Obama's Grandfather Was a Polygamist (Muslim style)
This entry is in honor of the headline and story from the "Anti-American, Despicble Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first rerence). That infamous AP headline/story was headlined: "Romney's Great Grandfather Was a Polygamist". That was during the nomination fight in this election.
Am I saying that the people of the despicable AP are religious bigots and smear merchants? Darn right I am. The people of the despicable AP are some of the worst religious bigots and smear merchants ever to exist on this planet. They can only sleep at night because they are not intelligent enough to have a conscience.
How can I say that, with my headline above? Well, my headline is not serious--true, but not serious. In other words, I am telling you that it is not relevant that Obama's grandfather (father's father) was a Muslim, and likely a polygamist. Certainly, a number of Obma's ancestors were polygamists. The people of the AP understand that perfectly well. So why did they not understand the same thing with regard to Romeny.
Can you read? I told you why. They are religious bigots and smear merchants. But they are only smear merchants against Repubicans/conservatives, and not against Obama. They are not anxious to look at Obma himself--much less his family. The sanctimonious, corrupt hypocrites of the AP are only interested in their own agenda. Plus, they don't like Mormons. Do they like Muslims? In a sense. Muslims are not Christians, and tend to be anti-American. The religious bigots of the AP are anti-Christian, and tend to be anti-American. Plus, the AP is for Obama, and would never talk about his Muslim heritage. Obama might throw them off his campaign plane (as he did to reporters who do not worship him in the last day or so).
You should get the point by now. If the despicable AP were not corrupt and hypocritical, you would see a headline like the above. Or--better, by far--you would not have seen the bigoted story about Romney's great grandfather.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Obama Praises Mussolini
Mussolini, for you fanatic followers of Obma out there (intellectually challenged), was the fascist ruler of Italy, and ally of Hitler, in World War II (and before). One of his famous accomplishments was that he got the trains to run on time.
Well, Barack "World" Obama was on the MSNBC arm of the Obama campaign last night, and he was asked whether he would--as President, which MSNBC has already declared inevitable--support a WPA pubic works program (socialist type program to put people to work in the Great Depression). Now someone should tell both MSNBC and Obma, along with a lot of other people, that we are not in a "depression". In fact, present indications are that we are in no more than a relatively mild recession (of which there have been at least 7 previous ones since World War II). We would probably not even be in that except fort he doom and gloom, and panic, of people (including Bernanke and Paulson) bad mouthing the economy and scaring people to death (deliberately). The economy shrank only .3% in the last quarter--almost level (despite the disruption of two hurricanes, and our overreaction to those).
Well, as usual, Obama "winked" at MSNBC and the socialist left by not exactly saying that he would support a new, Great Depression style WPA, but that he certainly thought that we needed to build our infrastructure. How was that for declaring: "You know I am a socialist, but don't pin me down to something like that." It gets better. I can't make this stuff up.
Obama did not stop at evading the WPA question, with his usual slick evasion. Instead, Obama went on to compare the U.S.A. unfavorably to China. Here is where Mussolini comes in. One example Obama used to suggest China is doing better than we are (a lie in any universe but the fantasy world of Obama and his supporterrs--just take a look sometime at the ordinary citizen in China) is the Mussolini example in support of fascism. China has high speed trains that presumably run on time. Obama went even further than that, saying "China is preparing to compete in the 21st Century, while we are not." Uh-huh.
Enter Joe Biden. Remember Virginia (if I recall correctly), where Biden was asked a question by an environmentalist: "How can the Obama campaign (which was, and is, running ads supporting "clean" coal) betray our environment by supportig coal plants, whether they use "clean" coal or not."
Biden gave a classic gaffe of an answer. He falsely denied that the Obama campaign was supporting coal. However, he went on. "You know", he said, "China is opening all of these coal plants, and using a lot of coal. I say let China do that. Let China ruin its environment with coal. We don't need it. Let China have it."
Is China really the example that Obama wants to use? Obama is supposedly at fanatic supporter of "global warming" That is a reason he has opposed drilling (if you believe that leftist deception that they now support "some" drilling, you are an idiot or dishonest yourself). China is totally ignoring "global warming", saying it is a problem for "rich" nations like the U.S. However, it is not just "greenhouse gases". China has so much actual pollution that athletes at the recent Olympics were worried about their health.
In short, how is China "preparing to compete"? Well, they are rationally ignoring the leftist/Obama fraud of "global warming". If we are going to compete with China, we have to do the same. Now they are also permitting pollution on a level we would not accept, and do not have to accept (with our technology). But they are not demonizing oil and coal, like Obama, "Dirty Oil" Reid, and "Total Failure" Pelosi.
That, of course, is all detail, although detail showing that Obama really is dong the same as praise of Mussolini when he talks about China building high speed trains. The basic thing that China is doing to "prepare to compete" in the 21st Century is importing capitalism. It is capitalism that China has turned to, after Communism failed.
This, more than anything, establishes Obama as a Marxist/socialist. He looks at China, and sees only the "good" the government is doing. He does not see that most of China's "progress" is the result of a conversion to capitalism.
It is one of the ironies of our time than China and Russia are converting to capitalism, because of the failure of Communism, just as we are being asked to elect a government so far left that it can be labeled as "Marxist/socialist".
That is why you will never hear Obama praise China for its conversion to capitalism. For Obama, all good things, like the trains running on time, come from the government.
Well, Barack "World" Obama was on the MSNBC arm of the Obama campaign last night, and he was asked whether he would--as President, which MSNBC has already declared inevitable--support a WPA pubic works program (socialist type program to put people to work in the Great Depression). Now someone should tell both MSNBC and Obma, along with a lot of other people, that we are not in a "depression". In fact, present indications are that we are in no more than a relatively mild recession (of which there have been at least 7 previous ones since World War II). We would probably not even be in that except fort he doom and gloom, and panic, of people (including Bernanke and Paulson) bad mouthing the economy and scaring people to death (deliberately). The economy shrank only .3% in the last quarter--almost level (despite the disruption of two hurricanes, and our overreaction to those).
Well, as usual, Obama "winked" at MSNBC and the socialist left by not exactly saying that he would support a new, Great Depression style WPA, but that he certainly thought that we needed to build our infrastructure. How was that for declaring: "You know I am a socialist, but don't pin me down to something like that." It gets better. I can't make this stuff up.
Obama did not stop at evading the WPA question, with his usual slick evasion. Instead, Obama went on to compare the U.S.A. unfavorably to China. Here is where Mussolini comes in. One example Obama used to suggest China is doing better than we are (a lie in any universe but the fantasy world of Obama and his supporterrs--just take a look sometime at the ordinary citizen in China) is the Mussolini example in support of fascism. China has high speed trains that presumably run on time. Obama went even further than that, saying "China is preparing to compete in the 21st Century, while we are not." Uh-huh.
Enter Joe Biden. Remember Virginia (if I recall correctly), where Biden was asked a question by an environmentalist: "How can the Obama campaign (which was, and is, running ads supporting "clean" coal) betray our environment by supportig coal plants, whether they use "clean" coal or not."
Biden gave a classic gaffe of an answer. He falsely denied that the Obama campaign was supporting coal. However, he went on. "You know", he said, "China is opening all of these coal plants, and using a lot of coal. I say let China do that. Let China ruin its environment with coal. We don't need it. Let China have it."
Is China really the example that Obama wants to use? Obama is supposedly at fanatic supporter of "global warming" That is a reason he has opposed drilling (if you believe that leftist deception that they now support "some" drilling, you are an idiot or dishonest yourself). China is totally ignoring "global warming", saying it is a problem for "rich" nations like the U.S. However, it is not just "greenhouse gases". China has so much actual pollution that athletes at the recent Olympics were worried about their health.
In short, how is China "preparing to compete"? Well, they are rationally ignoring the leftist/Obama fraud of "global warming". If we are going to compete with China, we have to do the same. Now they are also permitting pollution on a level we would not accept, and do not have to accept (with our technology). But they are not demonizing oil and coal, like Obama, "Dirty Oil" Reid, and "Total Failure" Pelosi.
That, of course, is all detail, although detail showing that Obama really is dong the same as praise of Mussolini when he talks about China building high speed trains. The basic thing that China is doing to "prepare to compete" in the 21st Century is importing capitalism. It is capitalism that China has turned to, after Communism failed.
This, more than anything, establishes Obama as a Marxist/socialist. He looks at China, and sees only the "good" the government is doing. He does not see that most of China's "progress" is the result of a conversion to capitalism.
It is one of the ironies of our time than China and Russia are converting to capitalism, because of the failure of Communism, just as we are being asked to elect a government so far left that it can be labeled as "Marxist/socialist".
That is why you will never hear Obama praise China for its conversion to capitalism. For Obama, all good things, like the trains running on time, come from the government.
Erica Jong, Racist
Erica Jong, Racist
Erica Jong is the radical feminist author and left wing nut (redundancy? However, it remains a severe Identity crisis for me that this election has proven me to be more of a feminist than most on the left, in light of the sexist attacks on Sarah Palin).
Eruca Jong is quoted in Europe as saying that we will have a second Civil War if Barack "World" Obama is "cheated" out of his right to be President of the U.S. Yes, she is a racist. This is the racist idea that African-Americans are so immature that they will riot if Obama loses an election James Carvelle has previously made the same racist assertion by predicting "blood in the streets" if Obama loses.
Yes, this actually is the result of/part of the racist campaign conducted by Obama. No, Obama does not make the racist statements. He lets his surrogates, including those in the media and on the left, do that for him. Obama just orchestrates the whole thing, while giving empty speeches.
Think how racist Erica Jong really is. Is it not a racist stereotype to suggest that African-Americans are ready to riot at any excuse? Of course it is. Further, the suggestion (and it is such a suggestion) that they should riot because a racially mixed man loses an election is an evil suggestion--typical of the hate mongers on the left.
Oh, did I mention that Erica Jong, Jane Fonda, and others on the left seem to be panic stricken that Obama may lose this election? Jong seems to be saying that voting (even voting machines) in the U.S. are rigged. I guess she has heard about ACORN.
Oops!!! Someone emailed me. They suggest that the left is not talking about the attempt by ACORN to steal this election on behalf of Obama. I guess I got it wrong. These nuts actually think Republicans, in the face of the entire mainstream media being for Obama, are rigging this election. How clever Republicans must be, to successfully rig an election, so that none of these "smart" (lol) reporters can discover it! Anyway, I stand corrected. I guess Jong and the left are not talking about ACORN when they talk about this election being rigged.
I repeat what I have previously said: Most of the racists in our society today are on the left. Erica Jong is just one of them.
Erica Jong is the radical feminist author and left wing nut (redundancy? However, it remains a severe Identity crisis for me that this election has proven me to be more of a feminist than most on the left, in light of the sexist attacks on Sarah Palin).
Eruca Jong is quoted in Europe as saying that we will have a second Civil War if Barack "World" Obama is "cheated" out of his right to be President of the U.S. Yes, she is a racist. This is the racist idea that African-Americans are so immature that they will riot if Obama loses an election James Carvelle has previously made the same racist assertion by predicting "blood in the streets" if Obama loses.
Yes, this actually is the result of/part of the racist campaign conducted by Obama. No, Obama does not make the racist statements. He lets his surrogates, including those in the media and on the left, do that for him. Obama just orchestrates the whole thing, while giving empty speeches.
Think how racist Erica Jong really is. Is it not a racist stereotype to suggest that African-Americans are ready to riot at any excuse? Of course it is. Further, the suggestion (and it is such a suggestion) that they should riot because a racially mixed man loses an election is an evil suggestion--typical of the hate mongers on the left.
Oh, did I mention that Erica Jong, Jane Fonda, and others on the left seem to be panic stricken that Obama may lose this election? Jong seems to be saying that voting (even voting machines) in the U.S. are rigged. I guess she has heard about ACORN.
Oops!!! Someone emailed me. They suggest that the left is not talking about the attempt by ACORN to steal this election on behalf of Obama. I guess I got it wrong. These nuts actually think Republicans, in the face of the entire mainstream media being for Obama, are rigging this election. How clever Republicans must be, to successfully rig an election, so that none of these "smart" (lol) reporters can discover it! Anyway, I stand corrected. I guess Jong and the left are not talking about ACORN when they talk about this election being rigged.
I repeat what I have previously said: Most of the racists in our society today are on the left. Erica Jong is just one of them.
Halloween: Zombies Vote in Florida (Terry Pratchett's Discworld)
Yes, on Halloween it is appropriate to report that dead people have voted in Florida. This blog has already reported that ACORN is a pioneer in ending discrimination against zombies (following in the tradition of great comic/satiric fantasy writer Terry Pratchett, who has reported that the main city on Discworld has an affirmative action policy for zombies, werewolves, trolls, etc.--Discworld obviously connecting with the U.S. in places like Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Missouri, and the other "battleground" states.
Yep. This is from the Florida Secretary of State. Dead people have voted in Florida.
Happy Halloween!!!!
Yep. This is from the Florida Secretary of State. Dead people have voted in Florida.
Happy Halloween!!!!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
ACORN: 107 Organizations--A Vast Criminal Conspiracy? (Dallas Cowboys Still In Trouble)
ACORN: 107 Organizations--A Vast Criminal Conspiracy? (Dallas Cowboys Still In Trouble)
The Wall Street Journal is publishing an article exposing ACORN as a vast shell game, with 107 affiliated organizatios (probably more than al-Qaida!!!).
So what happens when ACORN is caugfht committing voter fraud? Well, first it is the fault of the poor peon, gettin $8.00 an hour, who is actually doing the voter registration, or buing homeless from one state to another. Even if that excuse fails, ACORN points fingers at one of more of its 107 affiliated organizations, and then that organization points at some other affliliated organization. As the Wall Street Journal article says, this is an endless shell game--trypical of a vast criminal organization.
Oh, the Dallas Cowboys. Well, they were not impressive against Tampa Bay last week, at home, although their defense improved (still allowing a last drive which could have cost Dallas the game). The playoffs are in doubt, and ACORN seems to blame. This blog has already reported that Tony Romo was registered multiple times to vote in Nevada However, I learned today that evidently most of the Dallas Cowboys roster, or at least the name starters, were registered to vote in Missouri. Now others think this is a joke. But why the Dallas Cowboys? And why have the Cowboys seemed so distracted this season? Did "Pac Man" Jones (suspended--a surprise like Obama "promising change" was a surprise) bring ACORN to the Dallas Cowboys, or did Jessical Simpson recruit Tony Romo? In quiring minds want to know. There has to be some explanation as to why the Cowboys can't seem to live up to their rep.
The Wall Street Journal is publishing an article exposing ACORN as a vast shell game, with 107 affiliated organizatios (probably more than al-Qaida!!!).
So what happens when ACORN is caugfht committing voter fraud? Well, first it is the fault of the poor peon, gettin $8.00 an hour, who is actually doing the voter registration, or buing homeless from one state to another. Even if that excuse fails, ACORN points fingers at one of more of its 107 affiliated organizations, and then that organization points at some other affliliated organization. As the Wall Street Journal article says, this is an endless shell game--trypical of a vast criminal organization.
Oh, the Dallas Cowboys. Well, they were not impressive against Tampa Bay last week, at home, although their defense improved (still allowing a last drive which could have cost Dallas the game). The playoffs are in doubt, and ACORN seems to blame. This blog has already reported that Tony Romo was registered multiple times to vote in Nevada However, I learned today that evidently most of the Dallas Cowboys roster, or at least the name starters, were registered to vote in Missouri. Now others think this is a joke. But why the Dallas Cowboys? And why have the Cowboys seemed so distracted this season? Did "Pac Man" Jones (suspended--a surprise like Obama "promising change" was a surprise) bring ACORN to the Dallas Cowboys, or did Jessical Simpson recruit Tony Romo? In quiring minds want to know. There has to be some explanation as to why the Cowboys can't seem to live up to their rep.
Sarah Palin: "Journalism" Is Dead
The mainstream media has simply gone beyond corruption with regard to Sarah Palin, and into some netherworld of absolute corruption and evil. Where do "journalists" learn to be this despicable and corrupt? Is there an ACORN "journalism" school, or are all "journalism" professors affiliated with one of the 107 ACORN organizations? I don't know, but "journalism" is clearly dead as an honest profession.
You want an example? I thought you would never ask. For the last two days, there have been headlines about how Sarah Palin is "preparing" to run in 2008, regards herself as part of the "future" of the Republican Party. When you see those headlines, and stories, do you realize that the mainstream media (corrupt people all) manufactured this story (clearly designed to defeat John McCain by suggesting he is already defeated).
Why is the mainstream media talking about 2012 (before 2008 has even happened)? Why is the mainstream media even talking about the "future" of the Republican Party (ditto)? And you doubt these people are corrupt?
No, Palin did not raise this "issue" (an "issue" only to the corrupt people in the mainstream media). "Good Morning America", with its corrupt agenda, insisted on asking Palin (at least two times) whether she will run inf 2012, assuming McCain loses. The firs time was phrased in terms of: "After all of these attacks on you, sexism, etc., are you battered ehough--hope, hope--to get out of politics, or would you run in 2012.". These are the kind of people, remember, willing to suggest Barbara West treated Joe Biden unfairly in actual substantive questions--sanctimonious, evil hypocrites that they are.
Well, what can you say to a question like the above? You can only say what Palin said (ignoring 2012, as it should be ignored): "I am not discouraged. I am looking to the future, and being part of the future."
Then Palin was asked more directly: Will you run in 2012. Her answer (again, inevitable): "I am not thinking of 2012. I expect that the McCain-Palin ticket will win. I am focused entirely on that."
So you have ridiculous, agenda driven, questions expanded into an even more agenda driven "major" "news" program.
There are a couple of unintended consequences to this manufactured, agenda driven "news". First, you notice that Joe Biden is not asked about 2012? Now that is partly agenda, but mainly because no one in his right mind sees Joe Biden as President of the United States, or a serious candidate for President of the United States. Does that not indicate Sarah Palin would be the better Vice President--someone who a lot of people would actually vote for as President of the United States (else why would the mainstream media ask these questions).
Second unintended consequence: whoever is the new President is fairly likely to be perceived as a failure (one reason an Obama election has its definite upside, as any failure will be totally laid at the door of leftist Democrats). If Palin is part of a failed administration, she will be unlikely to ever by President. And endless attacks on her as Vice President, if McCain wins, might pretty much discredit here in 4 years, anyway. But if she is perceived as the Republican "opposition" to a failed Obama Presidency, might not Palin be a lock for the Presidency? So if you do not want Palin to be President, or to be leading the Republican Party, you better vote for McCain!!! Further, after Palin serves under McCain for four years, she is just not very likely to be a conservative hero anymore--in contrast to the heroine she will be if McCain loses this election.
P.S. If you watched MSNBC last night, after Obama's speech last night, you saw a continuation of the infomercial. No, of course I did not watch MSNBC. Only extreme leftists, or people who want to yell at the TV, watch MSNBC. However, I hear/see clips. So you had Rachel Maddow saying "He had me with the waiving fields of wheat." Now that is "neutral" "journalism" at its best. It went downhill from there with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann ("After this, McCain might as well curl up in a fetal position"). What can you say about people this corrupt? Well, all you can say is that they are part of the Obama campaign, as is NBC itself. You can boycott GE (owner of NBC). Otherwise, all you can do is ignore these people.
You want an example? I thought you would never ask. For the last two days, there have been headlines about how Sarah Palin is "preparing" to run in 2008, regards herself as part of the "future" of the Republican Party. When you see those headlines, and stories, do you realize that the mainstream media (corrupt people all) manufactured this story (clearly designed to defeat John McCain by suggesting he is already defeated).
Why is the mainstream media talking about 2012 (before 2008 has even happened)? Why is the mainstream media even talking about the "future" of the Republican Party (ditto)? And you doubt these people are corrupt?
No, Palin did not raise this "issue" (an "issue" only to the corrupt people in the mainstream media). "Good Morning America", with its corrupt agenda, insisted on asking Palin (at least two times) whether she will run inf 2012, assuming McCain loses. The firs time was phrased in terms of: "After all of these attacks on you, sexism, etc., are you battered ehough--hope, hope--to get out of politics, or would you run in 2012.". These are the kind of people, remember, willing to suggest Barbara West treated Joe Biden unfairly in actual substantive questions--sanctimonious, evil hypocrites that they are.
Well, what can you say to a question like the above? You can only say what Palin said (ignoring 2012, as it should be ignored): "I am not discouraged. I am looking to the future, and being part of the future."
Then Palin was asked more directly: Will you run in 2012. Her answer (again, inevitable): "I am not thinking of 2012. I expect that the McCain-Palin ticket will win. I am focused entirely on that."
So you have ridiculous, agenda driven, questions expanded into an even more agenda driven "major" "news" program.
There are a couple of unintended consequences to this manufactured, agenda driven "news". First, you notice that Joe Biden is not asked about 2012? Now that is partly agenda, but mainly because no one in his right mind sees Joe Biden as President of the United States, or a serious candidate for President of the United States. Does that not indicate Sarah Palin would be the better Vice President--someone who a lot of people would actually vote for as President of the United States (else why would the mainstream media ask these questions).
Second unintended consequence: whoever is the new President is fairly likely to be perceived as a failure (one reason an Obama election has its definite upside, as any failure will be totally laid at the door of leftist Democrats). If Palin is part of a failed administration, she will be unlikely to ever by President. And endless attacks on her as Vice President, if McCain wins, might pretty much discredit here in 4 years, anyway. But if she is perceived as the Republican "opposition" to a failed Obama Presidency, might not Palin be a lock for the Presidency? So if you do not want Palin to be President, or to be leading the Republican Party, you better vote for McCain!!! Further, after Palin serves under McCain for four years, she is just not very likely to be a conservative hero anymore--in contrast to the heroine she will be if McCain loses this election.
P.S. If you watched MSNBC last night, after Obama's speech last night, you saw a continuation of the infomercial. No, of course I did not watch MSNBC. Only extreme leftists, or people who want to yell at the TV, watch MSNBC. However, I hear/see clips. So you had Rachel Maddow saying "He had me with the waiving fields of wheat." Now that is "neutral" "journalism" at its best. It went downhill from there with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann ("After this, McCain might as well curl up in a fetal position"). What can you say about people this corrupt? Well, all you can say is that they are part of the Obama campaign, as is NBC itself. You can boycott GE (owner of NBC). Otherwise, all you can do is ignore these people.
Polls, R.I.P. (Texans Believe Obama is a Muslim; Or Do They?)
Polls, R.I.P. (Texans Believe Obama is a Muslim; Or Do They?)
Recent polls have had Obama up 2% to 15%. As this blog has told you before, this tells you that all polls are meaningless--the polls showing the election is even (2% is well within the expected margin of error when you project a sample of 1000 to 125 million people; the possible margin of error always being approximately 100%--basically a statistical possibility of flipping 1000 heads in a row), and the polls showing Obama ahead 15%. But can't we at least say Obama has been leading? Nope. When polls are meaningless, they are meaningless, and adding to the number of meaningless polls adds nothing (as "averaging" the polls not only means nothing, but is statistically erroneous; I majored in physics and minored in mathematics at New Mexico Statre University, and I am willing to debate this point with any "scientist" who lives, including any from more prestigious schools. This is a rigged challenge, since no scientist or mathematician is going to defend averaging diverse polls as a statistically valid procedure).
What does this mean? It means that today's "journalists" are the most incompetent "journalists" who ever lived. In fact, it means "journalism" is dead in this country. You doubt me? Don't. Karl Rove counted. So far this year there have been 728 national polls. In all of 2004, there were 239 national polls (see today's Wall Street Journal. Yet, the 2004 polls were mostly wrong. Isn't that definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result? Here the mainstream media is increasing its reliance on polls that have already proven to be meaningless. Then they base their other disgraceful "coverage" on those very same meaningless polls. For example: "Is this election already over, and has McCain already lost?". Now agenda explains a lot of this, but lazy, incompetent, lying (about significance and preciseness of polls--not just distoring poll results) "journliasts" are also a good part of the explanation.
Let us go to that example referenced in the headline: "23% of Texans believe Obama is a Muslim." Is that true. I live in Texas. I can assure you it is not true. If you want to know why I can say it is not true, in the face of a poll, then you have not been paying attention.
Whether it accidentally happened to be true or not, saying "23% of Texans believe Obama is a Muslim" is a lie, just as the way election polls (and exit polls, including on "issues") are reported is a lie. What is correct? The only correct statement (and this is not facetious, but a necessary way of honestly reporting polls) is that 23% of a sample of 1000 (or 500 or whatever) Texans were willing to tell a pollster that Obama is a Muslim. So what. Means absolutely nothing. People are not compelled--either morally or legally--to tell the truth to a pollster.
If you have read previous blog entries on polls, you know that this is not theory. My recommendation has been to lie to pollsters (where I am ahead of Limbaugh, because of his misguided--if correect--view that polls are being used by the mainstream media to advance its agenda). In short, I have explained to you again and again that polls are evil things, and that the only real "solution" is to get rid of then. That means sabotage, although you wonder how obvious it has to be that polls are meaningless before the idiots in the mainstream media will get the message).
So I would cheerfully tell a pollster in Texas that Obama is a Muslim. I would not say it on this blog, because I do not believe it to be true, and I actually strive for credibility in what I say on this blog. But (more people should think this way) I don't care what a pollster thinks of me. I will cheerfully lie.
Say 23% of Texans do not have my attitude toward polls (as they would if Limbaugh would only jump on my bandwagon, as he has on other things). Does that mean that 23% of Texans believe that Obama is a Muslim? Nope (even apart from that margin of error). Again, all it means is that 23^ of a small sample is willing to say that. "But why would they say something like that, if they did not really believe it.". Be frank. "You" work for the mainstream media, don't you. That is the only way to explain a question that stupid.
If you are a Texan (mostly smart people), you know Obama is sensitive about his Muslim "heritage" and "background". Obama has even put his middle name (shhhh!!! It's Husseinn) "off limits". If you are a Texan, and really despise Obama (politically), what is your reaction when you are asked whether you think Obama is a Muslim by a stupid pollster? Remember, a majority of Texans are surely going to vote against Obama (not really for McCain). If a stupid pollster asks Texans a question about Obama, he is going to be askig a lot of people who want to stick it to Obama. Most of them probably think Obama has more Muslim connections than he admits, even though he is not a Muslim (not an unreasonable opinion, whether true or not) Given all of that, I am amazed that the percentage of Texans who said Obama is a Muslim was only 23%. I AM DISAPPOINTED IN YOU TEXANS OUT THERE. This poll answer has nothing to do, for the most part, with whether these people really believe Obama is a Muslim.
You want a leftist example? Remember the poll that said 35% of Democrats thought that President Bush was complicit in 9/11--knew that it was going to happen in advance. That is essentially that kook "conspiracy theory" endorsed by kook Rosie O'Donnell. That translated to about 23% of all Americans believing the President was evil enough to arrange an attack on this own country. Did that many people really believe that? I don't think so (could be wrong, as leftist Democrats are gettig kookier all of the time). I think that most anti-Bush Democrats were fully aware of the anti-Bush answer to that question. What do they care if they lie to a pollster about what they believe? Why not give the answer they think will advance their agenda? I am confident most Texans fee the same way about Obma. Again, explain to me why it is moreally wrong to lie to a pollster? You can't, can you?
Q.E.D. Polls are meaningless things. The sample may be unrepresentative. The people may lie. The pollsters may be incomepent. The pollsters may have an agenda. The questions may be asked in a non-neutral way. And, after all of that, chance alone makes all polls uncertain over a range that now represents a landslide in American politics. Unlike Limbaugh (who sees it, like the mainstream media, as a matter of power politics--using polls to advance your agenda), I don't believe a poll which shows Obama ahead by 2% any more than I believe one showing Obama ahead 10% (15% is absurd). I don't believe that any of the polls, or all together, even show that Obama is ahead at all. McCain may be ahead. A consequence of believing the polls are meaningless, is that you don't pay any attention to them. Now Obama may well be ahead, and it is somewhat more likely he has been ahead than McCain, but it is by no means a sure thing. Again, remember the 2004 election, where the exit polls (election day itself) had Kerry winning by at least 3% or more. Bush won by 3%. That is a 6% ERROR. The idea that these polls mean anything is just indefensible.
Recent polls have had Obama up 2% to 15%. As this blog has told you before, this tells you that all polls are meaningless--the polls showing the election is even (2% is well within the expected margin of error when you project a sample of 1000 to 125 million people; the possible margin of error always being approximately 100%--basically a statistical possibility of flipping 1000 heads in a row), and the polls showing Obama ahead 15%. But can't we at least say Obama has been leading? Nope. When polls are meaningless, they are meaningless, and adding to the number of meaningless polls adds nothing (as "averaging" the polls not only means nothing, but is statistically erroneous; I majored in physics and minored in mathematics at New Mexico Statre University, and I am willing to debate this point with any "scientist" who lives, including any from more prestigious schools. This is a rigged challenge, since no scientist or mathematician is going to defend averaging diverse polls as a statistically valid procedure).
What does this mean? It means that today's "journalists" are the most incompetent "journalists" who ever lived. In fact, it means "journalism" is dead in this country. You doubt me? Don't. Karl Rove counted. So far this year there have been 728 national polls. In all of 2004, there were 239 national polls (see today's Wall Street Journal. Yet, the 2004 polls were mostly wrong. Isn't that definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result? Here the mainstream media is increasing its reliance on polls that have already proven to be meaningless. Then they base their other disgraceful "coverage" on those very same meaningless polls. For example: "Is this election already over, and has McCain already lost?". Now agenda explains a lot of this, but lazy, incompetent, lying (about significance and preciseness of polls--not just distoring poll results) "journliasts" are also a good part of the explanation.
Let us go to that example referenced in the headline: "23% of Texans believe Obama is a Muslim." Is that true. I live in Texas. I can assure you it is not true. If you want to know why I can say it is not true, in the face of a poll, then you have not been paying attention.
Whether it accidentally happened to be true or not, saying "23% of Texans believe Obama is a Muslim" is a lie, just as the way election polls (and exit polls, including on "issues") are reported is a lie. What is correct? The only correct statement (and this is not facetious, but a necessary way of honestly reporting polls) is that 23% of a sample of 1000 (or 500 or whatever) Texans were willing to tell a pollster that Obama is a Muslim. So what. Means absolutely nothing. People are not compelled--either morally or legally--to tell the truth to a pollster.
If you have read previous blog entries on polls, you know that this is not theory. My recommendation has been to lie to pollsters (where I am ahead of Limbaugh, because of his misguided--if correect--view that polls are being used by the mainstream media to advance its agenda). In short, I have explained to you again and again that polls are evil things, and that the only real "solution" is to get rid of then. That means sabotage, although you wonder how obvious it has to be that polls are meaningless before the idiots in the mainstream media will get the message).
So I would cheerfully tell a pollster in Texas that Obama is a Muslim. I would not say it on this blog, because I do not believe it to be true, and I actually strive for credibility in what I say on this blog. But (more people should think this way) I don't care what a pollster thinks of me. I will cheerfully lie.
Say 23% of Texans do not have my attitude toward polls (as they would if Limbaugh would only jump on my bandwagon, as he has on other things). Does that mean that 23% of Texans believe that Obama is a Muslim? Nope (even apart from that margin of error). Again, all it means is that 23^ of a small sample is willing to say that. "But why would they say something like that, if they did not really believe it.". Be frank. "You" work for the mainstream media, don't you. That is the only way to explain a question that stupid.
If you are a Texan (mostly smart people), you know Obama is sensitive about his Muslim "heritage" and "background". Obama has even put his middle name (shhhh!!! It's Husseinn) "off limits". If you are a Texan, and really despise Obama (politically), what is your reaction when you are asked whether you think Obama is a Muslim by a stupid pollster? Remember, a majority of Texans are surely going to vote against Obama (not really for McCain). If a stupid pollster asks Texans a question about Obama, he is going to be askig a lot of people who want to stick it to Obama. Most of them probably think Obama has more Muslim connections than he admits, even though he is not a Muslim (not an unreasonable opinion, whether true or not) Given all of that, I am amazed that the percentage of Texans who said Obama is a Muslim was only 23%. I AM DISAPPOINTED IN YOU TEXANS OUT THERE. This poll answer has nothing to do, for the most part, with whether these people really believe Obama is a Muslim.
You want a leftist example? Remember the poll that said 35% of Democrats thought that President Bush was complicit in 9/11--knew that it was going to happen in advance. That is essentially that kook "conspiracy theory" endorsed by kook Rosie O'Donnell. That translated to about 23% of all Americans believing the President was evil enough to arrange an attack on this own country. Did that many people really believe that? I don't think so (could be wrong, as leftist Democrats are gettig kookier all of the time). I think that most anti-Bush Democrats were fully aware of the anti-Bush answer to that question. What do they care if they lie to a pollster about what they believe? Why not give the answer they think will advance their agenda? I am confident most Texans fee the same way about Obma. Again, explain to me why it is moreally wrong to lie to a pollster? You can't, can you?
Q.E.D. Polls are meaningless things. The sample may be unrepresentative. The people may lie. The pollsters may be incomepent. The pollsters may have an agenda. The questions may be asked in a non-neutral way. And, after all of that, chance alone makes all polls uncertain over a range that now represents a landslide in American politics. Unlike Limbaugh (who sees it, like the mainstream media, as a matter of power politics--using polls to advance your agenda), I don't believe a poll which shows Obama ahead by 2% any more than I believe one showing Obama ahead 10% (15% is absurd). I don't believe that any of the polls, or all together, even show that Obama is ahead at all. McCain may be ahead. A consequence of believing the polls are meaningless, is that you don't pay any attention to them. Now Obama may well be ahead, and it is somewhat more likely he has been ahead than McCain, but it is by no means a sure thing. Again, remember the 2004 election, where the exit polls (election day itself) had Kerry winning by at least 3% or more. Bush won by 3%. That is a 6% ERROR. The idea that these polls mean anything is just indefensible.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
U.S. Communist Party: "Our Time Has Come" (Is It Obama or Is It Wall Street)
Yes. The U.S. Communist Party is euphoric. They are quoted as sying that America is at a turning point, saying: "Our time has come.". All that stands in their way now is Joe the Plubmger.
Rush says that it is Obama that is encouraging the U.S. Communist Party. That may be part of it.
However, see my recent entries. I think it is just as likely that the Communist Party has suddenly realized that everyone on Wall Street, like Larry Kudlow and almost everyone appearing on CNBC, is Communist.
You have to excuse the Communist Party for thinking that if even the "capitalists" on Wall Street have turned Communist, that their time has come. Of course, they don't realize that the people on Wall Street are dumb failures, and that these present people on Wall STreet have always have been Communists.
But maybe the Communist Party is right. We are turning our country over to those Communists on Wall Street. Does that not mean that the "time" of the Coummunists has arrived? I can't argue against it.
Jack Murtha, Western Pa. Racists, Mainstream Media Racists, Obaama the Racist, and Joe the Plumber
Jack Murtha (a Congressman from Pennsylvania) accused people of Western Pennsylvania of being "racists" yesterday, but said Obama will win Pennsylvania anyway. Jack Murtha is the same leftist who labeled our soldiers as murderers.
Yes, the racist Obama, racist leftists, and racists in the mainstream media are out there labeling everyone who opposes Obama as "racist"--when the people who label people by race in this country are mainly Obama and his fellow leftists. As far as I can tell, and I have said so, the mainstream media--such as the racists on CNNN--are so racist (labeling people by race) that they might as well be wearing white sheets. Oh, I know. They think they are being "racially tolerant" because they are trying to intimidate people into voting for Obama by labeling them racists. But facts are facts. If you define people by race, and CNN and the mainstream media do, then you are as racist as a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.
Yep. They (Obama and his allies in the mainstream media) are already trying to label Joe the Plumber as a "racist", even though he has articulated the reasons to be against Obama better than McCain ever has. But, to the mainstream media, if you oppose their Messiah, you are racist.
Can a racist like Obama, supported by the some of the most racist people (the mainstream media) who have ever lived, be elected President of the United States? Stay tuned.
Fox News, Redux
I just heard the hourly radio report on Fox News Radio (the on the nour brief report). If they did not announce it, and if I did not already know it, I would not have been able to tell I was not listening to CNN or MSNBC.
The report of Obama was upbeat. The report on McCain was downbeat. Nope. I am not talking facts. There were no real facts reported, other than wheter the campaigns are. It was attitude and opinion that could have been, and probably was, on CNN and MSNBC today.
The radio report even mentioned that leftist stunt lawsuit against God, citing the "allegations" of the lawsuit--the whole purpose of the lawsuit being to get that kind of publicity. If lyou think it is "clever" to accuse God of "malpractice" for death and destruction, you are either a leftist or a "journalists". Needless to say, this "non-story" (of the lawsuit being thrown out of court) is alsto featured on AOL today.
Nope. Fox Nes is part of the problem. It is not worth watching, or listening to.
Fox News: Part of the Problem (Rush Limbaugh Joins This Blog--Late Again)
What have I told you? I know. It is hard to guess which one of the things I have been proven right about that I am talking about. I have been right about so many things. Hint: I am talking about Fox News.
I have told you that Fox News is part of the mainstream media problem, and not part of the solution. I have told you over and over again, citing examples, that Fx News is part of the "establishment" that just happens to let a few conservative voices on their network. Since there are no conservative voices allowed on the other, leftist networks (such as CNN, the liar network), beyond a token or two usually shouted down or picked to criticize other conservatives, Fox News has gotten a "reputation" as the "conservative" network. In actual fact, it is no such thing.
The reason I bring this up is that Rush Limbaugh went on a rant this morning against the Fox treatment of the debate last night (Nope, I did not watch Fox or the debate--neither one being worth watching.). Limbaugh mentioned the despicable Fred Barnes (the subject of more than one entry in this blog), and Bill Crystal. See yesterday's entry on this blog--ahead of Limbaugh, as usual.
Yes, Limbaugh is late to the party. He has finally recognized what this blog recognized long ago. Fox News is not really worth watching, and is part of the mainstream media, establishment problem istead of part of teh solution.
"Kill Him" (David Singleton, of Scanton Times-Tribune)
You want to know why people like me "Heckle"/despise the liars in the mainstream media?
Well, after being sympathetic to leftists calling for the assassination of President Bush for years, the mainstream media has taken to ignoring leftist hate (still out there in force, including in the media itself as to, for example, Sarah Palin) in favor of trying to find single individuals in Repubilcn rallies who the media thinks are being "hateful". If the media cannot find such individuals, they make them up.
Yep. That brings us to David Singleton, hater and liar in the mainstream media. He made up an allegation taht a McCain supporter in a Pennsylvania Palin rally said "kill him" with regard to Obama. Go to these extreme leftist websites, and see how much hate speech you find. But the media ignores that in faovor of isolated McCain supporters--some of whom the media is making up.
Anyway, it turns out that numberous Secret Service agents were in the crowwd in Pennsylvania. And they talked to other people in the crowd to "investigate" this charge. It turns out that the only person they could find who "heard" this "kill him" statement was David Singleton, the reporter--liar and hater that he is.
And the mainstream media dares to say that they do not understand why conservatives attack them when they are just "telling both sides". Liars is what they have been, and liars is what they are.
This Blog
This afternoon I am going to attempt to transfer this blog to Google's "Blogger.com. I am not certain what will happen to the material here at that time AOL is closing this site as of November 1. Whether the material will stay here until then, I am not sure. In any event, if this goes smoothly, you will be able to find "The Maverick Conservative" on blogger.com. Lucky you.
Joe the Plumber and the Debate
John McCain evidently did as well as he can do in the debate last night (which is not that well). However, he received a big boost from Joe the Plumber.
Yes, Joe the Plumber is the guy who so threw Barack "World" Obama off stride, that Obama was honest about his tax proposal. Obama admitted to Joe that his tax increases on the "rich" are designed to redistribute wealth (take from the "rich" and give to the "poor"), rather than to raise revenue for the Federal Government. There was never any doubt about that, since at least half of the "95%" of Americans to whom Obama says he wants to give a "tax cut" now pay no tax to cut. They just get a check--money that Obama wants you to think is "taken from the rich".
Then Joe the Plumber made the media rounds and explained conservatism--including the evil of class warfare--better than McCain ever has. He actually said that he did not understand why a person who makes a million dollars should have that money taken away from him to give to someone else. And he seemed to understand, as I doubt McCain does, that when you take the million dollars away you do not end up with more revenue in the end, because people then have every incentive not to earn a million dollars and even more incentive to figure out a way to avoid having their money confiscated in taxes. That is in addition to the damage that you do to the economy in trying to "redistribute the wealth".
Yes, Joe the Plumber actually understands this redistribution of wealth is socialims/Communism. He probably even understands that the people on Wall Street are now Communists, along with our Treasury Secretary and Fed Chief. See my entries over the past several weeks.
Yep. Unfortunately, Joe the Plumber would be a better candidate for the Republican Party than John McCain. Whether he knows it or not, Joe the Plumber is a Rush Limbaugh conservative rather than a John McCain/establishment Republican, Big Government conservative. See my entries yesterday. At the very least, Republicans need a nominee that can actually understand and speak for someone like Joe the Plumber, instead of a nominee who is forced to rely on Joe the Plumber to make his case for him.
I am glad people like Joe the Plumber exist in America, and I think there are a lot of them. I just wish that the Republican Party represented those people, and spoke for them well. It does not. That is why I no longer call myself a "Republican".
P.S. No, I did not watch the debate last night. As I have told you, these debates are unimportant (absent a truly major gaffe, which no one makes anymore). The aftermath of the debates sometimes matters, and Joe the Plumber may matter here by providing McCain with a conservative "message" he has not been able to articulate himself. That is because McCain is not really a conservative.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Wall Street: Bulls, Bears, and Pigs
See my earlier entry today about the Communist (assertion supported in several earlier entries this week, and over the weekend) pigs on Wall Street grunting at the public trough and demanding "more".
One clever Wall Street person worked out that we are now back in a "bull market" in stocks because the "market" gained more than 20% (the definition of a bull market) from Friday's low to Tuesday's morning high.
What that shows you is several unpleasant truths:
1. Present market trading is dominated by fictional moves (on any one day) caused by hedge fund type trading. These violent swings are unhealthy, whether they are up or down. They show a Wall Street dominated by gambling pigs, rather than "investors", and it is getting worse.
2. Wall Street reporters lie to you every day. These wild moves have to do with short term computer and hedge fund momentum trading (on individual days like today), and these solemn pronouncements about fundamental reasons for the wild swings are lies.
3. Wall Street people are generally pretty stupid in their superstitions. "Bull market" and "Bear market" are meaningless terms as far as predicting what the market will do for the next week, month or year.
4. Wall Street is trying to use these unhealthy market swings as extortion to give Wall Street people socialistic control of our economy. Instead, we should be trying to reduce the ability of irrational Wall Street swings to affect us. One aspect of this is to directly reduce the swings themselves, by direct regulation of the pigs on Wall Street (instead of granting them socialistic control of our financial system and economy. Yes, they scream like stuck pigs at every suggestion of limiting their investment "freedom", but the hypocrites are willing to force our entire country into Communism in order to keep their game playing going.
5. Although it is by no means a "solution" to the speculative game playing, we should ban short selling for at least six months. Meanwhile, we should work at figuring out means of limiting the hedge fund type game playing, without ruining the freedom of investing.
6. One of the things that Wall Street is "demanding" is that hedge funds (Wall Street speculators) "too big to fail" be bailed out by the U.S. taxpayer. Wall Street people saying that should be taken out and summarily shot, or at least be hit in the face with a pie while pigging out at the public trough (where you will find them every day, these days). These people say that Paulson "cleverly put one over on Congress and the taxpayer by wording the "bailout bill" language so that hedge funds are included in the entities that can be bailed out. If so, Paulson should be fired and deported to New Jersey for fellow former Goldman Sachs CEO John Corzine to take care of him. Yes, Paulson should already have been fired several times over, but at some point people are going to be motivated to get out the pitchforks (Frankenstein reference) and go get rid of the monster..
ACORN at Work, Or Is ACORN Just the Tip of an Obama/Democrat Iceberg
There is no doubt that Obama, and leftist Democrats, have supported ACORN--whcih has turned out to be a nationwide criminal organization conducting voter fraud. Obama and those same leftist Democrats still refuse to condemn ACORN.
But is ACORN merely the tip of the iceberg? Are Obama and the DEmocrats trying to steal this election with voter fraud? These two lead paragrpahs from Ohio, referring to a federal lawsuit opposed by Democrat officials in Ohio might give you a clue. You might also remember how the Democratic Governor of Montana claimed credit for electing a Democratic Senator by fraud, only to later claim he was "joking" Here is today's story (they are now appearing daily):
"Close to one in every three newly registered Ohio voters will end up on court-ordered lists being sent to county election boards because they have some discrepancy in their records, an elections spokesman said Wednesday.
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner estimated that an initial review found that about 200,000 newly registered voters reported information that did not match motor-vehicle or Social Security records, Brunner spokesman Kevin Kidder said. Some discrepancies could be as simple as a misspelling, while others could be more "
P.S. Yes, I know it is possible Democrats do not need to steal this election. They seem determined to do it anyway.
Wall Street/Stock Market Insanity
Yep. This blog was right again. (I have told you that I am perfectly willing to say: "I told you so". I am not above that kind of ego pettiness).
The Dow went up 1,000 on Monday for no real reason, except momentum triggered by a government plan (as if governments had shown the ability to run financial systems). I told you the 1000 Dow rise was unhealthy.
Well, since Monday, the market as a whole has completely retraced its steps. The Dow has not completely given up its gains, but almost. The NASDAQ has more than given up its gains.
There is no real fundamental change. It is momentum again, based on "bad news" that was always going to happen. In other words, people driving the fad stocks up on Monday knew that this was the likely news. All you had on Monday was a plan, that changed nothing in the economy. Why should the "market" not return to the same place? The people driving the market to these wild swings are short term traders riding/driving momentum up, and then riding/driving momentum down.
But "Wall Street" acts like the people there do not know that the wild swings themselves are unhealthy, and do not show anything fundamental (although they the swings can cause fundamental damage).
Yet, Wall Street is again asking, like Oliver, for more. Unlike Oliver, Wall Street does not deserve more It deserves less. Are people on Wall Street really this stupid and greedy? My answer is "yes".
For example, corporate raider Carl Icahn (responsible, to a degree, for the unhealthy trend toward corporate concentratiioin) wants us (the country) to turn over the financial system to him, and corporate raiders like him.
I could not make this up. The pigs on Wall Street are all at the trough, and grunting for taxpayer/government money and help. They will sometimes point out the other pigs. But that does not stop their own grunting at the trough.
If we turn this country over to Carl Icahn, we deserve what we get. I sort of have the same view, of course, as to turning this country over to Obama, Pelosi and Reid--or, unfortunately, to John McCain.
Nope. Wall Street, and all of the people on it, are out of control. And we are turning over the country to these people.
Obama and ACORN: Credit Card Fraud
No, there is not yet a known connection to ACORN, but unauthorized credit card charges supposedly representing donatioins to the Obama campaign are showing up on financial statements.
Of course, as with ACORN itself (although ACORN is linked to yet more alleged voter fraud--this time in Pennsylvania), the people doing this are probably not in the "inner circle" of the Obama campaign. I mention this because Obama seems to have sold the media the idea that he can associate himself with/support the mafia, without discredit to him, so long as he is not letting the maifal control his campaign.
Republicans Who Belong on CNN
See the previous entry. You will note I did not name Republicans who are out there bashing conservatives, and what conservatives believe. That is not because I am too partisan to do that I have done it consistently in the past, and will continue to do it. The previous entry was not primarily about Republicans, and so I did not name any. I will mention names her, however, wiht the exception of these unknown ankle biters trying to make a "name" for themselves with the mainstream media by attacking Sarah Palin. To mention those people by name only accomplishes what they want. Those people deserve to disappear into the obscure slime pit out of which they crawled. Here are some names:
1. John McCain. Yes, as I have said before, McCain made a career out of ingratiating himself with the mainstream media by bashing conservatives. He is still much more cofortable bashing conservatives than with bashing Obama. McCain's problem is that the media is not going to support him as a Republican running against Obama, and McCain has little else going for him--except Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Obama himself is probably the most dangerous man ever to run (as a nominee) for President of the United States (with the possible exception of Gen. George McClellan, who ran against Lincoln in 1864). If you combine Obama with Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi and Harry "Drity Oil" Reid, you have a triumberate to scare anyone but a leftist kook.
2. David Brooks. Brooks is the New York Times "tame" "conservative". Enough said.
3. Bill Crystal. Bill Crystal is one of that "new breed" of conservatives who believe in "Big Government" conservatism. You could put President Bush in that group. The only problem "moderate" Republicans ever really had with Bush was with his socially conservative rhetoric. Otherwise, from immigration to spending to the Wall Street bailout, Bush has pretty much sabotaged conservatives. Further, the rhetoric has translated into no real advance of social conservatism, except maybe on the Supreme Court. Even there, Bush tried to nominate Harriest Myers, but Democrats stupidly blocked her, giving conservatives time to do her in.
4. Fred Barnes. A cohort of Crystal, and mainstay on Fox, Barnes has insulted conservatives on immigration and the Wall Street bailout. He considers people like me hicks. I consider people like him as intellectually dishonest fools. I guess that makes us even.
5. Hank Paulson, Larry Kudlow, and Republicans and Democrats on Wall Street and in Big Business (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, et. al.). The dirty little secret here is that, as the socialist demands of Wall Street escalated in response to this financiall crisis, there is no eal difference between Democrats and Republicans on Wall Street. They may differ slightly on taxes, but they are all Big Government, and Big Empire (corporate or government) people in terms of government action they want. I never realized just how socialist they were willing to become until this baiout of Wall Street, and embrace of socialism. But you may have guessed that I was never a Wall Street Journal conservative. I am a free market conservative. Those two things are almost total opposites of one another, although in a slightly different way than the way that far leftists and conservatives are opposites.
The above should give you an idea. The Republican Party is being almost totally supported these days by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingram, and all of those other conservative talk radio hosts out there. Those are the intellectual leaders of modern conservatives, with more intellectual consistency, depth, and honesty than the "establishment" Republicans. But the "establishment" Republicans look down on these people, and their audience.
How can a party coninue to exist this way, with its "establishment" having contrempt for the people who are the party's base of support (contempt I reciprocate)? It can't. Until Rush LImbaugh/Reagan conservatives fully take over the Republican Party, or start their own, the Republican Party is not going to stand for anything other than Wall Street and Democrat "light". Democrats, of course, now also stand for Wall Street, and Wall Street now appears to be running the country.
We will regret turning the country over to these people. But there appears to be no way to stop it. Electing McCain, superior as he is to Obama in isolation, is not goingt to stop it. I would much prefer McCain to lose, and Republicans to win the House (the situation under Bill Clinton, when conservaitves did well). That seems impossible. So an Obama victory probably means the unholy trio of Obama, Pelosiand Reid will run the country.
At least conservatives may then get to pick up the pieces, tough as it may be on the country.
Sarah Palin and the Mainstream Media: Foaming at the Mouth, Rabid Haters
Nope. The headline does not refer to people at Sarah Palin railles. "Foaming at the mouth, rabid haters" refers to CNN, the mainstream media and the rest of the leftists out there who have lost it over Sarah Palin. It also refers to "establishment" Republican types who expect to lose this electioin, and are positioning for the fight over the next Republican nominatioin (not to mention trying to get themselves in with the mainstream media for their own self-interest). I heard one actually utter, this morning, the Wolf Blitzer, CNN hypocritical smear that it is a "betrayal" of "family values" for Palin's DAUGHTER to be having a baby out of wedlock, whether she has an abortion or not.
Anyone who thinks that badly is an evil person. Yes, Wolf, I just called you, and the other people at CNN, evil people. I have done so, and will continue to do so for the rest of my life. However, I feel that way about Republicans who look upon Palin as some soret of a hick who deserves anything you say about her, because she needs to be destroyed. That is why I will never call myself a Republican either, for the rest of my life. The Republican Party, and the "moderates" in it, have betrayed conservatives too many times, and continue to do so.
What do I really think of the "foaming at the mouth" crowd who think any intellectual dishonesty is "fair" with regard to Sarah Palin, because she needs to be destroyed? I can say it no better than I have said it before:
If Hell exists, I am confident I will meet all of you people in Hell after I did. It will be worth it (metting you there, even though it means I am there with you). I am just worried that I will be denied the pleasure of actually meeting all of CNN in Hell, because that would make it Heaven for me. It really would be Hell for all of CNN to be in Hell, and me be denied the pleasure of seeing them there. Oops!. I really should not give the Devil ideas here!
P.S. As usual, CNN is used above as a representative for the entire leftist media, and of the entire far left of which they are a part. It is not that CNN is worse than most of the others. CNN is just typical. See earlier entry this week naming CNN "foaming at the mouth", intellectualy dishonest people by name.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
"Get Smart" and Wall Street Robbery Extortion and Blackmail
Maxwell Smart (the real one, Don Adams--TV show rating 100, and the series is now on DVD) is talking to the Chief about how Chaos (Kaos?) is financing its evil schmes, using some mysterious financial genius:
Maxwell Smart: "Well, Chief, maybe he is using the stock market."
Chief: "No, Mac, I think it is more likely to be robbery, extortion, and blackmail."
Ahead of its time, as usual, "Get Smart" just did not quite dare accuse Wall Street of "robbery, extortion, and blackmail"--despite a mere hint of an association in the above dialogue.
I have the advantage of the evidence of this Wall Street bailout, and the demands Wall Street is maknig upon taxpayers around the world to cover the mistakes of the people controlling the stock market and financial markets. "Robbery, extortion, and blackmail" does not even come close to adequately describing what these people (Wall Street people who got us into this mess in the first place) are doing, and have done. See my entries over the past several weeks.
As with ACORN and Tony Romo, the quetion has to be asked: Is "Get Smart" totally fictioinal, or is there a secret organization of evil that has taken over Wall Street, despite the efforts of CONTROL? Just asking. We know these people--including Paulson, Bernanke, Cox, Larry Kudlow, and all of the Communists on CNBC--are evil. It is just a matter of whether they are part of a super secret spy organization, or just doing their evil for a common interest. Whichever it is, they have destoryed free market capitalism more comprenensively thatn the Soviet Union ever managed.
ACORN and Tony Romo's Pinkie!
Some of you may have ridiculed my entries over the past week (without being brave enough to do it in comments on this blog) in which I blame ACORN for "distracting" (ruining) Tony Romo and the Dallas Cowboys.
You will remember that ACORN attempted to register Tony Romo some 3 times in the state of Nevada. While most thought that was a joke that merely indicated how bad ACORN is, I was the only one suggesting that there may be more to it than meets the eve: that Tony Romo may really be associated with ACORN, or may have even been cloned by ACORN, thus explaining Romo's recent boneheaded plays.
Well, what has happened? Romo has supposedly broken his pinkie!!! His pinkie!!!!! This will supposedly keep him out of action for the next four weeks--the next three Cowboy games.
Now this happens to be all of the Cowboy games before the November election. Yep. This "convenient" injury just happens to keep Romo out of only those Dallas Cowboy football games before the election, and none after the election. If kook leftist conspiracy theorists had this kind of evidence that President Bush was behind 9/11, people might have believed them (people beyond leftist kooks).
How can you doubt that ACORN is involved in this. They register Tony Romo in Nevada several times, and Romo acts distracted. Then Romo is conveniently out of football for the 3 weeks prior to the election. The circumstantial evidence here is overwhelming that ACORN is behind this.
After all, if ACORN is going to have zombies vote, why should they not have involved Tony Romo in their widespread conspiracy? Anyone getting involved with Jessica Simpson can't be too bright. Romo seems to be ripe for brainwashing by a leftist cult like ACORN.
Even if you don't buy these reasonable speculations on my part, you have to see that ACORN must somehow be behind this ridiculous "pinkie" "injury" keeping Romo out of football the last 3 weeks before the election. No other explanation makes sense.
Obama, Leftist Democrats and the Mainstream Media Support ACORN and Oppose Democracy
"In Ohio, Democrat Barack Obama told reporters that the group's registration problems should not be used by the GOP as an excuse to keep voters from turning out on Election Day."
"Registration problems" is the Obama, leftist Democrat, and mainstream media response to a criminal organization implicated in voter fraud in virtually every battleground state. As I have previously shown in this blog, leftist Democrats (which includes Obama and the mainstream media) do not really believe in democracy or principle (beyond their own agenda). They believe in power, and only in power.
The above statement by Obama represents the Obama/leftist Democrat/mainstream media (that unholy Trinity who are One) "talking point" response to the massive attempted voter fraud of ACORN. It is just minor registration glitches that should not allow those evil Republicans to discourage zombies (dead people) from voting--not to mention people like the homeless shipped in from other states into "battleground" states.
The fact that Democrats have supported, and continue to support, a criminal organization like ACORN--attempting to commit voter fraud on a massive scale of hundreds of thousands of voters--is not important to Obama and the mainstream media. The mainstream media treats the allegation of "voter suppression" (a standard Democrat tactic) as being equivalent to--equal to--allegations of massive voter fraud by ACORN all over the country. I know I have told you that the mainstream media are sanctimonious hypocrites on a scale unmatched in the history of "journalism" William Randolph Hearst, the poster child of "yellow" advocacy "journalism" is turning over in his grave with envy. He was never this blatant. CNN (see previous entry) and the rest are truly evil people willing to wink at evil to advance their political agenda.
Yes, ACORN is the organization that Obaa's campaign gave hundreds of thousands of dollars. Obama, liar and dishonest person that he is, says that he has no "connection" with ACORN, evidently on the theory that since ACORN is not involved in running his campaign, giving them hundreds of thousands of dollars does not count. Say what? Yep. I am not making this up. Obama's "official" position (until tomorrow or whenever he decides to have a new position accepted by the media as if the old one never happened) is that he is not "connected" to the voter registration fraud because the hundreds of thousands of dollars Obama gave ACORN was for "getting out the vote", and not registration. And you have to admit that it is going to be a challenge for ACORN to get all of those zombies to the polls. See my entry last week about how ACORN is only trying to prohibit discrimination against zombies. How dare Republicans try to suppress the zombie vote, which Obama learned early on is very important in places like Chicago.
You doubt that the mainstream media has taken sanctimonious hypocrisy to a new, outrageous level? Remember every election day, and how the media goes around looking for minor glitches (generally accompanied by unsubstantiated accusations of fraud on the part of evil Republicans trying to keep minorities from voting). Imagine the stories if those evil Republicans had tried to fraudulently register hundreds of thousands of people! The media would be calling for investigations, and running stories every day.
This is the same kind of outrageous hypocrisy shown by the media in the respective cases of Mark Foley and Tim Mahoney (Mahoney replaced Foley as Congressman from that same Florida district). In 2006, the really minor Foley matter was a "scandal" that the mainstream media insisted reflected on the whole Republican Party, even though all Foley ever was shown to have done was send some creepy internet messages. His successor, Mahoney, was involved in a massive cover up of a sex scandal with an employee to whom he paid hush money, and the mainstream media is uninterested--even though the FBI is now investigating. These are evil people (talking about CNN and the rest, and not Foley and Mahoney, although those two may not be the salt of the earth). If Hell exists, as I have said before, I fully expect to meet virutally every mainstream media person there after my death. "Despicable" is just not an adequate word fro people who have abandoned "journalistic" integrity to this extent.
Democrats, incliuding Obama, refuse to condemn ACORN, even though they have supported ACORN, including getting ACORN millions of dollars in federal funding (from TAXPAYERS). Democrats, of course, got ACORN included in that Wall Street bailout bill, until House Republicans got the provision removed.
But Democrats act like this is not their problem. Obama acts like it is only what he says about his campaign that matters, and not that he has promoted an organization that is involved in massive voter fraud. How dishonest can you get!!!!. It is not important whether ACORN is "involved" in the Obama campaign. As with Reverend Wright, what is important here is that Obama and leftist Democrats have supported ACORN--pretty well proven to be a criminal organization trying to subvert our democratic republic. It is like giving money to the mafia, and then trying to defend yourself by saying that the mafia is not running your campaign, or giving money to the Ku Klux Klan and saying the same thing. I have said before that the defenses Obama makes for Obama's involvement with left wing radicals are just as disturbing as the Obama conduct itself.
It is disturbing that Obama has supported all of thse left wing radicals all of his live, including past and current criminals, but for Obama to defend his support of ACORN as irrelevant because ACORN is not really part of his campaign is dishonest. Moire disturbing, it shows that Obama feels his protection from the mainstream media is such that he can get away with blatant dishonesty, without even having to condemn ACORN. Nope. If you elect Obama, you deserve what you get. The man is dangerous. And the mainsteream media has become a dangerous institution populated by truly dishonest and evil people.
If you support evil people you re an evil person. Obama and the Democrats have supported ACORN, and still refuse to condemn its voter fraud. By deductive logic, it means that Obama and these leftist Democrats (including the mainstream media accomplices) are evil people. You doubt this logic? Obama himself (althogh he does not stand behind what he says from one day to the next) said that people have a duty to confront evil when they see it. In other words, if you suppport the Ku Klux Klan, you are responsible for what the Klan does, even if you would never do such things yourself. This principle is really inarguable. Obama himself realizes it, but that has not stopped him from supporting evil person after evil person--from Reverend Wright to the criminals of ACORN to William Ayers.
Obama only reluctantly disavows these people when he is forced to, and then acts like he never supported them. Obama acts like supporting the Ku Klux Klan for 20 years (no worse than supporting Reverend Wright) is excused by simply excluding Wright from the campaign and disassociating from him. Would that excuse really work if you supported the Ku Klux Klan? No. It only "works" for Obama, because he counts on the mainstream media to make it work. Same with ACORN. Obama acts like all he has to do is say ACORN is not directly involved in his campaign, and that removes any possible criticism of his support of this criminal organization--as if he had supported the mafia. Would that work, without mainstream media cover? Don't be silly. I apologize here to the mafia, however. At least the old style mafia was probably too American to subvert our country at home and abroad. The mafia would probably never get so low as to try to steal an entire national election with voter fraud, although they might do it locally (like in Chicago).
P.S. Fox News remains part of the problem and not part of the solution (to the mainstream media). Brit Hume let a leftist panelist get away today with the Obama "talking points", including saying that "registration" does not matter because people like Tony Romo, and dead people, will never be able to show identification to vote. AS IF. As if much identification is required in many states. In fact, Democrats sued to try to stop strict identification requirements in Indiana on that same ground of "voter suppression." Democrats are tying everywhere to undermine any identification requirements. Some states have voting by mail. The idea that there are strict voter identification requirements throughout the country, or that leftist Democrats favor much identification, is false. The panelist on Brit Hume's show is a dishonest hypocrite, and Fox let here get away with it. The idea that registering dead people is okay because they won't be able to vote is evil and absurd. It is an invitation to dishonest elections. It is the kind of assertion that makes leftist Democrats in the media the evil, dishonest people that they are. And Fox does not really call them on it, even though Fox at least raises the stuff (while the rest of the mainstream media ignores it).
Sarrah Palin Labels CNN as the IMMATURE Liar Network
I like it. Sarah Palin just called CNN "immature", and she is so right. Okay, I don't want to get her in trouble here. What Palin really did was call those mainstream media shots at her for daring to run for President as a mother "immature shots", and a "double standard". Relating this to CNN is my doing.
She could, of course, have just as easily mentioned the shots at her and her daughter for the teenaged pregnancy. She could just as easily have mentioned the daily shots at her over trivia. For example, today AOL (fully as bad as CNN) had an AP (the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press") story about how Palin misconstrued some yelling people in the crowd as protesters (because she has faced protesters), when they were really yelling for her to speak louder. The mainstream media admits she connects with people, better than any of the candidates, but give her a backhand slap by saying she may "put off independents" with her enthusiastic crowds (something the immature, lying media never said when Obama speaks to an enthusiastic crowd). Palin is supposed to be embarrassed by her supporters, while we are supposed to ignore that every Obama surrogate and supporter is calling everyone who votes against Obama a "racist".
Yes, it is immature to call Palin supporters dangerous, while you send people to Alaska to investigate the rumors being spread by hating leftists (that hate rumor that Palin was not even the mother of her Down's Syndrome child). In fact, the haters on the left are worse than any of the haters on the right. But CNN, and the rest of the mainstream medai ignore that, because they are the same type of immature haters themselves.
CNN (see archives of this blog for chapter and verse) embarked on a campaign to destroy Palin personally as soon as she was named. They have pursued every hateful rumor. They attacked her religion. They said she favored Alaska being an independent state (more true of Obama supporters in Hawaii, as I can tell you from personal knowledge because my younger daughter was exposed to those people by the faculty at the University of Hawaii). Yes, "post-racial" Obama supporters in Hawaii want Hawaii to be soley for the Hawaiians, as an independent country ruled by the old monarchy (you never thought leftists believed in democracy, did you?). I digress. Not really.
Yes, the immature, lying, despicable people on CNN called Palin a bad parent. They called her a vicious right winger (contradicted every time she talks--as she comes across as a genuinely nice person). They alled her incompetent. Let me name names. Every one of the following immature liars is a despicable human being who has tried to personally destroy Palin with immature personal attacks:
1. David Gergen, who no one respects. He is a hack, who worked for two Presidents, and did a bad job for both. He has never said anything intelligent in his entire life. CNN just turns to him as a supposed "neutral commentator, when no one on this earth speaks with more of an agenda. Of course, with Gergen, the agenda is not so much "principle" (he has none). It is the self-interest of David Gergen. I had this opinion long before Sarah Palin, and Sarah Palin, and this political season, only confirmed it.
2. Larry King. Yes, the "elder statesman of CNN is a lying political hack, and fully part of the CNN campaign of personal destruction against Sarah Palin. See my previous entry specifically on Larry King.
3. Anderson Cooper. My brother says Anderson Cooper came from being host of "Survivor" to CNN. I can't verify that, because I never watched "Survivor". But Anderson Cooper is one of the most immature, incompetent liars on all of television. I have shown him to be a liar in entry after entry in this blog. What is funny is that even Anderson Cooper was so taken aback at the original CNN smear campaign against Sarah Palin that he felt forced to defend her against the smears of Kyra Phillips (the CNN "reporter" sent to Alaska to "investigate" those leftist hate rumors against Sarah Palin, and to dig up dirt. It was she who said most directly that "people in Alaska" (namely her and CNN personnel) were "questioniing" the parenting of Sarah Palin, and it the questions were increasing. What she meant was that the CNN smears were increasing, and they have ever since.
4. Jack Cafferty, racist. Yes it was Jack Cafferty who really picked up the Obama campaign tactic of calling "race" the biggest issue in this campaign: that is, the Issue" of racists voting against Obama. Cafferty is anotherone of the most despicable human beings on this planet, with no redeeming virtue. He is a lying political hack who does biased polls every day. One poll was whether Sarah Palin should withdraw as the VP candidate. Yes, the immature Cafferty, and the rest of the left, picked up the column of an obscure "conservative" wanting attention< and tried to bootstrap it into a campaign to get Palin to withdraw. Cafferty is one of thosehaters on the left who are worse than any alleged "hater" on the right.
5. Soledad O'Brien, racist and hypocrite deluxe. Yes, Soledad O'Brien is the sanctimonious hypocrite who pushed the CNN line that Sarah palin could not be Vice President and mother of minor children It turns out that Soledad O'Brien has four minor children she is neglecting in her career. My complaint against her is still being investigated by Child Protective Services, since she made it clear that she must be neglecting her children to pursue her high profile career. Another despicable human being (just kidding on Child Protective Services, although I should have made such a complaing). It is Soledad O'Brien who called Reverend Jeremiah Wright's disgraceful, racist speech before the Detroit NAACP "the greatest speech I have ever heard." That brands her a racist for all time.
6. Campbell Brown, hypocrite and daughter of a felon convicted of lying to the FBI. Yes, Campbell Brown is another on of those immature, despicable human beings at CNN. . Campbell Brown was perfectly willing to attack Sarah Palin's family, even though her own father was convicted of a felony for lying to the FBI. Now do I care about Campbell Brown's father, or think it disqualifies her from being a "journalist" that she was a close--really close--associate of a known, lying felon? No, I am just saying that you can't be a worse hypocrite than to attack a person's family, when you have that kind of family background yourself. I will say that Campbell Brwon is carryihg on the family tradition at CNN, and CNN probably considered a family history of lying to the FBI as a positive asset for working for CNN.
7. John Roberts: John Roberts is just a garden variety, immature, lying CNN hack. See the archive entry.
8. Wolf Blitzer, world champion hypocrite and liar. Yes, I have exposed the despicable Wolf in previous entries as an intellectually dishonest hypocrite. He actually said--I heard him, even though I did not believe it--that the pregnancy of Palin's DAUGHTER raised "questions" (again only for CNN and MSNBC personnel) about "hypocrisy" of Sarah Palin. I bet you did not know that you are a hypocrite if your daughter does not live up to your own moral standards. Wolf, you are the immature lying, hypocrite, along with all of your associates at CNN. Obama, of coure, has said he would be a worse kind of "hypocriet" if his daughters did not uphold his moral standards, which he says he has taught them. Obama has said that if his daughters fail to comply with those moral standards, which he clearly recognizes as possible, that he would not want them "punished" with a baby (in other words, he would want them to have an abortion). That attitude may be why Obama voted for infanticide in the Illinois legislature. It is the Planned Parenthood, intellectually dishonest attitude: that the issue of abortion is the "issue" of whether the mother should be "punished" instead of an issue of the moral equivalent of infanticide (anargument" that would fully support killing a baby after it is born, as well as before it is born).
The above is not just "name calling". The above represent judgments on CNN, and the named people, that have been fully supported in previous entries. I mention some of the examples above, but there are many more specifics in the archives of this blog.
Sarah Palin is right. The people of CCN, and the mainstream media is general, are immature political hacks no better than the worst of the hating left wing blogs. They are out to elect Obama, and destroy Palin by whatever means they can. The above named people are all despicable human beings, but they are representative of the entire mainstream media. These people are perfectly willing to be lying hypocrites to advance their agenda. They have no principles, and no standards. They are not "journalists", and you should never think of them as "journalists". See the entry yesterday about the way CNN treated Mark Foley (endorsing "guilt by association" for the entire GOP), and the way CNN is dismissing the Mahoney sex scandal (Mahoney happens to be thesuccessor to Foley's seat, and CNN is basically saying--despite the hush money--that it is just another "sex scandal" down in Florida, which is not how they treated Foley, who had sex with no one and paid no one off).
P.S. The reason I don't have impressive new examples of CNN immature, lying hypocrisy is not that they have stopped it. It is, rather, that I have stopped wasting my time surfing CNN to get material for this blog. They have convicted themselves, and there is no need for more evidence.
Wall Street Communists
The people on Wall Street have become Communists. Yes "Communists" is my shorthand hyperbole for central planners in economic matters, rather than political "Communists". But there is an element of political "Communism" here too. Remember Orwell's "Animal Farm"--an allegory about how the Communists in the Soviet Union were motivated by self-interest rather than principle? Well, wall Street seems to think that it now controls the governments of the entire world, for the self-interest of the people on Wall Street.
You may get the idea that my contempt for the people on Wall Street--especially those featured on CNBC as both hosts and guests, including Larry Kudlow--has become as strong as my contempt for "journalists". You would be right, and I can't give a greater insult to the people on Wall Street than that. "Pond scum" (of which "journalists" are lower than) does not even begin to describe these people on Wall Street.
How can people who put us in this mess be given control of the economy of the world? Don't ask me. I have told you to vote against all of these incumbent politicians--forever (that is, this election, and all future elections). Sure, that includes every leftist Democrat around, but it also includes almost every Republican. We need to throw all of the bums out. I will not vote for them.
What caused this rant. Well, I made the mistake of watching 10 minutes of CNBC last night. I did it just to find out what rot they were spewing out now, but you may have to forego these regular reports on the Communists at CNBC, and on Wall Street. The sacrifice of listening to these people is too great. I can't take it any more.
Yes, there was a socialist on CNBC last night, talking to a nodding hostess, who said that so long as we have embraced socialism, it is time to go all of the way. No one could make this stuff up, although I told you that exactly this would happen. This blog is always right (99.1% of the time--better than Limbaugh's 98.8%). As I told you, once the "principle' of central planning, and government control, is accepted, there is no way to stop. If the government is responsible for saving Wall Street, banks, and our financial institutions--not to mention the people on CNBC--then why is the government not responsible for everyone, including you and me? There is no answer to that, and that is basically what this (honest, anyway) Communist on CNBC said.
Companies like GM and Ford are in trouble. Many others have leveraged too far with debt. Therefore, since we have already established that the government needs to step in (so this reasoning goes), the government needs to buy up the distressed debut of companies like General Motors. In this crisis, people have accurately said that we now have "capitalism" for the profits, and socialism for the losses. That is certainly what Wall Street wants for itself ("pond scum" is too kind, I tell you).
This Wall Street guy's idea (extortion again, asking us to turn our economy over to the pond scum on Wall Street who did so well in getting us to this point) is that the government can bail us out of a recession by recapitalizing American corporations like GM, in exchange for a taxpayer interest (just like the this plan for the bands, except even more directly putting the taxpayer on the hook for all of Wall Street and big business). Okay, the guy was basically honest. He said this is socialism, and it is. The idea is (as I told you already it would be) that there is no sense in being a "little bit pregnant". As long as we are embracing socialism, why not go all of the way?
I am afraid we are doomed to follow this logic to the end now. Before you embrace it too enthusiastically, you might remember what actually happened to the Soviet Union, and every other central planning economy that has ever existed in the history of the world. A mere human being, or small number of human beings, is/are not capable of "running" the worldwide economy. When they try, and fail, we all go under--really go under, including the taxpayers with the bottomless pockets. It is one of the ironies of history that Western countries have embraced the economic principles of Communism as both the Soviet Union and China have abandoned them (while the people of Castro's Cuba suffer in dire poverty because Castro held to his "principles" to the very end).
The Communists on Wall Street should read "Animal Farm" The book is about them, except they are worse. You can argue, as leftists would, that the people on Wall Street (albeit many are inconveniently leftists) have always been greedy pigs. But they are accomplishing
Monday, October 13, 2008
Democrats and Mainstream Media: Sanctimonous Hypocries (Mark Foley adn TimMahoney)
"WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -Democratic U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney, married with a child, declined to say Monday whether he had carried on an affair with a former aide and paid to keep her quiet, then called for an investigation by the House ethics committee into his own conduct.
Mahoney issued his statement hours after ABC News reported on its Web site that he had agreed to pay $121,000 in March to a former mistress and staff member after being threatened with a sexual harassment lawsuit. Mahoney said he would be vindicated"
The above is more interesting than the normal sordid Washington sex story because of Mark Foley (who was also from Florida, maybe even the same district that Mahoney now represents).
Remember 2006. Democrats tand the mainstream media used "guilt by association" to attack the entire Repubilcan Party over Mark Foley, a Republican congressman from Florida. Foley, of course, was never accused (to my knowledge) of paying hush money, and was eventually exonerated as to having committed any crime. He was just guilty of some crrepy email messages to male pages.
Here you have a Democratic Congressman in the same area who paid hush money, and may have "taken advantage of" an adult female aide.
Will the media talk about whether this damages the entrie Democratic Party. Will they talk about the way Nancy Pelosi has run the House? Will that jump all over this as a major scandal--considering that the actual alleged conduct appears to be worse than that of Foley--although Foley did have the problem of being too friendly to teenaged pages?
It is a fact that Democrats, and the mainstream media, do believe in "guilt by associaton", even when it is outrageously ridiculous (as in tarring the entire Republican Party with Mark Foley), but purport to be "shocked" when the associations of Democrats like Barack "World" Obama are concerned (more relevant and direct associations than Foley, or even Mahoney as to House Democrats in general--the more direct analogy to Foley).
Nope. Leftist Democrats, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the mainstream media are sanctimonious hypocrites of the industrial grade, intellectually dishonest kind. I have repeatedly proven that in this blog, and will surely prove it again.
Barack "World" Obama: Liar (Should Obama Be Jailed in Missouri?)
This is a lie that Barack "World" Obama keeps repeating. John McCain has a tax credit plan to help people get health insurance themselves--a tax cut for almost all people who either have health insurance, or go out and buy it. The Brookings Institute, and another liberal think tank, analyzed the McCain plan and so stated. Indeed, the liberal think tanks estimated (trying, I think, to help Obama) that McCain's tax cut (mainly for "middle income" and lower income people) would amount to 1.3 trillion dollars (over a period of years). The Obama plan for government expenditures is estimated (probably underestimated) at 1.6 trillion dollars.
Obama keeps calling McCain's tax cut a tax increase. McCain needs to start calling Obama a liar on this (frimly, even if he does not use that word). Obama is a liar on this. As I said in an earlier entry, even the leftist, and dumb, AP said so (using the word "misleading").
Obama has an ad running in El Paso, Texas (where I live) deliberately putting out this lie. The ad says that McCain's plan would tax health insurance benefits "for the first time in American history" (false in itself, although not the main falsehood). That is fundametally false--a lie.
McCain's health care plan is a net tax cut for just about everyone (in practice, it will probably be a tax cut for absolutely everyone, by the time it all shakes out). McCain also proposes "taking away" the $3500.00 individual deduction for children, but replacing it with a $7000.00 deduction (double). Obama could just as accurately say that McCina is taking away the $3500.00 deduction, if he fails to mention that McCain is replacing it with double the deductioin (a tax cut).
That is what McCain is doing with health insurance. He is requiring it be reported as income (which it is not, if it is employer provided, under current law). However, McCain is replacing that tax benefit with a benefit that will be more than double, for most families (who are not the "rich"--who Obama is promising to tax wtihout mercy). I have given this example before. Assume you have a family with $30,000 taxable income and $10,000 in health insurance provided by an employer. That family is in a 15% tax bracket. Under present law they will pay $4500.00 in taxes (15% of $30,000). Under McCain's proposal, they will report $40,000 in income (adding in the $10,000), but will pay income taxes of only $1000.00 (you first figure the 15% of $40,000, but then you deduct the offsetting McCain tax credit of $5,000.00) This is a TAX CUT of $3500.00, or about 75%.
Further, the tax credit will surely result in a check being paid to lower income people to reimburse them for health insurance--a check representing money they are not getting under the present tax law.
Is it really true that present law does not tax health insurance benefits? Not exactly (historically, I think it is even more of a lie, but I don't think it is worth going into history, since this is not the Big Lie here).
Some people buy individual health insurance. They pay for that insurance with pre-tax dollars. In other words, they are taxed on the health insurance benefit they provide themselves. Now they may get a DEDUCTION for what they pay, but that deduction (for middle income people) will be less than McCain's tax credit (the tax credit being more valuable than a deduction). This is the real purpose of McCain's health care plan--to enable people to choose their own individual health insurance--not only enabling them to afford it but to choose the type of insurance they want. The idea (good luck) is to encourage competition in price by encouraging people to purchase their own health insurance (which will be mainly paid for by the Federal Government with the tax credit--hence the 1.3 trillion dollar "cost"). the present law is actually unfair, since if your employer does not provide health insurance, you have to buy it on your own with pre-tax collars (having to rely on whatever deduction the government may give you--less valuable than a credit) while corporation provided health insurance is not taxed. Just how bad this discrimination is has varied over the years. McCain would treat employer provided and individually purchased health insurance exactly the same--eliminating the discrimination--which is the correct economic way to do it. McCain will also give that net tax cut. It is absurd (a lie) for Obama to run the ad he is running in El Paso (and I am sure elsewhere).
The ad (the lies just never end) goes on to say that that "millions" of Americans will pay higher taxes. This is a lie, under any reasonable construction of the ad. Yes, there is a way for a person to pay higher taxes under McCain's plan. That is if the person is RICH. The person has to be in the highest tax bracket, AND have extremely expensive health insurance. Remember how Obama says 95% of Americans will get a tax cut under his tax plan. Well, probably 99% of all Americans will get a net tax cut under McCain's health care plan. Further, they can all arrange their health care coverage to not pay any additional taxes. Every person in the 15% tax bracket (or 0 tax bracket) will receive a tax cut of DOUBLE or more their present tax benefit. But the "rich" may pay a very small additional tax, if they have a very expensive health care plan in addition to being in the top tax bracket. That will be very few people (in percentage terms), and they all can avoid it by adjusting their health insurance plan. This is actually not a problem unless health insurance keeps going up, and the highest tax bracket keeps going up (Obama's 50%, for example). Then, in the future, more people (still not the ""middle class") might end up with a higher tax. I would expect the law to be changed before that happens in a major way--even to higher bracket taxpayers. McCain's plan is designed to try to slow down the rise in health insurance costs, and medical costs. Maybe it will. Don't count on it, but it surely has a better chance than the government dominated plan of Obama.
Missouri is where Obama supporting prosecutors seemed to threaten to prosecute people for lying in campaign ads. That raises the question: Will people in the Obama campaign go to jail in Missouri. More realistically, since the Obama supporters backed off of this threat (saying they never meant that), Can I complain about the license of TV stations in El Paso that are running this lying (obviously false and misleading) Obama ad?
Yes, the Obama campaign did this one as a deliberate Obama campaign tactic, and even tried to defend it on national television. They sent letters to TV stations threatening to challenge the license of TV stations who ran "false" ads about Obama--ads not nearly as false as the Obama ad to which I am referring. AsI have repeatedly said, leftists do not believe in free speech. They are perfectly willing to try to impose a "chilling effect" on free speech for political purposes. As I have also said, I don't believe in turning the other cheek. So while I do believe in free speech, and would never have thought of this on my own, the Obama campaign should not be surprised if I--as a private citizen never connected with the McCain campaign and not even supporting McCain--send an "Obama leetter" to El Paso TV stations.
P.S. I do get to see "battleground" state type ads in El Paso. That is because El Paso is geographically more a part of New Mexico (a battleground state) than it is part of Texas. Of course, people in El Paso cannot vote in New Mexico, unless registered by ACORN or La Raza or some other leftist voter fraud group. But El Paso TV goes into New Mexico--especially Las Cruces and other areas nearer El Paso than any New Mexico city. For example, I went to high school in Silver City, and El Paso TV stations were the main stations we could get (although not always good reception). Cable TV and satellite have changed things, but New Mexico candidates still advertise on El Paso broadcast media. I saw this lying Obama ad on the Fox affiliate in El Paso while I was watching that Dallas Cowboy game (the subject of my Sunday entry on the realtionship of ACORN and the recent poor performance of Tony Romo).
Stock Market: Unhealthy Day
The thousand point rise in the Dow today, and the 200 point rise in the NASDAQ, were the sign of an unhealthy stock market.
How can I say today's stock market action was unhealthy, when so many people (including me) made so much money? Easy. I see things clearly.
Yes, the stock market was "oversold"--down too much on momentum and fear. And Wall Street got what it wanted from governments over the weekend, and today (unhealthy itself, in its own way--see my entries since Saturday).
Still, the rise was simply too great. 3 to 500 Dow points would be expected. 1,000 points can only be explained by massive comuter trading (short term, hedge fund type momentum trading). Obviously, the fundamentals have not changed that much since last week (nope, it is "irrational exuberance" to actually believe that the governments of the world have "solved" our problems over the weekend). Even 500 point moves cannot be explained by fundamentals, but only by short term, momentum, computer trading.
So hwat, you say. Last week's excessive selling was not based on fundamentals either. Why should we not gain back the same irrational way we went down? No reason, except that is my point.
If computer, short term trading can boost the Dow a 1,000 points, then it can knock it down a thousand points (as it almost did more than once in the past 2 weeks). That is not healthy. It is knocking "investors" out of the market, in favor of the speculators trading nothing but momentum. It is not healthy to have these kind of wild swings. It would have been much better tor the Dow to go up 1000 points gradually, over the whole week, or even two weeks or more.
Okay. Today has one healthy aspect, which makes it slightly--but only slightly--less unhealthy than last week's stock market trading. Last week, fear simply took over. We were in a "death spiral" of fear--fear induced by Wall Street and our politicians--not to mention our media--themselves. That endless down spiral of fear had to end. There has to be some hope that a day like today can break the cycle of fear. The problem is that people observing these wild swings have to ask whether these people (on Wall Street) really know what they are doing.
The answer is "no", they do not know what they are doing. And what they are doing is messing up the real economy beyond the actual problems in that economy.
El Kabong!!!
How can you stay sane listenting to these Wall STreet failures like Paulson and Kudlow telling us that we should turn over complet power to the people who failed us?
I can only tell you my way. Every time I hear the corrupt Paulson talk, I imagine "El Kabong" (old cartoon) swinging by and bonking him over the head with a guitar. Every tie Larry Kudlow, or someone on CNBC, refers to LIBOR, or "interbank lending", I imanie the same thing. Actually, I am imagining the same think every time I hear almost any of thise financial/Wall Street "experts" talk.
Yes, my fantasy life is now filled with caped figures swinging into action, and bonking all of these people over the head in the only way that carries the right impression of ridicule that these people (Kudlow and company) deserve.
I know. You are probably calling the people with the white coats right now to pick me up. But it is my story, and I am sticking to it. For me, it keeps me sane to imagine "El Kabong" "Kabonging" these people, rather than proving I am insane.
Wall Street, Paulson, and Bernanke Assert Blank Check: Failures Given Total Power?
Remember that campaign of fear to pass the Wall Street bailout--that successful selling of fear to the whole world which pretty much guaranteed a disastrous stock market, a credit "freeze", and pressure on the economy that has probably resulted in a "worldwide recession"?
Well, it was all bogus. We went through all of that agony for nothing. It was all political posturing that did nothing but confirm that Paulson, Bernanke, and all of the "experts" on Wall Street did not have a clue.
Remember how Democrats and Republicans postured about how the taxpayers were not giving a "blank check" to Paulson and Bernanke? Well, they LIED, didn't they? The original "bailout" was sold as a "purchase" of "toxic" assets by the government to get them off of the books of financial institutions. That "plan" has beeen adjudged a failure before it has even been implemented.
Over the weekend, Wall Street and the financial "community" (the very people who got us into this mess, along with ACORN, leftist Democrats, and politicians who were pushing the central planning idea that every American should be able to afford a house) got what they wanted, and the "comprehensive plan" has little resemblance to the "plan" sold to Congress and the American people. That discarded "plan" was the plan that had to be passed or we were doomed. That over-the-top campaign of fear was followed by astonishment that there was still a "lack of confidence" in the markets. Talk about a self-fulfilling "crisis". That is why the new "plan" won't do much either. You can't sell "fear", and then restore confidence with a blank check for government. Yes, the new "plan" is a blank check from taxpayers around the world for governments and Wall Street to use as much taxpayer money as they want to do almost anything they want to "bail out" the financial "smart guys" who got us where we are.
See the Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate entry on Saturday. I already have you some of the outlines of this blank check. The new "mantra" that Wall Street (CNBC, Larry Kudlow, Goldman Sachs and company) have decided upon is that world governments, including the U.S., must "guarantee" "interbank lending (every loan between banks, I guess). Then Europe, or parts of it--including Britain--have guaranteed all bank deposits. That means that the increase of FDIC insurance of bank deposits to $250,000, which was supposedly a big "sweetener" for that Wall Street bailout, was a fraud. The pressure is on the U.S. to at least temporarily guarantee all bank deposits, with no limit, without evidently having to have Congressional authority. Blank check anyone?
Now what is wrong with guaranteeing all bank deposits? well, it gives a blank check to banks to get deposits however they can, using whatever inducements they want to give, and the taxpayers stand behind any excesses. In other words, if this is a "good idea", why don't we do it already? It is not a "good idea". It is a blank check, terrible idea giving financial people the impression that they can blackmail governments into what they want. Larry Kudlow deserved the "Finger" for this kind of thinking, and so did Wall Street and the financial community as a whole. The "interbank lending" is a similar blank check.
I am not done, and neither are these "blank check" people. There is a move to go further, and guarantee all bank debt. Talk about a "blank check"!!! No one could even make this stuff up. Where are all of those politicians explaining how this is not a "blank check" (liars that they are)?
I am still not done. It appears that the main part of the new "plan"--not even really mentioned when this Wall Street bailout bill was pushed through Congress, is to "inject capital" into banks by means of purchasing preferred stock (with maybe some warrants), instead of by purchasing "toxic assets".
In other words, what was that "debate" (fraud) in Congress all about, if the "plan" being debated is not even the plan being implemented. How can you trust any of these clueless people, who scare everybody pushing a "paln" through Congress that they have acknoledged to be doomed to failure before it has even been implemented?
How can Paulson and the Fed do all of this without Congressional authority? Well, despite the posturing of politicians, Paulson and Bernanke are evidently interpreting the Wall Street bailout as giving them a blank check to do what they want. Their attitude seems to be that even if they overstep their bounds, no one will call them on it because the campaign of fear and extortion has made all of our "leaders" incapable of challenging Wall Street and the financial "community" on what they want.
So we have a completely different, "comprehensive" plan--one that was not presented to Congress or the American people at all. Further, this total usurpation of power is being done without apology, or explanation as to why we should trust these people when they have so revealed themselves as to having no clue. These central planners want a total blank check, after proving themselves to be failures, and they are asserting that they have a blank check. It is hard to imagine something much more dangerous than this. Even FDR did not simply impose massive,, taxpayer funded programs without any real authorization.
Is this the end? Of course not. The new CEO of Goldman Sachs (succeeding failure Paulson, who is now Treasury chief doing the bidding of Goldman Sachs there) is already calling for a "new" stimulus package, as if the stimulus being provided by this taxpayer blank check to Wall Street were not massive.
Of course, all of this stuff is supposedly "temporary"--the worst of all possible worlds. The increase to $250,000 should not be "temporary". It should be permanent ($100,000 previous limit has not been raised in decades), and there should be no guarantee of all bank deposits and all bank debt. The "interbank lending" guarantee is straight extortion from Larry Kudlow and company, which should have been ignored.
Now we are into the new world of global central planning to satisfy Wall Street. Wall Street has accomplished what the Soviet Union could not. Wall Street, and the international, financial "community", have extorted the whole world into a version of "Communism". We are, indeed, in a "brave new world." We will be darn lucky to survive it.
Wall Street, which should be in disgrace, is actually becoming all powerful--asserting the right to rule the entire world, and tell governments what to do. Yes, I am using "Wall Street" here as shorthand for the entire world financial community, including the various "fiance ministers" (whatever they may be called in each country) who have totally failed to come up with any "solutions" that do not give total power to themselves (a reward for failure).
Nope. If this is "necessary", we are domed anyway. Because this precedent dooms us. Since there seems no way to stop this power grab, am I joining the "doom and gloom" crowd? In a way I am. I am pretty depressed about it, even though I am not that depressed about the economy itself.
As I have said, conservatism has been exiled to the wilderness. There seem to be no real "free market" people left--especially people who can "tweak" the free market to handle problems instead of abandoning it.
Too bad. The worst of it is that there is almost no government assertion of power, in order to "save" us, that is out of bounds now. The contest will be over who can assert the largest expansions of government in order to take care of us, and how many people have credibility in opposing such expansions of government now (after most have sold out to fear)? Not many. Not enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)