than a year, and that blood and bodily fluids have leaked onto the floor, making for unsafe and unsanitary working conditions.

"It smells really bad, and we have to work with the look of rotting bodies and the smell of rotting flesh every day," the employee wrote. "It is very disrespectful to the deceased."

RTV6's Jack Rinehart showed the video to John Linehan, who worked at the morgue for 20 years, including a number of years as chief deputy coroner.

"It's no wonder people would complain about the smell or the sight," he said. "Some of the bags are open. There are body parts that are exposed through the bags. It would be horrible to work under those conditions."

RTV6 showed Chief Deputy Coroner Alfarena Ballew the video, which the employee said was taken in December.

Ballew stressed that the nature of the job can be difficult at times, but maintained that the vault is cleaned every day and that the morgue is kept to standards of the National Association of Medical Examiners.

"We don't know when that blood and body fluid was leaking onto the floor. That's one issue," Ballew said. "(Regarding the complaint) it smells very bad, well we do have decomposed bodies that we deal with every day."

Ballew acknowledged that at least two bodies have been stored at the morgue for longer than a year. One is an unidentified John Doe and the other has not been claimed by next of kin.

But Ballew said her staff has limited options with what can be done with the deceased in those cases.

"That would be heartless to say, 'If you don't get this body out of here, we're going to cremate this body,'" she said. "No, we can't do that."

Yeah, that might seem heartless but that's exactly what Ballew did in 2006 when she allowed a deceased person's body to be cremated before she even bothered to notify the man's family that he had died.

In 2006, an Indianapolis man who had been reported missing was identified at the morgue but cremated before the family was notified that he had died. The coroner's office said at the time that attempts to contact the family were unsuccessful.

Rinehart's report notes that then-Coroner Kenneth Ackles fired Linehan. Ackles replaced Linehan as the office's chief deputy coroner with Ballew, a deputy coroner with little experience who had been the subject of a number of past disciplinary actions for insubordination and dereliction of duty. Linehan sued the office for race discrimination, won his case and was awarded $280,000. The office also paid $630,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by two former forensic pathologists contracted by the office, Drs. Stephen Radentz and Michele Catellier, who contended they were also fired because they were white so Ackles and Ballew could hire Dr. Joye Carter, a highly controversial forensic pathologist who had left similar jobs in Washington, D.C. and Houston under a cloud of controversy over her management style and questions about her professional competence. Two other white employees were also paid $100,000 to settle lawsuits they brought against the office for race discrimination. The scene depicted in this video is not unlike what was reported about conditions at the morgue during Dr. Carter's tenure as a medical examiner in Washington, D.C. As the Star reported when she was first hired by Marion County:

She left her job in Washington in 1996 soon after The Washington Post reported that conditions in the morgue rivaled Third World conditions, with drains clogged with blood, stacked bodies and inconsistent refrigeration that led to rotting corpses.

It is absolutely incredible that the current coroner, Dr. Frank Lloyd, kept Ballew on as the chief deputy coroner after he succeeded Ackles. Lloyd leaves it to her to run the day-to-day affairs of the office, while he devotes his time to his full-time surgery practice. If he had bothered to read the court decisions in the Linehan and the forensic pathologist cases, he could not have possibly made a rational decision to keep her in that post. In addition to the nearly $1 million in settlement payments the office had to pay out to settle the race discrimination lawsuits, the office paid nearly $800,000 to the Barnes & Thornburg law firm in attorney's fees to defend the cases. Ironically, Ballew claimed that firing the white forensic pathologists and replacing them with Carter would save the office money. In fact, the cost of forensic pathology services skyrocketed more than a $1 million annually after the office hired Carter. The only thing it accomplished was allowing Ackles and Ballew to get rid of some of the office's best employees and replacing them with lesser qualified black employees.

Equally as disgusting as the office's racially discriminatory employment policies is how former City-County Council President Ryan Vaughn, a Barnes & Thornburg attorney, patted Ballew on the back for a job well done every time she appeared before the council because of all the legal work she created for his firm. Councilor Marilyn Pfisterer, too, pats Ballew on the back every time she comes before the council to present the office's budget, but that is simply attributable to her inability to think beyond a third-grade level. Having studied the coroner's budget thoroughly, I've concluded that most councilors are simply incapable of performing any budget oversight role. Go back and review the archived budget hearings for the coroner's office if you doubt me.

Editor's Note: In the interest of disclosure, I represented the former forensic pathologists and two former employees of the office in their race discrimination cases against the Marion Co. Coroner's Office. What I learned about the incompetence and racial animus that exists in that office is beyond belief. The prosecutor's office and any attorney representing a client in a homicide case in this county should be checking and double checking any finding that is reported by that office if he or she is doing their job.

Project Veritas Shows How Easy It Was To Vote The Dead In New Hampshire Primary

2012-01-11T17:38:00.000-05:00

Democrats have nationally fought efforts by states like Indiana to enact Voter ID laws that require registered voters to present a government-issued photo ID in order to receive a ballot to cast in an election. Yesterday, James O'Keefe's Project Veritas entered multiple polling places in the Granite State where yesterday's first in the nation presidential primary was being conducted. Using the names of known dead persons on the registered voting lists, election officials repeatedly handed ballots to persons claiming to be a dead person who had not been removed yet from the registered voter rolls. Repeatedly, the election officials were offered a photo identification only to be told that the state makes no such requirement.

In South Carolina where the Obama Justice Department is seeking to block enforcement of a Voter ID enacted in that state recently, state officials uncovered the names of more than 900 dead people who state election records indicated had cast votes in recent elections. The state's registered voting rolls contain the names of 30,000 dead people and more than 230,000 people who have no driver's license or a state-issued identification card.

It is just mind boggling that any intelligent person could continue to argue against a simple requirement of asking a person to show photo identification to prove they are who they claim to be when they cast votes in elections. The Project Veritas video makes so abundantly clear why Democrats don't want Voter ID laws. These election workers have no idea who these people are that are showing up to vote.

Daniels Forcing Hoosier Taxpayers To Foot Bill For Kentucky "Big Dig"

2012-01-11T17:14:00.003-05:00

Aaron's Renn's ongoing series disclosing the outragous one-sided terms Gov. Mitch Daniels negotiated with the state of Kentucky that has Indiana taxpayers on the hook for the vast majority of costs to build two new bridges across the Ohio River at Louisville explains how a large part of the expenses being picked up by Indiana involve the construction of a tunnel through an upscale neighborhood being built for the approach on the Kentucky side. The Kentucky approach for the East End bridge will cost a staggering $795 million compared to the $558 million cost for the entire bridge and the Indiana approach. "This is a staggering $10,000 per foot [for the Kentucky approach]," Renn writes. Renn's concerns are based on the fact that Indiana is assuming responsibility for the entire project, including a "Big Dig" project on the Kentucky side that is similar to the infamous tunneling project that plagued Boston with huge cost overruns. As he explains:

Call me crazy, but at $795 million for 1.4 miles of road, I think there just might be a little gold plating in this segment. That’s more money than it cost Indiana to build a brand new 10 mile freeway bypass around Kokomo. Heck, it’s more than Indiana is spending to convert 12 miles of US 31 to a freeway through Carmel and Westfield, right in the middle of some of the state’s most expensive real estate. Indiana would never build a road this crazy expensive for actual Hoosiers. I can only imagine the look on Mitch Daniels’ face if a Hoosier town asked him for something like this.

In any event, Indiana has agreed to pay for and construct this tunnel and very overpriced piece of Kentucky roadway. Which raises additional questions about the project. For example, does INDOT have the expertise to build a such a tunnel? I am not aware of a single genuine highway tunnel anywhere in the state of Indiana. I don’t believe INDOT has ever built one before, much less a complicated tunnel adjacent to a river with obvious potential for ground water problems. Kentucky may not be expert at tunneling either, but they’ve built at least two, including one in Louisville itself on I-64.

As anyone who’s read anything about the Big Dig should know, tunneling is frequently plagued with construction problems and cost overruns. After construction the tunnels leaked, and part of one tunnel collapsed on top of a car, killing someone. While this isn’t the Big Dig exactly, similar risks apply. Gov. Daniels can ask Mitt Romney for some tips on the risks associated with tunneling.

Renn's analysis of this potential boondoggle is must reading. He wonders just how an Indiana governor has constitutional authority to construct a road project within another state's borders. It's a good question, but as we've seen before, Gov. Daniels won't let the law get in his way when he makes up his mind to do something. It continues to amaze all just how the Indiana media grovels at Gov. Daniels' feet and ignores his many transgressions. Last night, Gov. Mitch Daniels boasted of his administration's $1.2 billion investment in road and bridge projects during 2012 alone. On his badly-negotiated bridge deal with Kentucky, he described it as "cement[ing] Indiana's place at the forefront of the public-private partnership agreement." One could only wonder which fat cat contributors of Daniels will make off at the expense of Indiana taxpayers to build Kentucky's largest road project. Maybe Kentucky should consider making him an honorary governor for all of his generosity to the Blue Grass state.

Will The American People Elect Gordon Gekko President?

2012-01-11T08:23:00.004-05:00

Romney-Bain Capital money shot

Republicans who fail to grasp how Mitt Romney's past corporate raider ways will be Obama to vilify his candidacy do so at their own peril. Despite Romney's claims to the contrary, he was not in the business of creating jobs as a venture capitalist at Bain Capital where he made hundreds of millions of dollars. He was a vulture investor. The American Thinker's Aaron Goldberg figures out what the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) figured out many years ago when Romney ran against him:

Mitt Romney was NOT primarily a venture capitalist. A venture capitalist invests in early-stage businesses with the hope that they grow and prosper. These early-stage businesses are often risky investments. Though most ultimately fail, some succeed spectacularly making the risks worthwhile. Apple Computer and Google are two such examples. This is what Mitt Romney means when he says some investments succeed and some fail.

By contrast, Mitt Romney was primarily what is affectionately known as a vulture investor. Bain Capital invested in failing companies with the intention of either restructuring their business or stripping the business and selling its assets. This business model often adversely affects a company's employees. To be fair, if the company had gone bankrupt on its own, that would have adversely affected the company's employees too. The question Republican primary voters need to ask themselves is not whether Mitt Romney did anything illegal or immoral. In a climate of near 10% unemployment, do Republicans want a vulture investor to be the face of their party?

The two core arguments for Mitt Romney's candidacy are (1) that he knows how to create jobs and (2) that he stands a better chance of defeating Barack Obama than his competitors. Is it true that a slash and burn vulture investor is the best advocate for job creation? If you were a factory worker in Ohio or Pennsylvania or the upper Midwest and Mitt Romney killed your job because there was a more efficient use of the capital employed in your factory, are you really going to listen to what Mitt Romney has to say even if you believe in hard work and free market capitalism?

Greenberg is absolutely correct in his assessment that nominating Romney will play right into Obama's Marxist rhetoric and policies. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy used a single company in eastern Indiana, Ampad, that Romney's Bain Capital acquired when Romney ran the company to effectively end his chances of winning that race. A Wall Street Journal analysis found that 22% of the companies Bain invested in when Romney ran the company either filed for bankruptcy or went out of business. Nearly 10% of the businesses ran into so much trouble that the company lost all of the money it invested. Just ten companies during Romney's eight years in charge of the company produced over 70% of the company's profits. Yes, the Republican Party will find itself defending a Gordon Gekko-type character in one of the worst economic times our country has faced if it nominates Romney. He should play real well with middle Americans.

UPDATE: Be sure to check out this new documentary, "When Mitt Romney Came To Town", prepared by a pro-Gingrich Super PAC (thank you Jim Bopp) which exposes the reality of what Romney and Bain Capital are all about. The video about at the mid-way point tells the heart-wrenching stories of the harm Bain Capital did to employees of the Marion, Indiana paper company a Bain-controlled company purchased, Ampad, which slashed the wages of more than 200 employees who worked there before eventually shutting the plant down and firing all the employees. The documentary notes that Bain Capital began with seed money from anonymous Latin American investors. Nice.

Romney's Big Win In New Hampshire Pleases New World Order

2012-01-10T22:16:00.000-05:00

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the American people will have an echo not a choice in this year's presidential race. Mitt Romney, a billionaire insider who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and who has absolutely nothing in common with ordinary Americans, is poised to put the GOP presidential nomination in the bag barely before the race has started. Romney's win tonight with 38% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary mirrors the large victory the Granite State gave to prior GOP nominees, including Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and John McCain. Ron Paul finished second with 24% ahead of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who finished third with 17% of the vote. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum finished fourth and fifth with about 10% of the vote each. Texas Gov. Rick Perry struggled to get a mere 1% of the vote.

The next primary is South Carolina where Romney had looked weak, but the continued collapse of Gingrich's campaign has seen his large lead disappear with the rise of Rick Santorum. Still, Romney is beating both candidates in the latest polls in South Carolina. Paul is performing badly in South Carolina and has no plans to compete in the Florida primary, the largest primary state ahead on the calendar. Nobody in the field seems positioned to challenge Romney in Florida, a winner take all state that will give the victor 51 delegates. Perry's campaign is over for all practical purposes. Jon Huntsman, who like Romney is a super wealthy Mormon with little in common with the American people, learned today that he won't be on the ballot in several large states, including Arizona, Illinois and Virginia. He built his entire campaign on pulling an upset in New Hampshire, spending more time there than any other candidate, and finished no better than a distant third. Rick Santorum is proving to be a flash in the pan for good reason. He has no national organization or money to compete as a serious candidate, aside from being dead wrong on most of the issues.

As I predicted last week, there is really only one candidate, Ron Paul, who has the money and organization to go the distance against Romney. The GOP establishment, however, has been pulling out all the stops to destroy Paul at its own peril. The Huntsman "Manchurian Candidate" video created by a Karl Rove-like operative within the GOP establishment, worked as intended to stop Paul's momentum in New Hampshire dead in its tracks and to allow Huntsman to double his support over the past week from the single digits to his 17% showing, while preserving Romney's big lead. Middle Americans have no reason to turn to someone like Romney as an alternative to the failed policies of Obama. He has managed to be on all sides of an issue depending on the place and time his political ambitions took him. There is absolutely no enthusiasm at all within the party for his candidacy, and he carries more baggage than any GOP nominee in recent memory. If you had told me a few months ago the GOP was going to deliberately throw the 2012 presidential race, I would have said you were crazy. Today, I'm convinced that is exactly what is transpiring before our very eyes.

Indiana Supreme Court Accepts Direct Interlocutory Appeal Of Trial Court Order Compelling Gov. Daniels To Be Deposed In IBM Lawsuit

2012-01-09T20:26:00.010-05:00

The Indiana Supreme Court wasted no time in agreeing to hear an emergency, direct appeal of a Marion Superior Court judge's order allowing IBM to depose Gov. Mitch Daniels in its heated litigation with the state's Family & Social Services Administration over the cancellation of its contract to privatize the state's welfare services. An expedited briefing schedule will require the state to file its brief within ten days, followed by a reply brief from IBM within ten days and the state's reply brief to IBM's brief within four days thereafter. According to the Order authored by Chief Justice Randall Shepard and signed by three of the four other justices, a separate order will schedule the date for an oral argument in the case.

Interestingly, the Attorney General's office and Secretary of State Charlie White's attorney are not requesting an expedited, direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Marion County Circuit Court Judge Louis Rosenberg's final order overturning a unanimous decision in White's favor and ordering White removed from office and Vop Osili, the winner of just 38% of the 2010 general election vote installed to that constitutional office. Rosenberg's order removing a sitting statewide constitutional officer in this fashion is unprecedented in Indiana history and would seem to be the type of decision requiring an emergency, direct appeal to the state's high court more than hearing an interlocutory order requiring the governor to be deposed in a civil lawsuit. Rosenberg stayed his order while the case is appealed.

As a consequence of no request being filed by the Attorney General or White's attorney for an emergency direct appeal, White will face trial at the end of this month on seven felony charges based on what I believe is an erroneous assumption by the special prosecutor that White was illegally registered to vote when he ran for secretary of state. It could take months for the decision to work its way through the appellate process. Decades-old Supreme Court precedent is on White's side in the case, and his prospects in his criminal case would no doubt benefit from a favorable ruling from the state's high court if it rules in his favor. By not seeking a direct appeal, White's attorneys have guaranteed that he will face trial on multiple criminal charges without the issue of his legitimacy to hold the office being cleared up. If found guilty of any of the felony counts, White will be forced to resign from office. The appeal of election contest will then become meaningless to White. It is absolutely astonishing that his attorneys have foregone that valuable right of direct appeal. The Supreme Court justices must be scratching their heads wondering what White's attorneys are thinking.

UPDATE: Attorneys for the Democratic Party, who had assumed White and the Attorney General's office would file a motion with the Supreme Court to transfer for direct appeal, on their own initiative filed a motion last Friday I'm told to appeal the case directly to the Supreme Court. Charlie White's attorney, David Brooks, did not join in that motion; however, the Attorney General yesterday separately filed a motion concurring with the Democratic Party's motion to transfer the case to the Supreme Court.

See the motion filed by the Attorney General's office here. A press release issued by the AG's office today reads:

The Indiana Attorney General's Office has asked the Indiana Supreme Court to directly hear the state Recount Commission's appeal regarding a statewide candidate's ballot eligibility, due to the importance of the case.

The Marion County Circuit Court on December 22 had reversed the Recount Commission's ruling on a Secretary of State candidate's 2010 ballot eligibility, but stayed that ruling pending appeal by the commission and other litigants. The Attorney General's Office, which represents the Recount Commission, filed a motion Monday seeking transfer directly to the Indiana Supreme Court, the state's highest court.

"It is in the public's interest that this lingering question of whether a statewide candidate was eligible for the ballot be decided with certainty and finality. In this rare circumstance, my office has asked the Indiana Supreme Court to take this case directly. In our role defending the legal authority of state administrative boards, we will vigorously contend the Recount Commission's unanimous decision was correct and ought not to have been reversed," Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said.

The commission made a unanimous finding concerning candidate Charlie White's eligibility for the 2010 ballot as a candidate for Secretary of State, but the trial court reversed that decision, prompting the appeal. In the ongoing litigation, the Attorney General's Office represents the Indiana Recount Commission only and does not represent candidate White. The commission's verified motion to transfer jurisdiction of appeal before consideration by the Indiana Court of Appeals was filed Monday in the Indiana Supreme Court, and an appeal brief will be filed at a later date. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to take the case.

UPDATED ANALYSIS: As you all know, Gov. Mitch Daniels has repeatedly called on Charlie White to resign. Daniels does this knowing he has committed worse in the way of vote fraud than White. Daniels is registered to vote at the Governor's residence on North Meridian Street where he does not live; however, the Indiana Constitution requires the governor to live within Marion County. Although Daniels formerly lived in Marion County, shortly after he became governor he built a multi-million dollar home in a gated Carmel community where he now resides. Indiana State Police transport Daniels to and from his Carmel residence on a daily basis. When Republicans tried to disqualify Evan Bayh from running for governor because he had not resided in Indiana for the 5-year residency requirement imposed by the constitution, Democrats launched an attack against then-Gov. Robert Orr. Although Orr resided at the governor's residence, he registered to vote at his permanent home in Evansville. Democrats charged that Orr had committed vote fraud by casting votes from his Evansville home. Daniels is doing the opposite, claiming to reside at the governor's residence when he in fact resides in Carmel outside Marion County. Those of you who have studied Daniels have figured out that he often bends the rules to suit his own ends. He has the luxury of doing that because the news media eats out of his hand, ignoring his transgressions, unlike White, who they beat over the head for every slip-up no matter how minor.

Daniels is banking on White being found guilty on at least one of the seven felony charges the special prosecutor has brought against him. Daniels wants White tossed from office in a fashion that allows him to appoint one of his cronies as White's successor. As far as Daniels is concerned, he would just as soon not see the election contest case decided until after White's criminal trial later this month. Given the way the AG's office dragged its feet on filing its motion for direct appeal (only after the Democrats filed their own motion) and the fact that White's attorney, David Brooks, a close ally of Daniels who didn't even file a motion to transfer White's appeal directly to the Supreme Court on an emergency, expedited basis, it's quite obvious the establishment is putting their own interests ahead of White's constitutional right to hold the office to which he was legitimately elected.

In the Evan Bayh case, it was Chief Justice Randall Shepard, a Republican appointed by Gov. Orr, who swung the vote of the Court in deciding in favor of Bayh's residency to run for governor in a direct appeal heard on an expedited basis. Shepard would have to move the court to turn the Bayh decision on its head to find in favor of the Democratic Party and overrule the unanimous decision of the Recount Commission in White's favor. It is very likely the Supreme Court will overturn Marion Co. Circuit Court Judge Louis Rosenberg's questionable ruling in which he re-weighed the evidence heard by the Recount Commission and substituted it with his own judgment. If that decision comes after a criminal court found White guilty of no more than one of the criminal charges leveled against him, it would ensure that Daniels' handpicked crony and not White would get to finish out the term. That's the end game for Daniels. It should be plain for all to see. Charlie White was long ago dumped in the garbage can by Daniels and the political establishment.

Daniels' Bridge Deal Gives Away $1.7 Billion To Kentucky

2012-01-09T19:49:00.002-05:00

Respected urban affairs analyst Aaron Renn has uncovered an astonishing give-away the Daniels' administration negotiated with the state of Kentucky for a pair of new bridges across the Ohio River at Louisville that he finds will cost Indiana taxpayers a whopping $1.7 billion. When Gov. Mitch Daniels first announced the plan, he touted $1.5 billion in savings from the original $4.1 billion the projects were projected to cost. At first blush, the 50-50 sharing of the $2.6 billion cost of the projects may seem fair; however, Renn notes that 73% of the cost of the projects falls on the Kentucky side of the border compared to just 27% of the costs for the Indiana side of the border. That equates to giving all of the savings touted by Daniels to Kentucky, while increasing Indiana's share of the costs by at least $200 million. Indiana's share of the costs could actually be higher if the projects wind up costing more than the deal anticipates, which would not be at all surprising for massive public works projects of this nature. Renn summarizes the implications of the deal to Indiana:

But while the total project cost declined by $1.5 billion because of these changes, Indiana’s cost actually went up by almost $200 million. That’s right, while taking $1.5 billion in total cost out of the project, Indiana managed to make its share of the project actually go up in cost. Kentucky’s cost, by contrast, declined by almost $1.7 billion. Indiana gave away more than 100% of the cost savings achieved by the project design changes . . .

This is truly stunning. We’re talking huge money here – more than INDOT is spending on I-69 under Major Moves, the state’s flagship project . . .

Because there were two major pieces of construction exclusively in Kentucky – the reconstruction of Spaghetti Junction and a dubious $261 million tunnel on the East End approach (more on that later) – Kentucky’s share of the cost, as it should have been under any reasonable scenario, was higher than Indiana’s – 73% vs. 27%.

Renn calculates that INDOT will have to divert $432 million in state highway funds from other projects to cover the funding gap. Renn has published the first in a 4-part series, entitled "Indiana's Bridge Deal Boondoggle A Financial Fiasco", which he is publishing at his Urbanophile blog. I highly encourage you to follow his reporting. In one fell swoop, Daniels has nearly wiped out the financial windfall the state received from his toll road lease agreement, which Renn has described as a "stroke of genius." It is absolutely astonishing that it takes an out-of-state urban analyst to report on something that should have been uncovered by reporters within our own state. Hats off to Renn for his great public service reporting on this important matter.

Simon Drops Lawsuit After Amazon.com Agrees To Collect Indiana Sales Tax

2012-01-09T17:40:00.000-05:00

Amazon.com has reached an agreement with the Indiana Department of Revenue and Simon Property Group, which had sued the state of Indiana because it refused to collect sales tax from the online e-tailer for sales it made in Indiana, to begin collecting Indiana's 7% sales tax starting in 2014. The Indianapolis-based mall giant claimed in a lawsuit it filed last November that the state's decision to exempt Amazon.com from Indiana's sales tax unconstitutionally favored the company over other brick-and-mortar retailers. Amazon.com has established several distribution centers in the state, but the Department of Revenue had reached an agreement with the company that said it didn't have to collect sales taxes on purchases made within the state despite its physical presence within the state. The IBJ reports on the agreement under which Simon has agreed to drop its lawsuit:

Amazon.com will begin collecting Indiana's 7-percent sales tax from customers in 2014 under an agreement with the state announced Monday.

Gov. Mitch Daniels and an Amazon executive said the agreement could lead to Indiana collecting at least $20 million more in annual sales-tax revenues . . .

Simon said in a prepared statement that it will drop its complaint because of the agreement.

The deal with Seattle-based Amazon doesn't include any other companies, but Daniels said the state is asking Congress to require all online businesses to collect state sales taxes.

Estimates on Indiana's uncollected online sales taxes range from $75 million to $250 million per year. A report from the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute released in November estimated a range of $40 million to $114 million.

The fact that Amazon.com is being given a two-year break on collecting the sales tax is a major victory for the company. If Simon had won its lawsuit, Amazon.com could have been liable for back taxes it had not collected from past sales after acquiring a physical presence in Indiana. If Congress enacts legislation requiring all online e-tailers to collect state sales taxes prior to January, 2014, the company's obligation to collect the tax would begin within 90 days of the effective date of the federal law.

House Democrats End Walkout Over Right To Work

2012-01-09T13:57:00.002-05:00

House Democrats have decided to return to work today rather than pay $1,000 a day fines members of their caucus were facing if they didn't return to work today after staging a walkout last week to protest Republican lawmakers' efforts to pass right to work legislation during the upcoming session. Democrats tell the media their return is not because of the fines they face; rather, the delay and added public attention has helped turn public opinion against the legislation they claim.

Last year, Democrats walked out, denying the quorum needed to conduct business, and fled to a hotel in Urbana, Illinois for five straight weeks until Republican leadership in the House relented and agreed to remove right to work from last year's legislative calendar. House Republican leadership imposed tens of thousands of dollars of fines under House rules on the Democratic members that have been docked from their pay. Some Democratic lawmakers have filed lawsuits to contest the legality of the fines. Lawmakers passed an anti-bolting law in the aftermath of last year's debacle that permits the levying of $1,000 a day fines against lawmakers who walk out for more than three consecutive days. Democrats reached that three-day threshold last Friday.

The Obamas Like To Party Like Ponzi Schemer Tim Durham

2012-01-08T17:19:00.002-05:00

It seemed rather odd when Barack Obama took time out of his busy 2008 campaign schedule to record a plug for Ponzi schemer Tim Durham's son for his high school class president's race. It turns out Barack and Tim have much more in common than first meets the eye. As we've seen over the past four years, the Obamas flare for extravagant spending, royal vacations and lavish parties surpasses any presidency in the history of the Republic. Details of a new book describe a Hollywood-designed Halloween Party based on Alice In Wonderland. The re-created tea party in the State Dining Room of the White House featured film director Tim Burton's "creepy comic-style" decor, enormous stuffed animals seated at an authentic, antique table with fruit punch served in blood vials and actor Johnny Depp presiding over the affair in his original Mad Hatter costume. This was playing out as the nation's unemployment rate had topped 10% from the worst economic downtown since the Great Depression and Congress was in the midst of considering his controversial health care plan.

The book reveals how any official announcement of the glittering affair — coming at a time when Tea Party activists and voters furious over the lagging economy, 10-percent unemployment rate, bank bailouts and Obama’s health-care plan were staging protests — quickly vanished down the rabbit hole.

“White House officials were so nervous about how a splashy, Hollywood-esque party would look to jobless Americans — or their representatives in Congress, who would soon vote on health care — that the event was not discussed publicly and Burton’s and Depp’s contributions went unacknowledged,” the book says.

However, the White House made certain that more humble Halloween festivities earlier that day — for thousands of Washington-area schoolkids — were well reported by the press corps.

Then the Obamas went inside, where an invitation-only affair for children of military personnel and White House administrators unfolded in the East Room.

Unbeknownst to reporters, the State Dining Room had also been transformed into a secretive White House Wonderland.

Tim Burton decorated it “in his signature creepy-comic style. His film version was about to be released, and he had turned the room into the Mad Hatter’s tea party, with a long table set with antique-looking linens, enormous stuffed animals in chairs, and tiered serving plates with treats like bone-shaped meringue cookies,” reports the book, which The Post purchased at a Manhattan bookstore.

“Fruit punch was served in blood vials at the bar. Burton’s own Mad Hatter, the actor Johnny Depp, presided over the scene in full costume, standing up on a table to welcome everyone in character.”

The Obamas’ daughters, Malia and Sasha, then 11 and 8 respectively, “sat at the table, surrounded by a gaggle of their friends, and then proceeded to the next delight, a magic show in the East Room.”

Tim Durham dressed as Mad Hatter

If you feel like you are experiencing a deja vu moment, it's because of the striking resemblance the scene has to a lavish Halloween Party that Ponzi schemer Tim Durham threw at National Lampoon's Hollywood mansion at the very moment federal investigators were trying to unravel his scheme to swindle small investors in rural Ohio out of more than $200 million on that very same Halloween back in 2009. Durham dressed up as the Mad Hatter character from Alice In Wonderland.

Isn't it curious that such a lavish party could have been thrown at the White House during Obama's first year in office with nary a mention by anyone in the mainstream media? The Reagans couldn't host any event with anyone from Hollywood, even though both were Hollywood actors in their former lives, without unflattering stories by Washington reporters that they were out of touch with ordinary Americans and living too lavishly while Americans suffered through a recession. Have you ever seen Michelle Obama wear the same outfit more than once or wondered where all the money is coming from to permit them to live such a lavish life style? It's hard to believe that a mere ten years ago the couple was still swimming in credit card debt and living in a very modest two-bedroom condominium.

Tully Can't Figure Out Why Voters Would Think 36 Years In The Senate Is Enough For Lugar

2012-01-08T11:11:00.000-05:00

Every time I think Star political columnist Matt Tully could not stoop any lower to grovel at the feet of the elitist insiders, he finds a way to prove me wrong. This morning, Tully explains to us how it pains him deeply to even comprehend why the voters could possibly think of turning Richard Lugar out of office after thirty-six years in the Senate. After discounting his bipartisanship, his globalist thinking, his willingness to compromise, his failure to spend more time in Indiana because he's been too busy reducing the nuclear threat of the former Soviet Union and his age as possible reasons for voter dissatisfaction, Tully throws his hands up in the air in utter disbelief.

It seems to me that what we need now more than ever in D.C. -- as well as at the Statehouse or City-County Building -- are more Lugars. Meaning: more serious-minded lawmakers who are measured in tone and focused on complex policy issues that, while crucial, don't always fire up the party faithful. Seriously, when you consider the mess that is Capitol Hill, do you really think Richard Lugar is the problem?

He's not . . .

In the end, though, many elections, particularly low-turnout primaries, are driven by partisan die-hards and the uneasy and sometimes angry mood among the electorate.

That's hard to overcome. And so, as hard as it is for some of us to comprehend, Lugar heads into this election season facing a real battle.

Yeah, that's it. The voters are just too angry and too stupid to know what a good thing they have in Dick Lugar. Demonstrating his hypocrisy has no limits, Tully won't even discuss the fact that Lugar gave up an Indiana residence more than three decades ago for his permanent digs in Washington where Congress has increased the national debt by more than 400% and turned the country into a dying, dependent welfare state. Tully will save all of his anger for a politician like Charlie White who he thinks should be forced from office because he used the home of his ex-wife for a voting residence for a few months while he was in between marriages. That's a much worse sin than Lugar's reliance on a home he sold more than three decades ago as his voting address when the reality is that a hotel room is the closest thing Lugar has to a home in the state he is supposedly representing in the U.S. Senate. I'm not sure whether it's Lugar or Tully who is more out of touch with Indiana voters.

Jon Huntsman "Manchurian Candidate" Video Classic Karl Rove-Like Tactic To Discredit Ron Paul

2012-01-07T23:02:00.006-05:00

On Wednesday, an anonymous account was created on YouTube and a few brief minutes later a video using this anonymous person's account was uploaded depicting Jon Huntsman as a "Manchurian Candidate" because he was Obama's U.S. Ambassador to China, speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese and has an adopted Chinese daughter. The person(s) behind the video intended to make it appear that the campaign of Ron Paul was behind the negative attack ad. A link to the video was almost immediately sent to Huntsman's campaign where the first viewer of the video was associated with Huntsman's campaign website. Not surprisingly, the Huntsman campaign pointed fingers at Ron Paul's campaign and the media gleefully chimed in, blaming it on the candidate by implication because one of his supporters supposedly created it.

Only a fool would truly believe that a Ron Paul supporter actually created that video. What we know is that polls show that only Paul is in a position to compete against front-runner Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, where an open primary allows voters of all stripes to participate in Tuesday's election. Huntsman, who has devoted all of his efforts in New Hampshire, can't break 10% in Granite State polls, while Ron Paul has surged to 20% or better in some polls, although well behind Romney. Huntsman and Romney are fellow Mormons who have no love lost for one another. The video most likely was part of dirty tricks operation by the Romney campaign to kill two birds with one stone. The subject matter of the ad clearly is aimed at stirring up xenophobic fears towards Huntsman at the same time making those who back Ron Paul's campaign appear to be simple-minded racists. The diabolical nature of it is a classical Karl Rove-type negative campaign operation against political opponents.

Throughout his career as an operative within the Republican Party, Rove has been at the center of one dirty trick after another. Rove, who was raised in Nevada, took his first role running a U.S. Senate campaign in Illinois in 1970 after dropping out of the University of Utah. During the campaign, Rove used a false identity to enter the campaign headquarters of a state treasurer candidate, Alan Dixon (D), where he stole letterhead bearing the candidate's name. He then printed up fake campaign rally fliers promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing", and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters, in order to successfully disrupt Dixon's campaign rally. The college drop out became a key figure in the dirty tricks operation of Richard Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign and became involved in a highly disputed election to head up the national College Republicans organization. Rove manipulated the credentialing of delegates to the convention to claim victory over his opponent. The dispute was taken to the RNC Chairman, George H.W. Bush, who declared Rove the winner. When the losing candidate wrote to Bush inquiring how he could have concluded Rove won the election fairly, Bush sent the young man the "angriest letter" he had ever received in his life.

After serving as chairman of the College Republicans, Rove settled down in Texas where he worked for campaign organizations associated with the Bushes and their allies. Rove helped Democrat-turned-Republican Phil Gramm defeat Ron Paul for a U.S. Senate seat in 1984. When he worked on the campaign of former Texas Gov. Bill Clements, he claimed his offices had been bugged by a political opponent, an allegation dismissed by the FBI and police after an investigation was conducted. Critics believed Rove had made the story up and planted an inoperable bug in his own offices to cast suspicion on Clements' political opponent a short time before the election. A common Rove tactic is to create whispering campaigns about political opponents, including accusations they are gay, a tactic employed against Texas Gov. Ann Richards when George W. Bush ran against her. Rove used push poll questions asking voters their impression of Richards if they knew her staff was dominated by lesbians. Rove's step-father, incidentally, later lived an openly gay life with a same-sex partner after divorcing his mother, who committed suicide. George H.W. Bush would fire him from his 1992 re-election campaign after he got caught leaking negative information about a close Bush campaign ally to columnist Robert Novak.

Rove's dirty tricks operation reared its ugly head again when he ran George W. Bush's race for president in 2000 during the Republican primaries. Suggestions that McCain was not a natural born citizen because he was born in Panama while his father was serving in the Navy emerged. Rumors were circulated via fliers during the South Carolina primary that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock, that he was gay and that his wife was a drug addict. McCain was accused of being guilty of treason because of things he told the Vietnames while being tortured in a POW camp in Vietnam for five years. Other rumors were spread that McCain was mentally unstable and had actually gone insane while a POW in Vietnam.

As a Fox News analyst today, Rove's attacks against Ron Paul have been especially sharp and always focus on marginalizing him and his supporters as much as possible. Rove claims not to be working on behalf of any of the candidates, but his public statements leave no doubt that Romney is the candidate that he believes should be nominated by the Republicans in 2012. Fox News commentators all ape the negative attacks Rove fuels during his appearances on the cable news network. Fox News, not surpisingly, did all it could to tarnish Paul over the Huntsman video despite absolutely no evidence that anyone associated with his campaign had anything to do with its production. Yes, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that only the mind of someone like Karl Rove would have created the controversial Huntsman video. Watch as Fox News blames it on Paul's people without any substantiation. I can barely stand to watch Fox News any more because of the way it has permitted a low life like Rove to manipulate the political discussions in this country.

UPDATE: Cando.com says its analysis points to the Jon Huntsman campaign itself as likely being behind the attack video against him, which makes it all the more sinister if true.

Ice Miller Attorney Arrested For Assaulting And Threatening Louisville Police Officer

2012-01-06T18:51:00.001-05:00

Courtney King Mug Shot

Young associates at one of Indiana's largest law firms, Ice Miller, earn starting salaries of $100,000 and higher. Last week, one of those young associates found herself on the wrong side of the law after a night on the town in Louisville, Kentucky and her career in jeopardy. Thirty-year-old Courtney King has been charged with public intoxication, assault, disorderly conduct and terroristic threatening after she threatened to kill a police officer after the intoxicated King became verbally abusive outside a Louisville bar. The Above The Law blog names King its "Lawyer of the Day":

Here at Above the Law, we know a thing or two about how lawyers should deal with the police. Incidentally, we also know how lawyers should not deal with law enforcement officers. And if you truly value your job as an attorney, it’s best not to mouth off to the cops, or to threaten them in any way, shape, or form.

But Courtney King, a rather attractive attorney with Ice Miller, apparently didn’t get the memo. Last week, after allegedly downing a few too many shots of liquid courage, King got into a stand off with police that may have iced her nascent legal career….

Just before New Year’s Eve, King, a 30-year-old, 2010 graduate of the University of Louisville School of Law, returned to Kentucky. We may never know why King was at a bar in wee hours of the morning in the middle of the work week, but we do know that she will probably regret what happened for a long, long time. WDRB News reports the allegations:

Louisville Metro Police say they arrested a woman outside of Phoenix Hill Tavern who claimed to be a lawyer and verbally threatened police. …

According to the arrest report, King allegedly told police, “You are going to… die. I’m a lawyer. You can Google me. You are dead. I work at a law firm in Indianapolis.”

Alas, it seems like the only thing that died was King’s upward mobility in Biglaw. She was arrested and charged with alcohol intoxication, assault, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and terroristic threatening.

According to her attorney, the law firm has simply put King on "possible probation" after she pleaded not guilty to the charges. A check of the law firm's website, however, shows no current attorney listing for her. An April 12, 2011 press release posted on the firm's website announced King joining the firm as an associate in the firm's labor and employment practice group.

Ron Paul's Campaign Hires Englehart Group To Produce Viral Videos

2012-01-05T16:04:00.000-05:00

The Republican presidential campaign of Ron Paul has chosen a talented local media relations firm, The Englehart Group, to produce several viral videos in the lead up to the critical New Hampshire primary on January 10 of this month. A video crew from the firm will shadow Paul in the coming days as he campaigns in the Granite State, editing and posting video footage on the Internet in real time in the lead up to next week's primary. The strategic marketing communications firm is located in the historic Mass Avenue arts district in downtown Indianapolis. "This type of video project plays into our company's strength, which is to produce the highest quality video and communications work both quickly and at a reasonable cost," said the company's president, Blair Englehart. The firm's video crew will be led by Kevin Winkler, a multimedia designer for the firm.

First Judge In America Recognizes Rule Of Law Regarding Obama Eligibility

2012-01-05T08:26:00.005-05:00

It's been in our U.S. Constitution since its adoption in 1787. No person except a "natural born citizen" is eligible to hold the office of president of the United States. Many legal scholars have long taken the position that only children born to U.S. citizen parents qualify as natural born citizens. The only Supreme Court holding we have to rely upon supports that position. Yet Barack Obama, who by his own admission was born the son of a foreign citizen and was a dual citizen at birth, was allowed to become president of the United States after his election in 2008 despite the fact that dozens of lawsuits were brought against him challenging his eligibility to hold that office. In every single instance, judges summarily dismissed the lawsuits claiming the citizens who brought the suits lacked standing to challenge Obama's eligibility. That all changed this week down in Georgia. Judge Michael Malihi of Georgia's Office of State Administrative Hearings denied a motion by President Obama's attorneys to dismiss a complaint filed by citizen David Weldon challenging Obama's eligibility to appear on the state's 2012 ballot because he is not a natural born citizen. From Judge Malihi's Order:

Code Section 21-2-5(a) states that every candidate for "federal and state office" must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this Court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary. Although the word "candidate" is not explicitly defined in the Code, Section 21-2-193 states that the political party for the presidential preference primary "shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot." Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office . . .

This Court finds no basis under Georgia law why the qualification requirements contained in Section 21-2-5 would not apply to a candidate for the office of president in the presidential preference primary.

Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

Not surprisingly, a local Georgia newspaper account of Judge Malihi's order derisively referred to Weldon's attorney as a "birther attorney" who was claiming "President Barack Obama isn't an American citizen", pretending there is no constitutional distinction between a natural born citizen and a citizen. If the reporter had bothered reading Weldon's court filing, he would have understood this. The American Thinker explains the narrowly-drawn challenge:

The matter before this Court has nothing to do with the birth place of the Defendant, nor does it assert that he is not a citizen of the United States. In fact, limited to this challenged primary election, the Plaintiff will stipulate that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. The Plaintiff makes no assertion regarding the Defendant's passports, or social security number, or any other fact related to the Defendant, other than the one fact asserted at the beginning of this opposition: that the Defendant's father was not a U.S. citizen.

Contrary to the Defendant's assertions, the issue presented by the Plaintiff is grounded on one uncontestable fact, and one clear definition from the U.S. Supreme Court. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875).

The 1875 women's suffrage case, Minor v. Happersett, is the only controlling Supreme Court precedent we have to rely upon currently in determining the meaning of "natural born citizen" and the case remains good law to this day. Justice Waite wrote in the majority opinion:

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

It is indeed refreshing to see that there is at least one judge in this country who believes that Barack Obama is not above the law. If Charlie White can be taken to hell in back over whether he should have registered at one precinct instead of another and is facing the forfeiture of his office and multiple felony charges against him, Obama can defend his status as a "natural born citizen" in a court of law as any candidate whose eligibility under that constitutional requirement is challenged.

Prosecutor Makes Right Call In Clearing Kroger Employee In Shooting

2012-01-04T20:40:00.000-05:00

Marion Co. Prosecutor Terry Curry has announced his office will not criminally charge a Kroger manager, Elijah Elliott, who shot and killed a man he believed to be armed who was forcibly holding one of the store's employees during an attempted robbery. Based on the evidence disclosed in this WRTV story, it appears Curry made the right call in finding the store manager's actions reasonable under the circumstances.

"Atkinson first encountered a store employee -- an unarmed security guard -- and walked up behind her, placing what she believed to be an object in her back and ordered her to walk to the office," read part of a statement from the Marion County Prosecutor's Office.

Authorities said a second employee saw that Atkinson had the security guard in a headlock and that Atkinson was wearing a mask that obscured his face.

"As the second employee walked out of the office, Atkinson then grabbed her in a choke hold and put her up against a wall. The second employee then yelled for Mr. Elliott," the prosecutor's statement said.

Elliott told police that he saw Atkinson holding the second employee in a choke hold with one hand but that he could not see Atkinson's other hand.

"As soon as Mr. Elliott came out of the office, Atkinson let go of the second employee and charged at him. Mr. Elliott then shot Atkinson," the prosecutor's office said.

Prosecutors said they believe the shooting was justified under Indiana law to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Elliott is not entirely in the clear just yet insofar as his continued employment with Kroger is concerned. The grocery store chain has a policy that specifically prohibits store employees from carrying weapons on their person while working at their stores. WRTV quotes a spokesperson for Kroger as saying the matter was still under review. Nobody has yet explained just how 26-year-old Jeremy Atkinson happened to be out of prison so soon after he was convicted of an armed robbery of a Subway shop in 2009 for which he received a 6-year sentence.

Here We Go Again, Cry Baby Democrats Take Their Ball And Go Home

2012-01-04T19:15:00.001-05:00

House Democratic Leader Pat Bauer

This conduct is completely unacceptable for people who take an oath of office to uphold the state's constitution and are paid to show up and do their elected jobs as representatives of their districts. For the second year in a row, House Democrats are refusing to show up for work at the State House in an effort to block consideration of legislation they oppose, right to work, by denying a quorum to conduct business. I said it last year, and I will say it again. The number one priority of the Republican-controlled legislature should have been to amend the state's constitution to lower the quorum for conducting legislative business to a simple majority instead of the super majority provided currently instead of pissing away their time on the passage of a mean-spirited, unnecessary amendment to deprive same-sex couples of the same rights afforded to opposite sex couples under Indiana law. This madness must be put to an end. It is simply unacceptable that a minority of the legislators can simply walk off the job and bring the entire legislative process to a complete halt every time they object to legislation pursued by the elected majority. It's tyranny by a minority.

House Minority Leader Pat Bauer should have been put out to pasture long ago. The guy has been in office since the days when Lyndon Johnson was president. He's a dictatorial tyrant with a rude disposition who wears a dime store wig to boot that no good wife should ever let her husband walk out of the house wearing. Bauer and his merry band of malcontents in the House shut down the legislature for more than five weeks last year until their extortionist demand to take right to work off the table was met. Bauer now complains that the issue that has been studied endlessly during the intervening months between last year's legislative session and the start of this session is being rushed. WRTV reports on Bauer's latest antics:

House Minority Leader Pat Bauer said Wednesday that Democrats will stay out of the chamber until the public is better informed about proposed right-to-work legislation.

Republican Speaker Brian Bosma tried three times Wednesday afternoon to gavel the House into order, but each time no more than five of the 40 Democratic members were on the floor, RTV6's Norman Cox reported.

Democrats are pushing for hearings on right-to-work across the state, saying the public needs to be more informed about the legislation.

"It's the quick hit. It's rushing it through," Bauer said. "We're willing to sit down and try to work out a reasonable agenda for the state."

Attorney General Greg Zoeller must be held partly accountable for this spectacle playing out again this year. He shirked his legal duty to hold the Democrats accountable for flagrantly breaking two laws last year during their walkout. The Democrats violated a state law prohibiting lawmakers from soliciting contributions during the legislative session when the Democratic Party solicited campaign contributions to fund the Democrats' walkout last year. That fundraising effort violated yet a second law prohibiting legislators from accepting payments from lobbyists for the cost of their out-of-state travel. Labor lobbyists coughed up large contributions to cover the cost of the House Democrats' out-of-state travel while they held up at a hotel in Urbana, Illinois during last year's walkout in clear violation of that law. Nobody even bothered to ask Zoeller why he neglected his duty to enforce those two laws. If he had, you can bet the Democrats wouldn't be playing their game of extortion once again this year.

What New Election Law Will Judge Rosenberg Make Up Today?

2012-01-04T08:25:00.010-05:00

Who needs the Indiana Election Code and years of Indiana election law precedent when you have Judge Louis Rosenberg? The trailblazing judge has been making up new election law at an unprecedented pace in his quest to ensure the installation of the Democrats big-time losing candidate for secretary of state, Vop Osili, to that position despite his overwhelming repudiation by Indiana voters in the 2010 election. The Democrats first waited until after the election to challenge White's election after he won in a landslide victory over Osili. No problem said Rosenberg, choosing to ignore the Supreme Court's recent precedent in Burke v. Bennett where the state's high court ruled that Terre Haute Mayor Duke Bennett could not be removed from office despite the fact that he was ineligible to be a candidate for Terre Haute mayor because his candidacy was prohibited by the Little Hatch Act. After Bennett's election, the statute no longer disqualified him the court held. By waiting until after the election to raise the issue, the Supreme Court said the losing Democratic candidate lost his right to challenge Bennett's election. Rosenberg simply decided the case didn't apply to Charlie White's election.

Republicans then argued that even if you accepted the Democrats' contention that White was not "legally" registered to vote at the time he was nominated by the Republicans, since even the Democrats concede White was a legally registered voter at the time of the November, 2010 election, White should be deemed eligible based on his status at the time of his election. Rosenberg decided that he shouldn't have been on the ballot in the first place because he was not legally registered to vote at the time of his nomination by the Republican Party. As the Supreme Court has instructed us in the Bayh and Evrard cases, liberally applied voter intent is paramount in determining a person's residence for voting purposes. Essentially, a person's stated intention with any supporting evidence of intent concerning that stated intention will always prevail under the standards applied by our Supreme Court. White had supporting testimony of both his wife and ex-wife, a driver's license, mail and other evidence to support his intent. Again, Rosenberg decided the law means something entirely different. Despite a unanimous finding of the Recount Commission, including a respected former Democratic judge, who actually heard the testimony of multiple witnesses and received evidence supporting that intent unlike the judge, Rosenberg declared White didn't have intent to reside either where he claimed to reside prior to his nomination or at the time of his nomination to be "legally" registered to vote in Indiana. In other words, he was simply a man without a legal residence who could not at the time have cast a legal vote in Indiana despite the fact that he has resided in the same county within a couple mile radius his entire adult life. Applying the Rosenberg standard to voters casting votes in any given election, it would mean tens of thousands of voters every election could be denied the right to vote based on the arbitrary decision of an election board of where it and not you determined was your residence at the time.

Any person who has worked as an election judge, clerk or inspector at an Indiana election knows that under no circumstances would a voter in White's situation have been deemed an "illegally" registered voter as the law has been applied prior to Judge Rosenberg's ruling. White would have been permitted to vote period. Anyone who says otherwise is simply lying. Go back and review the archived video of the Marion County Election Board meetings when the board considers all the challenges precinct election boards made in past elections held in this county. In almost every case, the election board overruled any objections to a disputed vote cast in that election. I've come to the conclusion after watching those meetings that it's almost a waste of time to challenge a person's vote having served as an election judge in multiple elections. The election boards almost always resolve any doubts in favor of the voter regardless of the substance of the challenge. What we have seen take place in this Charlie White saga is a judge turning well-established election law on its head at every turn to reach the outcome he desires, which is to install as the winner of the secretary of state's race a candidate of his political party who received only 38% of the vote. That's not even taking up the issue of whether Judge Rosenberg should have been sitting in judgment of White given his daughter's public role in advocating and publishing a legal analysis declaring her opinion that White was ineligible to hold the vote before the Democrats even filed their initial complaint against White.

The Attorney General and White have both declared their intention to appeal Judge Rosenberg's unprecedented rulings in this case to a higher court, which ultimately will be decided by the Supreme Court. The Democrats want White tossed from office and Osili installed now while White challenges the outcome, which would be an unprecedented move and contrary to the Burke v. Bennett decision, but precedent has not stood in the way of this judge making contrary rulings in the past so anything is possible. Rosenberg has said he will rule this morning whether his party's chosen candidate or the people's chosen candidate will serve in the secretary of state's office while this case makes its way through the appeals process.

Make no mistake about it. If Vop Osili is installed as secretary of state, this race was stolen lock, stock and barrel by a judge who simply decided that he had the right to make up the law as he went along to make the candidate of his party's choice the winner. The fact that leaders of both parties, lawyers learned in the law and organizations like the ACLU who are suppose to fight to ensure that the rule of law still has meaning have not been screaming at the top of the their lungs about this outrage that is playing out in the Marion Co. Circuit Court should alarm everyone who holds dear their precious right to vote. What this case means is that your votes simply don't count. If a judge of the opposite political party decides his party's candidate and not the people's chosen candidate should hold that office, he can simply twist the law any way he likes to make your opponent the winner. We are seeing an Attorney General of this country who refuses to prosecute gang members who threatened voters with physical violence to prevent them from voting in the 2008 election, who at the same time is declaring a South Carolina Voter ID law essentially identical to an Indiana law that has been in effect for years and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court as violating the Voting Rights Act. Yes, Eric Holder is actually arguing that requiring a voter to prove his identity at the polls is tantamount to imposing a poll tax despite the Supreme Court's affirmation of Indiana's Voter ID law, a law since adopted by many other states. We are seeing our most precious right taken away from us as the public yawns and tunes in to learn the latest news about Kim Kardashian or Tim Tebow.

UPDATE: Judge Rosenberg may have gone up to the edge of the cliff, but he had enough doubt about his trailblazing electionmlaw-making to step back and not take the jump of making good on his order to remove White from office and install Osili to that office immediately. Judge Rosenberg wisely issued a stay of his order this morning until it is properly reviewed and decided by a higher court. Unless the Supreme Court decides to oveturn decades of law, Charlie White wins this case hands down, but you would never have a clue of the strong legal ground upon which White's defense rests by the biased, opinionated news reports fed to us on a daily basis by the local news media. Here's a copy of Judge Rosenberg's order here. Note that the Order is dated yesterday but was not released until today. Similarly, Judge Rosenberg held up the release of his Order determining that White should be removed from office a full day so that it was released the day before the start of the Christmas holiday weekend.

Iowa Caucus Disappoints

2012-01-03T23:52:00.002-05:00

It looks like the only real winner in Iowa tonight is Rick Santorum, the candidate with the least money, a virtually non-existent campaign organization and a remarkably naive view of the world. He's sharing the top honors tonight with Mitt Romney with each getting about 25% of the vote. Presumably, the religious fanatics came out to support Santorum just like they did Mike Huckabee four years ago. A win or close second in Iowa does little to move Santorum's campaign forward. With no money and no campaign apparatus, he will likely fail to make the ballot or field delegate slates in some of the upcoming states. Only Romney, Paul and Perry have the money and organization it takes to run a national campaign. Even Perry failed to make the ballot in Virginia with plenty of money and a large campaign staff, and he finished a disappointing fifth tonight behind Gingrich's 13% share of the vote with only about 10% of the vote. Romney is doing no better in Iowa this year than he did four years ago when he lost to Huckabee after spending $10 million and receiving only a quarter of the vote. Paul improved his numbers substantially but finished a disappointing third place with about 22% of the vote.

The first primary in New Hampshire is just around the corner. Mitt Romney is way out front there according to the latest polls with Ron Paul in a distant second place. As happened to his campaign in Iowa, Gingrich's New Hampshire effort has collapsed even with the endorsement of the Manchester Union-Leader. Earlier polls showed Gingrich running well ahead in South Carolina and Florida, but his lead will most certainly dissipate rapidly in the coming weeks as he struggles to raise money and operate without a campaign organization. At least he has some staff. Santorum has virtually no staff to compete anywhere close to the level Huckabee competed in 2008. What this means is that the only alternative candidate that has both the money, organization and strength to go head-to-head with Romney is Ron Paul. The establishment Republican and media attacks on him have made it difficult for him to break out though.

After all of the bluster, Iowa produced only 25 delegates tonight. The New Hampshire primary produces even fewer delegates with only 16 at stake there. Thirty-one delegates are at stake in the South Carolina primary and 91 are at stake in Florida, which will be the real pivotal contests in the coming weeks. It takes 1,245 delegates to win the nomination. Reading the tea leaves, it's probably a pretty safe bet that this race will be over after Florida with Romney the overwhelming favorite to win the race. Bachman is probably out after tonight. Gingrich will be through after a dismal showing in New Hampshire. Perry will hang on until at least South Carolina in hopes of picking up Gingrich's support, but I have my doubts he can get his act together to mount a credible campaign. Santorum's fifteen minutes of fame end tonight in Iowa. Paul will stay in the race for the long haul. He'll have a chance to shine when he gets to the point of going head-to-head with Romney, but it will probably be too little too late.

UPDATE: The final vote count show Mitt Romney a winner by a mere 8 votes out of more than 122,000 votes cast. Bachmann has scheduled a press conference for later this morning where she is expected to announce she is dropping out of the race. Rick Perry has returned to Texas to reconsider whether he should move ahead. Meanwhile, Rick Santorum is looking like the dog who chased a car he didn't expect to catch and then didn't know what to do with it when he got his teeth snagged in the bumper.

WISH-TV Sacks Top Investigative Journalist

2012-01-03T13:27:00.000-05:00

Apparently it's not good enough to be one of the best investigative journalists in town to keep your job. WISH-TV has fired reporter Brad Edwards just two years into his initial three-year contract according to the IBJ. Edwards hints that his firing had something to do with his salary, a claim contested by the station. From the IBJ:

WISH-TV Channel 8 General Manager Jeff White said the dismissal of field reporter Brad Edwards was not part of a bigger staff downsizing.

Despite rumors swirling about WISH in media circles, White said there have been no other terminations at the station. “This is an isolated incident,” he said . . .

Edwards told trade website TVSpy last week “My dismissal is as mundane as money,” adding that his three-year contract was terminated with more than a year remaining on it due to his salary.

Edwards told TVSpy there are many details he won’t reveal “because there are many at an ever-leaner WISH TV I hold dear.”

Edwards could not be reached by IBJ for comment.

“I can confirm that Brad was let go, but it wasn’t done for financial reasons,” White said. “We are actively looking to replace Brad and are looking forward to adding to our staff.”

White wouldn’t elaborate on why Edwards was fired, but added that WISH will add two new reporter positions to its staff in addition to Edward’s replacement. White said there is no timetable to replace Edwards, but said the search is already underway . . .

It's too bad WISH-TV doesn't get rid of the dead-weight reporter who has been occupying its State House beat for about a decade too long and whose biased reporting has become a bit too predictable.

And They Call Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Views Dangerous?

2012-01-02T22:37:00.005-05:00

Ron Paul has been repeatedly accused of advocating dangerous American foreign policy views by Republicans and Democrats alike because he thinks it's time for America to stop meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries and mind our own damn business. In its infinite wisdom, the Obama administration is giving millions of dollars to Muslim clerics in Pakistan who actually teach jihad to change the minds of extremist terrorists who want to kill Americans. If these efforts aren't dangerous, they're at a minimum incompetent beyond belief. From the AP:

Sultan Mehmood Gujar was a solid supporter of Islamist militants fighting in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India and even donated money to them, until he attended an innovative 40-day lecture series by a moderate cleric aimed at countering violent extremism . . .

“I was shocked to discover that what the militants were doing was against Islam,” said Gujar, sitting on the floor at the madrasa in Okara city where the lectures were delivered. “Now I call them terrorists, not jihadis.” . . .

The U.S. has created a new unit in Pakistan that aims to leverage such grassroots efforts by working with local moderates to counter violent extremism — the first of its kind set up by an American embassy anywhere in the world, according to U.S. officials here. The existence of the unit has never before been reported . . .

The unit is just now ramping up operations, said officials. It was funded with an initial budget of $5 million that officials hope will grow. Officials declined to provide details on specific programs they are funding or plan to fund, for fear that publicly acknowledging U.S. involvement would discredit their partners.

That’s a major worry in this country where anti-American sentiment is rampant. Any cleric known to be taking U.S. help is likely to be shunned by many. There are other challenges as well. Many among clerics and the public who are considered moderates have mixed views — they often oppose the killing of innocent civilians in Pakistan, but support jihad against U.S. forces in Afghanistan or against neighboring India. Further complicating the situation is alleged Pakistani government support for some militant groups . . .

You just can't make this stuff up. The jihadists will gladly take our tax dollars to supposedly support efforts to combat terrorism, but they can't publicly admit they are taking American tax dollars because they would likely be killed by the terrorists they are trying to "re-educate". Sounds like a great plan. Not. This money will wind up being used for the exact opposite purpose for which it was given. These types of efforts almost always backfire on us. The U.S. has repeatedly flown drone aircraft into Pakistani airspace to carry out attacks which sometimes go awry and kill innocent civilians. Not surprisingly, the U.S. drone attacks aren't helping our popularity in that country. The pro-Taliban support against U.S. soldiers expressed by one of the clerics who welcomed a meeting with the U.S. ambassador says it all. “Afghanistan was invaded, and the Taliban are waging jihad to protect their homeland, their freedom and their rights, so I recognize that as jihad,” said Zafar.

Why don't we just get the hell out of these countries and stop meddling in their affairs? Islam is their religion by choice. It's been that way for thousands of years. We've given billions of dollars in foreign aid to Pakistan to help combat terrorism, only to learn that the country had been providing safe harbor to bin Laden for nearly a decade. No amount of money is going to change these people's views, particularly when they see Americans continuously sticking their nose into the internal affairs of their countries. If we're stupid enough to give them money we don't have to give away, then we shouldn't be at all surprised if it winds up being spent on future terrorist attacks against our soldiers and innocent Americans. What would we think if the Chinese government started pouring millions of dollars into Christian ministries inside the United States to coax ministers into helping convince their religious followers that communism was really okay? Think about it.

Hat tip to Debbie Schlussel.

UPDATE: The ACLU has released its annual report card grading elected officials on protecting civil liberties. Obama received a lower rating than Ron Paul. In fact, it gave Obama a failing grade. From the ACLU's blog:

Our experts found that Republicans Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman earned solid scores, with four, three and two torches across most major categories, although both received one torch on marriage equality and none on reproductive rights.

President Obama also achieved solid scores or better across most categories, including four torches for ending the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. However, he received just one torch and none for keeping Guantanamo Bay open and continuing unconstitutional surveillance under the PATRIOT act, respectively.

Republican-turned-Libertarian Gary Johnson scored even better than Paul, Huntsman and Obama, earning four and three torches on most major issues. They stand in stark contrast to the other major GOP candidates, three of whom -- Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum -- didn’t earn a single torch in any of the seven major categories.

Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich received torches in only one category: two torches each for promoting a humane immigration policy, including their support for a path to legal status for some long-term residents.

Ultimately, the good news from the report card is that genuine support for our constitutional values and freedoms has no partisan boundaries. Indeed, Ron Paul’s recent surge in Iowa has been attributed to his adherence to the Constitution and civil liberties.

Senatorial Privilege

2011-12-30T11:50:00.001-05:00

If Secretary of State Charlie White were only U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R), his fortunes this year would have been a whole lot different. Lugar and his wife, Charlene, are permitted to cast votes and register their automobiles with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles at an address at which neither of them has resided since 1978. A Marion Co. circuit court judge has ordered White removed from office and a special prosecutor has charged him with seven felony counts for using as his registered voting address the home of his former wife where he lived prior to his divorce for a several month period before he moved into the residence he shares with his current wife. It is truly amazing how Gov. Mitch Daniels, the entire political establishment and the news media can disparage White endlessly and make him out to be a loathsome felon for doing something tens of thousands of Hoosier voters in between residences do every year. Being a senator certainly has its privileges for guys like Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh.

Hat tip to Welcome To My Tea Party.

GOP Attacks On Ron Paul

2011-12-28T08:26:00.005-05:00

Polls show show that GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul's impressive show of grassroots support in the Iowa caucus is driven by the support he is receiving among independent and younger voters--two critical blocs of voters that the winning presidential candidate in the November election traditionally captures. The thought of the independent, non-traditional thinking Paul winning the Republican presidential nomination has been turning establishment figures in the party apoplectic. The personal attacks against Paul are somewhat ironic when you consider that Paul, who as far as I've been able to determine, is the only Republican candidate who has consistently supported conservative fiscal policies throughout his political career, is faithful to his wife and is a proud veteran who served his country with honor.

The attacks against Ron Paul by the Redstate blog have been particularly over the top. One blogger has run a four-part series entitled, "Ron Paul is crazy." Another calls him "The Real Warmonger" despite the fact that he is the only candidate advocating our withdrawal from undeclared wars ordered by the military industrial complex to keep the war machine running at full capacity, even if it bankrupts and destroys the country in the process. He is attacked by another blogger for having a base that is "Not Republican," who also suggested Paul is the Barack Obama of the 2012 campaign who would become another Andrew Johnson-like president because he would have no support in Congress if he is elected. And that's just what the Redstate blog had to say about Paul in the last three days.

The attacks on Ron Paul by the Redstate blog go beyond intraparty feuding in my judgment, particularly when you consider that its founder, a paid commentator for CNN, says he is "comfortable supporting Newt Gingrich" for the nomination despite this same blogger's view that Herman Cain had to drop out of the Republican presidential race because of unproven accusations he is a womanizer. Gingrich is now on his third wife after dumping wives one and two for younger congressional aides. Gingrich supported health care mandates and global warming before he opposed them. He was driven from the Speakership of the House under an ethics cloud and fined more than $200,000 for his bad behavior after he rose through the ranks of the House GOP's leadership, in part, on his success in bringing down the former House Majority Leader on ethics charges he led against him. Lest we forget that this principled conservative inked a $1.8 million consulting contract with Freddie Mac at the same time the agency was seeking $317 billion in federal bailout assistance while insisting with a straight face that the money he was paid was not for lobbying Congress.

Pardon me while I put on my tin foil hat, but if I didn't know better, I might think the Redstate blog is ground zero for an Operation Mockingbird-style operation in reference to a propaganda operation funded by the CIA beginning in the 1950s when it put thousands of American journalists on its payroll to promote its agenda for the country. By 1975, the Church investigations by the U.S. Senate's select committee on intelligence estimated that the CIA was spending $265 million a year to misinform the public through its covert propaganda machine. President Ford fired former CIA Director William Colby after he testified to the Church Committee about the extent of the Operation Mockingbird activities, as well as other covert actions by the CIA and replaced him with President George H.W. Bush, who was one of the first CIA agents contacted by former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy because of Hoover's concern of possible CIA involvement in the killing of the president. As we now know, the American news media bombarded us with misinformation in the lead up to the Iraqi War based on totally false claims concocted by the George W. Bush-run CIA that Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruction.

It sure looks like some pretty powerful forces far beyond the simpleton thinking of the Redstate bloggers are at work stoking fear and misinformation about Ron Paul because of the threat he poses to the military industrial complex. I can't help but think that these voices sound remarkably similar to the establishment GOP meme in 1980 warning us that Ronald Reagan was too old, too dumb and too dangerous to elect as president. Will you be fooled by their propaganda campaign against Ron Paul? And shouldn't you know that these same forces would just as soon see four more years of Barack Obama?

Two Women Charged For Filing False Claims In State Fair Stage Collapse

2011-12-27T18:55:00.000-05:00

Two Indianapolis women who didn't even attend the Sugarland concert at the Indiana State Fair this summer when the grandstand stage tragically collapsed, killing several concert-goers and injuring dozens of others, filed false claims with the state and a victim's fund seeking compensation for injuries they never sustained. Marion Co. Prosecutor Terry Curry announced that the two women are now facing charges for forgery, perjury, theft and attempted theft. WTHR reports on the two women's scheme to defraud the state and the victim's fund:

Prosecutor Terry Curry says Stephanie Murry and Sandra Hurn submitted claims to the Indiana State Fair Remembrance Fund (ISFRF) and the Indiana Tort Claim Fund, which is administered by the Indiana Attorney General's Office. Authorities say the women each submitted claims totaling $22,500.

According to the prosecutor, the women claimed they were injured in the Aug. 13 stage collapse. The prosecutor's office alleges that the women falsified hospital records in order to be eligible to make claims to both funds.

"The state police determined pretty that the medical records submitted were falsified," said Curry.

In fact, Curry said, neither Hurn nor Murry even attended the concert.

"It would certainly appear from the investigation that neither woman was actually at the State Fair," Curry told Eyewitness News. "Sandra Hurn stated who she went with and that she was there for a couple of the Sugarland songs which obviously Sugarland never performed that night." . . .

Curry says Hurn collected $7,500 from the ISFRF, but Murry's claim was denied because her alleged injuries did not meet qualifications to receive ISFRF funds.

Both women also submitted a notice of tort claim to the Indiana attorney general's office, and both were notified they would receive money from the fund. But Hurn was arrested when she went to pick up a claim check, and Murry was arrested a short time after that.

"It's beyond troubling in a situation which was clearly a tragedy, people were legitimately injured even killed, that there are people out there that in turn exploit it for their own gain," said Curry . . .

Stephanie Murry has been charged with one count of forgery (class C felony), one count of perjury (class D felony), and one count of attempt theft (class D felony).

Sandra Hurn has been charged with three counts of forgery (class C felony), two counts of perjury (class D felony), one count of theft (class D felony), and one count of attempt theft (class D felony).

The maximum penalty both women could face for a class C felony is eight years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

It's refreshing to see that the Marion Co. Prosecutor's office takes the crime of forgery seriously. I'm defending several lawsuits filed by an Indianapolis business, which is a serial litigator against its former employees and seems to have a propensity to forge contracts it attaches to its lawsuits against its former employees. At least one Marion Co. judge says you can't sue the employer for forgery as long as the employer withdraws the forged document after you catch them trying to use it in litigation. I'm assuming Terry Curry rightfully didn't give these two women the option of withdrawing their claims and declaring "no harm, no foul." It can be a very strange legal system in this county depending on who's calling the shots.

Kroger Shooting Raising A Number Of Issues

2011-12-27T16:51:00.002-05:00

A shooting of an attempted robber at a Kroger store on Indianapolis' northwest side by a store manager is raising a lot of questions. The deceased 26-year-old attempted robber, Jeremy Atkinson, had a 2009 conviction for armed robbery and carrying a handgun without a license, and he had an active outstanding warrant for his arrest for violating the terms of his probation. Atkinson received only a four-year sentence for the armed robbery conviction according to the Star at his sentencing in December, 2009 and served less than two years after his sentencing before he was released from prison in February to participate in a work release program. This begs the question of why a serious violent offender is being released from prison so soon after his conviction.

News reports indicate that Atkinson entered the Kroger store yesterday evening and forced a female employee of the Kroger store into a back office while poking something hard in her back that she believed was a gun. A store manager entered the office and fired several shots at Atkinson, striking him in the face. One 911 caller says she heard six shots, while another caller said she heard at least three shots. He later died after he was transported to an area hospital. There has been no confirmation that Atkinson did in fact have a weapon on him when he was shot by the store's manager. One would have thought police would have confirmed by this point if he had a weapon on him at the time of the shooting. Fox 59 News is reporting that Kroger's employee manual prohibits employees from carrying a firearm or other concealed weapon on the premises, except for licensed and authorized security personnel.

News reports say some Kroger workers fear the employee who shot Atkinson will be fired, causing supporters of the store manager to launch a Facebook site expressing support for him. It is unclear whether the employee had a license to carry a concealed handgun. Many larger, chain retail stores train their employees not to forcibly resist robbers, including chasing after shoplifters who flee the store with stolen merchandise, for liability reasons. Marion Co. Prosecutor Terry Curry and IMPD have indicated that they do not currently have plans to file charges against the store manager who shot Atkinson.

UPDATE: WTHR's Steve Jefferson reported tonight that the store manager, 24-year-old Elijah Elliott of Crawfordsville, had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The Facebook site urging Kroger not to fire Elliott can be accessed here.

WRTV's Norm Cox has a story discussing the conflict between Kroger's policy against its employees carrying firearms in the workplace for personal protection, and Indiana's conceal, carry permit law.

Indiana law allows people to use deadly force to defend themselves, but employers can still fire workers for having that deadly force with them in the workplace.

Indiana law states that "a person is justified in using reasonable force to protect himself or a third person from what he believes is necessary to stop or prevent serious bodily injury or the commission of a forcible felony."

But most companies have stringent rules against having a weapon in the workplace. The Indiana Chamber of Commerce fought hard to prevent the Legislature from creating an exemption to allow guns in locked cars in company parking lots, but the law passed.

The gun rights battle continues to rage. While many people said they support what the worker did, some of those same people don't think guns should be allowed in the workplace.

Kroger spokesman John Elliott said Tuesday he wouldn't discuss his company's policy because of the ongoing investigation . . .

Pat Bauer Admits Unemployment Higher Than Claimed By Obama Administration

2011-12-27T10:15:00.000-05:00

Indiana House Democratic Leader Pat Bauer (D-South Bend) pens a column in today's Star in opposition to Republican legislative efforts to make Indiana a right to work state. In it, Bauer admits the actual unemployment rate is much higher than the unemployment rate statistics touted by the Obama administration, particularly after the federal government manipulated the way the statistics are calculated so that many unemployed simply no longer exists in the eyes of the government. Using the Obama administration statistics, Indiana's unemployment rate is supposedly 9%. Bauer pegs the actual number at over 16%.

It is a joke to claim that right to work will provide more jobs for Hoosiers at a time when our true unemployment rate (counting people who have given up looking for work) is over 16 percent. Those one in six Hoosiers who don’t have a job don’t think it’s funny.

Bauer is also offering hope that Democrats this next legislative session will stay on the job and offer their own proposals rather than flee the state in order to shut down the legislature as they did during this year's legislative session. Among his caucus' legislative ideas are:

A job creation tax credit to encourage small business owners to hire.
State funding for a small business loan program.
Giving Indiana contractors first crack at performing any public works contracts.
Clawing back economic development incentives from businesses who fail to live up to their promises.
A voucher program to allow low-income people to enroll their children in pre-school programs.
Full-day kindergarten for every eligible child.
Tax credits for child care expenses.
A sales tax exemption for textbooks and school supplies

"Right to work for less", Bauer promises, will not be the only answer Hoosiers will be offered for their current economic woes.

Misplaced Priorities As Mobs Riot At Malls To Purchase $180 Air Jordans

2011-12-26T22:30:00.002-05:00

It pretty much reflects the poor state of affairs in urban America today. This scene at Indianapolis' Lafayette Square mall Friday before Christmas where a mob of shoppers literally tore down the doors and trampled over small children and women in order to purchase the latest Nike Air Jordan Concord basketball shoes illustrates why America is doomed. When you have mobs of people whose kids can probably barely read or write stampeding through the mall's doors after waiting in long lines for hours all night simply to buy a $180 pair of shoes, it's hard to have little hope for the future of this country. It's too bad their children's education isn't as important to them as buying a stupid pair of shoes that most of these people probably can't afford and that won't help any of them get a job. I can honestly say I've never spent anywhere close to $180 for a pair of shoes period, let alone a pair of sneakers. The absolute dumbest statement during this sad episode came from IMPD's public spokesman: “Officers restored order very quickly,” said IMPD spokesperson Kendale Adams. “[They] did a good job in getting the crowd organized, trying to get them in to get the shoes.” Yeah, right. Be proud, Kendale.

Chief Justice Shepard's View On Recusal Should Have Compelled Rosenberg's Recusal In Charlie White Case

2011-12-26T11:11:00.009-05:00

Chief Justice Shepard

I'm not sure why the attorneys in the Charlie White case have not asked Judge Louis Rosenberg to recuse himself from hearing the Charlie White election contest case, but I feel the issue warrants further discussion, particularly in light of Chief Justice Randall Shepard's reported explanation several years ago about why he chose to recuse himself in the high profile rape conviction appeal of boxer Mike Tyson that I find highly instructive and on point. As I've previously been alone in reporting, Judge Louis Rosenberg's daughter, Erin, a Democratic Party activist, became one of the first Democrats to publicly make the case that Charlie White was not legally registered to vote and, therefore, should be disqualified from being Indiana's secretary of state. Rosenberg published her legal analysis and partisan views on a partisan Democratic blog, in which she even insisted that then-Hamilton Co. Prosecutor Sonia Leerkamp recuse herself from investigating whether White broke any laws because she was a Republican like White, a move later taken by Leerkamp in requesting the appointment of a special prosecutor.

Chief Justice Randall Shepard turned down a request by prominent Harvard criminal law professor Alan Dershowitz, who was representing Mike Tyson in the appeal of his Indiana rape conviction, that Shepard withdraw his earlier announced recusal in participating in a decision by the Supreme Court over whether to grant Tyson's petition for transfer after the Court of Appeals rejected his client's appeal. Shepard had earlier authored a decision affirming the trial court's denial of Tyson's release on bond while his case was being appealed. In denying Dershowitz's request that he withdraw his recusal from participating in his client's appeal, Shepard explained the circumstance of events where his wife, not the Chief Justice, had discussed with Dershowitz her views about his legal tactics in handling his client's appeal. Shepard wrote:

My wife, Amy W. MacDonell, accompanied me to New Haven, Connecticut, for the twentieth reunion of the Yale Law School Class of 1972, held October 2-4, 1992. During this reunion, the school staged a large luncheon in the University Commons for people from all the classes then observing reunions. During the course of the lunch, my wife made a trip to the ladies' room. Upon her return, she told me that she had just introduced herself to Alan Dershowitz, by then counsel of record for Mr. Tyson. She said she had told Dershowitz that she had seen him argue the bail request before the Indiana Court of Appeals and that he needed to be better attuned to the Indiana way of approaching things as this appeal progressed. In particular, she said she told him his declaration that he would resign as counsel if Tyson skipped bail was not the right approach. The Dershowitz affidavit partly describes this conversation, though it varies in several respects from my wife's description. Obviously, I based my decision on my wife's account, not having seen the Dershowitz version until last month. I think it unnecessary to make any findings of fact concerning the accuracy of the Dershowitz affidavit and can even assume it true for purposes of acting on the present application.

I agree with the suggestion of the Dershowitz affidavit that the conversation was improper. My wife is not a lawyer, and she did not fully appreciate the reasons why such conversations are considered improper. She now understands the principles underlying these rules. She regrets very much having initiated this colloquy and feels a deep sense of embarrassment about it. My own decision not to disclose the reasons for my disqualification was motivated by a desire to protect my wife from the embarrassment she would feel about public disclosure and debate concerning her conduct, innocent as it was. During October and early November 1992, I weighed the possibility of disqualifying. This is obviously an action which ought to be avoided if possible. A judge has a duty to hear and decide matters unless disqualification is required. Ind.Judicial Conduct Canon 3(B)(1). Tyson v. State, 622 N.E.2d 457 (Ind. 1993).

Judge Louis Rosenberg

Like Shepard's wife, Rosenberg's daughter is an immediate relative. It is also true that she was not a lawyer at the time she first made her views known about Charlie White's legal situation, although she was a law student who had worked on the congressional staff of U.S. Rep. Andre Carson and had served as his campaign committee's treasurer. Rosenberg's daughter did not communicate her views privately to White; rather, she published them for the world to read on a partisan Democratic blog published by a Democratic attorney, Chris Worden, who also now works on the staff of U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, a close friend of White's opponent, Vop Osili. Unlike Shepard's wife, Erin expressed particular animus in her stated public views towards White. She opined in her blog post entitled, "Charlie White's Whitewash Effort Defies Logic," that "he intentionally violated the laws." "White’s actions show that he knows the laws and how to abide by them, but chose not to when they suited his ambitions and personal desires," Rosenberg wrote. "Mr. White must suspend his campaign and a special prosecutor must be appointed to conduct a real investigation of these allegations." Erin goes on to state the facts in detail as she saw them and how the law should be applied to disqualify White. She demanded that he "immediately suspend his campaign and address these charges." While not questioning whether Prosecutor Sonia Leerkamp could be impartial, she stated her belief that she should recuse herself. "I do not want to imply that Ms. Leerkamp is not capable of doing a fair and impartial investigation," she wrote. "I have no reason to doubt her on this. However, given the perception issues, I believe an impartial prosecutor should be brought in to investigate."

After the Recount Commission initially rejected a petition filed by the Democratic Party refusing to hear its petition challenging White's case, and the Democrats filed a case appealing the decision in Judge Rosenberg's court, I asked White's then-attorney, respected elections lawyer Jim Bopp, why he had not asked Judge Rosenberg to recuse himself given his daughter's publicly stated views on the case. Bopp reacted to my question as if he was not aware who she was or what she had written about the case. Nonetheless, Bopp said he had never asked a judge to recuse himself in his many years of practicing law. Bopp said he was comfortable with the legal position he was arguing for his client, and that if Judge Rosenberg ruled against his client, he was confident of winning on appeal. Judge Rosenberg went on to rule against his client and ordered the Recount Commission to hear the Democratic Party's complaint based on his novel interpretation of Indiana's election laws, and the Indiana Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of his decision until White had exhausted his administrative remedies before the Recount Commission. After the Recount Commission unanimously ruled in White's favor, the Democrats again appealed the decision to Judge Rosenberg, who once again sided with the Democrats in a decision that produces a novel approach to deciding where a person is legally registered to vote (See Paul Ogden's reading of Rosenberg's order that White could not have legally been registered at either his ex-wife's home or the new condo he purchased under the untenable interpretation of the voter registration laws set out therein. Also, see fellow attorney and former state representative Jon Elrod's take on why Rosenberg got it wrong.)

Back to Shepard's decision to recuse himself in the Tyson case, he explained the judicial canons that I believe should have also led Judge Rosenberg to the decision he should recuse himself from the White case, even though White's attorneys failed to raise the issue. Chief Justice Shepard recused himself before either side had raised the issue:

It was plain that the circumstances which led to my considering recusal were not initiated by either of the parties to this litigation or by me, a fact which diminished its harm. Still, the communication did involve only one side to the litigation, and I concluded that its nature played a role in the second, and more complex question, namely, whether under Canon 3(C)(1) this was a case in which my impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Shepard then explains the test for determining whether to invoke recusal under Canon 3(C)(1) and how he applied the test to reach his decision to recuse himself.

The test under Canon 3(C)(1) is whether an objective person, knowledgeable of all the circumstances, would have a reasonable basis for doubting the judge's impartiality. The question is not whether the judge's impartiality is impaired in fact, but whether there exists a reasonable basis for questioning a judge's impartiality. A judge has a duty to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Ind.Judicial Conduct Canon 2. (citations omitted)

Several factors weighed in favor of recusing on grounds relevant to Canon 3(C)(1). First, the conversation as described in the Dershowitz affidavit and as related to me by my wife could fairly be described as one in which my wife undertook to advise Dershowitz about ways to improve his chances on appeal. Had I participated in the case and had I voted in favor of Tyson, many could have supposed that Dershowitz took my wife's advice and that my vote went with it. The harm flowing from such suspicions can easily be imagined by considering what the defense would have said had my wife advised the prosecution while the case was being appealed.

In addition, had I not recused and voted in favor of Tyson, it might have appeared that I favored Mr. Dershowitz's client so that Mr. Dershowitz would have no reason to reveal my wife's action. I would thus have saved my wife the embarrassment of public disclosure and debate by voting for Tyson.

It should be pointed out that Alan Dershowitz has been highly critical of Shepard's decision to recuse himself in the Tyson case. Dershowitz was particularly perturbed that without Shepard's vote, his petition for transfer of his client's appeal was denied after the court deadlocked in a 2-2 vote. "Our research disclosed that Justice Shepard had written several opinions that, if followed, would probably have led him to rule in our favor," Dershowitz later wrote. Dershowitz then made a big leap to imply that Shepard had deliberately gone out of his way to look for a reason to recuse himself, a view most legal analysts would probably agree is without merit.

I think the case could easily be made that the circumstances in White's case were far more compelling for Judge Rosenberg to recuse himself from hearing the case than those set of facts that led Chief Justice Shepard to recuse himself in the Tyson case. Erin knew when she published her legal analysis and her personal views that her father was the sitting circuit court judge in Marion County who very well could be called upon to decide a case if a challenge to White's election occurred. As Shepard explains, it's not whether Judge Rosenberg's ability to rule impartially is in fact impaired; it's whether there exists a reasonable basis for questioning his impartiality. Personally, I would never agree to let my fate be decided by a judge whose daughter had so publicly expressed her prejudicial views of my guilt as Rosenberg's daughter had done. I would also distinguish my criticism of Rosenberg's participation in this case to those expressed by Abdul Hakim Shabazz, who published a blog post claiming Rosenberg had engaged in ex parte' communications in the case, which clearly would have violated the canons for judicial conduct. That blog post led the Indianapolis Bar Association to publicly rebuke Shabazz. In particular, the bar association was concerned that Shabazz had accused Judge Rosenberg of judicial misconduct without any substantiation other than rumor and innuendo. My criticism is not based on rumor and innuendo. It is based on the undisputed public writings and active participation of Rosenberg's daughter in helping to foment public support for an effort to oust White from office in the anticipated event he won the 2010 general election for secretary of state.

If someone believes my analysis that leads me to conclude that Judge Rosenberg should have recused himself from deciding the White case is flawed and would like to publish a constructive counter view on this blog, please forward it to my attention for consideration. My only request is that it be a constructive analysis based on supporting legal authority.

ISU Quietly Ousts Hasler Before Christmas

2011-12-25T18:59:00.000-05:00

The Terre Haute Tribune-Star reported as the Christmas holiday weekend began that Indiana State University officials had accepted the resignation of former State Rep. Brian Hasler last Monday from his position as the university's lobbyist to Congress and the state legislature. According to the Trib-Star, Hasler's duties will be absorbed by another ISU official, Diana McKee, as the university evaluates his former position going forward. Hasler was paid an annual salary of $116,159.

Hasler is scheduled to appear in court in Marion County on January 13 to face a Class A misdemeanor charge of patronizing a prostitute. Hasler was arrested by an undercover IMPD cop on December 7 at the Omni-Severin hotel in downtown Indianapolis after he allegedly offered to pay the undercover cop $160 to have sex with him.

Who Hacked Darrell White's Facebook Site?

2011-12-24T15:21:00.001-05:00

The Indianapolis Star couldn't pass up another opportunity to impugn embattled Secretary of State Charlie White after a dirty tricks operative for the Democratic Party appears to have hacked into his father's Facebook site that he had rarely used and posted anti-Semitic screed against Judge Louis Rosenberg in response to his decision this week overturning the Recount Commission's decision. Some of us have a pretty good hunch it's the same notorious Internet troll banned from many sites because of his long history of engaging in sock puppetry. The use of German words and his knowledge of Rosenberg's daughter's whereabouts were very helpful clues of his identity. Obviously, he revealed knowledge of things and a writing style any fool would know did not come from White's father. It's unfortunate the Star's animus towards White is so intense that it would play right into the hands of a low-life, dirty tricks operative by drawing attention to his latest handiwork. Some passages from the story:

"I don't know where this monkey business is coming from, but it's not me," said Darrell White, who reported the incident to Westfield police Friday. "Somebody is trying to hurt the White family even more than it has been hurt before, and I really resent it."

The posts appeared on Darrell White's Facebook page and in a comment thread on an Indianapolis Star story in response to Rosenberg's ruling that Charlie White should lose his job because he was registered to vote in a precinct where he didn't live while he was campaigning for the office in 2010 . . .

The posts on Darrell White's Facebook page made derogatory comments about Rosenberg's faith.

Parts of the posts were written in German.

One said Rosenberg is "chicken manure of the world."

"I'm personally calling you out on Facebook," the posts continued. "Stand up and be heard . . . or are you the cry baby I thought you were . . . you make me want to puke."

The posts also made several references to Rosenberg's daughter, who works in the Netherlands.

Rosenberg said Friday that he doesn't plan to read the comments, and he had no idea why the posts mentioned his daughter.

"It doesn't serve the public for me to get involved in these sorts of irrelevant comments," he said. "Whether somebody loves me or hates me is not relevant to the case."

The posts on Darrell White's Facebook page also called Parker, the Democratic chairman, "the ultimate loser" and accused him of using others to take down his enemies.

Judge Rosenberg Stays His Order Removing White From Office

2011-12-23T14:05:00.002-05:00

Judge Louis Rosenberg, the Democratic judge who is seeking to overturn a unanimous decision of the Indiana Recount Commission in order to install a fellow Democrat, Vop Osili, who received only 38% of the vote, has agreed to stay an order he issued on the eve of the Christmas holiday knowing full well that many people had already started their holiday weekend for a week. An attorney for White, Jon Sturgill, said he will seek a delay of that hearing because the new hearing date has been scheduled on the eve of the New Year's holiday weekend. The Attorney General has already stated his intention to appeal the unprecedented ruling of an Indiana trial court judge.

Rosenberg's order signed on Wednesday but not released until late yesterday afternoon declared Secretary of State Charlie White ineligible to hold office based on a specious claim that he was not "legally" registered to vote in the Hamilton County precinct of his ex-wife's home where the two lived prior to their divorce. In a novel ruling that rejects decades of precedence established by Indiana court decisions for determining a voter's residence, Rosenberg ordered White removed from office and replaced by the losing Democratic candidate for that office.

UPDATE: I just learned the hearing has been continued until January 3, 2012. A question that has arisen is whether the Recount Commission that decided the case remains constituted to carry out the judge's order or to request the appeal the Attorney General has indicated that he plans to take. Perhaps that question will be sorted out in advance of January 3.

Chicago Judge Gives Christmas Present To Tony Rezko

2011-12-23T08:52:00.005-05:00

Apart from Tony Rezko's role as a political fixer for Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich, he was also engaged in defrauding his creditors for his business ventures. Rezko had already been sentenced to a term of 10 1/2 years for his role in Blagojevich's public corruption scandal for arranging for $9.6 million in illegal kickbacks for state contract awards, but he had been awaiting sentencing for defrauding GE Capital out of $2.5 million to obtain loans for his Papa John pizza restaurants in Illinois and Michigan. Judge James Zagel, the same judge who sentenced Blagojevich to 14 years in prison, gave Rezko a 7 1/2-year prison sentence for defrauding GE Capital, but he is allowing him to serve his time for the unrelated crime concurrent with the sentence for his crimes against the Illinois taxpayers, which means he won't serve an extra day in jail for the unrelated crimes. From the Sun-Times:

U.S. District Judge James P. Zagel sentenced Rezko Thursday to 7½ years on charges he schemed to get a fraudulent loan to prop up his Papa John's Pizza franchises in Illinois and Michigan. That means every day Rezko spends in prison will count toward both sentences.

But Zagel agreed to make the sentence concurrent with a 10½-year prison term Rezko received last month for corrupting state boards and state government under former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Rezko, who helped Obama out with the purchase of his southside mansion when he was still a U.S. senator, has been shielded from public view since Obama became president and has not been called to testify at any of the subsequent trials, including the trial of Blagojevich despite his key co-conpirator role. The allegations that Rezko stuffed money into Obama's pockets are also apparently being swept under the rug by federal prosecutors in Chicago. Oddly, Rezko's former business partner, Daniel Frawley, just agreed to plead guilty to a crime for which the statute of limitations had already passed. Frawley reportedly was cooperating in the investigation of Rezko for the past five years by wearing a wire while having conversations with Rezko. Prosecutors are seeking a sentence of just 18 months for Frawley's role in defrauding a bank out of $4.4 million. In a December 1, 2010 deposition, Frawley was questioned about his knowledge of payments made by Rezko to Obama. He declined to answer on the advice of his counsel. Frawley later sued his attorney for malpractice after he learned that he was also representing Tony Rezko. One of the businesses that Rezko and Frawley owned together received a $50 million contract from the Iraqi government to train security guards, a deal that eventually went south when things blew up in Chicago for Rezko. What Obama's role in helping the two land the Iraqi contract is also apparently under lock and seal, along with the alleged payments Rezko made to Obama.