Two-faced Bezos

Jeff Bezos is a lying dog-faced pony soldier.

Lib duplicity - yet again

This should come as a shock to no one, liberals will dox a conservative (and also deny doing it), but God forbid it happens to them.  Then it's a capital crime.

Washington Post "journalist" Taylor Lorenz is the latest example of it:

 

Washington Post "cleared" in the Covington case

Student Nicholas Sandman has lost his libel suit against the Washington Post.  But this is only the first round.

Washington Post slanders Steve Bannon for supposed flip flop

In an article today, Washington Post highlights Steve Bannon's disavowal of white supremacists in a seemingly impromptu interview with progressive magazine The American Prospect. In the article, well below the topics of China and North Korea, came this;

“Ethno-nationalism — it’s losers. It’s a fringe element,” Bannon told the magazine. “I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, eh, help crush it more.”

“These guys are a collection of clowns,” he added.

The remarks were startling coming from Bannon, who spent more than four years running the far-right website Breitbart News before he was tapped to join Trump’s campaign.

Bannon, the site’s former executive chair, has called the Breitbart “a platform of the alt-right.”

The alt-right, by some definitions, is a small, deeply conservative movement that seeks a whites-only state. It was his strategy to use the site to channel white supremacist support for Trump and provide a mouthpiece for his populist message during the 2016 election, a move that helped secure him a senior role in the administration.

Bannon states exactly how he, and most conservatives feel about white supremacists. It's  not a flip flop, it's positionally consistent.  It's the last paragraph above that irks. They have taken the alt-right definition (they even 'say by some definitions') that suits their narrative. Breitbart has never espoused a whites-only state. To be clear - the alt-right is not equal to white supremacists. That is outright slander. Bannon is exactly correct - it's a fringe element and the media has played it up to make it seem that it's only racists who support Republicans. In doing so they have completely alienated half the country who mostly vote conservative values for economic or value or social sorts of reasons. It's a self defeating approach for the left and for the country.

So it's not only Bannon that gets slandered, it's half the country's voters. But Bannon is the focal point of the article and the Washington Post article and it's Bannon who should take the WaPo to task and set the record straight on the alt-right label on behalf of everyone who has been slandered. 

Just as there are communists in the alt-Left, there are white supremacists in the alt-right (and possibly the alt-Left too). More importantly what many on the right would consider the alt-right are conservatives who do not espouse the go-along-to-get-along, country club, establishment Republican niceties. They prefer to fight back and are not afraid to get rough and tumble rather than sit back and take it. It's Bannon or The Rebel, or Breitbart or Milo Yiannopolis rather than Mitch McConnell or Charles Krauthammer or even razor sharp Ben Shapiro (some of whom still have our admiration and respect). That's the real alt-right, not white-supremacists or Neanderthals. But the left and the media will not relent on their narrative. In the end they are likely doing themselves a disservice, but only time will tell. Meanwhile stories with slants like this one need to be called out for what they are - misleading at a minimum or possibly even slander.

WaPo: Panic at the Propagandists' Place

The liberal pulse of Washington D.C., the Washington Post is seemingly aghast and panicked at their own headline about president Trump looking to rollback federal government employment, calling it a contraction.

President Trump’s budget proposal this week would shake the federal government to its core if enacted, culling back numerous programs and expediting a historic contraction of the federal workforce.

This would be the first time the government has executed cuts of this magnitude — and all at once — since the drawdown following World War II, economists and budget analysts said.

The spending budget Trump is set to release Thursday will offer the clearest snapshot of his vision for the size and role of government.

I would have no problem with those paragraphs if they changed just one word.  If I could fix it for you, I would change the word contraction to correction, because that's what it is. Now I am really looking forward to the president's budget.   

Let me drill down on one aspect of this.

If you look at the average number of federal employees per 1000 Americans it went from approximately 5.4 in 2006 to 5.7 in 2015 (most of it coming in 2009 as a result of the abysmal stimulus package no doubt), an increase of 5.6% in a very short period of time.  This despite the fact that the population has supposedly grown by roughly 22.8 million people during the same period (roughly 7% growth in population and yet the number of federal employees has grown enough to cover that plus 5.6%).  Interestingly, population growth was last measured in the census of 2010, when the population was 309 million.  Growth since then is only a Census Bureau projection since the census only takes place once per decade.  The numbers since then seem fairly flat in terms of year over year growth rate.  So population has grown but the number of federal employees per 1000 Americans has grown at a rate 5.6% faster than that.

Whether you feel like you are getting 5.6% better or more service is a moot point.  After all, in business they talk about productivity growth. Between 2007 and 2016 productivity growth has averaged 1.1% per year. Between If government employees got better at the rate of productivity between 2000 & 2007 it was double that rate. But let's say for the sake of argument that they got better by 1.1% per year. Between 2006 and 2015 that would mean that federal employees got 11% more productive. Yet the government felt the need to expand the workforce  by 5.6%.  Either the government employees only grew in productivity by say half the national rate, or else the government has been padding the workforce.  What other conclusion can be drawn?  And in either case, there's an inefficiency now.

WaPo - Bush is not helping himself.

Um, what did I just say this morning at 3 a.m.? Jeb Bush is the jerk, not Trump.  As the Washington Post points out, Jeb Bush calling Trump a jerk is not helping Jeb Bush.

In the past week, Bush has called Trump a “jerk” who is “not serious” and is running a “chaos campaign.” The former Florida governor has also run ads calling Trump “unhinged” and also torn into the front-runner for praising the leadership qualities of Russian President Vladi­mir Putin and for talking about deporting Latinos and barring Muslims.

...“I’ll continue to call Trump out for his outrageous comments & naive ‘foreign policy.’ Even if no one else will,” Bush tweeted Monday.

Keep it up Jeb. You keep alienating those within your party by violating Reagan's 11th Commandment. Your problem is not your last name, it's your attitude. You continue to win over no one with your attacks which come across as vindictive and petty. So why is it not that way for Trump when he counter-punches? Two reasons:

(1) he's been the front runner and is primarily perceived as responding in kind - at least in your case. So for him it's forgivable as a necessary response. And,

(2) Trump's always been a loudmouth boor. It's expected of him. You have not been, so you being negative and insulting comes across as revealing your true colors which you prefer to keep hidden, but are now letting slip out, because of your frustration.

Not helping. But feel free to keep it up.

How the Washington Post sees the GOP wave of victories yesterday is, unsurprising

The Washington Post warns the GOP, don't assume you actually won, really:

But, but, but: Turnout was VERY low across the country. Republicans could over interpret the results at their own peril. The presidential election, exactly one year way, will have dramatically larger and more diverse turnout, which works against the GOP. Serious structural problems persist: the Grand Old Party is still too white, too male and too old. Hillary Clinton’s political director, Amanda Renteria, tweeted a photo of a “Vote Here” sign overnight and wrote: “Wish more people did this today.”

Another landslide, another fleet of excuses. There's no doubt the GOP have a tougher row to hoe during a presidential cycle. But that's less true if there isn't charisma at the top of the Democratic ticket (i.e. Bill Clinton or Obama, not Hillary).

The old saw about too white, too male is garbage.  Compare the Democratic nominees to the Republicans.  The GOP has as many women candidates, more Hispanic and African American candidates, more outsiders and more youthful candidates. 

Hopefully Democrats take solace in the fact that traditionally, presidential cycles favor them, and they rest on their laurels, while the GOP takes heed. The GOP always needs to work harder - fair weather or foul weather - than the Democrats to get the same results. So they should do just that.

Elizabeth Warren - rock star (not).

Earlier I posted about Hillary Clinton losing here cache with the progressive left - and that includes the Huffington Post, which has somehow successfully managed to pass itself off as the being in the center of the political spectrum.  As proof, take a look at this other recent post in the Huffington Post with the headline "Rock Star Elizabeth Warren".

The story links to the original Washington Post article which is somewhat more muted in it's assessment, though not entirely unfavorable:

SHEPHERDSTOWN, W.Va. — Populist Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) got a rock-star reception during a standing-room-only campaign rally here Monday, as hundreds of liberal activists cheered her broadsides against corporate interests and voiced hopes that her presence might shift the political winds in an increasingly Republican state.

Here's a news flash for the progressive Huffington Post - 100s of supporters is not a Rock Star. A rally in an "increasingly Republican state" does not make her a Rock Star in that state. In short - she's not a rock star. Sorry. (But not really).

Leaker Snowden crossed a line

Prior to today, Edward Snowden who leaked a lot of details about the government's secret collection of vast amounts of electronic data of citizens without a warrant or probable cause, has crossed a line.  Previously it could be argued that he was putting liberty ahead of national security. After all, what does national security matter if the principles the nation was founded on and which were enshrined in the Constitution, aren't being protected? Is the nation worth defending at that point?

The debate over those questions has gone away, the debate over whether Snowden himself was a patriot or a traitor, just went south.  There's no doubt he's a traitor now, after this:

Via the decidedly liberal partisan Washington Post, it turns out, that Snowden has started to reveal details about U.S. spying on China.  That's aiding and abetting a rival (if not adversary).

HONG KONG — Edward Snowden, the self-confessed leaker of secret surveillance documents, claimed Wednesday that the United States has mounted massive hacking operations against hundreds of Chinese targets since 2009.

The former contractor, whose work at the National Security Agency gave him access to highly classified U.S. intelligence, made the assertions in an interview with the South China Morning Post. The newspaper said he showed it “unverified documents” describing an extensive U.S. campaign to obtain information from computers in Hong Kong and mainland China.

Despite the Washington Post's political bent, it's hard to argue that Snowden is clearly sharing information with the Chinese after that South China Morning Post interview.  Snowden is no hero, he's a traitor.  China does not need to know that we are spying on them (or how).  I mean, we know it, they know it but he has damaged both the details and the deniability for America.  But that does not one thing to undercut the information he has shared about government spying on its own citizens.  That is a scandal with serious implications and needs to be investigated, and explained and discussed with all of the seriousness it deserves.  Liberty versus security deserves a lot more than a two minute drill and not to be derailed by the actions of Snowden.  After all, the spying on citizens (the AP scandal, the Prism scandal and the Verizon scandal) and the enemies list (the IRS scandal), are reminiscent of a past president who faced impeachment and ultimately resigned.  

The real reason Democrats win

Some might eye this as a bit cynical, but the representative republic that is the United States of America has a corruption problem with it's voting system. It's not ACORN, though they represent a problem with the system. The real reason Democrats win, is because of the money.

From the Washington Post:

On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

This from the Yahoo/AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Taxpayers are increasingly exposed to losses and the government is more vulnerable to fraud under Obama administration initiatives that have created a federal bank bailout program of "unprecedented scope," a government report finds.

In a 250-page quarterly report to Congress, the rescue program's special inspector general concludes that a private-public partnership designed to rid financial institutions of their "toxic assets" is tilted in favor of private investors and creates "potential unfairness to the taxpayer."

And this from CQ Politics:

Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most
powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would "waddle into" the AIPAC case "if you think it'll make a difference," according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

...

In exchange for Harman's help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.

And from CBS:

Spring in Washington is "earmark season" - a busy time for Congressman John Murtha.

"That's my business," Murtha said. "I've been in it for 35 years."

As head of a powerful Defense committee, Murtha controls hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, reports CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. And he's not shy about directing money to those who give generously to his election campaigns.

CBS News has learned that this month, Murtha is steering new earmarks toward 10 companies that recently donated to his campaign. Murtha wants $8 million for Argon ST, a defense contractor whose CEO gave Murtha the maximum allowed by law - $2,400 by an individual. He's directing a $5 million earmark toward Advanced Acoustic Concepts, which also gave the max - $5,000 for a political action committee - to his campaign. In all, 10 recent Murtha donors are slated to receive $31 million in Murtha earmarks for 2010.

Taxpayer watchdogs may not like how it looks, but it's not against the law unless donations were required in order to receive the earmarks. Looking for evidence of wrongdoing, the FBI has recently raided offices of two other companies linked to Murtha.

...

Murtha wouldn't comment for our report. He did recently tell a home state newspaper that he's only trying to bring home the bacon.

[Hat tip for all links: Drudge]

So while ACORN is a problem, the real issue here is that Democrats know how to game the system. They get the big donors. They obviously play the behind the scenes game a little too well. It's corrupt, but it wins.

The problem for Republicans is that they still have the stench of complacent corruption on them. But in the current climate, absent a real grassroots change, it seems to be the way to stack the deck in favor of your side and it's stacked against the GOP. The choice for the GOP is to play the game to get the money to get the message out and win, while succumbing to corruption OR cleaning house and trying to win on principle from the ground up.

The path of least resistance is to join in on the cheat. That's the path politicians are prone to take. But if the Tea Parties continue to build momentum they may become the path of least resistance because it's cheaper to win on popularity than on back room deals.

The real reason Democrats win, is not the way that is good for the country. Maybe it's the Chicago way, but it's not the American Way. This may be the year of crossroads for the GOP. Let us hope they choose wisely.