Category: Guest Authors

Obese News Anchor Sinks Over Weight Issue

By Chris Freind

Part 1 of 2 on obesity, bullying and the lack of shame in America

Think just because there’s a presidential election there aren’t other “big” issues? Believe that, and pigs can fly.

In fact, there is a large — huge, even — discussion eating at many Americans, the girth of which we are still trying to get our arms around. 

What is this weighty issue that once again has been feasted upon by both sides?

The massive rate of obesity in America, and whether publicly calling attention to it, as well as obese individuals themselves, should be on the table.

The obesity issue got cooking again after overweight news anchor Jennifer Livingston of WKBT in La Crosse, Wisconsin, received a private email from a viewer.  Kenneth Krause called her weight into question, asking whether she considered herself “a suitable example for this community’s young people, girls in particular,” and adding, “Obesity is one of the worst choices a person can make and one of the most dangerous habits to maintain.” He ended by hoping that she would, “reconsider (her) responsibility as a local public personality to present and promote a healthy lifestyle.”

Since Livingston’s skin was surprisingly thin for someone in the public eye, she responded with a four-minute on-air editorial rebuking Krause.  

But rather than giving viewers food for thought regarding her perspective on obesity, she left everyone wondering “Where’s the beef?” by barely weighing in on the issue at all. Instead she had a cow, ranting incessantly about bullying.  Yes— bullying. To the point where she even blubbered about how those struggling with sexual preference, skin color and even acne needed to stand up to bullying.

Bravo!  And since anchors often sink, that classic bait-and-switch tactic ensures Ms. Livingston a long political career should her day job not pan out.

However…

While many other media outlets are fawning over Livingston’s diatribe, Freindly Fire won’t serve up Grade A compliments so freely.  This is far too much at steak — stake, sorry — to allow her to duck the meat of the issue.  

*****

First item on the menu are the facts:

1. Livingston received a private email, and chose to go public with it. Krause didn’t “bully” her, but offered his opinion to a public figure —which Livingston certainly is. She could have responded privately or simply ignored it. Getting nasty emails is part of the job.  Hell, Yours Truly gets pummeled so often — including occasional death threats — that a “bullying” email like Krause’s would be a dream. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the…kitchen.

And would someone please explain how a non-vulgar, non-threatening email can be even remotely considered bullying?

2. Every single aspect of the obesity epidemic needs to be discussed in an open, straightforward and respectful manner, whether feelings are hurt. That’s not bullying. It’s constructive dialogue, something quickly disappearing from the American scene.

3. The vast, vast majority of obesity cases — which includes nearly 40 percent of the American adult population — are due to lifestyle choices, namely, immense overeating and a lack of physical activity. Only an extremely small percentage is related to medical conditions.

4. Let’s put a fork in the myth — perpetuated by so many obese people — that thyroid conditions are more prevalent than the common cold. Not only are they rare, but there are numerous medications which treat that condition, combating weight gain. Interestingly, Livingston never mentioned during her editorial that she had a thyroid condition. That morsel only came out after the story — and Livingston herself — became an international headline.

*****

In fairness to Livingston, it would seem that Krause formulated his opinion not knowing if she did in fact have a medical condition that has contributed to her obesity.  While the odds were certainly in his favor that she did not, it would have been more prudent to have addressed that question in his correspondence.

That said, as big as Livingston has become, given her appearances on national television shows, she is not the issue. Nor is Krause.

But before we get to the skinny on obesity, it is equally to important understand what this issue isn’t about — namely bullying.  Does it exist? Of course. Always has and always will. And reasonable efforts should be made to fight it. But “bullying” has become the catch-all phrase we use whenever someone feels jilted, offended, or bad about themselves.  The truly tragic part is that combating real bullying has taken a backseat to an all-appeasing political correctness running rampant throughout America.

From social media to the schoolyard, we’ve reached the point where children are no longer permitted to fight their own battles, instead seeing the authorities swoop in at the first sign of conflict.  Sounds nice, and sometimes such intervention is necessary, but for the most part, that paternalism leaves children woefully unprepared for that pesky thing called The Real World.  And now we are seeing the results of that crib-to-college coddling: our businesses are “sanitized” risk-averse petri-dish experiments for social engineering, our wars are fought so as to not offend the enemy, and scoreboards are often turned off in youth sports so a team down by 5 goals doesn’t cry and quit.  But no worries! Everyone gets a trophy so all can feel good about themselves.

Maybe if America prioritized growing up and not out, we’d be a whole lot better off.

The real issue is how to gnaw away at the exploding obesity rate, an epidemic that is all-consuming.  Obesity-related medical costs are soaring (over twenty percent of all health care spending) as cases of diabetes, heart disease and stroke meteorically rise.  Health insurance premiums for everyone increase in order to subsidize the obese. Worker productivity is down. Even energy costs are up.  

But perhaps most alarming, America’s young people are being de-sensitized to obesity and all of its negative effects.  In what is fast becoming a “do-whatever-makes-you-feel-good” society, that makes for an extremely dangerous recipe.

And the best way — maybe the only way — to change that fatitude is shame, a value in thin supply.  Part Two will chew that fat on how shame, correctly utilized, can lighten the load on America’s youth.

Bill Ayers Rape Story Via Donna Ron

Bill Ayers Rape Story — The touching concern Democrats and their enablers are now expressing regarding rape has inspired us to join in their crusade to protect womanhood and excerpt this 2006 article from FrontPage Magazine about Barack Obama’s mentor Bill Ayers:

By Donna Ron

I read occasionally of former Weatherman Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, both now not only accepted, despite their bombing campaign against America in the 1960s and 70s, but successful ,establishment educators whose opinions on social issues are taken seriously.  Every time I see Ayers’ name I shudder with fear and rage and realize that I will never be able to erase the mark he left on my life one evening 40 years ago.

It was at the Undergraduate Library at the University of Michigan on a Friday night in November 1965.  I was a sophomore and was living in a sorority house — Alpha Epsilon Phi. I was walking down the stairs to leave the library.  Billy Ayers was standing on the first floor and started talking to me.

I thought he was cute.  There seemed to be jovial kind of instant connection between us.  As I am writing this now I think he must have noticed me before ,  boys were attracted to me in those days ,  and planned to try to pick me up. As we struck up a conversation, Ayers told me very quickly about his leftist activism as if he knew this would intrigue me. In fact, I had made attempts to join SDS and the anti Vietnam War Movement on campus during my freshman year but had been put off by what hustlers the young male “activists” were. They talked in lofty ideological abstractions, but they also used their political sophistication as a lure for young women who wanted to be on the right side of the great social issues of the day. I picked up on that cynicism early and so spent much of my freshman year at Michigan trying to figure out how to act. I was politically idealistic back then and believed in Tikkun Olam — that we had to do something to make the world better. 

 

My freshman year at Michigan I attended the Teach-Ins and the campus demonstrations against the Vietnam War and studied hard for my Chemistry exams once a month. At the same time, I decided to pledge a sorority, partially just to prove I could and partially because young women’s options for campus living arrangements were still quite limited in those years.

 

Despite the caution I’d learned about young ideologues on the make, I was charmed by Bill Ayers and by his savvy talk of politics and the children’s school he was involved with. He asked me to go to a party with him and I did. I have a vague memory of the house where the party was and the people there. I think he got quite drunk and I suppose I drank too. I remember walking home with him. He was very open about himself and told me he was one of 5 children and that he was from Chicago and that his father was rich. 

 

I felt comfortable with Bill.  Throughout my life I had always had a friendly buddy-kind of connection with certain boys and felt that I was developing such a connection with him.

 

I remember going back to his attic apartment — he describes it in his book Fugitive Days.  He had a roommate — a black man who was 23 and married with children. There was a couch, a table, a stereo and a sink in the room. There were two beds – Ayers’ and his roommate’s on each side of the attic wall.  I slept with him there.

 

I came there a few times afterward to talk and to listen to his LPs. I especially loved Glen Yarbough’s album Come Share My Life. I met Bill’s roommate who also worked at the children’s school. I also met Bill’s younger brother Rick. Bill was a year older than I and his brother was a year younger. He spent a lot of time at Bill’s apartment.

 

Bill Ayers’ apartment was around the corner and a half a block away from the sorority house. The more time I spent there, the more out of place I felt with my sisters.  Sometimes I would stop by just to keep from having to go back to a place I had begun to think of as boring. I guess it was one of those evenings — maybe on the way back from the library, maybe just to get out of the sorority house, I don’t remember exactly. What I do recall is that when I was getting ready to leave Ayers told me I couldn’t go until I slept with his roommate and his brother.

 

(excerpt from FrontPageMag.Com)

 

Bill Ayers Rape Story

Bill Ayers Rape Story

So Who’s Abusing Children Now?

Here’s the latest from Jim Vanore of Good Writers Block.

NCAA President Mark Emmert recently placed punitive sanctions on Penn State University for allowing a known pedophile to victimize boys on their campus from 1998 to 2011. That felon has been dealt with by the legal system and is now facing a lifetime behind bars.
The “big four” administrative department heads responsible for allowing this abuse of children, are University President Graham Spanier, Vice President Gary Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy Curley, and head football coach Joe Paterno.  Paterno died earlier this year, and the other three face their own day in court.
Emmert said, “…the cultural, systemic, and leadership failures at Penn State had to be addressed, and that the NCAA’s  approach demands that Penn State become an exemplary NCAA member by eradicating the mindset that led to this tragedy.” 
His words.  You see, he just wants to eliminate the “mindset” that placed football above the welfare of innocent children.
So who is he punishing? Obviously, Emmert thinks that the football team (all of whom were in grammar school when this crime began) must answer for those who were complicit in these crimes. That’s sort of like the IRS telling your children that they must take a year off from their 7th grade studies and do time in prison, because you cheated on your tax return.
 
 
 
 

Corbett’s Response On Sandusky Fails To Answer Questions

By Chris Freind

In a speech before the world’s press, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said, “We must keep in mind that when it comes to the safety of children, there can be no margin for error, no hesitation to act.” It was the same authoritative tone he took when chastising Joe Paterno for not doing more to stop Jerry Sandusky.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

It is Tom Corbett himself who is most guilty of hesitating. Hesitating to appropriately staff the Sandusky investigation, and hesitating for years to make an arrest – both of which may have jeopardized the safety of children. That hesitation, and the stonewalling that Corbett has now employed, has created an intense firestorm around the governor.

Given the unprecedented nature of the Penn State scandal, this issue is not going away. In fact, if Corbett doesn’t come forward with answers, it promises to be the Number One issue in his 2014 re-election campaign.

Last week, the Governor responded to Freindly Fire’s Open Letter, which had requested specifics on key issues. But rather than answering any questions, the Corbett response raised even more red flags.

The Corbett response stated, “Grand juries take time. Evidence in decades-old molestations must be reassembled. A moral certainty of conviction must be reached … Where does Mr. Freind think that decade’s worth of evidence came from? It had to be gathered, reluctant witness-by-reluctant witness, with accompanying corroborating evidence.”

Absolutely correct – and precisely Freindly Fire’s point. Corbett is admitting that this high-profile case required a tremendous amount of work. So why were so few investigating it?

Here’s the bottom line. The Sandusky investigation took three years, was reportedly staffed by a single investigator at the outset, and later spearheaded by two narcotics agents, neither of whom had any experience in child molestation cases. Compare to this to the army of investigators Corbett used in the Bonusgate political corruption probe, including, sources say, agents from child predator units.

Given those facts, it seems logical that there can be only one of two explanations:

1. Politics

It doesn’t take a genius to know that sullying the reputation of the state’s largest university and taking down its legendary football coach would be a monumental challenge to any candidate running for governor. This would have been particularly true in Corbett’s case, given that his opponent, Dan Onorato, was a Penn State alumnus.

And the might of Penn State’s massive alumni network was just illustrated, where 76,000 alumni donated much of the $208 million the university raised this year.

So was the understaffed investigation dragged out in such a fashion that the arrests were not made until after the 2010 gubernatorial election?

2. Priorities

Or was the Sandusky case mishandled because Tom Corbett did not prioritize catching child predators?

If politics played no role, then Tom Corbett clearly prioritized corrupt politicians, who we will always have, over taking a serial child rapist off the street. One can only wonder how many more victims Sandusky molested while he was under investigation.

There are a number of quotes, some by Corbett himself, that are quite telling.

Randy Feathers, the head of the Attorney General’s Bureau of Narcotics Office in State College who eventually headed the investigation, stated, “During the Bonusgate investigation, we had a shortage of investigators in Harrisburg.” (Altoona Mirror, June 24, 2012)

Corbett was obviously proud of the fact that he pulled no one from Bonusgate, stating, “We used a completely different unit from Bonusgate … (the agents working the Sandusky case) were pure narcotic investigators from up in that region.” (Corbett press conferences, July 12, 2012, and July 14, 2012).

And Corbett admitted worrying that Sandusky could still be victimizing boys during the lengthy investigation, stating, “It was a calculated risk.” (CBS Philadelphia/KYW New Radio, June 26, 2012)

So Corbett knew of the risk, and yet decided that investigating a child-victimizing monster was worthy of only two investigators.

What’s even more telling is the fact that, upon Corbett becoming governor, he immediately ordered state police resources to the case. Why wasn’t that done before? So again, the question has to be asked whether Corbett, as attorney general, ever requested additional assistance from then-Gov. Ed Rendell, himself a highly respected former prosecutor. It’s not a trick question, and only requires a Yes or No answer.

And did Corbett ask the Feds for assistance, especially if additional state police resources were denied by Rendell and no one could be pulled from Bonusgate?

If the answers are in the negative, as they appear to be, what were Corbett’s motives in choosing to stay with such a bare-boned investigative staff?

♦

No one has suggested that Sandusky should have been arrested before evidence was gathered. Common sense dictated that at least two or three solid cases be assembled before an arrest was made, and numerous prosecutors with no ax to grind have stated that strategy would have been a viable one.

But, as has been stated in the media, Corbett waited to have at least 10 cases before making an arrest, which just boggles the mind.

Once several victims were identified and an arrest was made, with the spotlight on Sandusky, more witnesses would come forward. More importantly, Sandusky would have been closely watched and children would have been safe. But that didn’t happen.

Instead, a predator was given three more years to victimize his prey.

No wonder the governor doesn’t want to answer questions.

So the stonewalling continues. There are still no answers as to why Bonusgate investigators were not ordered to work the Sandusky case, and why, sources say, Attorney General agents, including those in child predator units, were pulled from other cases to assist with that corruption probe.

♦

Gov. Corbett also failed to answer the Open Letter’s other questions, including why he did not consider it a conflict of interest to serve on the Penn State Board of Trustees while simultaneously investigating it, and why he approved the $3 million taxpayer grant to Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile, when he could have simply done nothing or vetoed it without raising one eyebrow.

The latter is particularly compelling since $640,000 in campaign contributions were made from Second Mile board members and affiliates to Corbett’s Attorney General and gubernatorial races.

♦

The Open Letter received an astounding response from across the political spectrum. It was Facebooked and Tweeted thousands of times, published in media outlets and websites across the nation, and was the hottest topic on talk radio, with Freindly Fire discussing it from coast to coast. Most telling is that 99.9 percent of that dialogue had one common theme: why was there so much hesitation to act by Attorney General Corbett?

Rather than invoking “space aliens,” as he did in his response, Gov. Corbett would be better served by coming clean with the only thing that matters: the truth.

There is no such thing as “fair and balanced.” There is only truth and accuracy. It is time for Tom Corbett to tell the whole truth – accurately – regarding the very troubling Jerry Sandusky investigation.

The best place to start? Answer the questions. And the truth shall set you free.

 

Corbett’s Response On Sandusky Fails To Answer Questions

Say It Ain’t So, Joe

Jim Vanore gives his take on the Freeh Report and Penn State at his site, Good Writers Block

 
I was hoping I’d never have to write this piece, but recent revelations regarding the Penn State cover-up of Jerry Sandusky’s sexual predations dictate that I do.
If the information uncovered by the Freeh investigation is accurate—and I’ve little reason to believe it isn’t—then Joe Paterno did indeed take an active part in hiding the deeds of his assistant coach. Deeds that were both illegal and monstrous.
The damaging evidence can be inferred from the “Timeline” section of the report on page 23, wherein the plan devised by University President Graham Spanier, Vice President Gary Schultz, and Athletic Director Timothy Curley on February 26, 2001 includes a three-fold action: 1. Confront Sandusky, 2. Notify the Department of Public Welfare (DPW), 3. Notify the Board of the Second Mile Foundation.
However, this plan is “downgraded” to just confronting Sandusky after it is discussed with Paterno. The ‘new’ plan is to offer Sandusky professional help. If Sandusky does not then cooperate, the notifications to the DPW and Second Mile can proceed.
I read this as Paterno having the ultimate authority here. What else could I infer?
I at first gave Paterno the benefit of the doubt—doubt motivated by my lack of knowledge about what exactly he knew, and what exactly he could have done. I believed he followed the rules strictly and took what action he was mandated to take.
Now, e-mails attributed to Paterno indicate that he not only advised those around him to keep silent about Sandusky’s crimes, but his inaction even allowed this predator to continue his odious assaults for more than 10 years following the discovery of the crime.
Say It Ain’t So, Joe

Questions For Corbett Regarding Sandusky

By Chris Freind

An open letter to Pennsylvania’s governor, who refuses to answer disturbing questions about his role investigating the Penn State sex scandal:


Bursting with righteous indignation, his cheeks flushed with rage, the governor banged the podium in disgust while berating a journalist – in fact, chastising the entire media – for the audacity to ask questions on the issue.

We’re not talking about New Jersey’s Chris Christie, who gets away with such outbursts because of his stellar track record and pure gravitas.

No, this tantrum came from Pennsylvania’s Tom Corbett after being queried about his incredibly long investigation of child predator Jerry Sandusky

And it backfired in spectacular fashion. Why?

Because Tom Corbett is no Chris Christie.

Since questions on this matter remain unanswered, it seems only fitting, on behalf of the media and public, to pen an open letter to Mr. Corbett.

For the record, no media commentator in Pennsylvania supported Corbett’s ideas more than Freindly Fire during the 2010 campaign, from increased Marcellus Shale drilling to school choice to liquor privatization. In fact, FF even backed Corbett’s decision to subpoena Twitter during the Bonusgate corruption probe – a highly unpopular position. Bottom line: this isn’t personal, and it’s not partisan. It’s only about one thing: the truth.

Dear Gov. Corbett:

Since there are a number of questions which you have failed to answer concerning your investigation of Jerry Sandusky, on behalf of the media and the public, I respectfully ask for clarification in the following areas:

1.  Based on a decade’s worth of evidence of Sandusky’s predatory activities, why did it take the Attorney General’s Office three years to arrest him? I fully understand that it takes time to conduct an investigation, but as numerous prosecutors have stated, you could have arrested him quickly and continued building the case.

Tragically, it is probable that Sandusky continued to molest victims during your epic investigation, as predators do not stop preying unless forced to do so. Had he been arrested early, (standard procedure in many cases with a lot less evidence), Sandusky would have had to post bail, had restrictions placed upon him, and, most important, been under an ultra-intense media and community spotlight – every minute of every day until his trial.

In short, children would finally have been safe. And contrary to your assessment, this would have created a much more favorable environment for additional witnesses to come forward, knowing their bigger-than-life demon could hurt them no more. Arresting Sandusky quickly would have in no way jeopardized the strength of the case.

One of two things seems to be true, as there is no third option. Either   you were an incompetent attorney general, which virtually no one believes, or the investigation was deliberately understaffed and drawn out because you did not wish to be the gubernatorial candidate who took down fabled Penn State – with its massive and intensely loyal alumni network – and the beloved Joe Paterno. Since doing so would have presented difficult campaign challenges, many are asking if politics was placed above children’s safety. Which leads to the next question.

2. Why was the investigation so understaffed? Yes, you just now claimed – after eight months – that media reports are wrong that only one investigator was assigned the case for the first 15 months. The real number, as you now state, was a whopping two. We know you were busy with Bonusgate, but political corruption never threatens anyone’s physical well-being, particularly defenseless children.

And the two investigators assigned were narcotics agents. While Sandusky’s heinous crimes were many, drug offenses were not among them.

Yes, they were former police officers. But wouldn’t the reasonable course have been to assign agents with experience in child molestation cases? Did their inexperience lengthen the investigation more than normal … say, past your election in November 2010?

Additional resources were available. Upon becoming governor, you placed state police on the case. You could have made that same request to Gov. Ed Rendell, and, given the stakes, there is virtually no possibility he would have refused. And since you are a former United States attorney, you undoubtedly realized that federal assistance was also available.

3. Do you believe ethical and moral lines were crossed when, after investigating Penn State as Attorney General, you then participated as a member of the Board of Trustees upon becoming governor?

In other words, knowing full well that the investigation was still in full swing, conducted by your handpicked attorney general successor, you nonetheless chose to sit on the very board you had been – and still were – investigating!

Did you ever consider recusing yourself from board activities until the investigation was concluded? Since governors rarely attend board meetings, this would have in no way raised suspicions.

4. As governor, why did you personally approve a $3 million taxpayer-funded grant to Sandusky’s Second Mile charity, given your knowledge that Sandusky was under investigation for multiple child rapes?

Your statement that blocking the grant would have tipped people off to the investigation is utterly disingenuous, particularly since the media reported on the investigation in March, and you did not approve the funds until July 2011.

Vetoing the charitable grant would have simply been viewed as another financial cutback in a budget full of slashed programs.

So one has to ask if the $640,000 in campaign donations from board members of the Second Mile, along with their businesses and families, had anything to do with your actions?

If not, fine. But how did such a massively significant point slip your mind – until the media brought it up? And was that question also out of line?

Since these are matters of grave concern, I and many others look forward to your immediate response.

The media talks about Penn State’s Big Four casualties: Joe Paterno, former President Graham Spanier, Senior Vice President Gary Schultz, and Athletic Director Timothy M. Curley. But perhaps they are missing the biggest: Tom Corbett.

He has always claimed to hold himself to a higher standard, and has roundly criticized Paterno and others for not doing more to stop Sandusky. But when it came down to it, when Corbett had the power to put a speedy end to Sandusky, he didn’t.

If mistakes were made, fine. People can accept that. But to stonewall reasonable questions on such an important matter, and then stalk off , is something that should not, and will not, be tolerated.

Tom Corbett has a choice, perhaps the biggest of his career. He can either answer now – or in 2014.

 

Questions For Corbett Regarding Sandusky

Pennsylvania HRC CAIR Connection

Pennsylvania HRC CAIR Connection

 

By Hillel Zaremba

Tasked with administering and enforcing the state’s anti-discrimination laws, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) has become entangled in aiding an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in its goal of stigmatizing and silencing any criticism of Islam or Muslims, including those engaged in terrorism.

The law that created the PHRC empowers it to:

Track incidents of bias that may cause community tension and to educate the general public, law enforcement, educators, and government officials in order to prevent discrimination and foster equal opportunity.

Occurrences labeled “bias incidents” are logged into a monthly “bias report” that is forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Police, who decide whether to investigate items appearing there. Thus, the PHRC generates a government-sanctioned report card on the level and types of intergroup tensions and possible hate crimes within the commonwealth. In the words of one PHRC official:

We use the bias report to inform the Legislature about trends and for our community education purposes.

In a better world, this course of action might be considered admirable. But in Harrisburg a system has evolved by whichCAIR-PA,[1] the local affiliate of the Council on American-Islamic Relations — an organization declared an unindicted co-conspirator in America’s most significant terror financing trial — can manipulate data and push the pernicious myth that the U.S. is filled with hateful, anti-Muslim citizens.

How does it accomplish this? The PHRC convenes a working group, the Inter-Agency Task Force on Civil Tension, whose purpose is “to prevent and/or respond to bias-related incidents and the escalation of intergroup tensions” in Pennsylvania. It includes representatives from the FBI, state police, the state attorney general’s office, and numerous public and private advocacy organizations throughout Pennsylvania. One of these is CAIR-PA.

Beginning in 2004 — and increasing in tempo from 2006 to the present — CAIR-PA has fed the PHRC items that it claims demonstrate bias against Muslims. These items then end up in the PHRC’s bias reports with no apparent reflection on whether they truly constitute bias incidents, actually took place, or ought to appear in a report intended to focus on Pennsylvania.

CAIR-PA registered as a non-profit corporation in Pennsylvania in 2005 and was recognized as a tax-deductible 501(c)(3) entity in 2006. Annual reports from the PHRC record an uptick in bias incidents against Muslims coinciding with those dates and with CAIR-PA’s growing relationship with the state agency. After a post-9/11 high in 2001-2002, such alleged incidents declined to an average of eight per year through 2005-2006, then increased again to the present, more than doubling to an average of 19 per year.

The problematic relationship between the two groups has come to light thanks to the efforts of State Representative Curt Schroder, who submitted a right-to-know request to the PHRC for correspondence between it and CAIR-PA at the behest of Islamist Watch (IW), a project of the Middle East Forum. The emails reveal a corrupting, overly friendly relationship between CAIR-PA and the PHRC, resulting in the government agency manipulating data on behalf of the Islamist group.

Examples of the unbecoming nature of this association abound:

  • In the fall of 2008, a DVD documentary about violent Islamism, Obsession, was distributed in newspapers across the country. CAIR’s national office referred to it in a complaint to the Federal Election Commission as “a blatant piece of anti-Muslim propaganda.” CAIR-PA’s Harrisburg representative Samia Malik alerted the PHRC’s Ann Van Dyke about the film; Van Dyke referred to it as bias incident (BI) #24115 on September 15. Shortly thereafter, a PHRC investigator assigned to evaluate the film wrote: “The information … in the DVD does not disparage Muslims as a group, and no racially or religiously offensive or derogatory language was used in the video.” Despite its own findings, the incident remained logged in the PHRC’s September 2008 bias report as a bias incident.
  • In August 2010, Tom Trento, a Florida-based activist, spoke at the Philadelphia Free Library about Islamism. CAIR-PA lodged a complaint with the PHRC about the lecture, alleging that “Trento … spoke in a biased manner against the broader Muslim community in Philadelphia.” The speech was then tagged as BI #34340. When Van Dyke notified PHRC staff, she attached an article about the presentation from the Philadelphia Bulletin, which quoted Trento as saying: “The issue isn’t Muslims, it’s where you stand on Sharia law.” The Bulletin article continued: “While quick to remind the audience his desire was not to bash Muslims … it was his intent to confront the ideology of Islam.” As no one from the PHRC had attended the speech, the agency apparently chose to label it a bias incident based solely on CAIR-PA’s version of what was said.
  • In March 2011, CAIR-PA held its annual fundraising dinner at a country club owned by Springfield Township in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. The story was picked up by a reporter for Examiner.com who sharply criticized the township’s hosting the group. CAIR-PA in turn threatened Examiner.com with a lawsuit. When the PHRC’s Van Dyke wrote CAIR-PA’s Executive Director Moein Khawaja urging him to file a report about the incident, Khawaja balked because he did not “want a lot of bias incidents against Muslims to be against CAIR.” Van Dyke persisted and suggested masking CAIR-PA’s involvement. Khawaja agreed with the solution, and BI #34387 against an unnamed “Muslim group” was logged for March 2011. By removing CAIR-PA’s identity from the equation, the PHRC transformed a warning about a municipality’s relationship with a suspect organization into a generic incident of anti-Muslim bias. (In a similar example from later that month, CAIR-PA claimed it had received a solicitation from an unnamed group to participate in acts of terrorism; the letter was inexplicably given a bias incident number, 34395, but again the bias report only mentioned an unnamed “Muslim group.”)

CAIR continually claims it is a civil liberties organization watching out for Muslim Americans, which helps explain its presence on the Inter-Agency Task Force. The PHRC is aware of CAIR’s troubling background but chooses to look the other way.

In June 2011, Islamist Watch supplied the agency with two sourced documents: one demonstrating governmental shunning of CAIR; the other illustrating CAIR’s past questionable behavior in word and deed. IW pressed the agency to reassess the relationship. Its reaction? “[T]he PHRC does not anticipate any further response to you at this time.” There is also clear evidence that the PHRC was aware of questions about CAIR before being contacted by IW.

It bears repeating that the PHRC has been charged with keeping accurate records of incidents with the potential to cause harm to the larger community. When such an agency becomes so closely involved with an advocacy group that it fudges or obfuscates data, real-world repercussions can ensue.

The most significant fallout from this dereliction of duty is the perpetuation of the notion that there is widespread “Islamophobia,” which must then be combated through educational and legislative remedies as well as through changes in law enforcement behaviors. The problem extends beyond Pennsylvania, as a group with an agenda like CAIR and its allies can use this faulty data to declare that FBI and other statistics only reveal the tip of the anti-Muslim iceberg.

For example, in March 2011 testimony[2] was offered before the U.S. Senate by Richard Cohen, president of theSouthern Poverty Law Center, who claimed that FBI “numbers vastly understate the problem” of hate crimes against Muslims. Cohen blamed “limitations in the collection of data” and went on to testify that his group “compiled news reports” of anti-Muslim bias that prove an increase in this phenomenon (as if newspaper reports are unassailable truth). According to the PHRC’s Doreen Winey[3] (director of education and community services and chairperson of the Inter-Agency Task Force), the agency also relies on news reports for collecting its data, which can result in travesties like the following.

An apparent mugging in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, was initially reported in an area newspaper as a possible hate crime because the victim was thought to be of “Middle Eastern descent.” But in a subsequent communication to the PHRC from local police, the event was revealed to have been a drug deal gone sour. Notwithstanding this important correction, BI #24596 remains on the books as an example of “Islamophobia” for March 2010.

There are undoubtedly occurrences of real prejudice within the state, but most of the incidents provided by CAIR-PA do not pass any rational smell test. For example:

  • In April 2006, CAIR-PA alerted the PHRC to an online cartoon published by an evangelical group in California which, in essence, claims that Muslims follow a false prophet. There was no noticeable Pennsylvania connection for BI #23290, but apparently in the PHRC’s eyes Christian evangelizing causes community tension. Muslim proselytizing does not, if its absence in PHRC’s records is any evidence.
  • For organizing “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” events on college campuses in October 2007, theDavid Horowitz Freedom Center was assigned BI #23738. Its “Stop the Jihad on Campus” educational events in 2008 earned it BI #2191, #24129, and #34122 (for three different campuses). While multiple anti-Israel demonstrations which might have discomfited Jewish students took place on many Pennsylvania campuses in those years, none were ever assigned a bias incident number.
  • In late 2009, CAIR-PA filed a complaint with the PHRC against Mason Crest Publishers and the Philadelphia-based Foreign Policy Research Institute for their World of Islam book series. CAIR-PAclaimed the series is “rife with false, anti-Muslim allegations, making this clear propaganda masquerading as a textbook” and the PHRC tagged it as BI #34258. There is no indication in the emails that PHRC staff examined the books themselves, a series praised by the School Library Journal as “illustrat[ing] the diversity of Islamic faith in a clear and unbiased manner.”
  • BI #24901 was assigned to the 2011 congressional hearings in Washington, D.C. about domestic terrorism, chaired by Congressman Peter King. Although the hearings had no Pennsylvania focus, the PHRC, relying on media reports that smeared the testimony as McCarthyism redux, obliged its Islamist partner — which had come under scrutiny during the examination — by identifying the hearings as a source of “intergroup tension.”
  • In 2011, the town council of Carnegie Borough discussed whether an empty church could be used as a mosque. The council voted 5-1 in favor of local Muslims’ request, but that was apparently not good enough for the PHRC. Van Dyke wrote: “I’m including this as a bias report [#2468] since it appears there were no concerns from the community when the building was used by Presbyterians but concerns/questions arose now that the building will be used by Muslims.”
  • Also in 2011, Islamist Watch itself was awarded BI #34427. Its crime? It had written to a Pittsburgh-area high school embroiled in an alleged anti-Muslim incident in an attempt to ascertain what had occurred. A section from IW’s mission statement was quoted in the bias report, but the wording explaining that IW is engaged in “identifying and promoting the work of moderate Muslims” was suspiciously omitted.

The picture that emerges from this survey of “bias incidents” is disturbing in the extreme. Not only do none of these items amount to expressions of bias per se, but it would seem that anybody who even raises a question about Islamists, let alone Islam, is smeared as a bigot. Ann Van Dyke, her colleagues at the PHRC, and their cronies within CAIR-PA have become the arbiters of free speech, the living embodiment of Orwell’s “thought police.”

No one is spared the PHRC’s righteous indignation. A Jewish temple disinvited a CAIR representative once it had learned more about the group’s background: BI #34383. Commentator Dennis Prager opined on the suitability of Congressman Keith Ellison swearing his oath of office on a Qur’an: BI #23466. An online article questioned the motives of Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish expatriate with a history of Islamist statements, who runs a network of schools across the U.S.: BI #24906.

In a September 2011 phone conversation with the PHRC, IW asked whether steps were taken to determine whether a reported incident actually occurred, before it is logged with a bias number; the answer was “no.” When asked what forensic credentials PHRC investigators possess, the answer was “none.” In addition, those accused of having engaged in a bias incident are not afforded any due process to refute the charge, nor is a bias incident, once entered, ever expunged from the record, even if it is determined to have no merit.

Thus BI #34357 remains on the books, despite being essentially debunked. The entire sordid story can be read here, but briefly, individuals associated with Philadelphia’s Masjid Al-Jamia (including CAIR-PA’s outreach director, Rugiatu Conteh) alleged that Islamophobes had repeatedly tried to block worshippers from entering the mosque in the summer of 2010. No police record of such behavior ever came to light, though two evangelists were arrested for preaching outside the building in July. They were eventually acquitted of all charges; Conteh, who claimed to have been at the mosque during one of the alleged protests, never showed up to tell her tale in court. Nonetheless, CAIR’s national office and the University of California-Berkeley’s Center for Race and Gender relied upon the unverified story in a 2011 report documenting “Islamophobia.”

CAIR-PA’s too-close relationship with the PHRC is further manifest in the matter of “hate mail.” It could perhaps be argued that if an organization receives a torrent of expletive-filled letters, it is the target of group hatred and that such behavior merits concern. But that does not appear to be the case with CAIR-PA, despite its and the PHRC’s attempt to frame its experiences in that fashion:

  • BI #23424 refers to a “hate mail” sent to CAIR-PA’s Samia Malik in October 2006, urging her not to be too upset about a reported Qur’an desecration. While the tone was sarcastic, there was no offensive language in the letter.
  • BI #23435 refers to a “hate mail” sent to Malik in August 2006, urging her to expose terrorists that CAIR and other Muslims allegedly know about. There was no offensive language in the letter.
  • Two “hate mails” from April and May 2006 seem to be “community alerts” sent to subscribers of a site called primitivepiety.net. The first alert threatened to beseech God to reveal unnamed Muslim “operatives” if recipients did not make free English-language Qur’ans available by a certain date. The second “hate mail” warned that a less “gentle” letter would soon arrive if Muslims did not comply with the writer’s wishes, which included adherence to Christian Science.
  • BI #23436 refers to an August 2006 “hate mail” in which the writer offered a rambling cross-analysis of the Qur’an and Bible, concluding that the latter is full of the word “love” while the former is full of “hell” and “slaughter.”
  • BI #34274 refers to a November 2009 “hate mail” to CAIR-PA, in which the writer stated: “If you do not like the West, you are free to leave” and “This nation was founded upon Christianity… and [not by] uncivilized and backward [people] like you.”

This is not to say that CAIR-PA or other Muslim groups have never received spiteful letters. The question is: do these occasional letters contribute to an atmosphere that threatens the safety and stability of the larger community? The answer, based on the incidents recorded by the PHRC, is painfully obvious.

At the same time, CAIR-PA is guilty of the unreflective prejudice it condemns, yet it remains a member of the Inter-Agency Task Force. Referring to a 2010 profanity-filled letter sent to the imam of the Muslim Association of Lehigh Valley (BI #24788), CAIR-PA’s Khawaja wrote: “If [the purported sender’s] name is actually Joe Martin, the offender is most likely white.” When discussing the World of Islam book series previously mentioned, CAIR described the publishing partner, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, as “a right-wing, pro-war think tank.” Referring to the Peter King congressional hearings, Khawaja tweeted: “If ur minority and havent figured that GOP is bastion of racism and bigotry, get ur head out of ur ass.” Apparently, malicious characterizations give offense only when the receiving end is an Islamist organization.

Unpleasant as it may be, the tone of CAIR-PA’s less-than-civil ruminations is not the fundamental issue. Freedom of expression is. CAIR should be permitted to malign white people or Republicans if it so wishes; it must not, however, be permitted a forum — and an influential relationship — to shut down others’ rights to free speech. By registering sporadic and generally innocuous private communications as bias incidents, by credulously accepting CAIR-PA’s allegations as truth, by labeling all who question the behaviors of Islamists or even Islam itself as bigots, the PHRC is guilty of inflating the number of anti-Muslim acts, fueling the “Islamophobia” industry, and threatening public discourse on controversial issues.

As long as the PHRC’s method of doing business, especially its reliance on CAIR-PA, is not reformed, the citizens of Pennsylvania will continue to suffer. Setting aside the waste of taxpayer dollars for an agency that uses the shoddiest research methods imaginable, the PHRC, in collusion with CAIR-PA, besmirches the commonwealth’s reputation by creating the impression that it suffers from rampant anti-Muslim bias. This, in turn, can have important legislative and law enforcement repercussions affecting the quality of life within Pennsylvania. Simultaneously, the PHRC helps spread the dubious meme of nationwide “Islamophobia,” providing it with the patina of governmental endorsement.

As thought and criticism come under attack by these fatally flawed gatekeepers, legislators may be encouraged to view perfectly legitimate critiques as “hate crimes” and enact laws infringing on public expression. Police may err on the side of caution, shutting down dissenting voices, because they perceive that free speech laws do not apply equally in cases involving Islamists. Such a chilled atmosphere may also hinder law enforcement from conducting necessary investigations, for fear of giving offense.

The PHRC and CAIR-PA are fostering an environment of thought control, where no criticism of Islamists or troubling aspects of Islam is tolerated. This is a path that all Pennsylvanians should resist, including those Muslim Americans who oppose CAIR’s agenda of false victimization and whose voices need to be heard the most.

[1] The branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations examined here calls itself variously CAIR-PA and CAIR-Philadelphia. For purposes of this report, we use only CAIR-PA.

[2] The PHRC absurdly tagged the testimony as BI #24934, even though Cohen’s statement has practically nothing to do with Pennsylvania and is, in fact, against anti-Muslim bias. Cohen does mention an unnamed Pennsylvania educator whose “history program had come under attack by several parents because they believed the text was ‘advocating a positive “indoctrination” of Islam.’” The PHRC’s Van Dyke corresponded with Khawaja about this and the latter admitted he “can’t pinpoint whether or not we have heard from that PA history teacher, but that is a VERY common occurrence w/ parents disparaging of any curriculum that is not critical of Islam or Muslims.” (Moein Khawaja, email to Doreen Winey, April 19, 2011.) Thus, despite no outside corroboration — even from CAIR — the item was logged as a bias incident.

[3] Doreen Winey, telephone interview with author, September 21, 2011.

Pennsylvania HRC’s CAIR Connection

Let’s Not Get Too Political As They Divide and Conquer

It is summer again. A struggle is taking place between those who want so support the downtrodden and help uplift the whole society, and those who want to grab everything for themselves and people who are like them while destroying all others. I think that this has been the primary battle on Earth since the beginning of the age of the human being. There have been forces that wanted to bless people and make those who were blessed be a blessing to everyone in which they came in contact vs. those who thought they were blessed because of their own superiority and who learned to despise those who God was said to love and want blessed, the downtrodden and the pure of heart.

The same old battle is fought again and again at the end of each
age and the beginning of the new. Humanity strives to jump to a new
state of creativity and awareness while other forces filled with
fear, greed, and lack of insight and vision, continually try to push
back toward the dark ages full of fear, discrimination, and created
scarcity so they may maintain their seats of power.

 

The main difference today is that we can see how scarcity is
created right before our eyes. We see how a few people working
behind the scenes can buy the rights of the many through bribery and
media manipulation. We couldn’t see that a long time ago. Because
of more information we can look at the major religions and see how
they played a part in perpetuating the myths that led to fear of the
other and constant wars in the name of God and country. It is as if
the sheet has been pulled back and we see all of the ugly people
conspiring behind the scenes to build empires for themselves
regardless what happens to the majority of the people in their
communities, countries, or even in the world.

This is a good thing. Now is the time for us to look at the place
from whence evil comes. It is time for us to sketch it into our
minds with hot irons, or chisel it into our psyches like truth
written in stone so that we can heal all of the separation that has
been created by these people and their spiritual ancestors, and begin
to rebuild the world the way most of us prefer. The racism, the
sexism, the religious bigotry, and homophobia has to go. These are
the tools they use to conquer us. It is time to realize that we
are part of an interdependent system. We are part of one world. We
are not separate. Poverty and oppression in one part of the world
translate to the same things in the other parts.

 

This is something we are recognizing today through this so called
war on terror. The major chance that we have to make this world
better is to get rid of the hate, nullify the effects of the haters
and Empire builders so that we can have life. When we can do this,
live in a multicultural world where we can enjoy others cultures and
share our own freely, we will create the Rule of Love, The Kingdom of
Heaven, Satchitananda, or even, as the far right conservatives say, all boats rise on the economic tide, on this Earth.

 

We will be what we were born as, a wonderful creative beings who are kind, loving, and capable of creating the world that most of us dream. A world of peace, a world of joy, a world of mutual sharing, in other words, a world of love.
It just takes letting go of the false identity that has been force
fed to us since the day we were born, and remembering who we really are. We are beings connected in an interdependent web of existence.
More than that, we are the guardians of that independent web. This is only if we decide to be that, though.  We have just forgotten who, and what, we really are and it is time to remember before global warming and WWIII..

 

Om Prakash is a Writer, Life-Coach, and Leader of Spirituality
Workshops. He is available for lectures and workshops on various
areas of practical spirituality. He is also the host of the talk show The Spiritual Warrior: Reclaiming your power at:
www.blogtalkradio.com/practical-spirituality.
For more info. visit www.nextstepcoaching.4t.com

 

 

Let’s Not Get Too Political As They Divide and Conquer

LePage’s Cure for High Unemployment: Get a Job

I read a story in the Huffington Post. It said that at the Maine
GOP convention, Gov. Paul LePage (R) received an enthusiastic
standing ovation from his fellow Republicans for saying that all
able-bodied out-of-work Americans need to “get off the couch”
and go find employment.

He wanted the state legislature to pass structural changes to
welfare, saying, “Maine’s welfare program is cannibalizing the
rest of state government. To all you able-bodied people out there:
Get off the couch and get yourself a Job.”

“I understand welfare because I lived it,” he added. “I
understand the difference between a want and a need. The Republican
Party promised to bring welfare change. We must deliver on this
promise.”

LePage has been pushing for these reforms for months, which the
Democrats have argued, define Welfare Reform to broadly. They
include things like disability, Maine Care, which is Medicaid, as
Welfare”

Mike Tipping, communications director for the Maine People’s
Alliance, said LePage’s comments were “downright offensive to
Maine people searching for work in a difficult economy, especially
considering his embarrassing record of failing to invest in programs
that create jobs and cutting assistance for the unemployed while at
the same time giving massive new tax breaks to the wealthy.”

I have been getting Telemarketing Calls from the Sheriffs Office,
From Firefighters, and from Veterans, and I donate what I can. I’m
struggling to find work myself. Why am I paying taxes with this not
being taken care of? What is wrong with a country when it can’t take
care of firefighters, Veterans, and Law Enforcement agencies, or the
people, but can continually give tax cuts to millionaires who take
the money out of the country, invest in overseas companies paying
slave wages, and then pretend like they are competing with someone
else by constantly raising prices when they are competing with
themselves?

Some people feel good about people like LePage working is way up,
or whatever he may have done. But that was a different world.
Before, if one had a dream and was willing to do the work, one could
start making money by even selling rags and end up as buying houses,
renting apartments, or whatever was possible. If one worked hard
enough in a factory one could move to a supervisory position. One
could work their way through school and come out of the other side
without debt.

When I was young a person could work for the summer and save
enough to pay tuition for the college year. Nowadays this is
impossible. Costs have been going up and real wages have been frozen
and going down since 1968. Jobs have been exported overseas.  The more profits the companies make the more they can afford to invest in jobs overseas with slave wages or low paying jobs here that are worthless.  There is a major problem here. Saying
“Go out and get a job,” when he is the one in charge of creating
jobs, but thwarting the creation of them at the same time, is not
acceptable.

There is a lot of unnecessary struggling going on now, when it
comes to the economy. The one thing that I can see contributing to
it all is that companies and corporations want people to do the work without paying them.
Now it has gotten so bad that LePage even wants people to work not
only with no pay, but with no job! What a world we live in!

Dr. John Gilmore, D. Min.

Life-Coach, Writer, Workshop Leader

www.nextstepcoaching.4t.co

Corbetts Colossal Cockiness Castrates His Credibility

By Chris Freind

“Stevie Welch sat on a wall (of cards); Stevie Welch had a great fall (winning a mere two of 67 counties). All of King (or is it Joker?) Corbett’s horses (jackasses), and all the King’s men (endorsements by 27 County Commissioners and 35 State Legislators), couldn’t put Stevie’s candidacy together again (4 of 5 Republican voters rejected the Welch-Corbett-Obama “ticket”).

And so Freindly Fire’s prediction that Governor Corbett-endorsed U.S. Senate candidate Steve Welch would come in a whoppingly-bad third place was proven correct, though it didn’t take a political genius to guess that result.  After all, asking — strong-arming, actually — Republicans to support the Obama-voting, Joe Sestak-supporting Welch was anathema to common sense and political savvy.  And the resulting carnage is everywhere: the endorsement of the state Republican Party is as meaningful as being valedictorian of summer school; getting backed by Corbett now carries substantial negative baggage, and GOP legislators will think long and hard about aligning themselves with the Governor on his signature issues (are there any?), fearing that his promises of support could be akin to political suicide.

And all of this occurred just 15 months after being ushered into office with a ten-point margin and solid majorities in the House and Senate. And ironically, so easily preventable.

Many insiders will claim the blow to Corbett’s prestige will be a fleeting, short-term event. As is most often the case, those “experts” will be wrong. The political reality is that next month, when the Governor wants his ill-fated and unpopular voucher plan for only low-income families (which ignores the middle class) to pass, he will fall short, as his Party walks away from him. When he attempts to garner support for his proposed education cuts in the budget, he will meet substantial resistance. And should he try his hand at privatizing liquor, many in his GOP caucuses will cut and run.  Very few will risk their neck for a Guv who in the best of times was invisible, preferring the shadows to the bully pulpit. Now, Corbett has become a liability.

(Sidenote: Corbett’s low-income voucher allies made that issue the only issue this election, losing all of the races in which they were involved.  In particular, they spent big money trying to defeat West Philadelphia State Representative James Roebuck and mid-state Senator Pat Vance –who only ran again because she was “not going to be pushed out by any Political Action Committee.”. Both won easily — another reason Corbett will have a difficult time with that issue.)

Not only is Corbett’s popularity plummeting, but his reputation has been cemented as a lightweight empty-suit who simply can’t deliver.  The fact that he poisoned his own Party and made it a national laughingstock is icing on the cake.

In addition to Corbett’s endorsement of Welch (and the fact the he personally recorded the voice vote of every State Committee member during the GOP endorsement process), he went to the mat for his boy through mailers, phone calls, fundraisers and speeches.  Yet his election night was a disaster. Consider:

-The Corbett- Welch-ObamaDrama Ticket had all the advantages going into the race. With Santorum out of the presidential contest, many conservative-leaning Republicans did not vote — and low turnout elections almost always favor the endorsed candidate (especially the hand-picked favorite of a Governor).  The Party’s organizational structure and resources are usually sufficient to propel the anointed candidate to victory, but many Party committee people rebuked the Governor by openly supporting non-Welch candidates.

– Even better for Welch, there were two other major candidates in the race (Tom Smith, Sam Rohrer), both of whom would split the anti-establishment, anti-endorsement vote (and the remaining two candidates, David Christian and Marc Scaringi, did the same, taking 18 percent collectively). It should have been an easy “divide and conquer” campaign for Welch. Instead, it was a Kamikaze mission.


-There was a large snowstorm the day before the election across much of western Pennsylvania — Smith’s critical home base. Any dampening of that vote should have proven beneficial to the endorsed candidate, but it was Smith’s supporters who out-performed the once-vaunted statewide GOP machine.

– It should have been a slam-dunk for Welch to raise millions from Corbett and the big GOP donors.  But he took in an embarrassing $150,000 in the entire first quarter —half of Smith’s total and, quite possibly, even less than Smith’s dog. That lack of gravitas is quite telling.

– There was one bright spot: Welch’s campaign consultants reaped the benefits of the $1 million Welch personally gave his campaign.  The effectiveness of how they spent that money is another story, since there was no Philadelphia broadcast TV, limited media, and, come to think of it, virtually no campaign at all — usually not the best way to win an election.

-By far the most surreal moment of the night was Welch crying poor, complaining about being outspent 5-1 —even though he is accurately described in every news article as being the self-funding millionaire entrepreneur.  All self-funders claim that they will only spend a fixed amount, and, of course, exceed that after consultants convince them they are “closing fast.”  That never happened with Steve.  The irony is that he was always perceived as a self-funder (and no one wants to contribute to a rich candidate), but he clearly wasn’t able to micturate (look it up) with the big dogs in the tall grass.  Playing the rich-guy card (against a really rich guy like Smith) without having the aces in your hand isn’t just a bad bluff. It’s a dead-man’s hand.

Kind of makes you wonder what the hell the point was in going for the endorsement — or running at all.

*****

So what happens from here?  Prosecutor Kathleen Kane, who whipped the whining Patrick Murphy despite his endorsements from all the wrong folks (career pols Rendell and Nutter), is in the driver’s seat to become the first Democrat Attorney General. And expect the Penn State scandal to be front-and-center in the fall election, with Kane pounding away about what former Attorney General Tom Corbett knew, and when he knew it.

Not only would a Kane victory reflect negatively on Corbett (since the Dems would have captured that prize on his watch, and in doing so, beaten the Governor’s hand-selected candidate in what should be a Republican-leaning election), but his image and effectiveness will be further compromised as more is learned — and publicized —about his role in how the Penn State investigation was handled.

From having it all just a year ago, Tom Corbett will witness his own Party run away from him on the issues and in the election — and helplessly watch as the Democrats make him the issue.

It took George W. Bush six years to get to that point.   If Tom Corbett’s goal was to best the former President, well…Mission Accomplished.

Corbetts Colossal Cockiness Castrates His Credibility