Too Much Money Going Somewhere

As if there wasn't enough proof already, a recent study has identified the fifteen richest counties in the USA. But, what do I think this is evidence of proving?

Okay, think very hard.

Where does the average citizen send a lot of its money? Sure, there is the grocery store and the gas station. But, those are typically local entities. So, where do you think large numbers of people, all of them in fact, might send a lot of their money?

Bingo! Washington, DC--that grand recipient of not only trillions of dollars of taxpayer money every year, but over a trillion additional dollars of money borrowed from the Chinese and our grandchildren each year is surrounded by ten of the fifteen richest counties in the United States surround Washington DC.

We send trillions of dollars every year to Washington so that lawyers, lobbyists, special interests, and crony capitalists can fight over it like Michelle Obama would a fine rack of ribs.

Barack Obama laments that the rich are getting richer, but I wonder how much he worries about them becoming more concentrated?

In Utopia No One Gets Offended

This is simply a glimpse at what the future of America will become if modern planners are allowed to control those around them with their vision of a society in which no one can become offended.



An unacceptable mural today is tomorrow's thought crime.

h/t Protein Wisdom

Was it Hilary Rosen, Hilary Rosen, or Hilary Rosen?

Don't ask White House Press Secretary Jay Carney because he cannot be sure which of the three Hilary Rosens that he knows might be the one that visited the President or high level staff at least 36 times at the White House.

For all that he knows, each of the three Hilary Rosens with whom he is familiar might have visited the White House a dozen times.

“I haven’t seen the records. I don’t know that Hillary Rosen– I know three personally, women named Hillary Rosen,” Carney said. “So I‘m not sure that those represent the person we’re talking about necessarily.”

Hilary Rosen is a leftist Democrat strategist, CNN contributor, and White House public relations expert who accused Ann Romney of "never having worked a day in her life."

Rosen's foray into the Republican's War On Womyn farce has roundly backfired while also helping to expose yet another layer of the left's contempt for anything Republican. Sarah Palin was attacked for being a working mom. She couldn't be bothered to stay at home with her children. Michelle Bachmann was an opportunist seeking to use her foster children as props for higher political office. Laura Bush was, like Ann Romney, a non-worker...that was until it was pointed out that Mrs. Bush had spent several years teaching.

Whichever Hilary it was that went to the White House all those times to work on political strategy, it might be time for her to become a bit more self-reflective before she charges onto the battle field of words. If the tables were turned using Rosen's reasoning, one could question Ms. Rosen's ability to comment on mothering because she has a job while her children are home. Isn't it Ms. Romney's lack of a job that, according to Rosen, disqualifies her from commenting on anything having to do with balancing a budget or worrying about economics?

When will this end? One might also question Michelle Obama's standing in talking about nutrition--when did she become a dietician? For that matter, when did Barack Obama ever create a job?

That is the wonderful thing about America--we can all pretty much say whatever we want to say. Lies are easily exposed while integrity is gathered to those who are proven right.

I'm not certain where that leaves any one of the Hilary Rosens--at least one of whom happens to be gainfully employed as a duly qualified public relations expert while also happening to suck at her job.

Scandal at the Secret Service

These are odd times.

Why, just a few short years ago it was accepted among Democrats that an orally beloved President could expect to get himself a clandestine hummer in the Oval Office while being briefed on foreign policy. If George Costanza could have sex on the desk at his job, why couldn't our Commander in Chief? Any follow up investigation and questions pertaining to it had to be "all about sex" and not about Paula Jones' legal rights or little foreign countries that may or may not have possessed chemical or biological weapons. We know this because Charlie Rangle said so.

The problems with the moral frailty of a president are myriad. The acts themself can become the vector of foreign espionage (as has been speculated with the Kennedy administration,) and the acts can wreak terrible damage onto a first family. Perhaps worst of all, at least in terms of reputation, the office itself can be cheapened to the point of disrepect at all levels.

I don't blame anyone but the involved secret service agents for the acts that have ultimately cost them their jobs--we should expect people who are the highest called to have the highest calling. Yet, what realistically can be expected of those who serve the presidential office when a short term review finds the office itself sullied by history of blue dresses, lies about events exposed by blue dresses, and coordinated attacks upon those who were brave enough to refer to blue dresses?

We've come a long way. Time to backtrack.

Now Who Does A Conservative Vote For?

Santorum out.

The Republican still in? Well...

the only thing better than offering the American people a choice between a candidate who supports socialized medicine, TARP, federal minimum wage increases tied to inflation, cap-and-trade, green energy boondoggles, bureaucratic precedence over religious conscience, federal government “stimulus” programs, rising gas prices as a matter of necessity, the wisdom of an individual mandate, and the anti-Reagan sentiment embodied by all big government types who consider a collaboration with Ted Kennedy a great social and political achievement, and one who doesn’t, is offering them no choice at all while insisting that they actually have one.

So now we will be blessed with a truly "electable" GOP candidate who has espoused myriad beliefs in exactly the same big-government solutions as the candidate that we have been told must be defeated!

My last horse in this race has pulled up lame. Palin. Rubio. Bachmann. Cain. Perry. Santorum.

Thank you GOP.

h/t Protein Wisdom

Because it Worked So Well in Zimbabwe

Ken at Popehat pokes fun at Marion Berry and the "certain" academics and theoreticians who find themselves, at times, completely dismissive of cretins such as Marion Berry.

What this country needs is a lecture on race

The Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident is developing into national ugliness. We've had a killed minor, a contract taken out on the killer, mobs formed, the media exposed for its advocacy, allegedly committed retaliatory murders, allegedly committed retaliatory murder retaliation, a post-racial president stirring the racial pot, and perhaps a hot summer of discontent--all before the full facts of the case have ever been released.

This all got me thinking about race relations in this country and how Barack Obama was lifted up by his worshipers as being the man who could help heal all these wounds. One of his first moves as president was to nominate career race baiter Eric Holder as his Attorney General who lamented early on that America was afraid to have a conversation on race.

Well, perhaps Eric Holder was correct all along, though the reasons behind this fear is not quite as misunderstood as it was before Obama's coronation.

It is leftist ideologues like Holder himself that make having a conversation on race the firefight that it is. You see, Holder, as with many Obama minions, has waged a war on free speech in this country that is beginning to bear its bitter fruit. It has done so by redefining the meaning of language itself, molding words, co-opting contexts, and by helping to lift the burden of language altogether from the person who utters a comment onto the person who hears the comment.

Along with this shift of responsibility of the meaning of words from the speaker to the interpreter, the person who was so unfortunate as to have engaged in the conversation must then allow his words to be reinterpreted, stretched, morphed, reconstituted, adapted, and changed into a new meaning by which the interpreter himself is then allowed to vilify and castigate the speaker for a cynical interpretation that is the sole creation of the interpreter.

Well, who wouldn't be afraid to jump into a controversial topic if he has no control over the words he has spoken?

We should congratulate Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, among others, for the difficulties we will forever experience should we ever be dumb enough to have a conversation about race in this country.

These conversations, supposedly pined for by Holder, aren't intended to be conversations in the first place. Holder has no large desire to discuss the frailties of our fractured culture and what we can do to break down divides as we all go about our daily lives. What Holder has in mind is for me to sit down and shut up and accept my white guilt and the responsibilities that come with it--or I can cling to my contrary opinions which should be kept to myself anyway because, well, racist!

America will remain largely afraid of this so-called conversation until it can be had honestly and openly. Until then it will simply be a lecture.