Is There Really Any Objective Journalism?

I saw a story on the Fox News website yesterday about a recent study done on corruption in state governments. The study was done by "The Center for Public Integrity" and the results are reported to show a great deal of corruption and unethical behavior in all 50 states. Each state was graded, with no state receiving an A, and 8 states being given F's.  After seeing that all of the states with F's, were red states with Republican governors, I decided to take a closer look. The rest of the states were pretty evenly split between Republican and Democrat governors, with Chris Christie's New Jersey receiving the highest grade. So, other than the bottom 8 all being red, the study doesn't appear to be biased toward either party, but something still didn't seem right. The Center for Public Integrity claims to be "one of the oldest non-partisan, non-profit investigative news organizations in the country". Their website says they are funded by charitable foundations and individual donations, and that it "does not accept funding from labor unions or governments". However, after taking a look at the archived articles, they appear to be anything but non-partisan, unbiased, objective, or investigative. The vast majority of stories in the political section were anti-Republican, with a lot of focus on the potential GOP nominees. The major agenda issue for the organization is environmentalism/climate change and they are decidedly on the side of man caused climate change. They are also very supportive of government controlled health care with, again, no dissenting views. There are slight hints of anti-militarism, anti-business, and pro-globalization; they have a sister organization called "The Center for Global Integrity". While there is no campaigning or open endorsement of the Democratic party, the vast majority of content is decidedly liberal/progressive. In an article mocking Rick Santorum for calling global warming a hoax, which says it was written "By FactCheck.Org", the writer say "Santorum isn't the only skeptic, but skeptics are rare among scientists who actually study the climate." Yeah, not so much. It appears that facts can be rare among some organizations that have the words "Fact Check" in their name.While the authors brag about their data set of 1,372 climate researchers, they fail to mention the more than 31,000 scientists that have signed the petition denouncing the theory of man made global warming, at http://petitionproject.org/. Evidently, their investigative journalists failed to uncover that The Heartland Institute has held multiple international meetings for skeptics, that have been attended by over 1,000 climate scientists. This type of one sided editorializing is nothing new, but, it's increasingly becoming the only type of news we ever see; and far too many people just accept it as fact. As for the Center's claims of non-partisan funding, the list of supporting foundations are decisively progressive and share similar ideologies including environmental justice, social justice, global economic justice, and sustainability. The following are just a few examples:

• Adessium Foundation
• California Endowment
• The Ford Foundation
• The Joyce Foundation
• Oak Foundation
• Soros.org/Open Society Foundations

The Executive Director of The Center is Bill Buzenberg, former vice president of the left leaning National Public Radio (NPR). I have no problem with writers or pundits voicing their opinions, that's their job and we have our share on the right. The difference is; we know which side Rush Limbaugh or James Carville is on. When organizations that portray themselves as non-partisan watchdogs are secretly promoting an agenda it becomes dangerous. Theories are presented as fact, and accepted as such by much of the general public. The sad fact is, we can no longer trust anything we see, hear, or read in the news. We must take the time to investigate it ourselves. Fortunately, that's not hard to do. There is so little questioning of what's reported, that the authors of the lies don't even bother trying to cover their tracks. Our country and our freedoms are being taken, but not by force or coercion. We're surrendering them voluntarily because we're too lazy or ignorant to see the truth.

Democrats Desperate and Horny

With over 10% unemployment, gas prices approaching $4 a gallon, American soldiers being murdered in Afghanistan, and a possible war with Iran looming; Democrats have searched their souls and chosen the issue that they hope will decide this year's elections and the future of America: "rubbers". Well, to be fair, it's not just rubbers, but all forms of birth control. Over the last couple of weeks the Democratic Party, or as I like to think of them,"the left ass cheek of America", has become completely unhinged over a ridiculous issue that doesn't even exist. This entire charade was launched by the DNC public relations department; also known as the main stream media. A couple of months ago, George Stephanopoulos, former right hand man to Bill Clinton, pulled a question on birth control out of his ass and posed it to Mitt Romney during a debate. Until that point, contraception hadn't been an issue in American politics for about 50 years. Since that point, Democrats in congress, Democrat activist groups, and the Democrat media have worked relentlessly, fabricating their latest hysteria crisis. This effort may be the most desperate of all Democrat scare campaigns. The premise? "Republicans want to ban birth control." What is the basis of this assertion? What evidence have they presented to support it? Well, ...nothing: no previous statements by Republicans, no recently uncovered videos, no proposed legislation; not one damn thing. So, let's cut the crap. No Republican running for office, currently holding office, or that's held office in recent memory has suggested ANYTHING regarding banning, limiting, or restricting contraceptives. Neither the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, or any other significant religious organization has lobbied for legislation that would ban or limit access to contraceptives. These are the facts and the Democrats haven't gotten the wrong impression or misunderstood the Republican's position on this; they're just lying because that's what they do. All of the things that were key issues in the 2008 elections, such as economic growth, unemployment, the national debt, govt. spending, and the wars in the Middle East; have gotten worse...much worse! Even with the overwhelming number of idiots that make up the Democrat voting base, you can't go to war with that record. At this point, a lot of people who voted for Obama last time aren't satisfied with blaming it all on Bush; they need a new reason to support Democrats. The left saw this coming and reached for their favorite tactic" Making up shit to scare people". The problem with that is; you have to keep coming up with new catastrophes. Global warming was a great scam in it's day, but it's worn out it's welcome. When you spend 40 years warning people that the earth is melting, eventually, they expect to see some evidence of it. The Obamas have done their best to convince us that we're too fat to survive as a nation; even going so far as to suggest that obesity is a threat to national security. A couple of problems with that though: one, we keep living longer and healthier lives and, two, we don't give a damn what your bogus stats say; don't tell us what to eat! At least the melting planet and the fat ass scares were well planned, with manufactured studies and statistics to back them up. As for "The Great Condom Crisis of 2012", they've got nothing. The strategy is; tell the people Republicans want to take away your rubbers and keep women at home, in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant; then hope there are enough of them stupid enough to believe it. It's comical! Democrats in congress and the media were in a psychotic rage yesterday over the fact that Rush Limbaugh called Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, a slut. Well, she told Congress and the nation that her and her friends couldn't afford enough contraception to cover all the sex they were having, and damn it, the rest of us should pay for it. She said they need about $1,000 a year. I'm sorry, but hookers don't spend that much on contraception. A lot of Americans, including me, were thinking , "Damn, what a slut." Rush was just one of the few that had enough balls to say it. If you don't want people talking about your sex life, don't broadcast it. I can't believe that this is the issue Democrats want to ride with, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

Progressives: 100 Years of Saving the Poor...From Prosperity

FDR, LBJ, Barack Obama; The New Deal, The Great Society, Hope and Change. For most of the past hundred years, Progressives have been the self appointed saviors of the poor, the forgotten man, the working class...the 99%. Labor laws are, perhaps, their proudest achievement. In their minds, they've assured all Americans "fair" working wages and conditions. All they ask in return, is loyalty at the voting booth and the surrender of some liberties. For truly poor people, the only property they truly own, and the only wealth they possess are in the form of their labor. These people's only means of survival is to sell their labor. Prior to progressive wage controls, they were free to sell it to the highest bidder or to sell it at a lower price in order to sell more of it or to acquire other assets, such as education and experience. Groups that had a harder time finding work, such as minorities, women, and the very young, had the option of selling their labor at a lower price in order to find work. People in low paying jobs had the option of working more hours to earn extra money. Mandatory forty hour work weeks and overtime wage laws took that option away. I work in construction, where we employ 300-400 craftsmen and laborers, depending on our workload. Most times, our employees could have the option of working twenty to thirty additional hours weekly, but the price we're being paid for the work doesn't support overtime wages. These workers are denied the option of increasing their income by as much as 25-60% and they have no input in the decision. To progressives, this is called "looking out for the poor". The lowest income earners live check to check, scraping by just to survive. They make choices between buying food, paying the rent, or buying their kids a new pair of shoes. But working the weekend to pick up an extra $200 is off the table. When I was younger, a lot of construction workers were classified as independent contractors, and not subject employee labor laws. I took every opportunity I was offered to work more hours at my normal rate of pay because I always needed the money. Some of that still goes on, but the government has cracked down on employers to protect employees...from having a chance to earn more money. To those who haven't been there, I'm not sure you can grasp what an extra $100 or $200 means to someone whose regular pay is $400. It can mean the difference between living in an apartment and a house, or having 3 or 4 bedrooms instead of 1 or 2. It can allow a mom more time with the kids by working less or not at all. It can be the difference between your kids wearing new clothes as opposed to second hand. Government does NOT have the right, or the constitutional authority, to deny working people that choice! Last summer, 48.8% of Americans 16-24 years old were employed. That's the lowest percentage since the Department of Labor started keeping track of it in 1948. Young people don't have any skills or experience. They used to have the chance to gain those things by agreeing to sell their labor at lower prices. Minimum wage laws made that illegal. There have been similar effects on some minorities. It must be nice to be a progressive and pat yourself on the back for playing God with people's lives, while never having to worry about suffering the consequences.

Let's Keep Our Eye On the Prize

As I suspect is true of many conservatives, I'm pretty disgusted with the potential Republican presidential nominees, as well as the selection process.I don't think we ever had a great field to choose from, though there were a few with good character and strong conservative credentials. The biased rhetoric of the media, the Republican establishment, and the super PAC's has turned it into a pretty ugly affair. No matter which one of these guys hangs on to win, it's a safe bet that a significant number of voters are going to be disappointed. With all of the mud slinging, we've started hearing the inevitable talk that "The rest of the candidates are no better than Obama."; that's where we have to draw the line. They're ALL better than Obama, much better! Anyone with thoughts of staying away from the polls out of protest or apathy, needs to shake themselves and focus on the ultimate goal; getting Obama the hell out of the Whitehouse. We can find fault with all of the Republicans; Romney installed govt. health care as governor, Gingrich is an adulterer and he believes in global warming, Santorum was a rubber stamp for the big spending policies of the Bush administration, and Ron Paul underestimates the danger from Islamic terrorism. But none of these guys would be as damaging to the economy and the American way of life as Barack Obama. Whether you think he's incompetent, stupid, or anti-American and intentionally destructive, there's no denying that his presidency has been disastrous for all Americans. Unlike the campaign in '08, when we could only speculate about what a leftist radical he was, he now has a record; it's documented Here are a few of the highlights:

• He jammed through a govt. takeover of our health care system, most of which doesn't go into effect until until after the election this year. It will raise the cost of insurance for most people, cause millions to lose their coverage, lead to rationing of services, force all Americans to buy insurance or pay a fee, force businesses to provide insurance to their employees or pay a fee, and, eventually force most private insurers out of business through price controls and mandated services, ultimately forcing everyone into a single payer govt. program.
• He has added over $5 trillion to the national debt in 3 years. This is more than double the pace of George W Bush, who was previously the worst deficit spending president in history. At this pace, and with the additional burden of Obamacare, it's likely that Obama would add more than twice as much to the national debt as all previous presidents combined, over an 8 year term.
• His constant interference in private sector business has lead to the loss of jobs, stalled economic growth, and very little creation of new jobs.
• The uncertainty over over the tax code and the costs of Obamacare had forced businesses and investors to postpone expansion and sit on capital.
• Regulations passed under Bush added an estimated $40 billion per year in compliance costs that are taken out of the economy during his 8 year term, $60 billion was added in only Obama's first 2 years. If re-elected he has already outlined 7 new regulations that, if passed, would add over $100 billion per year.
• He corrupted the bankruptcy proceedings of Chrysler and GM and rewarded the unions at the expense of the bond holders, who had legal priority. Despite his claims that the loans were repaid, taxpayers will lose about $14 billion, through a loss of stock prices, according to his own people.
• He has issued 35.1 billion in taxpayer loans to "green energy" businesses, 80% of which went to major Democrat campaign donors. Several of these businesses have since filed bankruptcy, including Solyndra, which received over $500 million. According to the DOE website, this $35 billion created 3,768 permanent jobs, at a cost of $ 9,315,286 per job. Despite this massive failure, he has vowed to continues these policies.
• After the gulf oil spill, he instituted an offshore drilling moratorium against the recommendations of his own investigators and in defiance of 2 federal court orders. A study by Joseph R. Mason of Louisiana State University estimates that in 1 year, the moratorium resulted in 19,000 lost jobs and $1.1 billion in lost wages, as well as $2.7 billion in lost economic activity nationwide, $2.1 billion in Louisiana alone.
• While the drilling moratorium was in place, he loaned Brazil $2 billion for offshore drilling, then promised their president that the U.S. would be their best customer. Shortly thereafter, Brazil signed contracts with China for the sale of oil.
• He killed the deal for the Keystone pipeline, which would have created an estimated 20,000 jobs and provided a huge new source of North American oil at no cost to U.S. taxpayers.
• He has sent troops into Egypt and Libya, neither of which posed any apparent danger to U.S. national security with no approval from congress and with no explanation of our mission.
• He cut manned space flight at NASA and directed his newly appointed director to reach out to Muslim nations to help them feel good about their contributions to science.
• He refused to grant Obamacare waivers to religious groups, including the Catholic Church, which would force them to provide their employees with coverage for abortion, in violation of their religious beliefs.
• His ATF and justice department allowed the sale of guns to Mexican drug dealers and has refused congressional requests for information for their investigation.

This is just a sample, there's much more. We have to get this guy out of office! I encourage you, and I hope you'll encourage everyone you know to campaign against his re-election, regardless of who his opponent is. It definitely makes a difference. Then let's put more strong conservatives in congress to keep the next guy in line.

Economics for Idiots

I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Jon Huntsman; America is screwed. I'm going to explain some basic economic principles to a group of people that obviously doesn't understand them. These guys are not liberal democrats, Occupy protesters, college professors, or middle school students. Sadly, they're the Republican presidential candidates. As I said, America is screwed! First of all, businesses do not exist to create jobs. The sole purpose of business is to make money. No one ever says to himself "Hey, my lazy ass neighbor doesn't have anything to do, I think I'll risk everything I have so he doesn't have to sit at home, eating Cheetos and watching "The View" everyday." People risk it all because they want to make more money; job creation is a side effect of that desire. Business owners lease office space because they need a place to work; not because they feel sorry for the landlord with the vacant property. They hire people to do things that, they don't have time to do, can't do efficiently, or don't want to do. They need that task done more than they need the money they have to pay to get it done. If they find that the money they're paying has become worth more than the task being done, they either eliminate the task or find someone to do it for less. Pretty simple, right? So, Mitt Romney ran a company that used investor's money to fund new businesses and buy and sell existing ones. The idea behind investing money is to get back more money than you put in; evidently, Mitt was pretty good at making that happen, so the investors paid him well. So, in some cases, they bought businesses that were either losing money, or weren't making as much as they should. Some of these businesses were poorly managed and had employees that weren't needed, weren't productive, or were being paid too much. Some of these workers got laid off or fired. Mitt could have just let the companies keep losing his investor's money, but he didn't have any investors that were interested in that. He could also have chosen not buy the companies, then they would have been broke and ALL of the workers would have lost their jobs. Rick Perry says Mitt made his money "on the backs of working people". Really? Perry has been a public employee for over 25 years. Whose back is he making his money off of, the Cash Fairy's? Evidently, Perry would have just kept paying people to be unproductive. If we want a president that thinks that way, we don't need to have an election. Newt Gingrich doesn't have a problem with Mitt making money, he just thinks he made too much. How much is too much? I guess that's for Newt to decide. What if I think Newt made too much for writing all his books, or for consulting with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Oh, I forgot, Newt decides what's too much. Rick Santorum thinks this attack on capitalism is a bunch of crap. If he's elected, he would lower corporate income tax from 35% to 17.5% for all industries except manufacturing, which would pay NO corporate income tax. What about construction companies, grocery stores, and software developers? Screw You, that's what! Santorum has decided that manufacturing should get preferential treatment over other industries. He would also triple the child tax credit. That's awesome... if you have kids. What about young working people who don't and seniors? Tough Shit! Santorum thinks everyone should have kids and, if he has to coerce them with the tax code, then he will. What about Romney? Well, he defended himself against the ant-capitalists by comparing what he did to Obama's management of GM and Chrysler. Yeah, that's exactly the same; except Obama took our money, by force, and invested it, and he doesn't give a rats ass if we lose every last nickel. Mitt, defending your record as a Capitalist by comparing yourself to a socialist is kind of stupid. As for Huntsman; why isn't he running against Obama for the Democrat nomination? What about Ron Paul? Well, he wants to cut $1 trillion from the budget in the first year, cut all foreign aid, repeal the income tax and install a fair tax or flat tax, eliminate govt. subsidies of private business, eliminate 4 cabinet level agencies, stop the federal reserve from inflating the currency, stop paying for the military defense of the rest of the world, and balance the federal budget. What a lunatic!

Boobs and Blowhards

Why is it that the only right that seems to be protected in America anymore is the right to make a fool and an ass of yourself? Yesterday we had a nationwide "nurse-in" because employees of a Target store in Houston asked a mother to breast feed her baby in the fitting room instead of sitting in the floor of the clothing department. So women across the country flocked to Target stores, to pop out a boob and show the world that they can do whatever they want. I'm sure Rosa Parks would be proud! Around the same time yesterday, black Houston activist Quannel X, held a press conference demanding that Michael Jordan and Nike lower the price of Air Jordans, so everyone can afford them and people won't have to commit murder to own a pair. To bad the breast feeding mom wasn't black, so we could have bundled all this crap into one news story and not wasted so much of my life listening to it. I guess we just have to accept that every time some one hears the word "no", or doesn't get exactly what they want, we're going to have a protest; and the news media is going to cover it like the whining morons actually have a point. After all, we just spent 3 months watching losers, crack heads, and communists trashing public parks, while the media tried to convince us these worthless turds were just frustrated with the economy. Bullshit! They weren't getting enough free stuff, so they threw a temper tantrum, like a 2 year old; and that's exactly what these women did at Target yesterday. This poor, helpless mom was not asked to leave the store; she was asked to move to a more private area. Oh, the horror! Target is running a damn business! If they would like you to breast feed in the fitting room, instead of sitting on your ass in the floor, I don't think that equates with making you drink from the "colored" water fountain. I have 3 kids and I hope to have grandkids someday; I love babies, and I know they need to eat. But, neither my wife or I have ever sat in the floor of a department store and fed our kids... because we're not idiots. Personally, the sight of breast feeding doesn't bother me. I'm a huge fan of breasts, not so much in this capacity, but I'm not offended by it. However, a lot of people are uncomfortable with it, which is to be expected. This isn't Europe or Brazil, most of the exposed breasts in America are limited to the home and gentleman's clubs. If you're trying on a swimsuit, they'll probably want you to do that in the fitting room as well. The latest Quannel X publicity stunt has even less merit. A bunch of dumb asses are rioting and killing people over tennis shoes, and he thinks it's because the shoes are too expensive. No jackass, it's because they are punks, criminals, and scum bags. I'd like a Corvette, but I can't afford one. If I threaten to kill my neighbor and take his, should Chevy give me a free one? Should we demand that all women provide consensual sex, on demand, in order to reduce the number of rapes committed? If a baby is crying in a movie theater, should the parents just remain seated with her and ruin the movie for everyone else...because that's natural and it's just what baby's do? Get over yourselves people! The world does not revolve around you! The rest of us are just trying pay the bills and buy groceries, and you're irritating the shit out of us. Stop whining and holding your breath every time you don't get your way. Most of all, stay the hell off my TV!

Who's In Charge America?

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

James Madison

James Madison is widely recognized as the author of the U.S. Constitution. We can only assume he would have a pretty good idea of what type of government he and the other founders hoped to establish. The situation he describes in the quote above is exactly where we find ourselves today. Government, on the federal, state, and local levels now assumes the authority to do whatever is in their discretion, and it is done with our money. Government has crept into so many areas of our lives, it's hardly noticed by most people, who just assume it's always been this way. County officials in Ohio just took an eight year old boy out of his mother's care because he's too fat and case workers decided it's his mother's fault. Earlier this year, the federal government told Boeing it could not relocate one of it's plants from a union state to a right to work state. A couple of months ago, Houston, Texas Mayor Annise Parker and the Houston City Council, declared several neighborhoods "historical districts", which subsequently places severe restrictions on future uses or modifications to the properties. This was done despite the opposition of at least half of the residents of one neighborhood. Parker the declared that the will of the residents was not a sufficient reason to halt the designation; it was city government's decision. The Declaration of Independence state that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".  How did we go from that to allowing the government to tell us what to eat, and taking away our kids if we refuse to comply? R. Allen Stanford is a former investment broker who was arrested in 2009 by federal regulators for, allegedly running a $ 7 billion Ponzi scheme; he has been held in a Texas prison without bail since. The federal government seized everything Stanford and his immediate family owned; money, homes, cars, property, everything, and he has yet to go to trial. He was denied the right to use his money to hire a lawyer. From what I've heard about the case, I'm pretty sure he's guilty. The problem is, to this point, that's all we have; a bunch of people that are pretty sure he's guilty. Is that now enough to take everything a man owns without proving that he's done a damn thing? No matter how you or I would answer that question, the legal answer is yes; it happens all the time. Government has grown and grown like a fat tick, and we've fed it with our money. But, we're at the tipping point now, the parasite is killing the host. We have the means to prevent it, but if we don't act, that may not be the case in a few years. In a dramatic effort last year, voters returned control of the house to Republicans. This was seen as a backlash against the runaway deficit spending. The house controls the purse strings, but the Republican leadership has refused to use that control. In fact, all of congress and the president have refused to address any spending cuts, despite the concerns of the majority of Americans. Unfortunately, I don't see enough Americans with the courage to do anything about it. They may wake up one day with the government they deserve. Sadly, so will the rest of us.