No, there is no anti-Israel Bias at the NY Times.

Recently the New York Times published an Op-Ed of a Palestinian who describes the deplorable conditions that he says exist in Israeli prisons.  You can read the essay HERE. The date of publication occured on April 16, 2017.

You gotta love this man's passion about his cause.  If I were to read this without any knowledge of the man other than what he expressed I would think he had been summarily persecuted, beaten tortured and wrongfully imprisoned.  Here is mu favorite passage:

The eldest of my four children is now a man of 31. Yet here I still am, pursuing this struggle for freedom along with thousands of prisoners, millions of Palestinians and the support of so many around the world. What is it with the arrogance of the occupier and the oppressor and their backers that makes them deaf to this simple truth: Our chains will be broken before we are, because it is human nature to heed the call for freedom regardless of the cost.

The poor guy.  I can feel the tears welling up in my eyes.  That is until, at the end of the article and a full day later the NY Times posts this clarification.

Editors’ Note: April 17, 2017  This article explained the writer’s prison sentence but neglected to provide sufficient context by stating the offenses of which he was convicted. They were five counts of murder and membership in a terrorist organization. Mr. Barghouti declined to offer a defense at his trial and refused to recognize the Israeli court’s jurisdiction and legitimacy.

Woo Hoo for journalistic honesty and integrity.  Yes, they did post a clarification, but it was a full day later.  I am assuming that this essay appeared in the print edition on Sunday, but the editor's note was added later to the online version.  Even if this was an online article only, to not include this note at the top of the op-ed on the day that it was posted, is the worst type of journalistic malpractice.  How many people read the essay before the "editor's note" was posted?

The man is a convicted murderer.  HE KILLED FIVE ISRAELIS.  FIVE, yet he writes this drivel claiming how horrible things are.  But for the Times to give this man a voice shows how truly biased and corrupt that Newspaper is.

If you want to read a contrasting point of view of what it is like inside these Israeli prisons read Son of Hamas Mosab Hassan Yousef.  It is eye opening.

Fake news has many faces.  You have the counterfeit sites that pretend to be news. This is a problem, but the vast majority of people can decipher these deceptions. But the biases of the mainstream press is becoming such a problem, that there seems to be nowhere to turn to get even an attempt at unbiased news.  I don't have a problem with someone like Rachel Maddow. She is a leftist and does not hide it.  It is the mainstream press with its bias hidden behind the false mask of objectivity that is harming this great country.  When the NY Times posts an article, and neglects to provide the necessary context. it is clear that they have an agenda and no editors note can hide such bias.

This journalistic malpractice and bias is despicable and sickening.

My Letter to LWC and Gerald Morgan Jr

I am a mug club member and am a big fan. I talk your show up all the time and direct people to both your youtube channel and suggest they subscribe to CRTV and to become mug club members.  I am a life long free market conservative, and have moved into libertarian territory over the past several years.

I also am a devout Mormon. I am not a native Utahn but live in Utah now.  I am normally not a person who gets offended easily, but tonight's show, kind of pushed me there.  Its not just because of what was said about Utah, by Gerald Morgan, but this is the second time Gerald has made remarks about Mormons.  It is clear that he is speaking from a place of ignorance, but it is a bit disturbing nonethelss.  I hope you understand that your conservative views align with a majority of LDS people's ideals and beliefs.

Look, the remark he made about multiple wives is low hanging fruit, and depite the fact that the LDS church hasn't condoned or practiced plural marriage for more than 100 years, it is a part of Mormon history. But understand the weirdos who are practicing polygamy are not Mormon/LDS.

A few weeks back, Gerald made a remark about "magic underwear" that bothered me, and I am sure most people who are active LDS (Mormons).  If there is anti-Mormon dog whistle language, that statement is one of them.  It makes light of something we consider sacred.  This "magic underwear" that we wear is no more than basically a t-shirt and boxer briefs with markings sewn into them that symbolize covenants we have made with God to keep his commandments.  It is not really any different than the Yamaka that Orthodox Jews, (like your friend Ben Shapiro) wear.  While i know you poke fun at Shapiro's Jewish heritage, I have never heard you mock his religion or the symbols of his religion.  But Gerald's snide remarks about "magic underwear" is exactly that.

I do not expect a public apology, but I will say that as a paying customer who watches every day (I really do love your show, its humor and my need to laugh at the crap in this world)  these kinds of veiled ignorant anti-Mormon attacks, are not what I log in to hear.  Hell, as a white European conservative, free market cis male, I feel attacked enough.

I chose to spend my $99 on CRTV and specifically LWC, but will consider taking that  $99.00 somewhere else.  I am pretty cheap and CRTV is the only alternative media I have ever paid for.

Look, I don't want this to sound like a threat.  I love that you and Levin and others are providing alternative content.  I love your irreverence, and appreciate and laugh at the middle finger you  put up to political correctness and multiculturalism.  Lord knows we need more of it.

Of course you can do whatever you want. It is your show and you know your audience a lot better than I do (no douuh) but I just wanted to voice my concerns.

Keep up the great work.  Other than this I am a loyal fan, and really like the content you have put out there.

In the Tank for Trump

While i am not a full on #nevertrump person, I am as close to that as possible.  The only reason I can see myself voting for Donald Trump in the general is the hope that he will appoint a conservative supreme court justice, but since Trump has no idea what it means to be a conservative, I doubt he would be able to identify a strict constructionist jurist to nominate to SCOTUS.

Having said this, it has been quite discouraging to watch as the conservative media engage in a civil war over the Donald.  As a person who thinks Donald Trump is not only unqualified to be POTUS, but he is unfit for the office, I cannot understand why people like Anne Coulter have openly supported Donald Trump.  But at least she is not hiding her support.  Its people like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham that seem to be in the tank for Trump while feigning neutrality.  I turned on Laura once in the past 4 months (after at one time listening to her every morning for at least 30 minutes before getting to work) and she was actually critical of Donald Trump, so I may have to reconsider my feelings toward her.

Sean Hannity, on the other hand, might as well just come out and support Trump, since he seems to be a full throated mouthpiece for the Trump campaign.  Sean has said that he offers equal time all of the candidates, and while time wise that is true, as Red State points out equal time does not equate to equal treatment.  While Sean asks the other Republican good hard questions, Trump gets almost exclusively slow pitch softball questions that a 10 year old could answer (of course Trump is about 10 years old in much of his thinking, so maybe that is all he can handle).

But its not just the softball questions that Sean asks; its his unabashed defense of Trump.  This past week Sean has been ranting about what happened in Colorado trumpeting Trump's assertions that he was somehow cheated out of delegates in the Rocky Mountain State when how Colorado had (stupidly) decided to hand out their delegates was known LAST AUGUST.  What really happened is that Trump got out-maneuvered by Ted Cruz and his superior ground game. The Donald lost because he had not hired the best people and is not running the greatest campaign ever.

I'm also disturbed by how Sean has overlooked a myriad of statements and actions by Trump (not just this year) that illustrate a lack of idealogical conviction, a lack of depth, and ultimately a person who is just not a true conservative.  Just because he wants to build a wall, and "make a America Great Again" doesn't mean that he is a conservative.  Pat Gray of the Glenn Beck program posted this on facebook as commentary to the above cited Red State article.

"And when you claim on-air that "you can't think of a SINGLE issue where Trump's not conservative"...that one had to make even Trump himself, grimace.

By the way, let me help you with that: Universal Healthcare. 

VERY not conservative.

How about this? Eminent Domain. Not conservative.

Let's not forget: Trade Tariffs. Not conservative.

Funding Progressive Democrats so they can be re-elected? Super-mega-doppler, NOT conservative.

Even WANTING Hillary at your wedding? Not conservative.

On Abortion: "The law has to stay. Keep the law." On the other hand. When President: He'd "change the law." Not conservative.

He supported, and as far as I can tell, is still fine with the Bailouts and TARP. He's had plenty of bailouts in his business life, so, why not? Well, because it's...not conservative.

Attacking Megyn Kelly?!?!?! That's not even human, let alone conservative"

While i am not a huge Glenn Beck fan but Pat is spot on.  Trump is not a Conservative and Hannity is letting his support for the guy cloud his judgement. I had not been a regular listener or watcher of Hannity for a while, but he has lost all credibility with me now, and I'm done with him for good.

Losing Faith in Conservative Media, Especially Drudge.

This election has divided not just the Republican party but the conservative movement.  I listen to a lot of talk radio (when I can).  I for at least a few minutes most days listen to Rush, Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Michael Medved.  Let me preface the rest of my comments by saying, Rush has always been one of my favorites and while that has waned some in the last couple years I still listen to him regularly and have always really liked his show.  Lately I have listened to some Glenn Beck, but can only stomach about 20 minutes of him at a time.  I used to listen to Laura Ingraham a lot in the mornings, but she seemed to become a one issue host (immigration) and I do not listen to her much anymore.  I must confess that my two favorites are Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved each for their own reasons.  I am sad that Hugh has gone to East Coast mornings as I am not awake that early.  I love Hugh for all of the pundits from both sides of the political isle that he has on his show and for his commentary. He sometimes is a bit too establishment for me in his thinking, but he is still a good conservative. I love Michael because he welcomes debate and uses the facts to just destroy left wingers that call up to his show.  As for news, I also frequently went to the Drudge Report as I felt it was a good conservative news aggregator.

Having said all of this, it is becoming extremely difficult to listen to any of these people anymore. To me it sounds like Sean and Laura are in the tank for Trump.  At least Sean tries to say he is fair, but it is clear that he loves the Donald and wants him to win the nomination.  Laura is almost that bad.

What has really upset me is that The Drudge Report is fully in the tank for Donald Trump.  Drudge, who I used to go to regularly has gone off the rails.  The latest is the headline today that announced that Colorado cancelled their state Republican caucus.  While this is true, it is old news.  They decided this last summer before Donald Trump even announced he was running  but Drudge is shouting it this just happened.

Look at the image.  It is of a voter probably from one of the past votes in Iraq when they dipped their fingers in purple ink to signify they had voted.  Couple the image with the misleading headline and you get propaganda that Hilter himself would be proud of.  There may be some fury among Trump supporters, but this is what the Colorado Republican party did almost a full year ago.  Trump should be more mad at himself for not having a better organization than Ted Cruz and getting out maneuvered in Colorado (which is what happened).

Drudge has lost all sense of objectivity.  He finds every story he can to smear Cruz and even if it is not a good smear the Drudge headlines are worded in such a way to make them seem worse than they really are.  It is just disgusting.  Drudge is the Roger Stone of the conservative news world.

One would think that a conservative news sight would try to stay a bit neutral but it what Drudge is now doing has caused it in my mind to lose ALL CREDIBILITY.  I have stopped reading Drudge with any regularity and am saddened by what I used to think was a great news aggregate.

Why I Cannot Support Trump Part 1

As a long time conservative and a member of the Republican party, I cannot remember a time when I was more disgusted with people in my political party than I am right now.  I simply cannot understand how anyone could ever vote for Donald Trump, much less any Republican.  Yes I understand that Trump's rhetoric has tapped into an anger that has been brewing among a segment of the population in the United States.  I get that anger.  I have been completely frustrated with the "Establishment" and the many times that they have just rolled over and not fought President Obama, even after the American people gave them control of both the House and the Senate.  But despite this anger and frustration, never once have I even considered voting for Donald Trump.  Here's why.

First, Donald Trump is not a Republican.  Sure he may be registered as one, but for much of his life, he not only showed disdain for Republicans, but has given financial support to many liberal Democrats over the years, including Hillary Clinton and Mario Cuomo.  Even if you buy the argument that Trump gave money to Republicans too, how does this atone for giving money to democrats and their causes.  Trump has tried to dismiss this criticism by saying that he gives money to as many candidates as he can, so that they will "do what he wants:

“I gave to many people before this. When they call, I give. And you know what, when I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me.”  Donald Trump at the first Presidential Debate

How is this a good thing?  In essence Trump is bragging about how he has bought influence.  This is not a virtue but rather he has helped to corrupt our political system by buying political influence.  Not only does this put him firmly in the middle of the Establishment that he claims to not be a part of, he is a very part of the corruption that most Americans are disgusted by.

Second: Trump is not Conservative.  I was watching him I think on Fox News where he was trying to reemphasize his conservative credentials.  He said, "I'm very conservative on the border.  I'm very very conservative on trade," and then he went on to say how conservative he is on different issues.  This people, is not a conservative.  Conservatives are driven by the principles of limited government, individualism and adherence to the Constitution.   You can click here to read in greater detail the driving principles of a Conservative.

Trump does not have a clue what a conservative is. Just because he is says he is "conservative" on this or that issue, does not make him a conservative. In fact, his plans to fix things, do not involve limiting government but rather he talks about how he is going to fix them?  How does  a President who is supposed to go through congress to do anything, implement these changes without expanding government?  Trump never talks about limiting the size and scope of government, rolling back regulations, and empowering states and municipalities.  He simply talks about how he is going to fix everything through the sheer force of his will and ego.

I will add to this but this is just the start of my personal issue with Donald Trump and why I, as a principled conservative, cannot vote for the man.

A Quick Thought in the Wake of the Oregon Mass Shooting...

Someone posted to Facebook the following clip from the 60's TV Show Dragnet. You can click on the link to watch it. It is interesting that 60's Televison was doing a much better job of defending the institutions that made this country great, rather than spend all of their time tearing at the fabric of this country with cynical derision, but that is a discussion for another day. 

https://youtu.be/FZo2hhvvlpw

Anyway, One thing stuck out to me. Joe Friday, in his rant, asks if 50,000 death's as a result of traffic accidents were somehow more moral than the # of soldiers who died each year in Vietnam. So it got me thinking, and i looked up the current statistics. The best number I could find was from 2013. In that year just over 35,000 people died in traffic accidents. About 32,000 people die as a result of guns.  But this is all gun deaths.  Comparing apples to apples, accidental gun deaths are not near as high as car accidents.

My point is.  More people die as a result of car accidents than guns.  Yet there is no politician screaming about mores stringent traffic control laws.  Consider. Both guns and cars kill people.  And in fact, if the government were to outlaw driving, because traffic deaths were totally preventable, then would not such a law be way way more effective in stopping deaths than proposed gun confiscation laws (BTW, confiscation is the only way to stop accidental gun deaths, that is of course if people all do give up their guns.)?  But no one is calling for this.  More than 150,000 people die each year due to doctor's negligence or mistakes.  Again many of these deaths were preventable, but no one is calling for the outlawing of doctors as a medical profession.

Do you see my point?  While gun deaths are tragic.  They are no more tragic than other types of untimely deaths.  The constitution, however protects citizens from government trying to take guns away.  They put it there on purpose.

The Great Food Truck Race Season 6 Finale.....The Fix Was in.

I am not one to ever comment about reality TV, and other than CBS's the Amazing Race and Top Chef on Bravo, I do not really watch much of it at all, but I did get into the Great Food Truck Race on the Food Network with host Tyler Florence this season. The main reason I got interested is because a local food truck here in Utah called Waffle Love was on it.  I had never eaten their food before watching this show, (I have since and I must say that they make the best waffle I have ever tasted) so other than the fact they were local to me I did not care all that much.

I think to everyone's surprise outside of Utah Waffle Love just killed it each week. They were either #1 or #2 on every episode and never were at the bottom and in fear of being eliminated.  Regardless, Tyler Florence clearly started to show his bias against Waffle Love.  He at least three times criticized their cooking chops but had earlier praised their challenge food.  But the finale, in my opinion, was the most egrigeous example of favoritism I have ever seen.  First some more background.

The GFTR usually gives aspiring food trucks a chance to realize their culinary dream by giving the winning team a new food truck at the end of the season. Season 6, however gave established food trucks the opportunity to go after $50K and the right to be called the greatest food truck in America.  Each week basically went the same way. The trucks were given a challenge to cook something. The winning truck for the challenge would then be given some type of advantage, usually in the form of cash added to their till.  (I remember one week a team getting an extra $1000).

To make a long story short, it came down to Waffle Love and Phonomenal Dumplings.  Each week teams were eliminated because they had the lowest amount sold for the week.  But in the finale it was not about how much sold but rather an Amazing Race type of finish where they had to do basically three challenges in Chicago, after completing the cooking challenge in St. Louis.  This is where the fix, to me became obvious.

The challenge was fair. The two teams were given the same ingredients (Pork Steak, Chicken, and Hamburger) and had to create three dishes that would be judged independently.  During the cooking Tyler Florence visited each truck and asked them what they were doing. When PHO explained they were making a mushroom stuffed hamburger, Tyler gave them a suggestion to stuff it with more than just mushrooms and to add cheese as well (might have said other ingredients too).  When he spoke to Waffle Love he gave no help to them.

During the tasting the pork steak went to Pho and the chicken went to Waffle Love so it came down to the hamburger.  And of course Pho won this part and were given the advantage (which I will explain in a second). But it must be noted that the judges said that the stuffing in the hamburger was delicious and can then be assumed that it was the stuffing that won them the challenge. So in other words it was basically Tyler Florence's dish that won the challenge.

Now the advantage was not cash in their till. No, this race came down to who could sell ethnic inspired dishes in the different ethnic neighborhoods in Chicago.  The two teams had to go to Chinatown, Little Italy and Little Greece(?) and sell 50 dishes of ethnically inspired food at each stop. Once the finished selling their food at their three stops, they just had get in their truck and race to a finish line. Pho, for winning, the challenge only had to sell 20 dishes at their first stop.  This is like holding 200 meter dash, but giving one of the competitors a 50 meter lead.

Needless to say Pho won.

I went through Wikipedia's entries and found that it looks like this was the only season finale that did not come down to who sold the most.  I have no proof, but I think they changed the rules of the game to give Pho an unfair advantage.  It was the only way to even make it close. Consider that Waffle Love was first or second in sales in every other week.

Now I was rooting for Waffle Love but did not care all that much and wanted to see a good finale.  This was a joke. Tyler Florence helped and was rooting for Pho the whole time.  He made it clear when he told Pho that they were not in the right neighborhood in Greek town and had to go back and resell their food.  He told them, "Come on. You can do this."  Even with the fact that they had to go back and resell, their advantage was so great that there was basically no way they would lose.

What a waste of my time. I will not be watching this noise ever again. #epicfail #greatfoodtruckrace

Obama's new CO2 regs prove that he does not care about the poor.

Democrats and liberals have been given credit for being for the little guy.  My mother, who is a life-long democrat, has said as much to me. Never mind that the party platform has embraced infanticide, gay marriage and all other LGBT issues, rejected God, and pretty much does not stand for anything that mainstream America does.

But yesterday, Obama in essence jettisoned the poor by announcing that all power plants in the US must reduce carbon emissions by 32% by 2030.  Pretty much every major projection on these regulations will cause energy prices to skyrocket.  Who is this going to affect the most? The poor and middle class, or in other words the little people that the Democrat party says they represent.  Oh, and what will this supposedly do for the environment? It will reduce global temperatures by .028 degrees? Why is the impact not greater? Because the US is not even close to the biggest polluter in the world.

But make no mistake.  This will hurt the poor and middle class the most?  It will not just cause energy costs to increase but it will cause inflation in other areas, since all companies use energy.  If a rich person's electric bill goes up 20%, they just pay it with no trouble. But when lower and middle class people's energy costs go up, they will have a much harder time paying those bills.  Gas will cost more. Food will cost more and the average American will less cash in their pockets.

Finally, since when is CO2 a pollutant?  I leave you with this excellent video from Prager University made by one of the co-founder's of Greenpeace.

A Simple Statement on Obama's Plan to give Amnesty

I have read headlines from all over the Country about the political ramifications of President (Emperor) Obama's plan to, through and executive order, to grant amnesty to more than 5 million illegal aliens.

These articles are really ridiculous.  What really should be asked are two things.

1) Is it right to move 5 million people, who willfully broke the law to get into this country, be moved ahead of the millions of people all over the world who want to come to the US and are doing it by following the law?

2) Should any president, with the stroke of his pen, circumvent the Constitution, and take away the congressional power to make laws in the United States?

The simple answer to each of these two questions is an emphatic NO.  The rest of this debate is then rendered moot.

How to Not fight Your Enemy

I will admit, I did not watch a moment of the President's speech last night on how he and his administration were going to handle the ISIS threat.  Why?  Because I knew, because I think I know this President very well now, that he would not say or commit to doing what really needs to be done.

Why do you ask?  Because Dinesh D'Souza, despite what you might think, is spot on about President Obama.  Obama adheres to an extremist, liberal view of American History.  I am all but certain that he has read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.  Obama therefore believes that America was founded at the least under dubious circumstances and at worst its history is ripe with genocide (of Native Americans) and was built on the foundation of slavery and other human rights violations.  This is why the President has signaled a retreat of America as the "Light on a hill" that the world can look to as the example of liberty and democracy in the world.  Thus, because of Obama's perception of US atrocities in its history, Obama does not think that America has the moral authority to be the lead the free world.

He also has absolutely no understanding of the nature of the enemy that we are fighting right now.  I must admit, though, that until recently I did not truly understand radical Islam.  It was not until I read two books over this summer.  The first is Son of Hamas written by Mosab Yousef, who is the son of one of the founders of Hamas and became a spy for Israel and then converted to Christianity.  The second is The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright.  This book traces the roots of radical Islam and how it lead to the attacks on 9/11.  After reading these two books I have come to two conclusions:

1.  Radical Islam, while a small minority of Islam, represents about 91 million people in the world.  They are hard-lined zealots that see the rest of the world both moderate Islam and the Infidel as needing to be conquered, and put under the flag of Islam.

2.  They will never stop.  Their goal is to establish a world wide caliphate, with Sharia Law as the basis for this government.  They are not moderate, and they cannot be negotiated with.  They welcome death in the name of their cause as they then can be called martyrs and hopefully lead others to this extremist view of Islam.

When one couples Obama's reticence to lead the world, along with his lack of understanding of the Islamic world, there was no way he was going to do what needed to be done.  Yes he is most likely going to bomb the crap out of them, but bombings alone have never won a war. Unfortunately, due to his retreat from Iraq he allowed ISIS to gain power. He will not do what needs to be done, and I fear for whoever is the next President of the United States.

No IRS Corruption Here...

"Not even mass corruption.  Not even a smidgen of corruption."  Barack Obama, February 2, 2014

That is what he said, when asked if there was any evidence of corruption in the IRS scandal that now should be on the minds of all of us.  Here is a short list of items and events that prove (tongue firmly planted in cheek).

Here are a short list of claims that were told by various people in the White House or other places within the administration proven later to be false.  

1. Soon after the IRS scandal broke, Officials in Washington pointed fingers at the Cincinnati office, claiming that "rogue agents" had spearheaded the targeting.  This claim was proven false and that the targeting of Tea Party groups had been directed from Washington D.C.  Click HERE to read that story.
2. Democrats claimed that Liberal groups were targeted as well.  While liberal groups were required.  This claim was proven false when IRS agents were questioned by Daryl Issa's committee.  The Daily Caller reported on April 7, 2014 that no Liberal groups were subjected to enhanced scrutiny.

So, the spin coming from Democrats/defenders of the IRS, has been proven to be false.  If there was no corruption or wrongdoing, why then did, when given the chance to clear her name, did Lois Lerner TWICE invoke her right plead the 5th Amendment  against SELF INCRIMINATION.  If there was no hint of wrongdoing or corruption, what does she have to hide?  She should be able to speak about what happened. 

We should take his word on this. Not a smidgen of corruption indeed.

More to come...

Scandals are Everywhere

Benghazi, The IRS targeting Tea-Party Groups, DOJ going after phone records of AP reporters?  If you liberals out there think this is all coincidence, you are fooling yourself.

Benghazi, to this point does not look be a scandal in the same light as Watergate, which was a perfect example of abuse of power, corruption and a cover-up, but it does show gross incompetence.  State left its own flapping in the wind with insufficient security.  Ambassador Stevens kept asking for security, but was denied, and while the Red Cross and The UK diplomatic mission both pulled out of Benghazi due to real fears, the US decided to keep its mission there.  GROSS INCOMPETENCE.

The other two scandals are the real scary ones.  The White House will try to throw low level IRS workers under the bus and claim that they were overzealous liberals who went too far.  This scandal will reach much further up, and will take out someone within the administration, and will most likely cost Obama his chance at winning back the house during the mid-term elections next year.  Americans don't like this sort of thing.  But this overreaching and intimidation is an attitude that comes from the top.  Look at how President Obama acts.  When he is criticized and questions, he bristles, he filibusters and tries to intimidate his critics.  He has joked about IRS audits.  Sure, they were funny at the time, but given the fact that the IRS has actually done some of the stuff that Obama joked about, its not funny anymore.

Where there is smoke, there is fire.  The Obama administration has cultivated a hyper-partisan atmosphere in Washington.  Chicago politics has always been very dirty, and has included this sort of garbage, and Obama and his cronies have brought these tactics to Washington.

The slobbering media has heretofore allowed it to happen, but now that it is obvious that Obama uses his allies until he no longer needs them (see the AP/Congressional phone record scandal), maybe the press will wake up and try to finally do their job and take back up the mantle of America's 4th estate, rather than being the propaganda arm and protector of the Obama White House.

I'm not holding my breath.

The Democrats are trying to end Medicare as we know it.

Yes the headline is demagoguery and sensational, but it was meant to prove a point.  No, I don't think that Democrats are really want to end Medicare, but rather than engage in a fact based debate, the Democrats keep leveling this charge about Paul Ryan's proposal to bring Medicare back from the brink of fiscal ruin.

The left has been trying to paint Paul Ryan's medicare plan as something that will "destroy medicare as we know it."  The irony and hypocrisy in this statement is simply startling.  In fact I am absolutely sick and tired of the left's continual demagoguery of virtually every Republican's proposed solution to the very real fiscal problems that are combining to form a real threat to the future of the Republic. Rather than have a real debate where both sides can discuss how to solve problems, the left simply use scare tactics and vitriolic rhetoric in an attempt to just squash real debate, but I digress.

There are a few things that need to be pointed out, before a serious discussion can ensue about what needs to be done to salvage a dying program:

1)If nothing changes, Medicare will become insolvent in 12 years.  Now this is not some talking point from the Right, but rather this is the assessment and prediction of doom comes from the Department of Health and Human Services own report.  HERE is a link to an NPR story from last year detailing the when Medicare will become insolvent.

2)Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal in his budget (a budget that got more votes in both houses than President Obama's own budget proposals) does not change the benefit structure to anyone 55 an over.  This means that people who are either in the program already or are going to be entering the program in the next 10 years, will see no changes to Medicare, or will get exactly the same care that people already in the program currently enjoy.

3)President Obama and the Democrats have already cut Medicare by more than $700 billion dollars.  Well, I should not say cut, but rather they have raided medicare in an attempt to paint ObamaCare (The Affordable Care Act) as deficit neutral.  This accounting gimmick was used in the run up to the passage of ObamaCare so that the Democrats could say that ObamaCare would not add to the deficit.  Never mind that this has now been proven false, but one must wonder why the press has simply ignored this fact.  Had a Republican cut medicare like this, the press and the left would have eviscerated Republicans and claimed that they were trying to kill granny.  Obama cuts medicare and all we hear are crickets.

So, to play the Dem's game, one must ask two questions.  Why are Democrats trying to end Medicare as we know it and why are Democrats trying to kill seniors?  They have cut medicare by more than $700 billion, and by doing nothing, to fix the program's coming insolvency, the program is doomed.

Do I think this type of rhetoric is stupid? Yes. And I hate to even stoop so low, but I am so frustrated that the left, rather than have a debate on Obama's record and the differences in philosophy and the direction for this country, they have descended into demagoguery and distortions, the likes of which I have ever seen.

Monopolies are not just a problem in the Private Sector

"The great danger to the consumer is the monopoly — whether private or governmental."--Milton Friedman

As I have become a recent disciple of the late great champion of capitalism, Milton Friedman, my mind has been abuzz with the ideas of true capitalism and its power to lift people out of poverty.  There is a reason why the USA has been the greatest economic success story Earth's history has ever seen. It is because the constitution protects peoples' right to pursue their own self interest.  The pursuit of self interest is the driving force behind capitalism.  I would venture to guess that very few successful entrepreneurs ever started a business with the idea of providing benefits or charity to the masses as said entrepreneur's primary goal. A company opens its doors because the person or people who start that business want to, at the very least, earn an income that gives them financial independence without having to answer to someone else.  It is why, when one finds pockets of capitalism that are somehow shielded from government intervention, these sectors explode.  That is until government feels the need to extend its constricting tentacles and choke off the innovation that comes only when a person is able to pursue his or her own self interest.

Unfortunately since power is so enticing, the nature of most people is to consolidate that power.  The logical result of this within business is the monopoly, which almost everyone believes is a bad thing.  But, Is not an all powerful central government another form of a monopoly and just as dangerous as a private sector monopoly? Why is it that liberals, who will be the first to rightfully condemn private monopolies, are so blinded by their ideology to not recognize that centralized planning of any portion of the economy is a monopoly?  Do we not have numerous examples within the brief history of our own country that illustrate this point perfectly?  For every "Ma Bell" (which was broken up by the US government) there is a myriad of examples within the government where power has been consolidated, and the result is mismanagement, ineffectiveness and corruption.  There are anti-trust laws that allow government to regulate and break up monopolies as they get too powerful.  Now I am not arguing the efficacy or prudence of such laws (I personally think that the market will eventually take care of itself in these matters), but ask this question:
What recourse do citizens have when a portion of government has grown to big and unwieldy and has become a public "monopoly?"  Where can we go to break up such a monopoly?

People may try to argue that government will somehow be "fairer" as it takes care and provides for the  people.  First, who defines what is fair?  I certainly will have a different view of what is fair in comparison to someone else. Second and more importantly, History shows us that this notion is flawed anyway.  In almost every case government entities waste millions, if not billions of dollars, are unwieldy, and continually grow larger and larger, while providing fewer and fewer benefits to the masses and almost always at a greater expense to the public.

One can look at Public Education, Social Security, Medicare, The US Postal Service, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (just to name a few) and acknowledge their abject failures, or worse the ticking economic neuclear bomb that will go off if not defused, and wonder why do so many seemingly smart people  think that with something like health care, government will be able to finally do it right.

History tells me that the outcome of Obamacare (and subsequently single payer health care) will be no different than what we have gotten with some of the things I have named.

Someone once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result."  Insanity indeed.

Why European Socialism is Failing, despite Austerity Measures

Yesterday, Francois Hollande defeated Nicholas Sarcosy in what can only be described as a big Left turn for French politics.  The narrative being pushed by the main stream media and by socialists is that austerity measures have not worked, and most European countries are mired in double dip recessions.  The left is trying to argue that these "right wing" austerity measures have failed, and that only a return to the European Socialism will fix what is ailing these countries.

The problem with this thinking is simply untrue.  The first is that the austerity measures are to any degree "right-wing."  If right wing is defined as any departure from the central planning models that have dominated European politics for the last two decades, then yes these austerity measures are right wing.  The reality is that "conservative" in the US and conservative among European socialist countries means two different things. And finally just austerity measures are not the only thing that needs to be done.

What is really happening is that Europe is reaping what they have sown.  This is what happens when two or three generations have lived in such a cradle to grave social democracy.  They have a whole generation of people who think they are entitled to a free ride after doing so little.

What is worse is that the social democracies of Europe have reached the tipping point on taxation.  Countries such as the UK, France, Spain, Italy, etc, have tax rates that are close to 50% and that does not even count the 17% minimum VAT tax on everything bought in Europe (Some Countries VAT Taxes are higher).  Austerity will not work, because it is not addressing the real cause of the real problems in Europe, that taxes on  businesses are so high that they cannot generate enough capital to invest or to hire new workers.  High VAT and income taxes take away disposable income from consumers who might otherwise spend their extra cash on goods and services.

The only way for Europe to solve their financial problems, is to cut back on social programs and cut taxes.  The problem is that when the population is not willing to buy into what is wrong, and demand services that a country can no longer afford, that country is ripe for financial ruin.

The Unemployment Numbers Game

Isn't it interesting that as the November elections creep upon us, that the unemployment numbers seem to marginally improve. Today's unemployment rate is being reported to have dropped by a 10th of a percentage point to 8.1%.  This is fools gold however.  Only 115,000 new jobs were created in the month of April.  This number is outright pathetic.  It was such a bad number that stocks have reacted very negatively on the report.  As of this writing, the Dow Jones industrial average is down 115 points.  By any measure this is not good.

The only reason that unemployment has gone down is because the BLS cannot count those people who have stopped looking for work.  The labor force participation rate is what shows this.  The LFPR is simply the rate of people over 18 who are working, versus those who are not.  In the last 30 years we have seen the LFPR continually trend upward, mostly because more women are working, than prior to 30 years ago.  In the past several years, and particularly in the last three years, the LFPR has dropped significantly.  In fact the LFPR is currently at its lowest level since 1981.  Some of the LFPR are people who are retiring, but since women have been the cause of the LFPR trend moving upward, these numbers should really cancel each other out.  And if one looks at the trend on this graph, it is clear that the LFPR has dropped tremendously since 2008, when the economy really started to tank.

The big question that has not been asked is this.  Why, if we are in a recovery and jobs are being created, has the LFPR number not cratered.  Perhaps part of this is that baby boomers are beginning to retire. But one must, even with that pressure, wonder why the LFPR rate is STILL declining at the rate it is.  Some of those losses should be mitigated by people going back to work.

The other thing is the fact that net job creation during Obama's tenure is still at negative 1.6 million jobs.  When you put this all together, it seems that there is some major manipulation going on with regards to the unemployment rate.

In contrast to Obama's number of 1.6 million lost jobs under his watch.  Ronald Reagan, who inherited a horrible economy in recession, created more than 6 million jobs during his first four years in office.

There is no way around this one.  Obama's record on jobs is horrible.

Update on the Cheng Guancheng Ordeal.

The Cheng Guancheng fiasco just gets worse.  Here are some of the more recent developments. Here is Secretary Of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's statement about Cheng.

"I am pleased that we were able to facilitate Chen Guangcheng's stay and departure from the U.S. embassy in a way that reflected his choices and our values. I was glad to have the chance to speak with him today and to congratulate him on being reunited with his wife and children.


Mr. Chen has a number of understandings with the Chinese government about his future, including the opportunity to pursue higher education in a safe environment. Making these commitments a reality is the next crucial task. The United States government and the American people are committed to remaining engaged with Mr. Chen and his family in the days, weeks, and years ahead."

Who wrote this Hillary or the Ministry of Truth from 1984?


Now read the story located here at the Daily Beast:


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/02/activist-chen-guangcheng-let-me-leave-china-on-hillary-clinton-s-plane.html


This excerpt casts a different light on the ordeal:

When U.S. officials escorted him out of the U.S. embassy shortly after 3 p.m. Wednesday, Chen thought he’d extracted a promise that at least one of them would stay with him at the hospital, he said. “Many Americans were with me while I checked into the hospital and doctors examined me. Lots of them,” he told me from his hospital bed, where he’s being treated for broken bones in one foot, an injury sustained when he fell after climbing a wall during hisdaring escape from house arrest late last month. “But when I was brought to the hospital room, they all left. I don’t know where they went.” The ordeal was all the more bewildering because Chen is blind and was hurt during his escape; he needs crutches or a wheelchair to move around.

Then there is this story that details the unraveling of the "deal" that had been supposedly put into place


http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/05/02/state_department_we_did_not_relay_threats_to_chen


Here is the most important excerpt from this story:

The State Department insists that blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng left the U.S. Embassy of his own volition Wednesday and that U.S. officials in Beijing did not convey threats to harm his family by Chinese officials, as Chen claims.

"At no time did any US official speak to Chen about physical or legal threats to his wife and children. Nor did Chinese officials make any such threats to us," said State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. "U.S. interlocutors did make clear that if Chen elected to stay in the Embassy, Chinese officials had indicated to us that his family would be returned to [their home in] Shandong, and they would lose their opportunity to negotiate for reunification." 

Nuland was responding to accounts by Chen supporters, now repeated by Chen himself to the Associated Press, that said Chen was pressured into leaving the embassy via threats to the safety of his wife and family. Chen told the AP that U.S. officials told him the Chinese would take his family back to their home province in Shandong, where they had been under extrajudicial house arrest and in some cases physically abused, if he didn't leave the embassy.

Why is the State Department now so vociferously defending themselves against the thought that they had conveyed threats to Cheng?  I am reminded of Shakepseare's Hamlet when Gertrude said, "The woman doth protest too much methinks."


If one reads between the lines however, it is clear that the message conveyed by embassy officials to Cheng most likely was taken as a threat by Cheng, since the home that they were being returned to is the place where Cheng and his family were subjected to persecution and abuse.


Ultimately this fiasco illustrates one of two possibilities.

1. That the State Department and then by association the Obama Administration is incredibly naive and incompetent.  
2. The Obama administration has intentionally misled Cheng and others in order to appease the ChiCom government so that they will continue to buy US Treasury bonds and further fund the massive overspending that has been engaged by the Obama administration.

Either one of these possibilities sends the clear message that Obama is incompetent and needs to be defeated in November.  

The US is no Longer a Defender of Liberty!

When Reagan was POTUS, he often defended or provided verbal support to those people behind the Iron Curtain.  Lech Walesa, who was an outspoken Human Rights activist, and later President of Poland.  He was a man that stood up to the Polish puppet regime.  He was persecuted and was even imprisoned for a time because of his outspoken words against his government.  During this time Ronald Reagan offered the following to Lech and the movement he was defending.

"For too long the Polish Government has tried to make Lech Walesa a non person and destroy the free trade movement that he helped to create, but no goverment can destroy the hopes that burn in hearts of a people."

It was words like these that Lech Walesa and others behind the iron curtain heard, that buoyed  them up during the dark times and encouraged them to keep fighting the good fight.( Walesa said as much during a speech when unveiling a statue of Ronald Reagan in Warsaw)   The message the Ronald Reagan was trying to convey was, "We in America stand with those seeking freedom and Democracy."

Flash forward to the story of Cheng Guangchen, a blind Chinese dissident who had been imprisoned first and more recently had been under house arrest for four years.  He just last week made a daring escape from his house arrest and found temporary refuge in the US embassy in Beijing.  Cheng is a self educated lawyer and outspoken critic of China's forced sterilization and abortion policies that are a part of China's totalitarian government mandated one child per family policy.  In contrast to Reagan, here are President Obama's words in response to a news reporters question about Cheng.

“We want China to be strong and we want it to be prosperous, and we’re very pleased with all the areas of cooperation that we’ve been able to engage in.  But we also believe that that relationship will be that much stronger and China will be that much more prosperous and strong as you see improvements on human rights issues in that country,”

No mention of Cheng.  There is not even a statement condemning China's deplorable civil rights record. Following this statement, the US embassy turned Cheng over to China's government.  The initial report was that this was a welcome and voluntary move by Cheng.  I personally heard NBC radio news state that Cheng willfully had left the embassy and was happy to get back to his family.  It was also reported that assurances were made about Cheng and his treatment and safety.

However a few hours later, news stories started to surface that Cheng's family had been threatened with recriminations for Cheng's actions, if he did not return home.   Cheng was reported to have been taken to a hospital to be treated for injuries sustained during his escape from house arrest.

The only reason that I can think of that explains the Obama administration's lack of support for human rights in China, is that they need China to keep financing America's debt.

The US used to be a defender of liberty against totalitarianism.  Now we defend and provide cover to totalitarian governments so that we can continue to borrow money from them. The fact that the US cannot be a defender of human rights against a regime and country that represents all of the ideals that the US opposes, shows that we are certainly a nation in decline.

Are College Aged People Stupid?

In 2008, Obama carried the youth vote by a wide margin and is generally consdiered one of the main reasons that he cruised to victory.  I get it.  He promised everybody everything, but more importantly Obama ran on a message of hope and change.  Young people had been bombarded by negative news about Bush and the War on Terror.  Futhermore, the economy tanked just in time for the 2008 election, and with that tanking, was any chance of McCain winning the election. 

Now, three years later, Obama is again campaigning for the youth vote.  He is counting on young people to help push him over the top and on to a second term.  More than that, Obama is pandering to young people by offering them more free money, or cheap debt, so that they can continue on through college without having to struggle the way so many generations before them struggled.  My question is.  Are you people stupid?

Why would you give Obama four more years, when all he had done is wrecked the economy to the point that 53% of recent college graduates are un or underemployed right now.  This is not from some conservative web site.  No less than The Atlantic and NPR are both reporting these statistics. 

Whats worse is that Obama is out campaigning about keeping student loan interest rates artifically low.  He is telling young people that a vote for a Republican means an increase in student loan costs.  So in essence Obama is trying to buy off the student vote.  What is really sad though is that in the current economy, students will graduate saddled with massive debt that they will have difficulty paying back because they will not be able to find jobs. 

Think about it people.  Under Obama, the economy has cratered.  It is growing now, but so slowly that it is very noticable.  People all over are still either unemployed or underemployed.  Unemployment is still over 8 percent and has been there for most of Obama's presidency.  And the only reason that unemployment has gone down is because the particpation rate in the labor force is at a 20 year low. 

Do you want this stuff to continue, or does real change need to be made.  The truth lies in Reagan's words at his inaguration:

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems.  Government IS the problem."

Newt's debate prowess is Fools Gold

While I will acknowledge that Newt Gingrich is a feiry debater and would most certainly clean Obama's clock in any debate format, the idea that Newt would be able to win soely on his strengths as a debater, is really more wishful thinking than reality. 

The fact is, is that Obama would never agree to six Lincoln-Douglas style debates.  Obama and his handlers are not stupid when it comes to elections, and would never allow him to be skewered over and over again in any debate format.  At most, I believe Obama would agree to two debates with Gingrich.  He would probably agree to three with Romney because I Obama is probably not very scared of Mitt in a debate.

Conservatives need to do a better job of evaluating the candidates.  Just using the debates as the primary measure of a candidates qualifications is not a very smart way to make such an important decision.  All things need to be considered.  Its interesting to me that when people evaluate Mitt Romney, the rightly consider his past flip flops and wonder if he is a true conservative. 

Newt, however, seems to get a pass on this same thing.  Despite the fact that he has supported both global warming and a federal indvidual mandate for health care, to name just a few of his positions where he has departed from Conservative thought, Newt is considered by many to be the most conservative candidate left in the field.  He also has positiioned himself as an outsider, despite the fact that he served in Congress from 1978 to 1998, and still lives in the DC area.

All I am saying is that before one decides all of the facts and the positives and negatives with all of the candidates.  Only then should he or she make a decision on who should be the republican nominee.