Search This Blog

Friday, August 30, 2013

Why war in Syria?

A most interesting question, with at least one most interesting (to me) answer.
The key to figuring out who is really behind the push for war is to look at who will benefit from that war.  If a full-blown war erupts between the United States and Syria, it will not be good for the United States, it will not be good for Israel, it will not be good for Syria, it will not be good for Iran and it will not be good for Hezbollah.  The party that stands to benefit the most is Saudi Arabia, and they won't even be doing any of the fighting.  They have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict in Syria, but so far they have not been successful in their attempts to overthrow the Assad regime.  Now the Saudis are trying to play their trump card - the U.S. military.  If the Saudis are successful, they will get to pit the two greatest long-term strategic enemies of Sunni Islam against each other - the U.S. and Israel on one side and Shia Islam on the other.  In such a scenario, the more damage that both sides do to each other the happier the Sunnis will be.
There would be other winners from a U.S. war with Syria as well.  For example, it is well-known that Qatar wants to run a natural gas pipeline out of the Persian Gulf, through Syria and into Europe.  That is why Qatar has also been pouring billions of dollars into the civil war in Syria.
So if it is really Saudi Arabia and Qatar that want to overthrow the Assad regime, why does the United States have to do the fighting?
Someone should ask Barack Obama why it is necessary for the U.S. military to do the dirty work of his Sunni Muslim friends.
If this is correct, and I suspect that it is, Obama's got more 'splaining to do than I thought. I'm getting tired of saying that. Obama, show some competence as a world leader, here! You're making us look bad!

Mapping Mormonism

I'm behind the times.

Last fall the book Mapping Mormonism was released, which is an atlas of LDS Church growth since its foundation. These maps present a truly unique way to understand Mormonism past and present. It won awards over chronic winner National Geographic! I have also found for you the  BYU Magazine's write-up of the atlas including some of the maps (they're cool!), and the book's website. Check it out!

I would insert one of these awesome images if they were not protected, so use the Magazine link to see a few.

Thursday, August 29, 2013


There are huge problems with relying on national media to get accurate news of elsewhere in the world (or even domestically, but that's beside this point). Egypt, Mali, Libya, Syria, plus Iraq and Afghanistan are still having issues though those last two have been especially ignored by the liberal media now that Obama is the Commander in Chief.

This omission in reporting does not mean these areas are peaceful or ensuring basic human rights. Mali is rarely mentioned in the U.S. but it has at least as many issues as the rest. Google it. It's had nearly two years of various degrees of unrest. France and Britain report on it more frequently.

Ann Coulter calls out the media for playing foreign policy Obama's way- not that we or they know his reasons for picking sides in the Middle East, by all appearances.
Liberals' rosy predictions for Egypt's Islamic revolution didn't turn out as planned. Who could have guessed that howling mobs in Tahrir Square in 2011 would fail to produce a peaceful democracy? 

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak had supported U.S. policy, used his military to fight Muslim extremists and recognized Israel's right to exist. So naturally, Obama told him he had to go.
(... examples from the NYT)
 -- "What is unfolding in Arab streets is not an assertion of religious reaction but a yearning for democracy with all its burdens and rewards." (Ray Takeyh, "What Democracy Could Bring," Feb. 4, 2011) 
Oops! Within less than a year, we found out that the truth wasn't "complex": The Muslim Brotherhood was behind the revolution. They rigged an election and were planning to implement Sharia law -- until the Egyptian military stepped in on behalf of the people this year and removed the Brotherhood's Mohammed Morsi as president.
 Obama's bombing of Gadhafi was also enthusiastically supported at the Times. Gadhafi, you see, had killed hundreds of his own people. Meanwhile, President Bashar Hafez al-Assad of Syria can preside over the slaughter of more than 100,000 of his people since that time without a cross word from the left. 
Libyan people proceeded to stalk and kill Gadhafi in the desert (video on YouTube). A year later, the happy people of Libya murdered our ambassador and three other Embassy staff. But as Hillary said, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" 
After all their carping about the Iraq War, you'd think liberals would have waited a few years before getting sentimental about democracy in Egypt and Libya. At least democracy is working in Iraq, despite Obama's attempt to wreck it by withdrawing all U.S. troops. (We still have troops in Germany -- but not in Bush's Iraq.) Still, our ambassador wasn't assassinated in Baghdad. 
Yes, I'd like for you to read the original, thanks for asking!  I left Afghanistan out of what I copied here.

Obama has a lot of 'splaining to do.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

What will Obamacare cost you?

Someone at Red State has created some charts designed to help you answer that very question. Brace yourselves before heading over there. It doesn't make much sense, like most government-run plans.
The magical cut-off number, according to Kaiser, is around $16,600. An individual making that much money will be about as well off if he or she gets a Bronze level health care plan as s/he would simply paying the $95 tax [to not buy insurance]. Anybody making between that and about $33,000 will get some subsidies, but – and here’s the important part – it’ll still be cheaper to pay the tax. Anybody making more than that? …No subsidies, obviously; and to be fair, people making that kind of money start to be the kind of people who have health care through their jobs anyway*.
More craziness and wastes of money from government interference. Story of our lives. How long are Americans going to put up with this treatment? How many unpopular bills with expensive consequences before we say enough already and take Mark Levin's advice (see yesterday's post)?

Defund Obamacare today!

Links below from Drudge, Breitbart, and Weekly Standard.

IRS issues final rules on Obamacare's 'individual mandate'...

AGAIN: President delays deadline for finalizing Obamacare health plans...

Says MLK Would Have Backed...

Will be 'cheaper than your cell phone bill'...

Tea Party to McConnell on Obamacare: 'You Fund It, You Own It'

Tuesday, August 27, 2013


From a report:
A CBS4 Investigation has uncovered that government agencies at all levels are selling personal information to marketing companies.
Lovely. What else is the government doing behind our backs? I asked this when we found about the NSA, the IRS scandal, and probably Benghazi too, though I'm too lazy to double check right now. Point is that we keep learning about breaches of trust from the United States government on various levels.

If you haven't yet been introduced to Levin's book The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, then now you are. It is fortuitous that his book is out just at the time when abuses of government power are being rapidly exposed. Truly, if we the people are no longer able to influence the decisions made in Washington - and from the look of things, we aren't - then it's time to make some changes a different way. The Constitutional way to override Congress and Obama, outlined by the Founders for just such a time as this.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Wanted: Grassroots Tsunami

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said on CNN's State of the Union that it would take a "grassroots tsunami" in September to convince lawmakers to defund Obamacare.

"It's going to take a tsunami, and I am going to do everything I can to encourage that tsunami," Cruz said, noting that Obamacare is actually hurting the most vulnerable Americans--like the young, Hispanics, African-Americans, and single moms--who are losing their jobs.  
Who's with me!?

Contact your Congressmen, Senators, and grassroot organization Freedom Works to get involved.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Gone Fishin'

Not really. But we've got stuff going on; be back here Monday. I wish you all a great weekend here at the end of the summer!

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Religion and prosperity?

A recent study shows that "social capital" - the investment of a community in its less fortuniate - is the biggest indicator in the upward mobility. Here is the summary of a summary at Deseret News:
Among the most intriguing elements of the study, Zakaria wrote, is that "the most important correlation in the Harvard-Berkeley study appears to be social capital."
"Cities with strong families, civic support groups and a community-service orientation do well on social and economic mobility," Zakaria said. "That's why Salt Lake City — dominated by Mormons — has mobility levels that compare with Denmark's (cited earlier in the column as one of the international leaders in social mobility)."
According to the Newsroom posting, social capital is "one of the values that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lives by."
"What's more," the Newsroom article continues, "this same social capital is greatly boosted by religion."
The posting features several previous commentaries on that "explain how Mormon faith and practice help create strong families and robust communities" and illustrate how "it's not only Mormons" who are generating this kind of social capital. For example, a reference from the church's recent posting on "The Relevance of Religion" notes that "religion builds social capital."
What does this mean? Religion is more than relevant in our society - it is essential!

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Welfare Incentives

It is pathetic that it pays to be on welfare rather than take a job, but I already knew that it was true in many states. Maybe not this many. Here's the report:
The study, conducted by the CATO Institute, says in many states welfare pays better than work. Topping the list of wage-equivalent benefits for a mother and two children was Hawaii at $60,590. Idaho came in last with $11,150. 
The study found that 33 states and the District of Columbia offer welfare benefits that pay recipients more than an $8-an-hour job would. Twelve states and the District of Columbia offer welfare packages that pay better than a $15-an-hour job does. 
"There is no evidence that people on welfare are lazy," writes CATO senior fellow Michael Tanner. "But they're also not stupid. If you pay them more not to work than they can earn by working, many will choose not to work."
Also, have you heard that many rural areas in liberal states have seriously considered splitting away and forming their own new states? This article cites liberal positions on guns and energy as the primary reasons, but I know that many rural residents also disapprove of paying increasing state taxes to subsidize people living on welfare (for more money than they make themselves) in the cities, not that I have hard evidence for that. Just ears.

It tickles my fancy to think of what liberally governed states such as Colorado, Washington, and California would do if a good chunk of their net tax payers (rather than welfare recipients) were to split off from the state. It would make an already unsustainable path a genuine money crisis!

I'd be interested to see how they balance their books. Would they admit conservatives are right by reducing welfare benefits, or perhaps by becoming more business friendly through their tax and regulatory policies and thus start luring in new taxpayers?

Monday, August 19, 2013

A doctor writing for Breitbart talked about the trainwreck that is Obamacare. This part is true already, given my own experience.
Hospitals will continue to consolidate and become too big to fail by removing their competition and making themselves the only game in town. They will also limit access to patient care in the process by increasing waiting times for appointments and restricting access by offering insurance underwritten by the hospital limiting patients to facilities and doctors within their system.
And this part will soon be true.
The most ironic part about Obamacare is it will not lead to a significant decrease in those who cannot access meaningful healthcare. People still won't be able to access healthcare either because they can’t find a doctor or they cannot afford to seek treatment. The only difference is they will be forced to pay for the privilege... but maybe that’s the point. Create the problem, wait for the reaction and provide the solution as Harry Reid gleefully admitted – single payer. 
Obamacare only benefits Big Government, like most policies this administration has embraced. Brace yourselves, folks. Unless we the people retake the government and kick these career politicians out - the ones who ignore the will of the people - we are stuck with this and will continue to see Drudge headlines like these ones:

100k residents lose health plan under Obamacare...

CHICAGO TRIB ON OBAMACARE: 'Let's delay, rewrite this ill-conceived law'...

Admin Has Missed Half of Legally Imposed Deadlines...

FOREVER 21 to do away with full-time employees...


Obamacare Staffers Assigned To Work In Building Believed Toxic...

Friday, August 16, 2013




This is the Drudge link to Levin's book. Rush Limbaugh brought it up yesterday as well, and I'm sure others highlighted it as it came out as Breitbart did.

This book is for those frustrated and feeling powerless that Congress/Washington has hijacked America and will never again listen the the voice of the public. It's a neat idea - to use the Constitution to amend the Constitution to its preservation. States can gather and by 3/4 of them voting together add amendments to the Constitution doing such things as Congressional term limits. I still have not read it, but apparently Levin addresses each of his ten or eleven proposed amendments, how they are Constitutional - preserving what the Founders intended, all using a process which the Founders designed for such a time as this when Big Government has no incentive or desire to give up some power, money, or privileges not originally intended by the Founders as they are not sustainable.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

The R-Card

Ann Coulter has been calling out false racism lately. Since she does her homework, I like to feature her here.  This week:
The two big public policies under attack by the left this week are "stop-and-frisk" policing and voter ID laws. Democrats denounce both policies as racist. I'm beginning to suspect they're getting lazy in their arguments. 
It was mostly black lives that were saved by Giuliani's crime policies [stop and frisk]. By the end of his administration, the Rev. Calvin Butts, liberal pastor of Harlem's Abyssinian Baptist Church, was comparing Giuliani to King Josiah of the Bible, who "brought order, peace, the law back to the land." The black minister told The New York Times, "I really think that without Giuliani, we would have been overrun."  
Yes, Democrat Bob Filner can pat down his female employees, but cops can't pat down suspected criminals. 
Liberals wail about guns, but how do they imagine police get guns off the street without going to high-crime neighborhoods and stopping young men acting suspiciously? Giuliani's policing policies, including stop-and-frisk, reduced gun homicides in New York by 75 percent within five years.  
Voter ID laws don't actually save black lives the way stop-and-frisk policies do, but it's not clear how such laws hurt them. I suppose the argument is that by allowing Democrats to steal elections, they can pass all those laws that improve black lives immeasurably, like promoting trial lawyers, gay marriage, abortion and amnesty for illegals. You know, the Democratic policies that really enhance black lives. 
Let's hear it for Ann Coulter! Unflinching, relentless in her quest to expose liberal lies in rewritten history.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

What is the NYT coming to?

Drudge has a link to a Telegraph article referencing the NYT article "Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions." The Telegraph assertion? That since the liberal NYT is taking on a liberal, Rush Limbaugh must be a secret editor! Yes, they're joking.
But only a little bit. I quote the Telegraph who then quotes the Times.
Is the New York Times being guest edited by Rush Limbaugh? Today it runs with a fascinating takedown of the Clinton Foundation – that vast vanity project that conservatives are wary of criticising for being seen to attack a body that tries to do good. But the liberal NYT has no such scruples. The killer quote is this:
For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.
Fascinating synopsis, Telegraph! Readers, I do recommend both the Times (link above) for your perusal of a usually avoided - by liberal media - topic: flaws within liberal entities of any kind.

And for Rush Limbaugh? I expect he'll address the reference to himself today, laugh about it, and then say something to the effect that the Times doesn't go far enough and that they're only printing this now so that it doesn't come out at a more damaging time for Hillary 2016 and they're trying to save their "objective" skins by reporting anti-Democrat stuff every once in awhile.

We'll see if I'm right come 12 PM ET on radio nationwide. Or visit after PM 5 ET to view his transcripts.

He did! Here's the transcript.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013


This has got to be the most disturbing revelations about Benghazi yet.

On August 12, Joe DiGenova, attorney for one of the Benghazi whistleblowers, told Washington D.C.'s WMAL that one of the reasons people have remained tight-lipped about Benghazi is because 400 U.S. missiles were "diverted to Libya" and ended up being stolen and falling into "the hands of some very ugly people."

I ask again, what else is this administration keeping secret from the citizens of the United States?

Monday, August 12, 2013

Mark Levin's New Book

I have never listened to Mark Levin's show.  I am, however, highly intrigued by his new book, The Liberty Amendments.

A book review by Breitbart's Joel Pollak summarizes:
Levin's The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, released Aug. 12, is an ambitious plan to save the American political experiment from the encroachments of big government in Washington, D.C. 
Yet his solution is not a political one that looks for new ways of winning elections, or a policy formula to enact conservative ideas. Levin proposes to amend the Constitution itself--not once, but eleven times.
He goal is to motivate and mobilize fellow conservatives to push for a national convention to propose new amendments, under a never-before-used provision of Article V of the Constitution. Before meeting, the convention will require the assent of two-thirds of the states; afterwards, its proposals will require the approval of three-fourths. 
This is a genius idea. Polls, problematic though they may be, consistently show that many laws and proposals by our government - including Obamacare - are unpopular. Wildly unpopular. Yet Congress and this administration are not interested in the will of the people, so we must make them interested by circumventing them - all within our legal rights as set out within the Constitution. My husband likes to say that the Constitution is one of the most important documents that no one reads. It's not hard to read or find, though. Go here.

Breitbart News also gave Mark Levin an interview, presumably to give his book publicity and allow him to discuss what is in it and why he wrote it. I recommend reading any of these links. His 11 proposed amendments are interesting and best of all, make sense. His overarching idea is that we must use the Constitution to save the Constitution.

Friday, August 9, 2013

Economic Growth Condidtions

I am no expert in this subject of economic growth, but the dude at Economic Collapse Blog claims to be (and from what I can tell about his Federal Reserve posts, he really is). His most recent post is titled During the Best Period of Economic Growth in US History There Was No Income Tax and No Federal Reserve.
The mainstream media would have us believe that unless we have someone "to pull the levers" our economy would descend into utter chaos, but the truth is that the best period of economic growth in U.S. history occurred during a time when there was no income tax and no Federal Reserve.  Between the Civil War and 1913, the U.S. economy experienced absolutely explosive growth.  The free market system thrived and the rest of the world looked at us with envy.  The federal government was very limited in size, there was no income tax for most of that time and there was no central bank.  To many Americans, it would be absolutely unthinkable to have such a society today, but it actually worked very, very well.  Without the inventions and innovations that came out of that period, the world would be a far different place today.
It is amazing what can happen when the government just gets out of the way.  
Fight group think! Mob rule (which is basically what we have in today's media and administration) has never been praised for its virtue or its truth after it ends. Yet political correctness is exactly that - mob rule - in soft form. The opinions of a few forcing a majority into their line of thinking by implying "this is what everyone thinks," yet being utterly hypocritical to those who do not agree with them. You know, the reports focusing predominantly on GOP=bad and Dem=good. Most Democrat scandals are first broken by right-wing papers, then picked up reluctantly by liberal outlets when both the facts can no longer be ignored and their opinion for objectivity is at stake.

On the other hand, Republicans under scandal aren't supported by right or left media, with a few exceptions such as false scandals in Herman Cain's case. Seriously - we believe anyone who says anything to hurt a Republican, whether it holds up to inquiry or not. Don't think what media tells you to think: ask questions and find answers for yourselves! Yes, this requires more time and energy to research both points of view, but try it as an exercise some time. You'll be surprised.

Let's take this one step further. Obama continues most of Bush's policies today - even exacerbates some of worst of them. Some things Obama has done in office have been far worse ethically and transparently than Bush did. Yet because the media lays the blame on Bush (with Obama's help) Obama isn't seen as responsible and is thus beyond blame, and Obama's more reproachable actions are first criticized by right-wing media. Some of them are not mentioned in liberal outlets to this day. If you don't believe me, then start searching different news sites and see what you find out. "Common knowledge" usually just means "what media/Dems want you to believe." See yesterday's post and Top 10 Questions Journalists Won't Ask President Obama at Press Conference.

Put another way: if Obama had been Bush (Republican) with Benghazi, the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, and leaked documents (taking the first term alone) and hugely inflated spending (increasing the deficit - remember how they cried about all that with Bush?), the media would have attacked him for the terrible president he is and we would not have seen him reelected. It is the media's defense of Obama and worse, failure to report Obama's failures to the American people that puts us where we are today: on the road to bankruptcy individually and collectively as Americans.

Goodbye, American dream. RIP. Maybe we'll be smart enough to elect fiscal conservatives who give a care about American prosperity in the future. Who give a care enough to cut the exponentially expanding behemoth that is the United States (Big) Government - expanding at our expense. Wouldn't it be lovely to return to the Gilded Age of rapid economic growth and Americans getting wealthier over time on average instead of what we have now - getting poorer on average? This will only happen when we break out of group think and start asking and answering our own questions instead of believing the propaganda in the media.

Here's your first question to investigate: why are the richest in America getting ever richer during these tough economic times, while the rest of us have to stretch our money further than ever? Clue: there is an unhealthy link between lobbying and Wall Street and our wealthiest politicians. Wall Street prosperity does not equal American prosperity. The liberal media will tell you that the rich are richer because we're not socialist or some such redistribution through taxation, but investigate further and you'll see that trying to solve problems liberal thinking caused in the first place (see Big Government, Federal Reserve, and welfare to name just three) is no solution at all.

Thursday, August 8, 2013

False Allegations

Ann Coulter comes riding to the defense of Bill O'Reilly, accused of being racist for saying that single motherhood is responsible for the high black crime rate. I recommend the article in full, but at least read this part.
Everyone knew -- even FDR's secretary of labor, Francis Perkins, knew -- that granting widows' benefits to unmarried women with illegitimate children would have disastrous consequences. An early 20th-century social welfare advocate, Homer Folks, warned back in 1914 that to grant pensions for "desertion or illegitimacy would, undoubtedly, have the effect of a premium upon these crimes against society." 

But under President Lyndon Johnson, that's exactly what the government did. The "suitable home" requirements for welfare -- such as having a husband -- were jettisoned by liberal know-it-alls in the federal Bureau of Public Assistance. As a result, illegitimacy went through the roof, particularly among blacks, our most vulnerable fellow citizens. 

In 1970, for the first time, the marriage rate for black women fell below 70 percent. But even then, a majority of black children were still living with both parents. By 2010, only 30.1 percent of blacks above the age of 15 were married, compared to 52.7 percent of whites. 

Liberals keep using the bad consequences of their policies as an argument for more of the same policies. Government subsidies to unwed mothers increase the illegitimacy rate, which in turn leads to poverty, criminal behavior and more illegitimacy. So Democrats reverse cause and effect to claim it's the poverty that causes illegitimacy and then demand more payments to unwed mothers. 

But we know poverty does not cause illegitimacy. The black experience from 1890 to 1960 proves it. It's the reverse, just as Bill O'Reilly said. If African-Americans started marrying again at their pre-Great Society rates, it would wipe out the entire black "culture of poverty."

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Games with Foreign Policy

Great points from Rush lately, who I will quote. If you've never heard Rush yourself, then try him out because I guarantee you he is not what the media makes him out to be. The points I'm using from Rush are regarding terrorism and Obama's handling of it. Basically, Obama must think we're all idiots hand in hand with thinking himself clever.
RUSH: To show you how the country is changing in a very serious way, last night was the first time since this massive upgraded terror warning was put into effect on Sunday, this was the first time the president of the United States spoke to the American people about this.  We closed 21 embassies in the Middle East on Sunday for a full week... The president of the United States went to a late-night comedy show for his first-ever statement about this increased terror threat.  

On the terror threat itself:
So they announce the closing of the embassies, and then, while Obama's telling us he's got Al-Qaeda on the run, we leak the actual details of that call, which gives up, tells these terrorists, Zawahiri and the others, not to use whatever form of communication they were using because it's been compromised.  So now they're gonna go do something else that we can't follow.  Why in the world would you do this?  Why would you leak this?  Isn't it enough to say that the chatter was serious and it's causing potentially grave consequences, we have to shut the embassies?  
Long answer short to that question: Obama likes to pat himself on the back, even though he gives up this tool since he gives away to the terrorists that they've been tapped so they're going to turn to other means that haven't been discovered yet - meaning we can't keep spying on them. Obama, king of the short view in foreign policy!

Lastly, Valerie Jarret (unauthorized) may have issued the order to stand down in Benghazi. Either that or Obama did, and he's not telling. Again, who does he take us for?
I don't know how many times that I made the statement on this program, "The secretary of defense cannot order people to stand down.  The secretary of defense cannot order, on the other hand, forces from, say, Italy to enter the theater and engage.  That has to come via the chain of command. That has to come from the top, and the top in this case is Obama, not an aide."  So if this is true, this really, really is a bombshell. 
So we don't know. This website's asserting that Valerie Jarrett gave the order and that Panetta and everybody abided by it. "Stand down!" They stood down. They didn't do anything.  So the question is one of two things: "Did they simply think that Valerie Jarrett was speaking for Obama," remember, he's off the grid by now, "or was she on her own exercising her own authority?"
Remember all the stories that we've had about the number of really powerful women in the Obama inner circle that have a lot of autonomy and do call a lot of shots.  Valerie Jarrett is one such person in this administration, eminently trusted by Obama. She is a genuine Alinskyite, a roll-up-the-sleeves community organizer acolyte.  I mean, she is Obama. She's one of these people that would not have to be given an order by Obama to know what he wanted. 
We asked for this, folks. Don't say conservatives didn't warn you, but reelecting Obama is asking for more of the same.

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

More crony-capitalism

For a party who likes to point fingers at GOP crony-capitalism, they sure engage in it a bunch themselves. Classic political behavior. Examples? Solyndra, other green companies who went bankrupt on the taxpayers' dime, even the GM bailout could be thought of as crony-capitalism. There are plenty of other examples. Latest evidence? Obama's visit to Amazon less than a week before the founder of Amazon bought the Washington Post - the newspaper which spends an inordinate amount of time praising Democrats, inflating egos of liberal politicians, and loving Big Government in general.
But, as critics pointed out, Amazon was an odd pick to roll out a speech about middle class jobs and minimum wage. Last year, the Seattle Times reported that Amazon employees at fulfillment centers were overworked and allegedly pressured not to report injuries.Furthermore, many of the jobs at the warehouses are of the $11 per hour variety, hardly hallmarks of middle class job creation. Last Monday, the White House was hard-pressed to explain the Amazon visit in the first place, other than in generic terms. Even more tellingly, Jay Greene of the Seattle Times reports that both the White House and Amazon refused to answer which party had solicited the President’s visit, and the White House declined comment on Amazon’s employment practices.
The sale of the Post was supposed to be top-secret, with staffers asked not to tweet about it for ten minutes. But it’s more than possible that the Obama administration had some advance notice about the sale, and that Obama appeared at the Amazon warehouse as a sign of good faith to Bezos prior to the move. Bezos has not been averse to holding hands with President Obama, either; back in October 2009, Bezos had lunch with Obama, at precisely the time Amazon was pitching cloud-computing services to the feds. This year, Amazon received a lucrative 10-year, $600 million cloud contract with the CIA, despite its bid being higher than that of competitor IBM. Bezos also backed Obama’s plan for an internet sales tax. 

By the way, the Tea Party exists to counter Big Government and crony-capitalism. To counter the threat of American citizens realizing they are absolutely right and join them to the dismissal of most of our current politicians, the Tea Party is demonized by the Washington Post and the rest of liberal media, including most cable networks. Even the Republican Party demonizes them because the ones in Washington are Big Government politicians. If you have a sour taste in your mouth whenever you hear the Tea Party mentioned, it's because you don't really know them. You've been indoctrinated - infected - with the liberal point of view, which is sadly shared by much of the GOP.

Monday, August 5, 2013

Good sign

Political correctness is flawed in that it makes it OK to laugh at and mock conservatives and Christians and Tea Partiers and Bush, but not Democrats, liberals, progressives, Greenies, or Obama. However, this hypocrisy is not as stark as it once was:
A study of gags by late-night comics during the first half of the year found an abrupt change from 2012. Now Obama and Democrats are providing the lion's share of punchlines.
In 2012, Mitt Romney was the butt of more than twice as many jokes as Obama, and Republicans were similarly the target of more than double the jokes that were made on Democrats.

Friday, August 2, 2013

We're still doomed

Obamacare, until it is defunded or repealed, will hang around our necks. Make an effort to convince Congressmen to do just those things, because otherwise they'll leave it as is against popular support. You see, they don't care much about what constituents think once they get to Washington and start caring about what all those (liberal) Beltway types think.

From Redstate:
In other words, Senators Cornyn and McConnell are panicked that conservatives are exposing them for not really fighting to stop Obamacare. They asked the Democrats for unanimous consent to stop Obamacare. The Democrats.
But neither Mitch McConnell nor John Cornyn are willing to commit to opposition of the continuing resolution if it provides funds for Obamacare. They say it will only partially defund Obamacare. Meanwhile, their stunts at unanimous consent are killed by Democratic objections.

Then, check out these headlines from Drudge to get depressed or mad or both:
Taxpayers to foot bill for congressional employees' health care...

Will pay 75% of premiums...

DEAL: 'Exempt from Obamacare'...

953,000 Jobs Created In '13 -- 731,000 Part-Time!

198% hike in GA!

And we're doomed because of the lack of transparency in this administration. What else are they hiding from American citizens?


Gowdy told Greta the Obama Administration is hiding the survivors, dispersing them around the country, AND changing their names.
“Including changing names, creating aliases. Stop and think what things are most calculated to get at the truth? Talk to people with first-hand knowledge. What creates the appearance and perhaps the reality of a cover-up? Not letting us talk with people who have the most amount of information, dispersing them around the country and changing their names.”

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Real version of History

This is a common theme for Ann Coulter's column.  I appreciate her reminders, as they "history" has been changed.
But in the rest of the South, schools remained segregated as long as Bobby Kennedy was attorney general and either JFK or LBJ was in the White House. (LBJ on the 1964 Civil Rights Act: "I'll have those n*ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.") 

Black Americans may say hosannas to Bobby Kennedy, but they would have to wait for Richard Nixon to become president to win the promise of Brown v. Board. 

Within Nixon's first two years in the White House, black students attending segregated schools in the South declined from nearly 70 percent to 18.4 percent. There was more desegregation of American public schools in Nixon's first term than in any historical period before or since. 

Crediting Bobby Kennedy for the great work he did on behalf of black Americans would be like calling Harry Reid the country's greatest champion of the unborn. Sure, Reid says he's pro-life, but he dare not act on it lest he upset the rest of his party. It was the same with Democrats and civil rights. 

If you want to say something nice about Bobby Kennedy, remind everyone that he proudly worked for Sen. Joe McCarthy.