Friday, October 31, 2008
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.
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 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.
Yep. This is from the Florida Secretary of State. Dead people have voted in Florida.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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).
Monday, October 13, 2008
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.