Crowd estimates have put attendance as high as 80 people for Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor rally in Washington, D.C., this past weekend. Of those 80 people, 78.4 of them were white. It’s obviously because Glenn Beck followers hate black people almost as much as they hate the gays.

The Washington Post claims an overwhelmingly white crowd. The Huffington Post says, “The rally drew white people like grilled cheese to white bread.” Salon referenced the overwhelmingly white crowd of thousands having to strain to hear Beck because they couldn’t get in range of the massive speakers. Interesting that they couldn’t get closer to the speakers in the sparse crowd.

In other news, elementary schools across the nation welcomed back thousands of people this week, the overwhelming majority of whom were children.

Some things are just not newsworthy. It’s not exactly news that the majority of the Restoring Honor attendees were white, because the majority of Americans are white. Besides that, I fail to see what the skin color of the participants has to do with the price of loans from China.

Yet the mainstream and liberal media delight in reporting to us that Glenn Beck supporters are, more often than not, white. Why is this news? They might as well report that some house in Oklahoma didn’t burn down today or Paris Hilton is kind of slutty. Common, everyday facts and occurrences don’t deserve a headline.

This just in! Being predominately attended by white people, the Glenn Beck rally was an accurate racial representation of United States citizens. No wonder MSNBC’s ratings are so low.

If reporters and commentators want to report on rallies and race, I’d suggest looking into Al Sharpton’sReclaim the Dream march. Held across town from the Beck rally, Sharpton’s event was also overly monochromatic. Here’s a potential headline: Sharpton Harps on Identity Politics to a Predominately Black Crowd.

And they say Glenn Beck is the racist.

Cross Posted at The Stir

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

July 2010 saw the slowest pace of new home sales since 1963. In the same month, Congress extended unemployment benefits for a fourth time, adding another $34 billion to the deficit to help out 2.5 non-working Americans.

The Associated Press says, “High unemployment, slow job growth, and tight credit have kept people from buying homes.” In other words, a bad economy is scaring people away from purchasing new homes.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what’s wrong with our economy. It just takes a conservative.

When Mr. Obama went to Washington, he promised a lot of people a lot of things. He was going to pay their mortgages! He was going to pay their gas bills! He might as well have promised everyone a unicorn ride over a double rainbow and fat-free ice cream that actually tastes good.

The government doesn’t work that way. The government can’t take care of you; only other people can take care of you. The 99 weeks of unemployment Joe Schmoe is entitled to? Someone is paying that. Someone is paying for him to not work, instead of using that money to hire someone who will work.

Since the employer is busy paying someone to not work instead of paying someone to work, no goods or services are produced or rendered. No goods or services, no sales. No sales, no money. The employer goes out of business, and the few employees that were left working there are now out of work. But don’t worry about them; they’ll get unemployment checks from the government. To pay for them, Uncle Sam is going to raise taxes on the companies left standing. And then … those companies might have to downsize to cover the costs on the new taxes. It’s a vicious cycle.

New home sales are down because people are afraid to make such large purchases in times of economic uncertainty. We’re living in economic uncertainty because no one knows what new mandate or regulation is going to pass into law next. The tax burden of these entitlement laws falls on employers, who pass it along to their employees and consumers in the form of layoffs and higher prices.

Free health care? Ninety-nine weeks of unemployment benefits?

Sure. At the expense of the American Dream: A decent job and a beautiful new home.

Cross Posted at The Stir

Despite what Liberals will have you believe, this right-wing activist, writer, and podcaster is not raking in the dough. I don’t even make enough money to pay for childcare, which means that this article is being written while two little girls climb me like blonde mountain goats.

I’ve been involved in tea parties; I’ve handed out fliers, I’ve held signs, and I’ve even spoken at them. I’m still waiting for that check from the supposedly well-funded tea party leaders.

I’ll let you in on a secret: There is no “leader” of the tea party movement. Tea parties were born out of the frustration felt by everyday Americans, who simply didn’t want to see their hard-earned dollars go to cocaine-snorting monkeys, let alone to pay for other people’s health insurance.

True tea parties — community protests — are local groups of people coming together in public places to peacefully show their displeasure over how our elected and appointed officials are representing us. What a gorgeous American display of first amendment rights.Hillary Clinton said it best when she threw her support behind citizens that dared to protest their government:

“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic and we should stand up and say, ‘We are America and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!’”

So I get irritated when The New Yorker runs a piece on the Koch brothers titled “Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.”

I get even more irritated when The Huffington Post links to the article with the headline: Charles Koch & David Koch, Billionaire Brothers, Bankroll Tea Party.

I hate to break it to the liberal rags, but no one is waging a war on Obama, and no one is bankrolling the tea party. Opposing someone’s policies and doing your best to block them does not amount to war, and just because some rich guys support the same cause as a grassroots movement, it doesn’t mean they’re bankrolling it.

If these uppity liberal journalists continue to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the rapid wave of conservatism overtaking the country is bankrolled by a couple of billionaires, I’d encourage them to look up George Soros.

After all, only Tila Tequila can have it both ways.

Cross Posted at The Stir

LA Times blogger Andrew Malcolm joins me this week, plus cocktail with Mike G.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Two of the world’s richest men have created the “Giving Pledge.”Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, both multi-billionaires, have asked the world’s wealthiest families and individuals to give at least half their fortunes to charity.

At least 40 mega-wealthy families have taken the pledge so far, to the collective tune of $125 billion.

I am a big fan of private charity, especially in opposition to public welfare. Aside from being able to choose where I’d like my money to go, I like to make sure that more of my dollar actually gets to those in need. Around 70% of money designated for government welfare programs is never delivered to those in need — instead it’s lost in overhead and bureaucracy. Contrast that to the 90% of charities that make sure 65% of incoming dollars are given to those in need, and it’s hard to prefer welfare to charity.

Given my personal penchant to prefer charity to welfare, part of me really wants to applaud Gates and Buffet in their effort to encourage others to give more. However, the free-market, personal-responsibility girl in me balks at the idea.

I think it’s great that people with more money than I could spend in a month at Nordstrom are pitching in financially to help those less fortunate than themselves. I don’t even care if they do it to get their name on the side of a hospital. Heck, if you’ve earned enough money to be a big enough donor to get your name on something, then more power to you.

Read More

What is it with teachers’ unions these days? In Milwaukee, they want their Viagra. In Los Angeles, they don’t want to be held accountable. A.J. Duffy, the president of United Teachers Los Angeles, has been hard at work organizing a boycott of the L.A. Times after the paper dared to publish a series of articles focusing onteacher effectiveness.

The articles used past and present student test scores to evaluate each teacher’s effectiveness in the classroom. The results (shockingly) showed discrepancies among the teachers in the district, many even in the same schools.

Mr. Duffy has called for a boycott of the Times because it’s “leading people in a dangerous direction, making it seem like you can judge the quality of a teacher by … a test.”

Let me get this straight — it’s dangerous to judge someone’s competence by testing? I hate to break it to Mr. Duffy, but life is a series of tests, and the results are positive or negative based on how well you perform. If you fail biology, you have to take summer school. If you fail your driver’s test, you don’t get to drive. If you fail to set the oven timer, everyone will have dry chicken and burnt potatoes for dinner.

Read More

Evan Sayet and John Hawkins join me this week.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Because my first job is Mama.

Because we spent hours and hours at the beach this week.

Because going to the beach with kids is not, I repeat not, anything like a day at the beach.

Because the memories they’re making will last a lifetime.

Because this picture is pure awesomeness.

Just Because.

Thing 2 and her sandy toes

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, ”I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, okay. Do I need to say more?”

Well, I don’t know how anyone can vote based on identity politics. No one should vote for one party or another because they’re Mexican, black, female, or a circus carnie.

I’m not a Republican because I’m a blonde California mom that drinks too much Coke Zero. To say that is to say that Republicans treat my kind of people and other minorities differently than they treat other groups.

The fact is that every single person in the United States is a minority, and impossible to fit into a little box. Statistically speaking, I’m young and a woman, so I should vote Democrat. On the other hand, I’m pro-life and a homeowner, so I should vote Republican.

Democrats love women, but hate anyone against abortion. Democrats say they want kids to get a great education, but then deny the access to it by not allowing school vouchers. How is one supposed to align themselves with a party based on identity politics, when every person is a unique individual made up of a little of this and a little of that?

Republicans don’t play identity politics because they don’t need to. The truth is, Republican Party values are better for everyone, not just select groups of people.

Read More