Thereby refuting this ridiculous study with junk yard methodology.

“There’s no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

“Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood,” he said.

The only problem for the dunderhead that wrote this is that racism is far more prevalent among liberals than conservatives, and that’s simply a fact.

• 0 Comments

You have to wonder why those who foam at the mouth over defending Newt Gingrich gloss over the fact that he’s out attacking being financially successful, the hallmark of conservative values. How in the hell is that conservative?

As you might know I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not satisfied with any of the candidates. Nevertheless unless a greater choice comes forward the choice will be either Gingrich or Romney.

Neither Gingrich or Romney are core conservative at their heart. Gingrich is by all accounts of his record conservative at some points, opportunistic at others. Romney we all know has a democrat core which he claims has changed over the years.

But the arguments by Gingrich in last night’s debate attacking Romney’s wealth and success cannot come from the heart of a conservative. They are the argument of a liberal class warfare Gingrich, the same argument we see from Barack Obama.

Romney nailed Gingrich last night in the debate. Gingrich came off confused and petty, and he lost the night and likely the Florida primary.

“With the latest polls suggesting that Gingrich’s momentum in Florida ebbing, Newt needed a strong performance at the final debate before voters cast their ballots next Tuesday. He didn’t have one.

Gingrich’s Achilles heel is his lack of discipline and follow-through. The fired up and aggressive Newt we saw on the campaign trail this week was not on the stage tonight. In his place was a passive and hesitant candidate. Even his attempt at turning the audience against the moderator didn’t work.

“This is a nonsense question,” Gingrich told Blitzer when the moderator asked whether Romney had been transparent enough in releasing his tax returns. “‘He lives in a world of Swiss bank and Cayman Island bank accounts,’ I didn’t say that. You did,” Blitzer said confronting him with his own words. Again, Gingrich wouldn’t bite, and it fell to Romney to attack.

“Wouldn’t it be nice if people didn’t make accusations somewhere else that they weren’t willing to defend here?” the former Massachusetts governor said referring to his rival.

Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, florida

• 0 Comments

Journalism 101, check, verify your facts. Reuters forgot that in the zeal to nail Marco Rubio with a bull crap story.

“Reuters is out with a tough story on Sen. Marco Rubio today, arguing that, the senator “has had significant financial problems that could keep him from passing any vetting process as a potential vice presidential choice…”

Unfortunately, it appears many of the facts are either wrong or exaggerated.

By my count, there were at least 7 errors or exaggerations:

1. “Rubio also voted against Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s Supreme Court nominee who is of Puerto Rican descent…”

(Rubio wasn’t even in the senate then.)

2. “He soon had [his house] appraised for $735,000 and took out a second mortgage for $135,000.”

(Rubio did not take out a second mortgage. He took out a home equity line, which is a line of credit secured by the value of the home.)

3. “In 2008, despite earning a declared $400,000 – including his $300,000 salary from the Miami law firm Broad and Cassel – Rubio failed to make a payment on his home for several months”

(Rubio never failed to make payments on his mortgage on his home. He did miss a payment on a second house that he co-owns in Tallahassee because of miscommunication with the bank and the other owner; but it was remedied immediately and was not caused by any financial problems.)

4. “During the same period he did not make payments on a $100,000-plus student loan from his days at the University of Miami, the disclosures said.”

(As far as I can tell, this is simply untrue. He has never missed a payment on his student loans.)

5. “He frequently had used his party credit card for personal use, and later reimbursed the party for about $16,000.”

(Rubio paid American Express directly. The party never paid any expenses, and therefore there was no need to reimburse them.)

6. “Before joining the Senate last year, he was caught up in an Internal Revenue Service investigation of the Florida Republican Party’s use of party-issued credit cards.”

(Rubio’s office tells me they have never been contacted about an IRS investigation.)

7 “Rubio owes far more on his $384,000 Miami home than it is worth, and at times has had difficulty paying his mortgage”

(Senator Rubio has never missed a payment on his Miami home.)

Reuters has issued 5 corrections on the story to this point, no word on the last two. It might be a good idea to pull the whole thing, issue an apology and fire the reporter.

Marco Rubio

• 0 Comments

Yeah I know, Tom Colburn doesn’t know what he’s talking about. This excerpt from Colburn’s book Breach of Trust reveals even more evidence to the contrary of what Newt’s Defenders say he is.

“Leadership said the increase was necessary to give Dan Burton (R-Indiana), chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, the extra money he needed to continue his investigation into the White House’s campaign abuses. They also talked about how important oversight is and how the little we spend on oversight saves the taxpayers billions. This argument wasn’t terribly persuasive. First, oversight is a good investment only if the majority party has the political will to cut waste from the budget, which we weren’t doing. Second we knew the real need that triggered this spending binge had more to do with partisan politics than doing the hard work of scouring federal agencies for fraud and waste. Gingrich was convinced he could make political hay out of someone else’s miscues and became focused on Clinton rather than the job we promised the country we would do. Burton’s investigation into the White House campaign abuses was an appropriate, necessary, and essential function of his committee. Yet it was the right policy that was being pursued for the wrong reasons. Leadership was so obsessed with the political dimension of Burton’s investigation they lacked the focus and discipline to make an exception to increase spending for Burton alone while slamming the vault door on other chairmen . . .

The rule failed 210 to 213 . . . A few minutes later, the whip’s office announced a mandatory meeting of the conference at 7 p.m. A few of us met in [Lindsey] Graham’s office before the meeting to prepare ourselves for what we expected to be the ultimate woodshed experience. After a short pep rally, we walked over to HC-5, the room where Republicans and Democrats hold their caucuses.

When we filed in, it was immediately obvious that Newt Gingrich was furious. The meeting began with a roll call, and Gingrich said every Republican would be meeting in HC-5 in the basement of the Capitol even if he had to send the sergeant at arms — the police — to track members down…

When Gingrich said, “The eleven geniuses who thought they knew more than the rest of the Congress are going to come up and explain their votes,” someone leaned over to [then-Rep.] Mark Sanford and said, “I have never heard of anyone having to explain their vote.” Gingrich continued, “Those of you who had planned to go to John Kasich’s wedding on Saturday are not going. No one is going anywhere until we get the votes we need to pass this rule.”

. . . [Steve] Largent, an NFL Hall of Famer, went straight to the podium after [Dick] Armey finished speaking. A surprised Boehner recognized him. “Mr. Speaker,” Largent said calmly and directly to Gingrich who was no more than ten feet away, “I am not intimidated. I have been in rooms much smaller than this one when I was on the opposite side of teammates during a player’s strike against the NFL. The guys in those rooms weighed 280, 320 pounds and not only wanted to kill me, if they had gotten hold of me they probably could have. This isn’t the case here tonight. More seriously, I am not intimidated because I feel good about this vote and the principles behind it . . . if, as a matter of conscience, I believe a vote is in the best interest of the American taxpayer I represent back home, well, then I just have to vote that way.” . . .

“Many of us were elected in 1994, and before that election we signed a document called the Contract with America. One of its pledges was to cut Washington committee funding by one third. We kept our word and did just that. Yet this proposal would reverse that cut. We owe it to those same folks to whom we pledged our word to either keep it, or go back to them and say, we’re new to the business of government. We cut too much and need to change our committee staffing numbers. Whatever we do, we shouldn’t do what was proposed today, which typified the Washington way of doing business so many came here to change — take credit for cutting by a third and then below the radar screen quietly add back the spending.” . . .

Then I got up and said, “I’m just a doctor from Oklahoma. I admit I’m not much of a politician, but I know the difference between right and wrong. When you tell people you’re going to lead by example, then turn around and increase our own budgets, but ask them to make cuts, you lose all credibility. Maybe I don’t belong in the Republican conference, Mr. Speaker.”

Every one of the eleven members who voted against the rule said something and no one backed down or apologized for their vote. We believed we were doing the right thing, leaving no place for apologies. Gingrich’s tactic backfired. He thought he could embarrass and intimidate us, but not one person was intimidated . . .

The event exposed a more disturbing trend that we all understood but weren’t ready to accept: the Republican “team” was no longer being held together by principles but by careerism and the desire for power for its own sake . . . Gingrich’s vitriolic response to us bringing down the rule for the bill confirmed to us he was willing to trade our principles for short term political advantage over the Democrats.”

Newt Gingrich

• 0 Comments

Not the first time he insulted Indians.

Like I said, not the first time. Remember this?

Just some of that elitist liberal white guy humor.

• 0 Comments