This isn’t surprising, in and of itself: Rep. Miller has been a long-time advocate of raising the minimum wage. What is surprising is who introduced him: Saru Jayaraman, co-founder of the Restaurant Opportunities Center (ROC).

ROC is an interesting group to be walking the Halls of Congress. To start, it’s currently part of an investigation by the House of Representatives for its “history of intimidation” towards opponents. There’s also the small fact that ROC has actively engaged in lobbying activities at the federal, state, and local levels, even though it has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to report such activities to the IRS.

You wouldn’t know this at first glance. Jayaraman and ROC were there to announce the creation of RAISE—“Restaurants Advancing Industry Standards in Employment”—purportedly a high-minded alternative to the National Restaurant Association. Despite its appearances, however, this new initiative is little more than another way to further ROC’s long-standing goal: “to organize the 99 percent of the [restaurant] industry that doesn’t have a union.”

ROC is a labor union front group with an 11-year history of intimidation and union-style brinksmanship against the restaurant industry. ROC vehemently denies its status as a labor union, because its appearance as a “worker center” independent from organized labor is critical to its legal existence–even though it was founded by the UNITE-HERE union in 2002.

Using this legal loophole is a shrewd move. By operating as a worker center, ROC can claim 501(c)(3) charitable organization status, which allows it to pay no taxes and to raise tax deductible contributions from foundations. ROC also pitched itself as a charity for the million dollars in taxpayer-funded grants it has received from the federal government. But more importantly, this also allows ROC to skirt federal labor laws, avoid union disclosure requirements, and use typical union tactics without the fear of government intervention.

Consider ROC’s campaign against celebrity chef Mario Batali’s New York City restaurants. Over a period of several weeks in 2010, ROC staged violent protests outside Batali’s restaurant, based on isolated allegations of employee mistreatment.

The mistreatment, however, was on ROC’s end. According to the restraining order request filed by Batali—and granted by the court—the protesters threatened and verbally assaulted patrons, physically blocked passage into the restaurants, vandalized property by destroying outside decorations, and even took pictures of diners through the window in an attempt to scare them from ever returning.

These tactics are commonplace for ROC: In one instance, the front group’s protesters used a 12-foot inflatable cockroach to scare off patrons. In some cases, ROC’s tactics have been so disruptive that employees at the targeted restaurants have staged counter-protests to show that ROC doesn’t speak for them at all.

Given this sordid history, it’s surprising that Rep. Miller would share the stage with the group’s chief representatives.

But it’s a relationship ROC has nurtured, because the group is more politically-savvy than it lets on. Restaurant intimidation campaigns are limited in scope; they can’t change national policy by themselves. That’s why just last month, ROC registered as a lobbying organization so that it can push for federal legislation including mandatory paid leave laws in the “Healthy Families Act” and a higher minimum wage in the “Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013.”

All of this information points to an unmistakable conclusion: There was more going on at that press conference than meets the eye. ROC’s rhetoric about RAISE may sound high-minded, but its questionable history and its hidden agenda show that its claims should be taken with a grain of salt—if not the whole shaker.

Mike Paranzino is the communications director for ROC Exposed, which is supported by a broad coalition of restaurant workers, employers, and citizens concerned about ROC’s misinformation and attack campaigns against America’s restaurants.

FACT: In 1998, then-State Senator Obama voted against making it a crime for convicts on probation knowingly to have contact with a street gang.

FACT: In 2001, Obama voted against making murder in support of gang activity eligible for the death penalty.

I’m guessing he won’t mention those votes to the family of Hadiya Pendleton.

FACT: In 2013, Obama is working to take guns away from law-abiding Americans. It advances his desire for the American people to be dependent on government. But it also makes us less safe.

Contrary to Democrat myth, violence in Chicago and elsewhere is pretty easily controlled:

* Put felons behind bars.
* Put violent felons behind bars for a long time.
* Give juries a death penalty option in murder cases.
* Appoint a 5th Justice to overturn the phony Constitutional right to life for 17 year-old gang killers invented by a 5-4 Supreme Court in 2005. (Roper v. Simmons, and yes, I dare you to read the facts of the murders in that case.)
* Support the second amendment rights of the law-abiding to protect themselves with firearms.
* Abolish all state laws that create a disgraceful “duty to retreat” from one’s own home when faced with violent intruders.
* Don’t ignore minor offenses, as today’s car thief is tomorrow’s violent felon.

It’s not rocket science, but these anti-crime policies work wherever they are tried.

Or, we could just try another Obama scheme, this one to use taxpayer funds to have a convicted rapist insulate your attic:

“Government could kick-start a transformation of circumstances for these men by working with private-sector contractors to hire and train ex-felons on projects that can benefit the community as a whole: insulating homes and offices to make them energy-efficient, perhaps . . . .”

–Obama, The Audacity of Hope (2006), p. 258.

A Solyndra for gang bangers!

By all means let’s shine attention on Chicago’s murder mayhem, and the Democrats who have allowed Chicago to be so unsafe, particularly for people of color. Let’s even talk about the posh private school Obama’s kids attended in Chicago BEFORE anyone had ever heard of him. Even when he was an obscure local politician, he was not crazy enough to send his kids to Chicago’s public schools!

But let’s not pretend Obama has ever worked to reduce gang violence. He has been AWOL on that battle.

###

You can reach the author via Twitter.

The antidote to this demise, for the United States, and yes, the GOP, is more robust, real economic growth.

We saw it in the recent election. In the old model, a President running proudly on a “recovery” with 1.9% annual economic growth and the record unemployment it generates would be hounded out of office as an incompetent boob.

But in the new government dependency model of America, where Big Government offers “Julia” cradle to grave handouts paid for by others, it is precisely this economic weakness that drives more voters to the Party that promises more “safety net” (or what some accurately but perhaps unwisely call “gifts”).

We all missed this new truth in the months leading to the election, as we eagerly re-tweeted record food stamp spending, record Medicaid enrollments, record numbers of Americans receiving extended unemployment benefits. We saw each number as an indictment of the status quo that cried out for change.

But for the tens of millions receiving these benefits, any buzz about GOP discomfort with these costly programs was understandably seen as a threat to their immediate need to pay their bills: “One team will keep giving me stuff, and the other may not (though they assure me I’ll be better off long-term). I’m sticking with the sure thing.”

This sad reality puts the GOP at a disadvantage in negotiations with President Obama and the Democrats over the Fiscal Cliff and other economic issues. If our economy continues to be weak and tens of millions of Americans continue to be dependent on government welfare programs, it aligns these economically marginalized people more tightly with the Democrats, even if it is a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

It is only when these Americans become upwardly-mobile workers and, let’s hope, taxpayers who can imagine a raise and a promotion someday, that they can then be engaged on these broader issues: that our nation needs fewer people riding in the cart and more people helping pull it; that their own skills erode, and long-term prospects decline, the longer they let government keep them addicted to government programs; that unless they hate children, adding $1 trillion a year to their debt burden so adults can overspend today is just plain wrong; and that freedom and free enterprise remain the best hope for them and their families to achieve their fullest potential and lead a most rewarding life.

All true, but all nearly meaningless if you have a bill to pay and the Democrat Party pledges to take someone else’s money—or just borrow it and invoice America’s kids—and give it to you today to pay that bill. Democratic voters don’t even believe in capitalism anymore. Americans under age 30, Hispanics, and the poor, for example, all feel more favorable to Socialism than Capitalism. As Thomas B. Edsall recently noted in the NY Times, citing a Pew survey, “Hispanics … hold decisively negative attitudes toward capitalism, 55-32.”

But that means in everything the GOP does, the goal should be to increase real and sustainable economic growth. The world’s second largest economy, in China, is growing at about 8% a year. The Republican Party should establish as a national priority a minimum target of 4% annual private sector economic growth for the United States, up from the weak, sub-2% “new normal” under Obama. And it should be real, sustainable growth, not growth fueled by bubbles, like giving home loans to people with no hope of paying them back, or through borrowed “stimulus” spending.

How to get there? First, just having one of America’s political parties unequivocally make growth the top priority sends an important signal to job creators. Next, every week in session, Congressional Republicans should be putting forward legislation to promote economic growth, including, for example:

• Simplifying the tax code, including by lowering rates, in exchange for reducing deductions and special-interest carve-outs
• Increasing domestic energy production and ending the EPA’s war on US energy sources, including by green-lighting the Keystone pipeline
• A regulatory freeze: for example, a two-year moratorium on all new rule-makings that would impose greater than $50 million in annual costs to the economy; and a two-year freeze on enforcement of all $50+ million regulations put in place over the last five years
• Mitigation of Obamacare’s most egregious anti-growth and job-killing provisions; for example, those provisions that punish employers who exceed the 25- and 50-employee “cliffs,” and that encourage employers to limit workers’ hours to 29 or fewer, must be changed
• Reducing the rate of growth of federal spending, not just in the “out years” but in the current and next fiscal years, to send a signal to decision-makers in the private sector that our leaders are serious about reining in ruinous deficits
• A pledge NOT to bail out California, New York or irresponsible politicians in other states. They are bankrupting their states with give-aways to their government worker union allies, and through job-killing regulatory policies, with the expectation that other states’ taxpayers will be forced to come to the rescue. By signaling to these state leaders that they may not get the federal bailout they are counting on, it might encourage them to rein in their willfully destructive state laws that make a national economic recovery that much harder to achieve. I recently saw a TV ad paid for by New York State taxpayers claiming the state is friendly to business. Does anyone believe that?

This is obviously only a partial list. The point is, the need for robust economic growth must drive everything Republicans do over the next two years (and beyond), not just for America’s survival, but for the Party’s survival. Greek voters aren’t electing Tea Party conservatives (though if they had in years past, they would not be a nation in ruins today), and Americans dependent on government to pay their bills are likely to stick with their Democrat Sugar Daddy.

This further suggests that the GOP is adopting a posture on the Fiscal Cliff that is too narrow. It should be about economic growth, not just forestalling a cut to this defense program or an increase in that tax rate. The GOP should be expanding the issues on the table: why not include the Keystone pipeline in fiscal cliff negotiations? Why not a freeze on job-killing regulations? (Speaker John Boehner wisely signaled last week that Obamacare should be part of these negotiations.) Many of these pro-growth reforms would be scored by CBO as government revenue-enhancers, in that they would increase employment and economic activity, and thus generate more tax revenues. This should make it easier, not harder, to bridge the divide on the fiscal cliff.

If we hope to get more people pulling the cart and fewer riding in it, first we need a growing economy providing these folks with jobs that give them a vivid, personal stake in capitalism and free enterprise. That is the best hope for America, and the GOP.

###

The writer is a policy consultant who can be reached via Twitter.

But Tempe happens to be part of Arizona’s Ninth Congressional District, where extreme liberal Democrat and criminal defense lawyer Kyrsten Sinema is running against Vernon Parker, a mainstream candidate with a track record of working across party lines.

The problem is Bill Clinton and Kyrsten Sinema have an extremely rocky history, which will make for ONE AWKWARD EVENING IN ARIZONA.

Top Eight AWKWARD differences between Bill Clinton and Kyrsten Sinema

1. Just a few months ago, Bill Clinton assessed Sinema’s record, then decided to endorse a less extreme candidate in her Democratic Primary. But even with his endorsement, the candidate he backed lost. (Don’t tell Rubberstamp Rich Carmona.)

2. In 2008, Sinema endorsed not one, but TWO candidates against Hillary Clinton, Bill’s wife, in the Democratic Primaries for President. Sinema’s Anybody But Clinton strategy succeeded.

3. In 2000, Sinema backed radical Ralph Nader over liberal Al Gore, Clinton’s Vice President, and ran for office (unsuccessfully) against the Democrats in both 2001 and 2002 because she believed the Democrats “had moved too far to the center.” That’s the first time before or since anyone ever called Al Gore too moderate.

4. In her 2009 book, a how-to guide for left-wing community organizers to sound more reasonable, Sinema took a shot at Hillary Clinton, writing: “Letting go of outcomes is really hard to do at first. Some people liken their great solutions to their firstborn children and treat them as such. (Think Hillary Clinton and health care, circa 1993.)” Ouch. ["Unite and Conquer: How to build coalitions that win - and last," by Kyrsten Sinema (2009) Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, page 89.]

5. Clinton put the Democratic Leadership Council on the map, to move the Democratic Party away from the Fringe Left. Sinema is a big-wig at the Center for Progressive Leadership . . . yup, the very definition of Fringe Left.

6. Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act and created Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Sinema made her name fighting those Clinton policies.

7. Clinton signed GOP welfare reform that added time limits to and work requirements for welfare checks. Sinema sponsored legislation to lift time caps on welfare and weaken work requirements for it.

8. Sinema has a law license. Clinton gave his up to avoid a perjury indictment.

Despite these awkward differences, Sinema and Clinton do have some things in common. They both support:

• Dramatically higher taxes on working families
• Government takeovers of our health care
• Big Government programs at every turn
• Weak policies on national defense and the fight against terrorism

Plus, Sinema is a criminal defense lawyer, and Clinton hired many of them when he admitted lying under oath in a court-ordered deposition.

So perhaps they’ll be able to stand on the same stage Wednesday after all.

###

The writer can be reached via Twitter. He believes you should support Vernon Parker in this important Congressional race.

Now, with both parties having selected their candidates, Democrats no longer have the edge and this race should be re-characterized as a Tossup.

The GOP candidate is rising star Vernon Parker, a charismatic conservative with experience as a successful mayor, and as an official in both Bush 41 and 43 Administrations. His campaign has focused on creating jobs and restoring our nation’s economic growth. He is pro-life, supports the second amendment, opposes amnesty, vows repeal of Obamacare, and supports a strong national defense. Parker grew up in poverty and was raised by his grandmother. You can learn more about Parker and his views from his campaign website.

The Democrats have nominated one of their own rising stars, Kyrsten Sinema. She is following the Janet Napolitano model that helped Napolitano win two terms as Arizona Governor: be radically liberal on social issues to secure a national fundraising base and following, but speak in moderate tones at home while toeing the national Democrat line on policy. Sinema would be a reliable vote for Obama and Pelosi, for Obamacare and amnesty, but speaks instead about her independence and expresses generic, anti-Washington sentiment. She is strongly backed by public sector unions, by abortion-on-demand enthusiasts like Emily’s List, and is already a hero to the national Democrat gay rights groups whose wealthy members will generously finance her race this fall.

Parker has occasionally taken some flak on the Right for not being conservative enough. While some of that is simply primary politics, it’s fair to say that compared to, for example, RedState favorites like Florida Congressional candidate Ron DeSantis or Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, Parker does present a more muted approach. But in this district, it’s a winning approach. In August 2010, I wrote a RedState piece explaining why I was not supporting the frontrunner Ben Quayle in his race, which he ultimately won. One concern, I wrote, was redistricting:

. . . Arizona has an unusual system for reapportionment that puts it . . . in the hands of a bipartisan mix of appointed commissioners who will redraw the congressional district lines in 2011. This means that the District Three winner in 2010 could face a much more competitive district in 2012. . . a potential swing district . . . .

Cut ahead, and lo and behold, the Democrat-captured Commission did just that, Congressman Quayle moved out of his house to run against Rep. Schweikert rather than try to hold this new AZ09, and now Rep. Quayle is leaving Congress and Parker may be headed there. Our movement is big enough for all of these emerging conservative stars, as their different styles help us win from Florida to Virginia to districts across Arizona.

Looking at the Parker vs. Sinema race structurally, Parker will benefit from Obama’s unpopularity in Arizona, where his failed economic policies and federal government bullying of the state are widely condemned. In addition, I expect the anti-Mormon (LDS) bigotry being pushed by Democrats and the Democrat Media Complex will backfire in Arizona (and Nevada) this year, giving Romney a comfortable win there and helping GOP candidates across the board. Sinema has structural advantages as well. The lines of the new AZ09 were drawn by a firm hand-selected by the Democrat-controlled Arizona Redistricting Commission and that had done work for Obama’s 2008 campaign. The District was specifically designed to be winnable by a Democrat. What’s more, Sinema can count on national money from the Cultural Left and cash-rich government employee unions who see her as a future leader of their movement and a key vote in the effort to return the Speaker’s gavel to Nancy Pelosi. Parker’s ability to raise significant funds is less certain.

Some unpleasant attacks await Parker. He is about to face the particularly vicious smears that Democrats and their assistants in the media reserve for conservatives of color. (Parker is Black.) The ugliness on the Left makes we worry for his wife and kids. But his grandmother must have raised him well, because Parker always seems to keep smiling, like the president he sometimes invokes (and evokes), Ronald Reagan.

Either Vernon Parker or Kyrsten Sinema will emerge from this election a national player. Republicans and conservatives across the country should study their records, decide whose rise they want to see, and then get behind the obvious choice, Vernon Parker.

###

The writer has been following Arizona politics for 20 years. He can be reached via Twitter.

But ultimately, people will vote the top of the ticket, President Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney, so Biden critiques should consistently invoke Obama’s failed policies, lest we fall for another distraction in the Obama camp’s desperate efforts to talk about anything other than the no growth, no jobs Obama Economy.

Importantly, every Biden discussion should begin and end with this gem:

“The single best decision that I have made was selecting Joe Biden as my running mate. The single best decision I have made. I mean that. It’s true.”

–Barack Obama, October 15, 2010.

Biden’s bigotry and incompetence reflect on the man who selected him, Barack Obama.

And certainly, compared to Obamacare, the failed Stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, giving Government Motors to the UAW, amnesty, letting Iran build nukes, his war on US energy production, and so many other decisions, picking Biden may have been Obama’s least damaging decision.

But with Obama seeking four more years to finish us off, er, finish the job, let’s reintroduce into the campaign past Biden statements that reflect on Obama’s judgment today.

Bigotry and race-baiting.

“[Romney’s] gonna put y’all back in chains.” (August 14, 2012)

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” (Talking about Obama, January 31, 2007)

“[In Delaware,] you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.” (June 16, 2006)

“I spent last summer going through the Black sections of my town, holding rallies in parks, trying to get Black men to understand it is not unmanly to wear a condom, getting women to understand they can say no, getting people in the position where testing matters. I got tested for AIDS. I know Barack got tested for AIDS.” (June 28, 2007)

Economic malpractice

“We’re not supporting clean coal. . . . No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they’re going to build them over there [in China], make them clean . . . .” (Biden in Ohio, September 17, 2008)

“It’s time to be patriotic.” (Biden, explaining Obama’s plan to increase taxes during a recession, September 18, 2008)

“The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy.” (Biden, explaining Obama Administration’s economic failures, July 5, 2009)

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation. Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’ The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you.” (Biden at an Alexandria, Virginia event to promote more government deficit spending, July 16, 2009)

“And I have not bent the law, but I have let imagination take hold in some places where I think it’s consistent with the spirit of the law. Is that the best way of saying that? Yes. I should stop.” (Biden, on helping state and local officials secure Stimulus Bill handouts, September 3, 2009)

“[W]hat Biden quickly discovered was that Obama’s policies were awfully thin, not terribly specific, more rhetoric than substance. Right after the convention, at a prep session . . . Biden listened to a bunch of the Obamans talk him through the Democratic ticket’s position on taxes. ‘That’s our policy? That’s our policy?’ he asked incredulously. ‘Well, it’s your campaign. I’ll say what you want me to say.’” (Game Change, p. 411, about September 2008)

Obama launched “Recovery Summer” to tout his stimulus bill and promised-but-never-realized job growth, and put Biden in charge of the effort. (June 17, 2010)

Odd discussions of women

“I cannot believe that a Frenchman visiting Kiev went back home and told his colleagues he discovered something and didn’t say he discovered the most beautiful women in the world. That’s my observation. It’s certain you have so many beautiful women.” (Biden to Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko in Kiev, Ukraine, shortly after visiting a memorial to the millions of Ukrainians killed by Stalin’s forced famine, July 21, 2009)

“I’ve been sleeping with a teacher for a long time. But it’s always been the same teacher.” (Referring to his wife at a National Teacher of the Year reception, April 26, 2010)

Personal greed

“Over the decade, the Bidens reported a total of $3,690 in charitable donations, or 0.2% of their income.” (USA Today, September 12, 2008)
“Americans who earn more than $150,000 on average gave about 2.2%.” (That’s 11 times what the Bidens gave; Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008)

Biden charges US taxpayers rent for a cottage the Secret Service uses to protect him next to his waterfront home in Delaware. (2009 – Present)

The just plain goofy

“You know, I’m embarrassed. Do you know the Web site number? I should have it in front of me and I don’t.” (Biden forgetting the Recovery.gov website address (which is recovery.gov) during a CBS News interview to promote Recovery.gov, February 25, 2009)

“[The Prime Minister of Ireland] knows a lot about it, his mom lived in Long Island for 10 years or so, God rest her soul and—although, she’s . . . wait, your mom’s still, your mom’s still alive—is your dad passed. . . . God bless her soul! I gotta get this straight.” (Biden, while standing next to Ireland’s Prime Minister as he suggests the man’s living mother is dead, March 17, 2010)

“I would tell members of my family, and I have, I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places right now…. When one person sneezes, it goes everywhere through the aircraft. That’s me. I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation, suggesting they ride the subway.” (Biden on NBC’s Today Show, discussing the Swine Flu, April 30, 2009)

“Chuck, stand up, Chuck, let ‘em see you.” (Biden urging paraplegic State Senator Chuck Graham to get up out of his wheelchair, September 9, 2008. Biden shortly realized what he had done, adding: “Oh, God love ya’. What am I talking about?”

“I ask you as a personal favor — break your neck for this man. Because you’ve got something really going here.” (Biden, at a Virginia fundraiser for the Democratic candidate for Governor, July 16, 2009. The Democrat went on to lose by a record 18 points.)

“[T]he number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word . . . jobs . . . J-O-B-S, Jobs.” (October 15, 2008)

“Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie’s Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time and you ask anybody in there whether . . . [the Bush] administration has made them better off in the last eight years. [The] people in my neighborhood, they get it.” (Biden, October 2, 2008, referring to Katie’s Restaurant, which closed in the 1980’s)

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’” (Biden to Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News, September 22, 2008. Of course, FDR wasn’t actually President when the stock market crashed, and TV had not yet been invented.)

Evidence the Democrats’ bench is painfully thin

“Still, right up until the moment he rendered his decision as final, Obama kept chuckling, shaking his head, and thinking, I can’t believe I’m picking Biden.” (Game Change, p. 342, on Obama’s selection of Biden as his running mate in August 2008)

“Not only was Biden kept off Obama’s nightly campaign conference call, he wasn’t even told it existed.” (Game Change, p. 412, about Fall 2008)

“Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. . . . Quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me.” (Biden, September 10, 2008)

“How many times is Biden gonna say something stupid?” (Obama to his staff, October 20, 2008, as reported in 2010’s Game Change)

Even Biden gets it right sometimes

“Biden had been hanging around with the reporters in the back of his new plane, running his mouth about how he was more qualified to be president than Obama.” (The Democrat Media kept this huge news private from voters until it was disclosed in 2010’s Game Change, p. 411, about mid-September 2008)

On November 6, we can vote these clowns out of office. Get to work.

###

Biden research conducted jointly by both authors of The Obama Calendar 2012. You can reach this author via Twitter.

Instead, he may face justice.

The Democrat-controlled Colorado State House of Representatives voted 33-32 to repeal the death penalty on April 19, 2009. Thirty-two Democrats and one Republican voted to protect killers. Twenty-six Republicans and six Democrats voted to continue to let juries who had heard the facts and testimony, along with prosecutors and appellate judges, decide if a death penalty was appropriate in a particular murder case. Two Democrats from Aurora were among those Representatives who voted to repeal the state’s death penalty.

The bill then went to the State Senate, where repeal failed by a single vote, 17 to 18. Seventeen Democrats voted to protect killers. All fourteen Republicans, and four Democrats, voted to leave it to juries to decide. Two Democrats from Aurora were among those Senators who voted to repeal the state’s death penalty.

Barring a federal terrorism death penalty prosecution and subsequent death penalty (the federal death penalty continues even in states without a state death penalty), the Aurora movie theater mass murderer would be enjoying half a century of working on his pecs and glutes, and hanging out in the free law library, had these 50 state lawmakers flipped one vote.

Colorado Representatives who voted to repeal the death penalty in 2009:

Dennis Apuan, D-Colorado Springs
Debbie Benefield, D-Arvada
Terrance Carroll, D-Denver
Lois Court, D-Denver
Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver
Randy Fischer, D-Fort Collins
Gwyn Green, D-Golden
Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, D-Boulder
Joel Judd, D-Denver
Daniel Kagan, D-Cherry Hills Village
John Kefalas, D-Fort Collins
Andy Kerr, D-Lakewood
Jeanne Labuda, D-Denver
Claire Levy, D-Boulder
Don Marostica, R-Loveland
Beth McCann, D-Denver
Buffie McFadyen, D-Pueblo
Wes McKinley, D-Walsh
Michael Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs
Joe Miklosi, D-Denver
Sal Pace, D-Pueblo
Cherilyn Peniston, D-Westminster
Jack Pommer, D-Boulder
Dianne Primavera, D-Broomfield
Joe Rice, D-Littleton
Jim Riesberg, D-Greeley
Su Ryden, D-Aurora
Christine Scanlon, D-Dillon
Sue Schafer, D-Wheat Ridge
Judy Solano, D-Brighton
Nancy Todd, D-Aurora
Ed Vigil, D-Fort Garland
Paul Weissmann, D-Louisville

Colorado Senators who voted to repeal the state’s death penalty in 2009:

Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins
Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood
Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora
Joyce Foster, D-Denver
Dan Gibbs, D-Silverthorne
Peter Groff, D-Denver
Rollie Heath, D-Boulder
Evie Hudak, D-Westminster
Moe Keller, D-Wheat Ridge
Linda Newell, D- Littleton
Chris Romer, D-Denver
Paula Sandoval, D-Denver
Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village
Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont
Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo
Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver
Suzanne Williams, D-Aurora

It would be nice to see the Democrat Media Complex interview these 50 now and get them on the record why they believe the Aurora mass murderer has an absolute right to life.

One final note: the Death Penalty Information Center, which is the George Soros- and EU-funded nonprofit that opposes the death penalty in all cases, enjoys great access to its friends in the Democrat Media Complex. But they have been curiously silent today amidst the furor over the mass murder in Colorado. Shouldn’t they be quoted on days like this on why the death penalty is bad, and not just years later when the victims are long forgotten?

#

The author can be reached via Twitter.

While we should applaud the Fourth Estate for investigating powerful institutions — I’m still hoping the DMC someday looks into Big Government, or the teachings of Rev. Wright’s church that President Obama attended for 20 years — the timing of this exposes what is really going on here.

This is a major corporation using its prominent magazine — 1 million weekly circulation, more than 4 million readers claimed worldwide — to try to harm Mitt Romney and protect Barack Obama. Its goal is not to harm the church — though many liberals are openly prejudiced against Mormons. (See them spout bigotry on Twitter and Facebook.) Its goal is to re-elect Obama, with the LDS Church merely collateral damage.

Still, it’s pretty outrageous. The cover art mocks one of the most sacred events in Mormon theology. Inside the magazine, the article is introduced with a full, two-page spread of golden hands clasped in prayer with hundred-dollar bills between the hands. The headline, a disrespectful play on the Church’s name, is: “Latter-day Lucre: How the Mormon Church Makes Its Billions.” (Don’t hold your breath for a similar take-down of radical Islam from the courageous editorial crew at Bloomberg Businessweek.) The offensive inside illustration is credited to a graphic arts firm called, somewhat fittingly for these Leftists, “Labour,” whose past work includes cover art for a 2008 pro-Obama song by Mobius Band and an “art” piece mocking Michelangelo’s Pieta, with the Virgin Mary holding a giant sub sandwich instead of deceased Jesus after the Crucifixion.

Yes, Bloomberg Businessweek outsources it art (though the work stays in Manhattan), and given the timing and tenor of this cover story, you would be forgiven for concluding that they outsource article selection, timing and research to the Obama campaign. Then again, perhaps they planned to run this back when Mormon Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) became Majority Leader, and it just took years to find the right artwork.

But there are two other “Features” in this issue of Bloomberg Businessweek. A second is about Groupon. No politics there (just a lot of shareholders who bought into Groupon’s hope and change now deep under water). The third Feature? Here’s the sub-headline:

Over the last 20 years, Colorado’s North Fork Valley has emerged as a model for the New West: Artisanal farms, sustainable wineries, backcountry sports. Then fracking came to town.

Evil fracking is destroying a swing state’s sustainable wineries! It reads like The Onion, but they are dead serious. There is an election to win for Obama; it’s no time for subtlety.

Just a week earlier, BB had a six-page feature on, you guessed it: income inequality. Citing the usual Democrat suspects — an economist who works for the Obama Administration, a sociology professor, Pew studies — the article managed to detail the life and times of living on the margins in Bridgeport, Connecticut, without ever noting that unions, environmentalists, and decades of Democrats who have controlled the city and the state have destroyed Bridgeport. One of the sympathetic women profiled had moved from New York to Bridgeport looking for a better life. She should have moved to Texas. But Bloomberg Businessweek would never tell you that.

We can complain, we can laugh, we can continue to dissect the willful bias of the Democrat Media Complex. But until we consistently choose to take our eyeballs — and thus revenues — elsewhere, we’ll keep propping up these adjuncts of the Democratic Party.

###

The writer can be reached via Twitter.

But as this ABC News piece from 2008 makes clear, Obama is returning to his real views on welfare with this move. He only pretended to support work requirements for those on the dole when he needed to move toward the center for the 2008 general election.

Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul “slashed the rolls by 80 percent.” Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction. . . .

Obama’s transformation from critic to champion of welfare reform is the latest in a series of moves to the center [s]ince capturing the Democratic nomination. . . .

The shift in Obama’s rhetoric on welfare reform has proceeded in stages. When former President Bill Clinton was poised to sign welfare reform while running for re-election in 1996, Obama called it “disturbing.” A decade later, as an underdog running for president against Clinton’s wife, he spent 2007 avoiding the subject. By the time Obama emerged as the Democratic frontrunner in the spring of 2008, he began leaving the impression that he was for it all along. . . .

While the states played an important role in helping people make the transition from welfare to work, the truly controversial decision which sparked the dramatic reduction in the welfare rolls was the one made by Clinton at the federal level.

The bill passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Clinton included work requirements and time limits. . . .

Now, with the Democratic nomination firmly in hand, Obama is going one step further. In an ad airing in 18 states, including 14 carried by President Bush in 2004, Obama is celebrating a reduction in the welfare caseload made possible by legislation he originally opposed.

Remember, this is not Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. This is ABC/Disney, a card-carrying member in good standing of the Democrat Media Complex (DMC).

Why would Obama do this now? The conventional wisdom among pundits is that he is doing this to shore up his demoralized liberal base. While this may be true, I see it differently. I think he realizes he is likely to lose, and he is trying to lock in as much of his extreme agenda as he can in these closing months of his presidency. Making the dole more attractive and more addictive, his unilateral amnesty for illegals, Obamacare’s war on Christianity: full speed ahead towards an America transformed.

—–
You can reach the author on Twitter at @mikeparanzino.

“She was paid like any other vendor,” said Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Donna Haye, who will take over as superintendent….

Incredibly, it occurred to no one to use that money to educate students, a MAJORITY of whom are failing at math.

In 2010, just 48% of 11th grade students at the public school met the grade-level math standard, and just 65% met the Literacy standard, far below the Garden State average and even farther below the state “goals” for math and reading.

But why try to educate children when you can hang with a star?

Of course, no government story would be complete without inside dealing. Ashanti’s godmother is the Mayor’s wife and is on the school board! But she abstained from the vote to line her goddaughter’s pockets with other people’s money.

Public school assemblies are a common scam to promote left-wing causes and direct money to favored groups and people, often with ties to the decision-makers. Some of that is inevitable, even at the best schools. But in a failing school that refuses to educate its students, it is unconscionable.

The next time someone tells you schools are strapped for cash, send them this story.

—-
You can reach the writer through his Twitter account.