Five House Republicans Vote Against Passage Of Right To Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.