Submitted For Your Consideration - The Left's Playbook

[American Patriot]

Law Prof Who Specializes in Poverty Makes $205,400 – Teaching One Class Per Semester

by Lauren Cooley - Furman University on June 27, 2014

FIX FEATURE






UNC law professor’s holdings include $1.5M in real estate, and meanwhile he chastises Republicans for their ‘unforgivable war on poor people’
A controversial, outspoken law professor who frequently bashes Republicans and specializes in poverty issues as a self-proclaimed champion of the poor earns $205,400 per year – for teaching one class per semester.
The University of North Carolina School of Law pays Professor Gene Nichol $205,400 annually for his one class per semester workload. On top of his teaching salary, he receives a $7,500 stipend as director of the law school’s Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity.
The News & Observer maintains a public database of public employee and educator salaries, and lists Nichol’s salary at $212,900. Nichol, in an email to The College Fix, confirmed the figure is accurate.
Nichol is slated to teach federal jurisdiction this fall and constitutional law in spring 2015.
He told The College Fix there is nothing unusual about his compensation.
“I’m a full time faculty member – doing all the varied things faculty members do,” he stated. “That’s the basis for the salary you quote. Beyond that, I’m paid $7,500 to run the poverty center – the same as all the other law school center directors.”
When asked about his compensation compared to other law professors, Nichol said: “Several make a good deal more than I do at Carolina, some make less.”
The News & Observer lists the UNC Distinguished Professor of Law Thomas Lee Hazen’s salary at $222,000. However, he is slated to teach four classes this fall, and two in the spring. UNC Distinguished Professor of Law Sarah Elizabeth Gibson earns $200,000 annually, and has a similar workload to Nichol at one class per semester.
Assistant and associate professors at the UNC School of Law tend to earn about $130,000 annually, according to the News & Observer database. Their work load ranges from one class per semester up to four.
As for Nichol, in the past he served as president of the College of William and Mary from 2005 to 2008, that is, until his contract was not renewed following a string of controversies.
Among them, he allowed a sex workers’ art show on campus and removed a cross from permanent display in the chapel of the historic Christopher Wren building, citing the facility’s use for secular events.
Prior to that, Nichol was the dean of UNC’s law school from 1999 to 2005.
Today at UNC, Nichol runs the UNC Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity, which was founded by the now-disgraced Democrat John Edwards. The center is a self-proclaimed non-partisan, interdisciplinary institute that aims to study and mitigate poverty in North Carolina and the nation.
In his leadership role there, Nichol is known to use inflammatory political rhetoric.
For example, on the center’s website he writes that “the scourge of debilitating poverty is the largest problem faced by the people of North Carolina – even if our political leaders ignore it, or declare, with a breathtaking stupidity, that it doesn’t exist.” North Carolina has a Republican-controlled majority of lawmakers.
Yet while Nichol champions the poor – even chastising Republicans in a March News & Observer op-ed for its “unforgivable war on poor people” – it’s unclear how well he can relate to those living in poverty.
His wife, chief of staff for the UNC Health Care System and the UNC School of Medicine, earns $407,000 annually. Combining his and his wife’s salary, the couple makes at least $612,000 per year.
The Nichol family lives in a Chapel Hill home with a tax value of more than $1 million. They also own a bungalow on the beach at Emerald Isle, valued by Carteret County at more than $512,000. In the summer months, Nichol rents his four-bedroom bungalow for nearly $2,000 per week.
When asked by The College Fix about the large inequality between his income and the income of those in poverty, Nichol refused to respond.
The issue of the UNC poverty center’s funding has also been the source of contention in the past because of its ties to Edwards, so much so that campus officials dedicated a webpage to detailing its financing.
It reads in part: “*Nichol earns $7,500 as a stipend for serving as the Center director. This is in addition to his salary as the Boyd Tinsley Distinguished Professor of Law at UNC School of Law.”
Nichol may have earned special attention regarding his salary and role there after he became well-known in North Carolina as a radical, left-leaning writer.
Even the News & Observer describes him as a “well-known liberal,” and he publishes regularly in The Progressive Populist and has written for The Nation, the Washington Post and the Chronicle of Higher Education.
His work has been so polarizing in the past that when Nichol publishes op-eds, UNC has asked him to give the administration a couple days’ heads up because he has angered so many people. UNC also asks that his columns include the phrase: “He doesn’t speak for UNC.”
This unusual request came as the result of a column Nichol wrote last October, in which he offered a scathing review of North Carolina’s Republican Governor Pat McCrory in the News & Observer. In the piece, Nichol referred to McCrory as “hapless Pat” and wrote that McCrory was “a 21st century successor to Maddox, Wallace and Faubus,” referring to three 1960s-era segregationist governors.
When Nichol writes about topics other than poverty, UNC asks he leave his title at the university out completely.
Nichol’s writings have caught the ire of many, including the North-Carolina based John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, which states that “Nichol is a radical partisan who has desperately ratcheted up his rhetoric after seeing his preferred party lose control in North Carolina for the first time in more than a hundred years.”
“Perhaps more disturbing is Nichol’s abuse of his stature at UNC-Chapel Hill to propagate his invective.”

[American Patriot]

freeze the target.

Holly Fisher: Public Enemy Number 310,345,204
By Charles C. W. Cooke
July 7, 2014 12:11 PM
Comments 167







Print
Text





This image — which features an American woman named Holly Fisher and an international terrorist named Sherafiyah Lewthwaite — has been doing the rounds on Lefty Twitter:

“Explain the difference”? With pleasure.
The woman on the left is a peaceful American citizen with a husband in the military. She has never killed anybody, and nor does she have any desire to. The reason that you know her name is that she has become a minor political celebrity for her outspoken support of a Supreme Court decision that upheld the rule of law against the intrusion of the executive branch. In her photograph, she is mocking the president for his intolerant and ignorant “cling to guns or religion” comments.
The woman on the right, by contrast, is Sherafiyah Lewthwaite, also known as “The White Widow.” The reason that we know her name? Her husband blew himself up on a train in London on July 7, 2005, killing 26 people, and, after his death, Lewthwaite picked up where he left off, becoming in the process one of the world’s most wanted terrorists. Lewthwaite is a former British citizen who gave up her life in England to become a member of the radical Al-Qaeda-linked militant group, Al-Shabaab. She is suspected of being behind a number of deadly attacks on civilians around the world, among them a grenade attack in Mombasa. In her photograph, she is reaffirming her commitment to jihad.
Any more questions?
Michael Stone, who blogs over at Patheos under the moniker “progressivesecularhumanist,” is deeply concerned by Fisher’s photograph, suggesting that it renders her the “New Face” of the “American Taliban” and serves to expose “the striking parallels between Islamic and Christian extremists, to demonstrate “the striking similarities between Christian and Islamic extremism,” and to reveal the “romance with religious violence both types of extremists seem to share.” Oddly enough, Stone seems wholly incapable of making up his mind as to quite how Fisher presents a threat to anybody. First, he suggests rather excitably that:

Perhaps the only thing more dangerous and destructive than religious extremism, is violent religious extremism cloaked in the mask of pseudo patriotism.

But, in the very next sentence, he concedes that:

While Holly Hobby Lobby is just a social media clown out for attention, she represents a dangerous strand of Christian fundamentalism that enjoys flirting with, if not threatening, real violence.

To sum up, then: Fisher’s “dangerous strand of Christian fundamentalism” is so extraordinarily “dangerous” that it has not only failed to engender any “real violence” but it can’t even bring itself to threaten harm? Goodness, let’s bring out the national guard.
As Stone himself confirms, that “strand” about which he is so vexed seems to be remarkably peaceful. He asks:

How long until the Christian extremists stop flirting with violence and start shooting?

Not sure, Michael. Enjoy the wait, though.

[Ryan Ruck]

Leaked Lib Megadonor Doc: 'Fundamentally Change Our Current Political System'

62-page briefing book details $374 million in spending during midterm election cycle

June 25, 2014

According to a recently published briefing book "obtained by Politico" by the liberal megadonor group Democracy Alliance, "progressives' long term success hinges on our ability to fundamentally change our current political system - including large questions about who can vote, the role money should play in politics, and what our courts look like."

The briefing, a report card of 2013's challenges and accomplishments for the organization, said that the George Soros founded and funded Democracy Alliance is "more than capable of turning back the latest threats from the Right." According to Politico, the briefing book was provided to Democracy Alliance donors "ahead of April's annual spring meeting."

The Democracy Alliance is a membership group that directs funding to a wide variety of liberal causes. It was created to consolidate the efforts of wealthy liberal donors such as George Soros, Tom Steyer and Robert Mckay.

The report paid "particular attention" to "the successful examples of alignment that have developed over the last three years and highlight additional opportunities that could further advance our collective visions of a stronger democracy and more progressive America."

The document highlighted 21 organizations the Alliance viewed as success stories. These "successes" included items like:

• "Met goal to coordinate campaigns to block conservatives agendas" (America Votes),
• "Met goal to promote progressive vision of the law" (American Constitution Society),
• "Met goal to advance progressive state policies" (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).
• Another highlighted group, Progressive Majority, boasted that it helped "elect 60 progressives and flip six local governments" in 2013 alone.

Towards the end of the document is a list of 172 liberal groups that the Democracy Alliance encouraged its supporters to donate to, entitled "Progressive Infrastructure Map Spring 2014." A footnote on this list states that "[O]ver the last nine years, many of the organizations previously recommended for support by the Democracy Alliance have played instrumental roles in building a stronger, more integrated progressive infrastructure." These 172 groups cover a wide range of left-wing issues such as gun control, LGBT activism, pro-choice activism and climate change alarmism.

Each of the 21 highlighted organization profiles included a rating of how diverse the organization was when it came to race, gender, and LGBTQ staff. According to the description of the briefing, "a well-balanced set of recommendations and Partner support for organizations that reflect diversity will contribute to our vision of a more progressive America."

Some of these groups have far-reaching influence, including America Votes which claims to coordinate "the engagement and issue advocacy of its more than 400 state and national partners."

The media are quick to criticize right wing donors, particularly Charles and David Koch, but they rarely report on the vast network of liberal donors. The Democracy Alliance even referenced the Koch brothers, with no apparent hint at irony. After talking about the "pronounced financial advantage" of conservatives, the briefing book assured liberals that "[w]hat progressives have is a strong infrastructure - built up and supported by Democracy Alliance (DA) Partners and other allied funders - that is innovative, collaborative, and deeply invested in mobilizing the key constituencies that will constitute the new American majority."

Groups profiled by the Democracy Alliance, with funding amounts. The number of Democracy Alliance partners supporting each organization is in parentheses.

• America Votes: $3.16 million (24 partners supporting)
• American Constitution Society $1.19 million (18 partners supporting)
• Black Civic Engagement Fund: $900.000 (3 partners supporting)
• Brennan Center for Justice: $2.6 million (32 partners supporting)
• Catalist, LLC: $1.18 million (9 partners supporting)
• Center for American Progress: $3.3 million (26 partners supporting)
• Center for Community Change: $2.15 million (17 partners supporting)
• Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: $1.91 million (27 partners supporting)
• Common Purpose Project: $130,000 (5 partners supporting)
• Fund for the Republic: $1.39 million (14 partners supporting)
• Latino Engagement Fund: $1.89 million (15 partners supporting)
• Media Matters for America: $2.7 million (33 partners supporting)
• New Media Ventures: $330,000 (14 partners supporting)
• New Organizing Institute: $440,000 (13 partners supporting)
• Organizing for Action: $650,000 (10 partners supporting)
• Progressive Majority: $600,000 (13 partners supporting)
• ProgressNow: $1.8 million (31 partners supporting)
• State Engagement Initiative: (created through a partnership with the Committee on States)
• State Voices: $1.44 million (20 partners supporting)
• Youth Engagement Fund $240,000 (14 partners supported)

The Women's Equality Center was also highlighted, although it did not receive money during 2013, with the addendum that "[g]oing forward, DA staff will work with WEC to set annual goals and report back to Partners on its performance and impact."

Democracy Alliance Docs_063014 by John Hinderaker

A Window Opens Onto the Left-Wing Conspiracy

July 8, 2014

The Democracy Alliance is not a famous organization, but it deserves to be. The Alliance consists of approximately 100 rich liberals who have taken upon themselves the task of coordinating America’s many left-wing organizations to promote a single radical agenda. The Alliance does not publicize the names of its members, but it held a conference for its “partners” and membership prospects in April, at the Ritz Carlton Hotel (naturally) in Chicago. Someone who attended the conference unfortunately (heh) left his or her copy of the documents passed out by the Democracy Alliance behind, and they eventually fell into the wrong hands. Ours. [UPDATE: Some have suggested that a disgruntled Democracy Alliance member gave the documents to a conservative who passed them on to our source. This could be true.]

In the document below, you can see the agenda for the April DA conference and get information about DA’s partners, among other things.

(Same document as above)

There is always a certain dissociation when leftists gather at a Ritz Carlton hotel to discuss their commitment to the poor. It is impossible not to laugh at this invitation to a dinner with Katrina vanden Heuvel, the heiress who bought and now runs the Nation magazine, a Communist publication, and New York’s newly-elected mayor Bill de Blasio. They will discuss “New York’s path to social and economic equality.” Sure: in the world to come, the hedge fund manager will share his income equally with the doorman, and Miss vanden Heuvel will divide her inheritance with New York’s poor.

In the meantime, though, let’s make sure the Democratic Party’s donors all make another billion or two. (Tom Steyer figured prominently at the DA conference.) And don’t miss this delicious detail: all of the wine that the Ritz Carlton served at the vanden Heuvel-de Blasio after-dinner event came from vineyards owned by Democracy Alliance partners! Some things, we conservatives just can’t match. Click to enlarge:



When you look at the agenda, it is striking how seamlessly the Democracy Alliance, with its far-left tint, meshes with the Obama administration. Thus, the DA partners were treated to appearances by David Axelrod and Debbie Wasserman Schultz:



But that’s not all: the ultimate Obama insider, Valerie Jarrett, also graced DA’s Chicago conference:



Note that Ms. Jarrett appeared along with Lizz Winstead, a comedian of sorts who founded the Daily Show, which, we are told, is the main source from which young people learn about current events. Entirely non-partisan, of course.

The Democracy Alliance does not itself raise and spend a great deal of money. Rather, being a partner in the Alliance requires one to contribute large amounts to other left-wing groups. The Alliance evaluates left-wing organizations on various criteria, and makes recommendations to its members as to where they should put their money. Currently, the Alliance lists 21 groups in its “Aligned Network”: America Votes, American Constitution Society, Black Civic Engagement Fund, Brennan Center, Catalist, Center for American Progress, Center for Community Change, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Common Purpose Project, Fund for the Republic, Latino Engagement Fund, Media Matters for America, New Media Ventures, New Organizing Institute, Organizing For Action, Progressive Majority, Progress Now, State Engagement Initiative, State Voices, Women’s Equality Center and Youth Engagement Fund. You can see the list, with descriptions of each group, in the document below:

img-521072109-0001

The most interesting of the DA documents that have come to light is the one below. It contains DA’s “investment recommendations” for 2014. Not only does it list the recommended organizations, but it rates each organization in several categories, sets out the group’s budget for 2014, and shows how much of that budget should be contributed by the 100 members of the Democracy Alliance. One category in which DA rates the organizations is “Collaboration,” as DA believes that all left-wing groups should coordinate their activities for maximum political impact.

Politicians like Harry Reid have denounced Charles and David Koch and others who contribute to conservative causes as “shadowy,” “secretive” people who infest politics with “dark money.” In that context, it is worth noting that most of the groups to which the Alliance and its elite liberal members contribute are 501(c)(4)s that do not disclose their donors. In fact, this question is addressed in a “FAQ” in one of the DA documents:



Harry Reid has no problem with that, since they are Democrats.

Spring 2014 DAIR

There is much information in this document, which I haven’t yet had time to digest fully. For example: have you ever wondered what Media Matters’ budget is? I can tell you: in 2013, it raised $13,820,000, of which $2,700,000 came from Democracy Alliance partners. Most of the rest, if I am not mistaken, was contributed by George Soros. DA notes that last year, Media Matters “partially met” its goal “to diversify funding and make organization more sustainable.” I assume that means that if one or two rich leftists die, David Brock is out of business.

These documents place an enormous amount of information about America’s Left at your fingertips. We have no proprietary interest in them; on the contrary, you can read them and comment on them here or elsewhere, and anyone can embed them on his or her own web site. They deserve, I think, broad circulation, as a window on the contemporary American Left.

UPDATE: Free Beacon analyzes the Democracy Alliance documents and comes to some interesting conclusions: “Democracy Alliance in Turmoil as Member Dissatisfaction Mounts.”

[American Patriot]

So, back on Facebook after a 2 year hiatus.

Or... perhaps a simple vacation, but whatever.

All my friends are refriending me. Perhaps not so good in some cases.

A lady I went to HS with so many centuries ago posts a picture yesterday.



That one.

So I post respond.

"If you make your Uterus a Corporation? Corporations get paid for their services. You'd have to charge. What's that make you?"

The response was pretty comical.

"That was just a MEAN SPIRITED RESPONSE TO an IMPORTANT POLITICAL PROBLEM!"

My response. "I wasn't being mean, I was asking a legitimate question. For the sake of argument let's look at this from my point of view. If I make my guns corporations will you stop trying to regulate them?"


Her response: "That's not even the same thing! This is an important political issue."

My response: "Of course it's not important to YOU, you don't like guns. Regulation is bullshit in any form. Period."


Nothing. No response. Not sure if I have been unfriended yet. /snickers


But here is the issue.

No one wants to control a woman's uterus. No one gives a shit. What we give a shit about is using abortion as BIRTH CONTROL. Abortion is NOT a form of birth control and should not be used to prevent births. If you want to take a pill, go ahead. You want to keep your legs together, go ahead. Don't use abortion to decide you have an "unwanted pregnancy". DON'T GET PREGNANT in the first place.

And leave my fucking guns alone or we're going to start retroactively aborting anti-gunners trying to take them.

Assholes.

[American Patriot]

So, back on Facebook after a 2 year hiatus.

Or... perhaps a simple vacation, but whatever.

All my friends are re-friending me. Perhaps not so good in some cases.

A lady I went to HS with so many centuries ago posts a picture yesterday.

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/...AAxwIAACleMgA=

That one.

So I post a response.

"If you make your Uterus a Corporation? Corporations get paid for their services. You'd have to charge. What's that make you?"

The response was pretty comical.

"That was just a MEAN SPIRITED RESPONSE TO an IMPORTANT POLITICAL PROBLEM!"

My response. "I wasn't being mean, I was asking a legitimate question. For the sake of argument let's look at this from my point of view. If I make my guns corporations will you stop trying to regulate them?"


Her response: "That's not even the same thing! This is an important political issue."

My response: "Of course it's not important to YOU, you don't like guns. Regulation is bullshit in any form. Period."


Nothing. No response. Not sure if I have been unfriended yet. /snickers


But here is the issue.

No one wants to control a woman's uterus. No one gives a shit. What we give a shit about is using abortion as BIRTH CONTROL. Abortion is NOT a form of birth control and should not be used to prevent births. If you want to take a pill, go ahead. You want to keep your legs together, go ahead. Don't use abortion to decide you have an "unwanted pregnancy". DON'T GET PREGNANT in the first place.

And leave my fucking guns alone or we're going to start retroactively aborting anti-gunners trying to take them.

Assholes.

[Ryan Ruck]

If you like you can indeed "register" your guns to an LLC. Useful for ownership of NFA items like suppressors, SBSs/SBRs, and machine guns.

No one wants to control a woman's uterus. No one gives a shit. What we give a shit about is using abortion as BIRTH CONTROL. Abortion is NOT a form of birth control and should not be used to prevent births. If you want to take a pill, go ahead. You want to keep your legs together, go ahead. Don't use abortion to decide you have an "unwanted pregnancy". DON'T GET PREGNANT in the first place.

And that's it in a nutshell. Medical technology has progressed to the point where getting an abortion as birth control is a moot point and thus it should be unnecessary except in the most dire of circumstances.

Just like we no longer have blood lettings and mass amputations of appendages, we should have progressed past the point of abortions as a medical procedure for matters of convenience. Anyone arguing for abortions is simply arguing against science.

[American Patriot]

Amazingly, those arguing "against science" are those actually arguing against religion for science reasons too.

I am of the now-firm opinion that anyone who argues on the Left side of the fence are completely off their fucking rockers.

[Ryan Ruck]

Has that ever been in doubt?

[American Patriot]

Well, you know I try to give folks the benefit of doubt usually. I Really, REALLY tried.

But after 20 years of doing this shit on various forums I've finally realized there's no help for them. They argue some stupid things. This whole GMO thing for instance. That's BS too. The whole "war on women".... what the hell is ISIS doing? Not a peep out of these dumb asses about it, but let someone say something that sounds "misogynistic" and watch these go nuclear boom on you.

Geez.