The truth

The absolute truth!

Isn’t it amazing that . . .

The Bill of Rights in the National Archives and Records Administration

. . . Al Franken, a man who has prospered thanks to freedom of speech and of the press, wants to restrict those freedoms for others?

During the Bush Administration, Mr Franken hosted The Al Franken Show, on the Air America radio network, and wrote several books, all of which criticized President Bush and conservative politics. Yet somehow, some way, Mr Franken was never arrested and thrown in jail by the Bush Administration; your Editor suspects that it might be due to our First Amendment rights.

Nixon Lied, No One DIED, Nixon RESIGNED — BO, Hillary, Rice LIED, Four Americans Died on what Was Preventable, And BO Still Screws The Country, He Should Resign

Nixon Lied, No One DIED, Nixon RESIGNED — BO, Hillary, Rice LIED, Four Americans Died on what Was Preventable, And BO Still Screws The Country, He Should Resign NOW! But he Won’t, He’s ABOVE THE LAW as he reminded us he is the Supreme Ruler and Screw all other Branches of Government. I think that’s Dictatorville.

Water-Gate – Nixon has to resign because he lied to the American People about When he found out about it. Benghazi-Gate – Obama lied to the American People about When he found out the truth about the Benghazi raid. AND GETS A FREE PASS!

by The Patriot Posted October 27, 2012—nixon-has-to-resign-because-he-lied-to-the-american-people-about-when-he-found-out-abou/question-3277839/

Senate Intelligence Committee Publishes Major Report on Benghazi: It Was a ‘Preventable’ Terrorist Attack
Jan. 15, 2014 12:01pm Becket Adams

The deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, were not only “preventable,” but they were also deliberate acts of terrorism and not a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video, the Senate Intelligence Committee said in bipartisan report released Wednesday.

The committee found that the State Department under Hillary Rodham Clinton failed entirely to respond to “significant strategic” warnings regarding the deteriorating security conditions in eastern Libya.

“Despite the clearly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and requests for additional security resources, few significant improvements were made by the State Department to the security posture of the Temporary Mission Facility,” the report said.

All Hail Caesar – Ruling Now By EDICT

When BO ran in 2008 his rhetoric had all the sounds of a would be Dictator. Over the years I feel more positive about my fears. His armiration of Chavez was shown in a tweet while on his way back from a Lisbon conference he “joked” (real knee slapper)to the news section in the plane about having the pilot turn ago go to Venezuala.

Obama’s Joke About Going To Visit Hugo Chavez Doesn’t Go Over Very Well

There are other examples such as his unilateral changes to ObummerCare, edict in the form of “Executive Orders) OOOOOPS Edicts. Now All Hail Caesar Obama since he has declared:
‘I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone’: Obama threatens to bypass embattled Congress with bully pulpit executive actions on economy

With a Pen and Phone Obama Could Confiscate Your Money
Posted 5 hours ago by Gary DeMar

The economy is not reviving, but Obama’s pen and phone strategy could solve the economic malaise. Yes, there are some sectors that are doing well. But across the board the economy is struggling. Tens of millions of Americans are no longer in the work force. Black youth unemployment is at record levels.
Obama believes that government management of the economy is the solution:

“Calling for ‘all hands on deck’ to assist the economy, President Barack Obama is urging his Cabinet to identify ways to keep his administration relevant to people struggling in the up-and-down recovery.”

Contrary to what liberals think, Barack Obama is not god. Billions of economic decisions are made every day around the world. These very personal economic decisions cannot be managed. When politicians, tyrants, and kings try to do it, they kill the geese that lay the golden eggs.


Today’s lunchtime fortune cookie

A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.

John Kerry’s greatest accomplishment?

He’s managed to make Hillary Clinton look like a good Secretary of State!

Ya’alon: Kerry should win his Nobel and leave us alone
Defense Minister says in private that US security plan ‘not worth the paper it’s written on’, insists Kerry ‘cannot teach me anything about the conflict with the Palestinians’.
Shimon Shiffer | Published: 01.14.14, 10:22 /

While the United States is pushing hard for a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon has expressed his great skepticism of these efforts, both in private conversations in Israel and in the US. In particular, Ya’alon has harsh words to say about Secretary of State John Kerry.

“Abu Mazen (Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas) is alive and well thanks to us,” Ya’alon said. “The moment we leave Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) he is finished. In reality, there have been no negotiations between us and the Palestinians for all these months – but rather between us and the Americans. The only thing that can ‘save us’ is for John Kerry to win a Nobel Prize and leave us in peace.”

Ya’alon, who was IDF chief of staff from 2002-2005, at the height of the second intifada, also has little regard for the US-devised security provisions for a post-peace region.

“The American security plan presented to us is not worth the paper it’s written on,” Ya’alon said. “It contains no peace and no security. Only our continued presence in Judea and Samaria and the River Jordan will endure that Ben-Gurion Airport and Netanya don’t become targets for rockets from every direction. American Secretary of State John Kerry, who turned up here determined and acting out of misplaced obsession and messianic fervor, cannot teach me anything about the conflict with the Palestinians.”

More at the link, but it isn’t very complimentary of the Secretary’s efforts. The State Department responded quickly, calling Mr Ya’alon’s statements “offensive and inappropriate,” but the bigger problem is that his remarks were accurate.

However, the Secretary did weigh in on other things, to show just where his — and the Obama Administration’s — concerns are:

Kerry ‘Deeply Concerned’ By Nigeria’s Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
January 14, 2014 – 7:32 AM | By Susan Jones

( – Of all the problems in Nigeria, including the ongoing persecution of Christians by Islamic terrorists, the U.S. State Department on Monday condemned the African nation’s new law banning same-sex marriage.

“The United States is deeply concerned by Nigeria’s enactment of the Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement issued Monday. “Beyond even prohibiting same sex marriage, this law dangerously restricts freedom of assembly, association, and expression for all Nigerians,” the statement said.

Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan reportedly signed the bill into law on Monday.

According to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), those convicted of entering into a same-sex marriage or civil union contract face up to 14 years in prison. The bill also prohibits anyone from performing or witnessing same-sex unions; and it bans gay clubs, gay meetings, etc.

Kerry’s statement said the law is “inconsistent with Nigeria’s international legal obligations and undermines the democratic reforms and human rights protections enshrined in its 1999 Constitution.

More at the link. Nigeria is roughly half Muslim, and Muslims take a rather dim view of homosexual behavior; in Iran, it can get you hanged by the neck until dead. In addition, there are radical Islamist groups fighting for power in that country, primarily the Boko Haram and Darul Islam. Why on God’s earth would our Secretary of State seek to further inflame tensions in Nigeria now?

It seems that, with every statement he makes, the Secretary validates my vote in the 2004 presidential election!

Common sense from Governor Christie

From North Carolina’s prettiest and smartest blogger:

Chris Christie vetoes transgender birth certificate bill, leftists go nuts
Posted by: ST on January 13, 2014 at 7:13 pm

The clueless wonders over at “Think Progress” are having a sh*t fit over Gov. Chris Christie’s veto of a bill that would have allowed “transgender  persons” who haven’t undergone a surgical sex change to legally change the sex on their birth certificates.  First, the story – via

Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a bill today that would have permitted people who underwent a clinical sex change procedure to amend their gender designation on their birth certificates.

Christie said changing a birth certificate would create opportunities for “fraud, deception and abuse, and should therefore be closely scrutinized and sparingly approved.”

Since 1984, state law has required the Department of Health to issue new birth certificates to people who have undergone sex change surgery. But not every transgender person goes that route, with some choosing hormone therapy instead.

The bill, (A4097) would have applied to people who have undergone “clinically appropriate treatment for the purpose of gender transition, based on contemporary medical standards, or that the person has an intersex condition,” according to the legislation.

You can read Christie’s full statement on why he (rightly) vetoed this bill here.

A lot more at Stacey’s original. She chose not to include the link to the Think Progress article in question, but I’ll cite it here.

Two points. First, a birth certificate notes conditions at the time of birth! If a person “transitions,” whether through surgery or otherwise, it does not change what sex he was when he was born. I can see altering a birth certificate to correct an error in the documentation, but the documentation of sex at the time of birth is not an error.

Of course, the second and more important point: There is no such thing as a “transgendered” person. A male can get himself castrated, have a surgeon stick artificial boobs on his chest and create a faux vagina, but that doesn’t make him female; it makes him a castrated male who has undergone plastic surgery. Similarly, a female can opt to have a complete double mastectomy, and have a surgical flap somewhat resembling a penis attached to her body, but she is still not a man; she is a mutilated female. The boy born with XY chromosomes will still have those chromosomes, and all of the different biological characteristics which make humans male, after “transition” surgery. The girl born with XX chromosomes will always have them, regardless of what surgical and hormonal treatments she undergoes.

More, that a person may believe that he was born the wrong sex is almost irrelevant with regard to growing up. A male who believes that he should be a girl is still going to be treated as a boy throughout his childhood, though perhaps not very nicely if he makes his feelings public. A girl who believes she ought to be a boy is still going to grow up as a girl, and be treated as a girl. We are, in part, shaped by all of our life’s experiences, and those experiences are simply not washed away with hormone and surgical “treatment.”

I do have sympathy for people afflicted with mental illnesses, but having sympathy does not mean abandoning common sense, and buying into their delusions.

Back in my college days . . .

. . . it was fairly common to hear the statement, “You don’t need a piece of paper to love each other.”

The “piece of paper” was, of course, a marriage document. From The Wall Street Journal:

How to Fight Income Inequality: Get Married
In families headed by married couples, the poverty level in 2012 was just 7.5%. Those with a single mother: 33.9%.
By Ari Fleischer | Jan. 12, 2014 6:07 p.m. ET

If President Obama wants to reduce income inequality, he should focus less on redistributing income and more on fighting a major cause of modern poverty: the breakdown of the family. A man mostly raised by a single mother and his grandparents who defied the odds to become president of the United States is just the person to take up the cause.

“Marriage inequality” should be at the center of any discussion of why some Americans prosper and others don’t. According to Census Bureau information analyzed by the Beverly LaHaye Institute, among families headed by two married parents in 2012, just 7.5% lived in poverty. By contrast, when families are headed by a single mother the poverty level jumps to 33.9%.

And the number of children raised in female-headed families is growing throughout America. A 2012 study by the Heritage Foundation found that 28.6% of children born to a white mother were out of wedlock. For Hispanics, the figure was 52.5% and for African-Americans 72.3%. In 1964, when the war on poverty began, almost everyone was born in a family with two married parents: only 7% were not.

Attitudes toward marriage and having children have changed in America over the past 50 years, and low-income children and their mothers are the ones who are paying the price. The statistics make clear what common sense tells us: Children who grow up in a home with married parents have an easier time becoming educated, wealthy and successful than children reared by one parent. As the Heritage study states: “The U.S. is steadily separating into a two-caste system with marriage and education as the dividing line. In the high-income third of the population, children are raised by married parents with a college education; in the bottom-income third, children are raised by single parents with a high-school diploma or less.”

And now for the real meat:

One of the differences between the haves and the have-nots is that the haves tend to marry and give birth, in that order. The have-nots tend to have babies and remain unmarried. Marriage makes a difference. Heritage reports that among white married couples, the poverty rate in 2009 was just 3.2%; for white nonmarried families, the rate was 22%. Among black married couples, the poverty rate was only 7%, but the rate for non-married black families was 35.6%.

More at the link.

The esteemed Mr Fleischer was completely wrong, however, when he said that President Obama ought to somehow address the breakdown of the American family. The biggest gap between Republican and Democrat voters is between those who are married, who favor Republicans, and those who are not, who normally vote much more heavily Democrat. For the Democrats, marriage — other than between homosexuals — is not something that they want to see in the voters, because it makes them more productive, wealthier and more personally responsible, exactly the people who want and need the least from the nanny state, and from Democrats.

The Democrats might say that they want to fight poverty, but they don’t: if poverty were seriously reduced, then Democrats would lose more elections.

From Around the Blogroll

From Karen, the Lonely Conservative:

If You Don’t Want To See Lena Dunham Naked You’re A Misogynist Or Something
by  •  • 5 Comments

Girls star Lena Dunham and some of the shows producers were asked about the frequent nudity on the HBO show. The question wasn’t received well.

Girls producers went on the defensive Thursday evening in response to a question during the show’s panel at the Television Critics Association press tour about the show’s nudity.

But that’s putting it mildly.

If you ask exec producer Judd Apatow, who addressed the incident after the panel, the wording of the reporter’s question itself, directed to creator and star Lena Dunham, was not only “offensive” but “sexist” and “misogynistic.” (For the record, here it is verbatim: “I don’t get the purpose of all the nudity on the show — by [Dunham] in particularly. I feel like I’m walking into a trap where you go, ‘Nobody complains about all the nudity on Game of Thrones,’ but I get why they do it. They do it to be salacious and titillate people. And your character is often nude at random times for no reason.”)

“That was a very clumsily stated question that’s offensive on it’s face, and you should read it and discuss it with other people how you did that,” Apatow said, speaking to the reporter who asked the question. “It’s very offensive.” (Read More)

The reaction from the panel got even stranger from there. Dunham suggested that the person asking the question should get psychological help because he doesn’t want to see her naked. Then another producer said the question sent her mind into a “rage spiral.”

More at the link. Smitty wrote about the story as well on The Other McCain, writing:

Lena, Lena, Lena: your show is pure vanity, in the truest Ecclesiastes sense of the word. While falling short of waxing moralistic, can we just get to some honesty about your cheap show? It’s a cheap show, cheaply exposing cheap flesh for a cheap audience. You’ve got more “cheap” than an aviary. Be honest about that. Just admit “Yeah, I’m getting my nudist on for the eyeballs.” I’m not saying it makes you any more or less evil than anyone else. I’m saying that your insistence that flashing boobies is some kind of “expression of what it’s like to be alive” is a risible pile of bollocks.

But Kit Lange of the Victory Girls probably did it best, saying:

If Lena Dunham wants to be naked on her show, fine. If people don’t want to see it, they can shut off the TV. But if you’re going to write a TV show, you should expect that TV critics will ask you things about your show. (Tim) Molloy said over and over that he doesn’t give a flying rip about whether Lena Dunham’s mammaries are flopping out on camera, but he was looking for what the contribution was to the show. Was it to juice up the plot? Was it gratuitous? What? What’s the point? I am a TV critic, he says. It is my job to ask these questions. Apatow says Molloy just doesn’t get the depth of the show. Obviously. He wonders aloud why Dunham is naked all the time, and he didn’t ask in an adoring, “aren’t you just so empowered and amazing” kind of way, so he must be shallow and shaming.

Mr Molloy is a paid television critic and reviewer, and it is perfectly reasonable, and expected, for him to ask the questions he did.

As for me, I don’t subscribe to HBO, and I’ve never seen the show; it could be anywhere between terrific and trash as far as I am concerned. If Miss Dunham wants to walk around naked, I really don’t care; if people want to watch her or not watch her do so, they are free — well, not free, since HBO is a premium pay channel :) — to do so. But one thing has jumped out at me: some of the criticism has come from the fact that the lovely Miss Dunham isn’t exactly model thin. However, the average height and weight for American women between 20 and 74 is 5’4″ and 164 lb. Miss Dunham seems to me to be pretty close to the averages, but when Kurt Schlichter said, “This is the first show in the history of cable television where male viewers actively root for the heroine to keep her clothes on,” maybe it’s because Miss Dunham looks a whole lot like their wives and girlfriends.

Cassy Fiano asked Do Women Still Deserve Gentlemen?

The Pirate’s Cove notes that San Francisco Warmists Want Warming Labels On Gas Pumps.

From Felix on The Colossus of Rhodey:

 Schooling vs Chaos
The Boss Obama administration is seeking racial quotas in the nation’s public schools. No, not quotas for some perceived racial balance just for a school’s population, but for the number of students disciplined. In other words, if the discipline figures for a school don’t more or less equal that of the school’s [racial] population … then it’s racist.

That’s just the introduction; there’s a lot more at the original.

From Robert Stacey Stacy McCain:

Elegant Reporting in Appalachia
Posted on | January 10, 2014 | 22 Comments

Kevin D. Williamson of National Review traveled to Appalachia — his dateline is Owsley County, Ky. — to write about the kind of poverty no liberal ever describes as “social injustice”:

If the people here weren’t 98.5 percent white, we’d call it a reservation.

Williamson’s article is not merely good reporting, but it is also mighty fine writing. There is too little of this kind of work by conservative journalists. The quick stuff that gets Drudge hits and “moves the needle” politics-wise is the commodity most in demand, along with ponderous punditry and nerdy policy-wonk stuff. We get much less really high-quality writing on the Right because, when you get down to it, there simply is no incentive for it.

Your Editor grew up in Kentucky, though not in Owsley County, usually cite as the poorest county in the country. Both Mr McCain’s and Mr Williamson’s articles are well worth your time.

L D Jackson noted that Obama Turns To Income inequality, Changes Subject From ObamaCare Disaster, and the Delaware Liberals dutifully followed the script, though “Progressive Populists’” article goes even further than the President would ever say (in public).

Donald Douglas wrote about a Muslim University Student in Canada (Who) Refuses to Do Course Work with Women.

From Patterico: Patent and Trademark Office: The Term “Redskins” Is Offensive. Patterico’s best commenter, The Limerick Avenger, wrote:

The redskins formed warrior bands
Who roamed their native lands
But the left are aghast
At this term from the past;
They’ve got too much time on their hands!

Finally, Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion noted the passing of Ariel Sharon, with some great photographs of the Israeli patriot during his days on active duty.


I expected the articles by conservatives to point out the weaknesses in the December jobs report, which they did, but thought that liberal sources would be out there, trumpeting the official 6.7% unemployment number. From The Washington Post:

Economy added 74,000 jobs in weak December report; jobless rate down to 6.7%
By Ylan Q. Mui, Updated: Friday, January 10, 11:56 AM

The U.S. economy added a meager 74,000 jobs in December, according to government data released Friday morning, the latest stumble in the nation’s sputtering recovery from recession.

The Labor Department also reported the unemployment rate dropped to 6.7 percent as the workforce shrunk once again — reversing the previous month’s gains. Driving the decline was the number of people who gave up looking for work, possibly deterred by a combination of cold weather, the holiday season and the expiration of long-term unemployment benefits.

But some economists say the weak results, which will be revised several times, do not reflect the underlying strength of the recovery. Estimates of job growth for October and November were revised upward, and other data show the economy has actually gained momentum. Many analysts have brightened their forecasts for the year.

“It’s disappointing, not a disaster,” said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial. “It doesn’t change the picture yet. We need to see more than one month.”

More at the link.  Further down were two impo0rtant paragraphs:

The large number of people who have been out of a job for six months or more continues to cast a shadow over the labor market. There were nearly 4 million long-term jobless in December, virtually unchanged from the previous month. They account for more than one-third of the country’s unemployed workers — down from the post-recession peak but still higher than at any time in the past 60 years.

Lawmakers are debating whether to reinstate unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless after they lapsed at the end of December. Senate Republicans have said they are open to continuing the benefits for three months as long as the $6.4 billion cost is offset through budget cuts. Senate Democrats have proposed a plan to extend benefits to mid-November.

Nor was the Post the only liberal source to ignore the simplistic “big” number. From The New York Times:

U.S. Economy Added Only 74,000 Jobs in December
By Nelson D Schwartz | JAN. 10, 2014

Defying hopes that the economy was finally gaining momentum, the government reported Friday that employers added jobs last month at the slowest pace in three years, although some experts cautioned that wintry weather in many parts of the country may have skewed the data.

The latest figures were a reversal from healthier monthly payroll gains in the fall that had convinced many economists – as well as policy makers at the Federal Reserve – that the labor market was on a more solid footing. In December, employers added just 74,000 jobs, the Labor Department said, well below the 200,000 gain many economists had been looking for.

The unemployment rate did fall to 6.7 percent from 7 percent in November, the lowest since Nov. 2008. But that was largely because of people dropping out of the work force rather than finding jobs.

Economists said that weather exaggerated the weakness in the report. But they also cautioned that other indicators, like average hourly earnings and the labor participation rate, were hardly encouraging.

As usual, more at the original. It’s so bad that even the Lost Kos couldn’t somehow give the Democrats some credit:

Government reports just 74,000 new jobs in December, but drop-outs push unemployment rate to 6.7%
by Meteor Blades

In a highly surprising monthly job report, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced Friday that the private-sector added a seasonally adjusted 87,000 new jobs in December and government shed 13,000 jobs for a total of 74,000. That’s the lowest level since January 2011 and more than 120,000 below the consensus of economists and other analysts queried earlier this week. It was also the smallest number of jobs created in December since 2009. The official unemployment rate—which BLS calls U3 and calculates in a separate survey—fell to 6.7 percent. That anomalous drop was due to a fall of 347,000 in the civilian labor force.

The seasonally adjusted 203,000 job gain the BLS reported for November was revised to 241,000. The October figures were unrevised at 200,000.

The surprising level of job growth is likely to have the experts in a quandary, especially given that Automated Data Processing on Wednesday had reported a gain of 238,000 private-sector jobs for December.

One thing for certain, the BLS report puts a crimp in the steady drumbeat of the assessments that the economy is finally set to grow substantially in 2014 after 54 months of tepid growth since the Great Recession officially ended. For millions of jobless Americans, or those who can’t find full-time work, that official assessment is a joke.

The bureau makes several alternative calculations—the key one labeled U6—to estimate how many workers have given up looking for up to 12 months but still want one, as well as those Americans working part-time even though they want full-time jobs—the underemployed. U6 held steady at 13.1 percent in December. U6 does not include workers who have not looked for a job for more than a year. Those workers are no longer considered part of the labor force even if they still want jobs.

The December drop in the civilian labor force came after a rise of 455,000 in November. The employment-population ratio remained steady at 58.6 percent. The labor force participation rate fell from 63 percent to 62.8 percent.

The number of officially unemployed Americans is now 10.4 million. That tally leaves out millions of discouraged workers who have given up looking for employment. The number of long-term unemployed, those who have been out of work for 27 weeks or more, fell to 3.9 million. They make up 37.7 percent of the total unemployed.

When even the sycophants at the Daily Kos call the government reports a joke, that means that they really are a joke! Think Progress was no more optimistic.

Of course, the liberal outlets can afford to get closer to the truth, now that President Obama has been safely re-elected.

The weather during December is being blamed by some as being at least partially responsible for these numbers, and that’s the spin the Obama Administration is putting on it. But the real problem is that businessmen and entrepreneurs believe that the Administration is simply hostile to business and its needs, except for the largest corporations. The largest businesses already provided health insurance to their employees, so the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act not only didn’t hurt them,1 but could actually help them in cases in which they were competing with smaller companies. Additional regulations hurt the larger companies less, because they have more resources to deal with them, while being more of a burden on smaller companies trying to compete with them.

Related Articles:


  1. It may have caused their insurance costs to rise, but it caused their competitors’ insurance costs to rise as well, meaning that they can pass on those increased costs in the prices they charge for their products without seeing a competitive disadvantage.