Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Obama and Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: Obama Loses 819,000 Jobs in Two Weeks (No Improvement)

Yes, the number of unemployment applications for the preceding week is reported basically every Thursday--the measure of layoffs (gross job losses) in the economy every week. In the first eight months of 2010, that number fluctuated between 440,000 and 500,0000--a very high number whech failed to improve over a period of some 18 months. However, after spiking up in the summer of 2010, that weekly jobless claims number DID improve until the end of last year--eventually falling below 400,000 (still a high number) near the end of last year, for the first time in more than two years. Now some of that may be somewhat fictioinal, as it is hard to beliegvve that theeconoomy was BAD in the summer of 2010 and so much BETTER (turning on apparently a dime) in the last quarter of 2010. There may be something of a technical glitch here. Nevertheless, the number did seem to be substantially improving--if not to a level good enough to lower the unemployment rate much--over about a 3 month period. Problem: We are now STUCK again: No improvement in almost 4 months.

Last Thursday's reported number (NOT a concrete number, as explained below) was 403,000, and the previous week ws REVISED upward 4,000, to a total of 416,000. This is back to the levels of the late fall of 2010. And, wore, the numbre has NOT continued consistently down. Yes, there were dips down--toward 380,000, which is not really s significant improvement over 400,000 unless the number STAYS at that level. It has not. The number blips down, to headlines saying how the number shows an "improving" job market and economy. The number then SURGES back up, to muted headlines. When the number SURGED to 416,000 (initially reported as 412,000), the despicable AP (as featured on Yahoo "News", as usual) failed to even rep9port the number in the headline--further not reporting a "surge" which "surprised" perpetually surprised economists (not reporting it, that is, in the eliberatgely dismissive headline). The mainstream media tried to suggest that the "sruge" was an aberration (possible, of course, since the weekly number means little because of its volatility), not changing the overall "trend". Problem: the TRND was not there since the end of the year, as the weekly number has bouunced around 40,000--maybe averaging slightly under 400,000, but not by a statistically significant amount (especailly since thesee numbers are NOT "hard" numbers, but ADJUSTED numbers (again, as explained below). Thus, even before the surge to 416,000, the number was pretty much STUCK (unless it stopped bouncing up, which that 416,000 number made moot). Now the number stayed above 40,000 (subject to revision this week, but those revisions have usually been UP). Thus, we are NOT IMPROVING (again).

The headline is absolutely accurate--MORE accurate than the AP headline (criticized by me in an earlier article) about how the United States defaulting on its loans would be a disaster to the economy (a total non sequitur and really false, because it was intended to equate failure to raise the debt ceiling with a default, and that is false). Obama DID lose 810,000 jobs in two weeks, and that number is not totally irrelevant (as the AP headline was on "default"). Now it is true that these are GROSS JOBS, which means Obama did not lose a NET of 819,000 jobs in those two weeks. However, I am merely using the standards of the Obama Administration's dishonest attempt to measure the "success" of the "stimulus" plan (a failue) by "coutning" GROSS JOBS. That is, of course, absurd, as it is somewhat absurd for me to say that Obama has reallyu "lost" 819,000 jobs in two weeks. True, but not relevant on NET jobs, although very relevant on whether we are making progress on net jobs. The headline is my satiric way of again showing you that President Obama is Liar-in-Chief--trtying to get "credit" for GROSS jobs "creaqted", while taking no "blame" for gross jobs LOST.

You may have the media generated impression that the weekly report of new unemployment claims is a solid number--arrived at by COUNTING the number of new applications for unemployment (using fingers and toes, if you have ever worked for the mainstream media). Wrong, Dancing Buffalo ("may a demented buffalo defecate on your shoes, while you are still in them"--Johnny Carson/Karnak reference). Yes, they do "count" (in one way or another) the actual number of (reported) new applications. However, that number is SEASONALLY ADJUSTED,, using a formula that itself has to be continually ADJUSTED. Tht ADJUSTED number is the number that is widely reported (atlghough the Labor Department does report the raw number, which anyone can look up and which can be sometimes--briefly--be referenced in the financial media like CNBC). This is often not a minor adjustment. It is SIGNIFICANT. And just look at what is really going on. Is it possible to believe that we get the "seasonal adjustment" right every week, when the economy is changing so much every year, as the recession itself indiccates? In your dreams--not reality--can this "seasonal adjustment" be regarded as an exact number. Really, the "margin of error" in the weekly reported number has to be at least 10%, if not more. Yes, the errors in any individual week smooth out OVER TIME, but each week's number is pretty MEANINGLESS *exceot as oart if kiiubg at tge bynbers iver tune). That is not even to consider that each week's reported number is REVISED the next week--a revision which has recently been 3 or 4 thousand in most weeks, and usually upward. Tese constant revisions even call into question the COUNT of actual claims filed, before adjustment.

You can see how BADLY the "journalists" of the media "report" the facts here. Firt, the RAW number should ALWAYS be reported, just as prominently as the adjusted number. Otherwise you are not reporting the facts. It should ALWAYS be noted that the number is subject to revision, and the weekly revisions should be prominently reported. You CAN do all of this in the LEAD paragraph, but that is not how modern "journalists" do the lead. The despicable AP lead every week is an INTERPRETATION of the adjusted number--treathing that number as an exact number. I have reported previously instances where the mainstream media has treated a "drop" of 3,000 claims as significant, when we KNOW that the weekly revision alone may turn such a "drop" into an equally meaningless "increase" of a thousand or so. It is disgraceful "reporting", but what else do you expect of modern "journalists"?

This same lackof concrete certainly applies to other reported employment related data. For example, the monthly number of jobs "created" (or "lost") is SEASONALLY ADJUSTED. As with the number of new unemployment claims, this monthly number is aslo subject to extraneous factors like the WEATHER. What about the "unemployment rate"? That is, perhaps, the most unreliable number of all. It is a POLL (I kid you not). It is a SURVEY of a SAMPLE of households. (The media, by the way, fraudulently reports POLLS of every kind, in addition to its fradulent reporting of employment data as exact, since polls are not "exact" numbers either.) Gallup has consistently been reporting an unemployment rate of 10% based on its POLL, while the Labor Department has been reporting well under 10% (now right at 9%). These numbers are all written in quicksand--not totally meaningless, as the only numbers we have, but hardly "hard" numbers the way they are reported. Over the past three years, by the way, these three numbers (jobless claims, jobs created or lost each month, and monthly unemployment rate) have often been INCONSISTENT in terms of "trend" (although all numbers have consistently shown very little improvement, beyond stabilization).

What have you learned? Well, Thursday (tomorrow) the weekly number of new unemployment claims will be reported, along with the revision of last week's number. Say that number is 397,00. You might then see "reporting" that the "trend" has again been proven to be improving, and that it is "encouraging" that the number is back "below" 400,0000. You, having read this article, will know such reporting to be FALSE. First, the number might not be "under" 400,000 at all, because it will be subjet to REVISION the following week. Further, you willknow that the "margin of error" in the number is so large that it is crazy to talk abou 3,000 below 400,000 as being significant. It would be meaningless. In fact, one week's number--any week's number--is pretty much meaningless no matter what it is.

Doubt me? What if Thursday's reported number is 380,l000--seemingly a significant drop. However, since you have read this article, you KNOW that such a number, in itself, will not really be "good" news. Why? Because 380,000 will still leave the AVERAGE for the past 3 weeks at 400,000--a BAD number. Further, the weekly number has bounced around 400,000 since the end of last year, and this shows NO IMPROVEMENT in basically a whole third of a year.

Well, you say, is there ANY number that you would consider "good" news? Nope, and you have to understnad this to understand how you must look at this weekly number. Say Thursday's number is 350,000--a good, although not really outstanding, number, if consistently maintained. What would hat ONE WEEK number indicate? It would mainly indicate a GLITCH--a fictional number. After the weekly numbers have gone UP for two weeks in a row (up from where they were in previous weeks), an EXTREME drop cannot be real. Now it MIGHT indicate that the 400,000 number the previous two weeks was also fictional, and that the situation really is improved. But that could only be concluded after fruther weeks of numbers. So some weekly numbers are obviuosly better than others, but NO week is "good news" in and of itself, in isolation. This is especailly true when the previous two weeks have been above 400,000, and when that same 400,000 level has been where we have basically been for 4 months and more. In that situatin, there is no such thing as "good news". There is only better news and worse news. "Worse" news would be a number that continues right at 400,000, or above.

The more weeks we get above, or right at, 400,000, the more likely it is that 2010 will be repeated. In 2010, starting in about early May, the weekly jobless claims numbers DETERIORATED to their worst level since the end of 2009. Beginning in the late fall of 2009, there were 10 months or so of NO IMPROVEMENT--with the numbers seeming to be worsening. Was that "real" worsening, or has the economy just developed new seasonal patterns? Who knows? And has the "seasonal adjustment" been CHANGED, because of last summer? Will the summer again show an apparent detterioration? You can see how interpreting these numbers is NOT easy, and how bad a job the media is doing giving you the facts.

Note lthat I did not even get into the subject of "discouraged workers", undereemployed people, and temporary workers when discussing this data. That sort of thing makes it even more complicated to examine the true employment picture. But the numbers themselves are NOT EXACT, and it is false to report them as if they are.

P.S. No prooofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

Gloria Borger: Dishonest Political Hack; Jessica Yellen, Dishonest Political Hack (CNN, The Liar Network)

I call Wolf Blitzer (anothr dishonest political hack), Gloria Borger and Jessica Yellen the "unholy trio" of CNN--specializing in partisan political propaganda (leftist propaganda, although if you did not know what "side" they are on, tere is nothing I can do to help you--brain damaged as you are). Yep, I saw a few minutes of propaganda from the unhonly trio yesterday in my surfig of CNN.

We are back to the "birther issue"--sort of--but from a different side that again shows the DISHONESTY and sheer partisanship of CNN (especially the truly terrible Gloria Borger, although we are talking about people--CNN--so uniformly terrible that Gloria Borger is hardly wore than the others, except in sheer, obvioius stupidity). Wolf Blitzer asked Borger and Yellen (sp.? Who could possibly care?) what they thought the POLITICAL effect of Donald Trump's attack on Obama's birth certificate --especially on the chances of Republicans running against Barack Obama.

The first thing you need to realize here is that it is the MAINSTREAM MEDIA--not Donald Trump--that has previously been OBSESSED with USING the "birther issue" AGAINST REPUBLICANS. What that means is that every Repubican--that CNN or the mainstream media gets a chance at--is asked to certify that people who believe that Obama was not born in the United States are evil racists condemned by the Republican being asked the question. Repulican politicians are repeatedly asked what they are doing to stop this evil--as if Republicans have a responsibility to convince everyone that Obama was born here---even though it is OBAMA who has control of the only conclusive (maybe) evidence of his brith--his long-form birth certificate. But the mainstream media is unwilling to make it OBAMA'S reponsibility to present the facts of his birth--preferring, for totally political reasons, to suggest that Repubicans have the responsibility to do this (even though they have no reason to know anything about it, other than whether they plan to make an issue of it).

Yes, CNN and the mainstream media are the wort hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. Did CNN, or the rest of the mainstream media, routinely ask Democrats what they were doing to convince Democrats that President Bush was not complicit in 9/11--when at least 35% of Democrats told pollsters they thought he was complicit in 9/11? Don't be silly. CNN is a PROPAGANDA operatioin--not a "news" organization or neutral assassin. You never hear CNN people ask a Democrat whether they agree with Michale Moore, or are willing to condemn him. Rosi O'Donnell? Nope. No questions to Democrats on that sort of thing. Do you arrpove of Planned Parfenthood's apparent complicity in statutory rape, and refusal to follow the law? No Democrat is asked this questioin (the "issue" never even mentioned). Did we go to war in Iraq for HALIBURTON (Dick Cheney's former company)? Not only were Democrat politicians not asked about this vicious LIE, but most Democrats and mainstream media people probably believe it. The same thing happens with regard to that recurrent rumor that Obama is a Muslim, where Repubican politicians are routinely asked to CERTIFY that Obama is a Christian. (How would they know? See below.). With that intorduction to the propaganda of CNN and the mainstream media, let us get back to Wolf Blitzer and Gloria Borger.

What did Gloria Borger say when she was asked how Trump's raising of the "birther issue" would affect Repubicans? Well, she said she thought it would make it more difficult for Repubicans, because they were already hard put to evade attacking "their base" when asked about the "issue" (in the way I describe above). Borger--I can't make this stuff up--said: Repubicans tend to evade by saying that they take Obama at his word, without being direct." The idea, of course, is that "independents can be turned against Republicans on this "issue", which is why it is the mainstream media that was obsessed before Trump.

But look at what Borger said--dishoest political hack that she is. Not only did she try to suggest the "party line" that Repubicans had a REPONSIBILITY to directly condemn potential voters when invited to do so by CNN, but she did so STUPIDLY. Yes, she mixed up the two "issues" that CNN likes to ask Repubican politicians about. That is because Borger is a STUPID political hack.

Do Republicans really say that they take Obama "at his word" that Obama was born in this country? Not except for the very stupid ones, if there are ANY as stupid as Gloria Borger (really doubtful). What does Obama's WORD have to do with whether he was born in the United States? How does he know (except maybe by looking at his long from birth certificate that he won't let anyone else see)? Obama was a new born BABY. He was not even necessarily told if there had been a sneaky, successful attempt to smuggle him into the country ass a newborn baby and to estabish him as born in Hawaii. That is why this is not nearly so bad as the assertions that Bush was involved in 9/11, or even that Cheney went to war for Haliburton. OBAMA was not reponsible for his birth--although he may or may not have known of any "conspiracy" to alter his place of birth (IF such a thing happened). That is merely a question of FACT--not a vicious slur on Obama's characcter. Bush and Cheney, on the other hand, are accused of KILLING AMERICANS for their own selfish purposes--a crime beyond imagination. It is entirely possible--if really unlikely--that a family might fudge to have a child recognized as born in the United States (something like it happens regularly here along the Mexican border). It is IMPOSSIBLE to believe that even Bush and Cheney (the "even" is for the benefit of those who hate them) would kill Americans for their own selfish ends.

Q.E.D. Borger is a stupid political hack. Yes, Repubicans DO say: "I take the President at his word." But they don't do that with regard to the birth certificate (unless, again, they are stupid). They say that with regard to whether Obama is a CHRISTIAN (a question the anti-Christian mainstream media asks Repubicans solely to BOSTER Obama). Many peopole--including me--do not believe Obama is a Christian. Many--not including me--even bellieve he is a Muslim. Ask yourself how a REPUBLICAN politician (or any other person) KNOWS whether Obama is a Christian or not? On this kind of thing, which involves looking into the heart of another person, there is no way to know whether Obama is a Christian except to take him at his word (or not). The CNN/mainstream media idea that Repubicans have a duty to convince people that Obama is a Christian is simply absurd.

See. Gloria Borger can't even keep her propaganda straight. She is one terrible "journalist", and CNN truly is The Liar Network.

Bill Maher and I agree, by the way, that PRESIDENTA OBAMA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN. Leftist ideology is his only religion. I would feel better if he were a Muslim, instead of just anti-Christian (anti may types of Christians, anyway). It was Obama who left the words "by their Creator" out of the Declaration of Independence when he misquted it. It is Obama who denied, in Turiey, that the United States is a "Christian nation". It is Obama who said small town Americans "cling to their guns and their relition" in a bitter, frustrated way.

Want more. Remember Easter? Sunday. Well, Obama did NOT evidently issue a Presidential proclamation recognizing Easter, even though he has done so on MULTIPLE Muslim holidays.

Should a person's religion, or lack of same, be an issue in a political campaign? Of course not, although it has hapened as early as Thomas Jefferson. But it truly is irrelevant. But the mainstream media, and the LEFT, are the ones who insist on making religiion an issue. I have repeatedly shown what the left, including the EVIL Associated Press, has tried to do to Mitt Romeny because he is a Mormon. You will remember what CNN and the rest of the mainstream media tried to do over Sarah Palin having gone to a Pentecostal chruch ("speaking in tongues") IN THE PAST. You know how CNN tused atheist Bill Maher to continuously attack Christine O'Donnell. Nope. I do NOT "turn the other cheek" (being an agnostic, and not a Christian).

Therefore, from now until November of 2012, this blog will continuously certify that President Obama is NOT a Christian, as Bill Maher and I agree. Note that Maher was used continuously to basically attack Christine O'Donnell on her religion (and many other things), but that CNN is NOT so anxious to cite Bill Maher on Barack Obama as a "secular humanist".

Yes, Gloria Borger, I want you to TALK about whether DEMOCRATS should be asked what they think of Bill Maher saing that Obama is not a Christian. Oh, I forgot. You are a political hack and a hypocrite.

Jessica Yellen? I bet you thought I would not get to her. Wrong, bioson breath (Johnny Carson/Karnak reference). Yellen chimed in to say that what concerned HER was that OTHER Repubicans were getting a "free ride" to "hone" their message while CNN and the rest are concentrating on Donald Trump. I kid you not. She said that. Can you state more directly that you are interested in POLITICAL PROPAGANDA against Republicans? No, you can't, and Jessica Yellen is a dishonest political hack. She obviusly wants CNN to be out there looking at every word Mitt Romeny, et. al. say to PICK THOSE WORDS APART. CNN excuses every thing Obama says, but let a Repubican say something even arguably wrong (whether because he is tired or whatever), and the mainstream media will ATTACK--blowing it all out of proportion. Jessica Yellen admitted that is what she wants to do. And it is a shameful thing, except she and CNN have no shame. She is right, by the way, that Donald Trump is taking all of the fire now, and that is GOOD for other Republicans (so long as Trump does not come to represent the Republican Party). For Repubicans, the less opportunity the mainstream media has to concentrate their PROPAGANDSA on those Repubilcans, the better off they are-unless they have no name recognitioin, and perhaps even then. The Presidential race is TOO LONG anyway, and there is no downside to a late start, except that you have to raise money and establish yourself as a serious candidate FOR THE NOMINATION. Running against Obama is best seriously done later. However, Trump has shown the way that ATTACKING Obama is something Repubicans need to do as early as possible--despite that media backlash that can be expected.

Jessica Yellen did a "budget battle" story--a partisan political hatchet job--on how Reublicans were looking at "only" 12% of the budget in that "shut donwn the government" battle over spending. She asserted that most of the public did not "understand" that. Yes, she has CONTEMPT for YOU, but I have much more contempt for HER--dishonest political hack that she is.

I have seen Gloria Borger--correctly--attacked elsewhere for deliberately using the image of Obama as the "adult in the romm" as propaganda. These are all political hacks, and I am hoping more people will start atttacking them BY NAME. I do, and with examples of exactly what they are doing. No, I watch CNN no more than 10 minutes a day, and often less. It is enough. If I watched regularly, I would not have time to use all of the material anyway. The CNN Big Liews are repeated over and over

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (eyesight).

Monday, April 25, 2011

Birthers and Anderson Cooper, Liar: Eliot Spitzer More Honest Than Anderson Cooper?

CNN iss The Liar Network, totally uninterested in "the truth", but only in propaganda. Yes, just "keeping themm honest". CNN proved it again tonight.

First, let me go back to my other life as a lawyer. The suject we are talking about is Barack Obama's birth certificate (the "long form", hospital certificate you get everywhere but in Hawaii). What is the BEST evidence of that birth certificate? Obviously, it is the DOCUMENT itself. That elementary principle is totallly lost on Anderson Coo[per, and the other liars at CNN (The Liar Network).

Yes, I have just told lyou the BEST EVIDENCE rule (in essence). That is the rule of law that says that a document itself is the best evidence of its existence and contents. The rule will ordinarilly not allow even a copy of a document without evidence of what happened to the original. The rule will certainly usually not allow ORAL "evidence" of a written document to be used in place of the original document (very analogous to the hearsay rule as to that kind of SECONDHAND testimony as to the observations of someone else). Now there are, of course, exceptions to requiring the original document, and one of those exceptions is a certified copy of an official or business document (like medical records, etc.)--since the origiinal documents are not usually releaseed. In these days of computers, the "original" document may not even exist in paper, "hard copy". Still, the original principle still applies--just adapted to the modern world. Especially if the original document can be obtained (or a certified copy), a court will NOT accept ORAL testiomony as to the contents of a document based on "observation" of the document. Any other rule would be absurd. The law is usually not absurd (with exceptions), but CNN and Anderson Cooper ARE ABSURD LIARS.

Yes, CNN decided to "dig" into the question of Barack Obama's birth certificate, except CNN did not really "dig". Instead, CNN set out to provide PROPAGANDA against the questions and assertions of Donald Trump. Anderson Cooper is preenting tonight (promos--won't catch me watching) the "conclusive" interview with a former official of Hawaii ("Repubican" being emphasized, as if that means a damn thing, which it does not). That offiicial was presented by CNN, and Anderson Cooper, solely to BOLSTER the assertion that Donald Trump is wrong by ORAL assertions that such official "saw" the document. Presumably, the official will not give DETAILS of the document that might be used to check its authenticity. Indded, the official almost certainly made no effort to look into the authenticity of whatever document she saw, other than to just assume whatever document she was shown was authentic. You can see why this ORAL interview provides NO EVIDENCE that Barack Obama has a "real" birth certificate with authentic information on it. It is not "information" that would be accepted in ANY court in the land. But Anderson Cooper, liar, is presenting it to you as conclusive "evidence" that Barack Obama has an authentic, long form birth certificate on file in Hawaii. As stated, Anderson Cooper is a liar. That kind of made up BOLSTERING is NO EVIDENCED of ANYTHING, except that CNN is merely a propaganda organization. You may remember that I once heard Bill O'Reilly assert that he had seen the original birth certificate. I again call Bill O'Reilly a liar, because he is either a liar or someone broke the law to show it to him (plus, he has not repeated that assertion, which I heard him say way back two years or more ago). No, I am not calling the Hawaii ex-official a liar. How would I know. I am just saying her ORAL assertions are NOT EVIDENCE of anything (just as there appears to be no evidence Obama was born outside of Hawaii). Q.E.D. Anderson Cooper is again convicted of being a sanctimonious liar, and CNN of being The Liar Network.

Remember when CNN sent a TEAM to Alaska to "invstigate" whether Sarah Palin's baby was really hes (MUCH less of a plausible "issue" than Obama's birth certificate). CNN and the media would not be satisfied until they forced Palin to admit that her daughter was pregnant. Did CNN "dig" like that into Barack Obama's birth, with the idea of getting the "truth"? Don't be silly. The LAST thing CNN is interested in is the truth. CNN simply went to Hawaii to BOLSTAER the "caSe" that Barack Obama was born in the United States, without even attempting to get the BEST EVIDENCE (the actual document, or a copy). As stated, I don't see ay evidence Obama was born outside of Hawaii, but I have to admit that CNN and Obama are doing their level best to convince me otherwise.

Yes, Eliot Spittzer (I did see this to aovid watching Anderson Cooper) presented the person CNN sent to Hawaii to "dig" into the question. What digging? There was no evidence of any "digging". What was evidennt was that attempt to bolster Obama that I told you about (when CNN would be demanding Bush produce the brith certificate). Spitzer (to his credit) kept asking whether OBAMA could get whatever document was on file and release it. Reluctantly, the CNN "reporter" (in his dremas) admitted that Obama could do that, but did not want to do it because--AMONG OTHER UNSTATED REASONS--doubters would not be satisfied. This is "digging"? Give me a break. In facc, every time Spitzer brought it up (that all Obama had to do was GET THE DOCUMENT), the "reporter made sure and say that Hawai regarded the short form "certificate of live birth" as the "legal document", and that Obama would have to enter a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request to get the doocument in five days. .........................................HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Sorry, I was momentarily incapacitated laughing at the liars of The Liar Network. Is CNN really trying to tell me that Obama cannot call up the Attorney General of Hawaii (who PROMISED to get to the bottom of his) and tell him or her to release a copy of the birth certificate? CNN, you really are trying to convince me Obama was not born in Hawaii, aren't you? Or you are trying to kill me with laughter. One or the other. Obama could release this birth certificate. CNN reluctantly confirmed this. He just does not want to do it, but it is ridiculous to suggest--as the liars at CNN are doing--that ORAL descriptons of the birth certificate are an acceptable substitute for the document itself. No court in the land would accept that, and I don't.

Why do I say Spitzer is MORE honest than the truly despicable Anderson Cooper? Well, Spitzer kept saying, ovre the attemts by the CNN reporter to deflect the issue, that Spitzer does not see why Obama does not just end this and RELEASE THE DOCUMENT (which Trump, by the way, is saying). Spitzer is the guy--the former Democratic governor of New York who had t resign in disgrace because of being a customer of a postitution ring of the kind he had previously describbed, as a prosecutor, as the type of operation usually part of organized crime--Spitzser is the guy who said, ON CNN, that he is a person "with stong views", but "not biased". I could not make this stuff up. Doen't it make yor head hurt, like those continued assertions that we have no "side" in Libya in our military operations other than humnaitarian purposes, but that we insist Gahdafi go by use of other means. My head almost explodes thinking of those statements, and of Stipzer's. But Spitzer is STILL more honest than Anderson Cooper, as Spitzer rightly put hiis finger on the problem: if the "birth certificate" exists, then the ONLY real "evidence" of that document is a verified copy of the actual document (failing that, a pirated copy, Wikileaks style). CNN attempts to suggest otherwise are simply partisan propaganda.

Now you may remember that I have called people who believe there is any evidence that Obama was born outside of Hawaii "kooks" (part of my "you are a kook if:" series). Am I backing off of that? Nope--at least not until CNN convinces me. Why not? Look. Say there is NO birth certificate (no "real" one from a hospital). That is NO EVIDENCE that Obama was born outside of Hawaii. And there is substantial, if perhaps not conclusive, evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. SPECULATIOIN is simply not enough to be a "campaign issue", or to realy suggest that Obama is a fraudulent President of the United States.

But why does Obama simplly not release the birth certificate? Well, I think there is a better than 50% chance that there are PROBLEMS with Obama's "birth certificate". Nope There is no reason to believe that one of those problems is that Obama was actually not born in Hawaii. But what if the document is not really a "hospital" birth certificate, or if some of the information is obviusly false? What if no "real" birth certificate exists, but only some sort of dcoument from family and associates certifying to Obama's birth? Midwife? The possibilities are endless. My younger daughter--now a high powered lawyer in a big New York law firm--tells me that Hawwaii is NOTORIOUS for being slipshod with papterwork, and other official things. How much worse would it have been back in the early 1960s, when Hawaii had just become a state. Is this why Hawaii does not even use "long form" birth certificates? Yes, my daughter knows about Hawaii. She graduated from the University of Hawaii, before going on to the University of Virginia School of Law.

Note that merely the existence of SOME "birth certificate" is not really the issue here. WHAT KIND? Anything less than a copy of the document is not good enough.

Remember Dan Rather? He insisted that FORGERIES of documents were good enough to "convict" Bush The left, including CNN, were reluctant to condemn Rather and CBS, since they agreed with Rather that the "truth" was what they WANTED IT TO BE. Donald Trump is not being nearly as evil with Obama. But the left--true to form--would rather argue that ORAL descriptions of a document, as well as forged documents, are just as good as the real thing than demand that the real thing be produced--the only logical conclusion (as Trump and Spitzer agree).

Nope. No proofreading or spell checking (eyesight)

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Debt Ceiling and Media Liars (Boycott Yahoo)

I did not want to let this pass, in my role as media monitor. On Thursday, I think., the "Anti-Amrican, Despicable Associated Press" (complete, official name) had this headline featured on Yahoo "News" (my U-Verse default page which I keep as a sacrifice to keep up with these people--boycott Yahoo, which has NO conservative "diversity" in its featured articles):

"Debt Default Would Be Disaster for U.S. Economy"

What is the LIE (yep, I just called the peole of the Associated Press, and Yahoo, LIARS) in that headline--a SCARE headline with not other purpose than political propaganda?

You should know this if you have been reading my articles regularly (and why have you not?). Yes, indeed, it WOULD be an economic "disaster" if we actually defaulted on our debt, and the LIARS of the mainstream media would probably defend the headline that way, if the true lie wsa ever brought to their attention. Isn't the headline true? Not really, in any fundamental way. Because what the hedline INTENDS to say is that failing to raise the debt ceiling will cause a "disaster" to the U.S. economy, and cause us to default on our debt. Absolutely NOT TRUE.

As previously stated in my articles, refusing to raise the debt ceiling does NOT--ojectively, and not a matter of opinion--mean the United States has no money. We still have TWO TRILLION dollars in revenue each year, AND we can keep borrowing so long as we don't raise the NET debt of the United States.

Now, as I have said, it is too much to expect that we can go "cold turkey" and actually learn to "live within our means like a normal family" (Barack Obama--Liar-in-Chief). Even the wimpy Republicans are not proposing to balance the budget for some 20 years or more (not good enough--and what about the HYPOCRISY of callling for a "balanced budget amendment" unless you propose to actually balance the budget).

Therefore, we are going to have to eventually raise the debt ceiling. But "eventually" is the key phrase. NOTHING HAPPENS immediately if we fail to raise the debt ceiling. The government does NOT "shut down". We do NOT have to stop paying the interest on our debt (no automatic default). We simply have to stop NET BORROWING. That means we DEFER non-priority items. We may have to set priorities as to what gets paid and what does not. Social Seucrity and military pay WILL get paid. You say that Obama and the Democrats will not cooperate to set priorities? Well, then, WHO would it be that is willing to cause a disaster to the economy rather than give up on their political goals?

Remember SENATOR OBAMA, who said in 2006 that the obvious PURPOSE of the debt ceiling was to cause us to return to "fiscal responsibility"--the purpose of a canary in a coal mine (my image--not his--although the reasoning is his). Obaama votged against the debt ceiling increase in 2006 for this reason. He now says he has "changed his mind", because he is a liar (his 2006 statement wsa totally POLITICAL, and his present statement is totally political--no principle involved at all).

Obama was right in 21006. The debt ceiling has NO other purpose than to give us an urgent WARNING that we have a government out of control. What Repubicans are now saying is that we should not raise the debt ceiling UNLESS and UNTIL we impose fiscal responsiblity on government spending out of control (setting aside whether TEHY really mean that). They are right, as Obama was in 2006 (even if NONE of them have any principles). Otherwise, we should simply eliminate the debt ceiling. If every attempt to actually enforce the debt ceiling, or its only possible purpose (since we know we do not really mean it), then the debt ceiling has NO PURPOSE.

Yes, if every time we approach another increase of the debt ceiling we face SCARE LIES like that of the despicable AP, and rest of the mainstream media, then we might as well give up--UNLESS we are willing to stand up to the liars and force Obama to stand behind what he correctly said in 2006 (even if he did not mean it).

P.S. Nope. No troofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

Thursday, April 21, 2011

CNN and PETA: The Worst Liars and Hypocrites to Ever Walk the Earth, on Two Legs or Four

A really bad day for me. I not only saw 20 seconds of Larry Kudlow and 20 seconds of Lawrence O'Donnell, but I saw a little more than 20 seconds of HLN (the CNN network I NEVER even surf, indicating that there may be a God and that He has chosen me for the mission of driving a stake into the truly astounding hypocrites and liars at CNN).

What am I talking about, and why is PETA in the title (so extreme as not to be that hypocritical, although definitely liars)? Well, you will remember that CNN (and even O'Reilly) talked about the "ethics" of those "undercover videos" showing the truly evil nature of TAXPAYER FUNDED ACORN, Planned Parenthood, and NPR. Now you know, and I now, that CNN is merely a propaganda instrument, and therefore we paid no attentin to the idea that "journalists' never "lie" to get a story. So CNN tried to label these CONSERVATIVE (their true "crime") undercover journalists/citizens as LIARS. Nope. CNN did not do that with regard to the Governor Walker prankster in Wisconsin or any number of other such LEFTIST "uncercover" recording obtained by suspect means. Thus, I labeled CNN a nest of the worst hypocrites who ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four (along with the reast of the mainstream media). I bet you thought I could not be PROVEN right on this. Wrong, bisno breath.

Yes, vidoes have surfaced about alleged mistreatment of CATTLE (calfs) by farmers/ranchers. I am absolutely sure this comes right out of PETA (people for the ethical treatment of animals), or that PETA is behind it. PETA, you will recall, is AGAINST eathing steaks, and such eating of animal flesh. Now is there anything wrong with those videos? Nope--not as far as I am conderned, provided they are honest (always a question with PETA). And they are surely being overblown by PETA, with the usual cooperation of the mainsttream media (whether they eat steaks or not).

But I happened to see this report on HLN (the CNN network). They went CRAZY: wanting CRIMNAL charges based on these undercover videos--and against people NOT in the videos. On that reasoning, Planned Parenthood should be charged CRIMINALLY all of the time. But that is nto even what CNN went HYSTERICAL about. And this is where CNN again exposed itself as a nest of hypocrites with no "principles' other than propaganda.

Yep. Guess what farmers and rancheres are doing about these TRESPASSERS who are using lies and deceit to get evidence against the farmers and ranchers? Right. The farmers and ranchers WANT A LAW. Shades of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood, and the left, already has "a law" in several states. But CNN has not attacked THOS LAWS. Indeed, CNN has attacked the C ONSERVATIVES who have obtained the undercover viceos exposing wrongdoing at Planned Parenthood and elsewhere. In California, Planned Parenthood even threatened a HIGH SCHOOL reporter for allegedly violating California law. No peep from CNN. But let a LEFT WING (absolutely ture of PETA) organization be interested in undercover videos, and CNN is all for them. Suddenly, this is the ONLY way to expose the bad guys (as, indeed, it may be). No talk of NON-EXISTENT "journalistic" "ethics" It is all about getting the bad guys.

As stated, I have no problem with the undercover videos (although you have to be a litttle careful about what kind of conduct you encurage from PETA, as PETA has long shown that it does not regard the law as anything but something to be broken if it stands in PETA's way). Nope. I have no problem with LEFTIST undercover videos, except when actual laws have been broken (as is true of my attitude toward conservative videos, and "laws' being broken--if it happens--does ot change the video, as CNN recognizes in advoateing leftist videos).

Q.E.D. The people of CNN are the worst hypocrites to have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (eyesight).

Obama and the Debt Ceiling: Liar-i-Chief (Lawrence O'Donnell, Minion iar, Along with All of MSNBC)

Yes, I saw my usual 20 second oLawrence O'Donnell tonight, and I was not disappointed. I got, again, to hear the Obama party line on the "debt ceiling": an Orwellian Big Lie. After all, Obama IS "Liar-in-Chief. Lawrence O'Donnell, of course, is simply a liar--one of Obama's minions, along with the rest of MSNBC. BUT, you may remember, I do NOT give CNN a pass (like O'Reilly does on alternate weeks). CNN presented this very same Obama Big Lie, as if there were any truth to it. See my previious article on that subject.

Back to O'Donnell. He started out with a ridiculously partisan premise that was an outright LIE. He suggested to his guest (some Obama hack) an answer with the questin: "What happens at midnight on the debt ceiling deadline, if it is not extended?"

ARGGGGGGHHHHHH (O'Donnell has the same effect on me as Kudlow--see previous article; sorry).

What happens if we reach "midnight" of the debt ceiling "deadline"? Answer: NOTHING. (other than a possible reaction from the economic fascists on Wall Streeet--which is the only real "danger" here). Nope. O'Donnell desperately tried to give you the idea that failing to raise the debt ceiling is the same as a government "shut down". NOAT TURE. An absolute lie. The government coninues in operation. It can even borrow money . It simply can't add NET debt. Now that will INCONVENIENCE the government, and maybe the country, OVER TIME. That is because nobody is proposing to balance the budget. So more borrowing will eventually have to happen, unless we get serious about "living within our means" (quoting the President, as Liar-in-Chief pretending to desire that).

So the Obama hack guest guest got to "answer" O'Donnell's softball "question". His answer? The SAME one presented on CNN (as if you did not know that CNN and MSNBC are fudamentally the SAME).: "Social Security checks will not go out. Nuts. Hogwash. Orwell lives. The government still has its tax money. It still has its borrowed money. It just won't have its ability to BORROWW MORE. That is not even a bad thing, although I recognize that the people in government are simply unable to quiit cold turkey like that.

Our ongoing borrowing off NETA money is not a large percentage of the money we have--especially over a few months. If we have to "live within our means" for several months, it merely means we will have to PRIORITIZE as to the funds we spend. We will still have funds. We just might have to do what Repubicans FAILED to do, and make some REAL ctus (or at least deferrals). We don't have to stop paying our debt (although we could defer awhile--with credit consequences, but Sandard and Poors has said our DEBT is so large, with no end in sight, that has already put the United States on "credit watch" for a possibl edowngrade anyway).

In short, the debt ceiling is a slow motion problem with NO immediate consequences (outside of Wall Street).

But what did SENATOR OBAMA say (again see a previous article)? Well, and O'Donnell--liar, hypoocrite and political hack--did not make this previous Obama view part of his questions, SENATOR OBAMA (2006) voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling then, for the very reason that most conservatives want to fight it now. Senator Obama said that the debt ceiling's PURPOSE was to impose fiscal responsibility, so that at least we had to address the problem of fiscal responsibility when we reach the debt ceiling. Simply raising the debt ceiling (extending Obama's reasoning) simply makes it a FARCE. The only way the debt ceiling is not a farce is if we DO SOMETHING to impose fiscal responsibility BEFORE we raise the debt ceiling. I know there are Republican establishment types, and Wll Streeet, who don't want to "rock the boat". That is why those people (establishment Repubicans) are becoming more an d more IRRELEVANT. Yes, Republicans CAN "insist" on REAL moves toward fiscal responibility, just like Obama called for in 2006.

And what happens if Repubicans get their "bluff" called, and Obama refuses to budge? Well, we will have to "live within our means". Military pay wil continue. Social Security checks will continue. Medicare will continue. But we might have to CUT (not just cut the increase) government salaries. We might have to CUT government pensions. We might have to STOP alternative energy subsidies (and oil company subsiddies as well). We might have to CUT farm subsidies (like eliminating them) We might have to CUT ethanol subsidies. We might have to CUT the spedning of EVERY federal agency, including the Pentago. We would have to show URGENCY, as we would suddenly be forced to "live withing our means" (which Obama supposedly wants).

No, it will not happen, althhough I would stand behind SENAtoR OBAMA as a Republican (which I am presently not). If Obama and the Democrats refuse REAL "fiscal discipline" (Obama's words), then Republicans should not FEAR "living within our means""--such FEAR merely showing them up as hypocrites. Ultimately, there will be a raise in the debt ceiling, but Repubicans should FEAR people like me if they get another COSMEATIC attempt at "fiscal discipline".

Yep. A "balanced budget amendment" is a COSMETIC thing, imposing NO "fiscal discipline". Paul Ryan does not even propose balancing the budget for at least 20 years. The "balanced budget amendment" would be just like the "debt ceiling". Congress would not take it seriously, unless it had BIG TEETAH. Repubicans do not want that any more than Democrats do (cynical, aren't I) A "falanced budget amendment" is POLITICAL THEATER. I fell like voting AGAINST any Republican who touts some agreement on a "balanced budget amendment" vote as a fair trade for raising the "debt ceiling". Talk about IRONY You woould have one fictdion being circumvented by another fiction. REAL CUTWS NOW is all I will accept.

What? You think I am just irritated by listening to 20 seconds of both Larry Kudlow and Lawrence O'Donnel in one day? Maybe you are right. If I were a Republican politician, however, I would not count on it. I still remind you I did NOT vote for McCain, even though I fully understood exactly what Obama wa (and I DO NOT mean his alleged birth in Kenya).

P.S. Nope. No proofreading or spell checking. Bad eyesight. True of every article, with or without this P.S., until further notice.

LarryKudlow Finds Silver Lining in Illegal Immigration: Economic Fascist to the Bitter End

You will remember that Larry Kudlow, of the truly despicable CNBC, got in trouble for a really insensitive commen--I thinnk saying that the earthquake/tsunami in Japanwas probably GOOD for the world economy and the stock market. You can look up my previous article on the subject if you want to know the details. Now I see Larry Kudlow MAYBE 120 seconds a week (many weeks not at all). Yet, I HEARD him present , WITH APPROVAL, the idea hat increased illegal immigration is a GOOD sign for the economy. Kudlow had to APOLOGIZE for his previous "insensitive" remark. Will he apologize for this one No concern for American workers from Kudlow, right? Yes, the man is bone deep stupid, as well as being an economic fascist.

What? You don't see what Kudlow was saying? Well, that is a very good thing for my view of your intelligence. There is, however, a "rationiale" (and I use the word loosely). Kudlow actually said that illegal immigrants (you know, like animals--rats deserting a ship destined to sink) SENSED the weakening econoomy in the United States BEFORE Wall Street and everyone else, explaining why they suddenly stopped crossing our border in such large numbers. Don't scream at me. Scream at Kudlow. I am just the messenger here. Now Kudlow may well be right about Wall Street, INCLUDING KUDLOW, since those people are the STUPIDEST PEOPLE ON EARTH (except making money taking advantage of other people, and then--with the encouragement of Kudlow--being BAILED OUT when their stupidity is confirmed). Absolute fact--not opinion. If you do not believe that, look at wHEN Wall Street reached all time highs (October of 2007), EXACTLY when the economy was poised to COLLAPSE.

What can you say about Kudlow? The best you can say is that he is consistently stupid. I live on the Mexican border (El Paso). It does not matter how bad the econmy has been here. Mexico is a FAILED country (the headline of article after article I have written since 2006). People are DYING in Mexico (3,000 a year in El Pasos sister city of Juarez--talking MURDERA here). To say that illegal immigration along our southern border is primarily a dIRECT reflection of our economy is beyond stupid. It is getting WORSE daily in Mexico--more than enough reason for people to try to get here. ARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH. Sorry. Kudlow does that to me.

Now did our economy have an indirect effect on illegal immigration? Probably so. Our economic woes made it crystal clear that people like KUDLOW, and the AFL-CIO, DO NOT CAARE about AMERICAN workrs. They have other fish to fry. The latest recession has given the final stake through the heart to the ridiculous idea that we NEED illegal immigants and "guest workers" because of a SHORTAGE of American workers. You say that American workers will not do those jobs? Just when I was thinking better of you, you obviously started listening to people like Kudlow. Americans damn well WILL do these jobs, IF the governmnment stops bailing them out (albeit to a lesser esxtent tthan the governnment bailed out Kudlow and his friends). So Farmers and construction companies have to pay a LITTLE more (maybe). Who says that is BAD, besides the totaly clueless Kudlow. And if you want to start telling me about those poor people who won't have such an easy time finding maids and gargeners, then I have to give up on you. You obvioiusly work for CNBC, or another mainstream media outfit. Nope, Kudlow continues to fail my test of competence: I would not vote for him for dogcatcherr of Mt. Ida, Arkansas (the small Arkansas town where I spent most of the first 12 years of my lief).

Did I call Kudlow a Nazi (see headline)? Nope. ECONOMIC FASCISM has nothing to do with Hitler, and preceded Hitler. It has nothing to do with Jews and the Final Solution. Economi fascism is basicallly STATE CAPITALISM--a "partnership" between Big Business and Big Government. Yes, President Obama is an economic fascist. So is Larry Kudlow, except that Kudlow thinks the "partnership" should impose HIS kind of poplicies, rather than Obama's (some overlap, like on bailing out Wall Street). That is, of course, one of the many flaws in economic fascism--besides the basic flaw that it is a CENTRAL PLANNING SYSTEM: The government eventually is the dominant partner, and "business" will not have any real say in that "partnership" (in the end, except, of course, to the extent the business people are PART of the dominant group running the government, which is not a LONG-TERM bet you should make as a businessman).

Economic fascism has been defined as "socialism with a capitalist veneer". That is Obama. That is Obama. Now you have trouble seeing Kudlow as a "socialist", but remember this is all about POWER. Wall Street---including Kudlow--delucdes itself (again) that it has it all "figured out", and that it is now CONGRAOOLLING the government in many ways (including through Ben Bernanke). That makes them stupid (The Stupidest People on Earth). And they are economic fascists, whether they know it or not.

Hey, do you think I can get invited to Kudlow's Christmas Party if I promise to lay off of him a while? Nah, he would not trust me (rightly on this). He onlyl trusts his economic fascist buddies, including people that Wll Street thinks are controlling Obama. I how Kudlow pulls off a Donald Trump and moves to run for office. It will be one of the pleasures of my liefe to vote AGAINST him--including against the devil himself.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Donald Trump, China and Lawrence O'Donnell: The 25% Solution (O'Donnell: World Class Hypocrite)

Donald Trump has proposed--probably with full knowledge he is being overly simplistic--has called for slapping a 25% tariff on China. Trump, Michelle Bockman, and Sarah Palin are the ONLY Republicans who might be running for Presidentt who are out there saying someting: actually taking on Obama and the mainstream media. And no, I will not support Trump for the nomination (do not even believe he will run). I might support Palin, depending on how the others do when they actually start saying something, if ever (where, again, I do not believe she will run, and think she should not). I do not believe Michelle Bockman has any chance of becoming President in 2012 (probably running for Vice President, although I can't see any Republican nominee choosing her), even though I really like Michelle Bockman. I do not know whether I would support her for the nomination. Again, it depends on whether a more "winnable' candidate seems to be set frimly on the right course (whether he or she believes it deeep down or not, where I have my doubts about ALL of the potential candidates other than Palin and Bockman). . Remember, I supported Romney in 2008 (really 2007) BEFORE the main conservatives did so--IN FORESIGHT accurately blaming Limaugh, Hannity and the rest for failing to see what had to be done to stop McCain. I have no problem with supporting Romney again, but am not impressed with his performance SINCE 2008 (his leadership, in other words). I would vote for ALL of the above named against Obama--with some qualms about Trump--which I did not do as to McCain (without regrets, and I would take the same position again, as I will as to any Republican nominee who I regard as similar to McCain). The point here is to let you know where I am coming from, and to let you know that I am almost OBJECTIVE in evaluating Republicans (always recognizing that my lifetime principles will never let me support the left, except on very isolated issues--where I consider McCain and the Repubican "establisshment as part of the Big Government left, and part of the culture destroying left). On to Lawrence O'Donnell, the leftist political hack on MSNBC.

O'Donnell is doing his very best to make Trump look good. What was O'Donnell's reaction to Trump's proposal for a 25% tariff on imports from China? It was hysterical--literally and in terms of being funny. O'Donnell RIDICULED Trump for the kind of thing OBAMA and the unions have regularly said--while taking on places like Columbia instead of China. Am I saying O'Donnell and leftist Democrats are unprincipled BULLIES unwilling to take on a major Communist country for both idological and cowardly reasons? Exactly so.

O'Donnell said this was a SALES TAX (that 250 tariff proposed by Trump). O'Donnell, you LIE (or are so misleading it amounts to a lie). Let us say that China is conducting WAR against the United States by SUBSIDIZING its own exports to the tune of 25%--creating what Democrats have called an "unequal playing field". Is O'Donnell really sayihng that NO economic experts think we should take on China? If so, then it would confrim my view of economic "experts".

Yes, there are many people who DO think--Trump says he is one--that China is UNFARILY conducting economic WAR against the United States, and the West, by tilting the playing field in international trade. Now I favor free trade (NAFTA, a free trade deal with our FRIENDS in Columbia, and elsewhere). A tariff war was one of the main reasons for the Great Depression (length and severity). But say the Chinese government simply gave Chinese exporters a 25% subsidy for all exports. Is O'Donnell really saying that we should ignore that? If so, does O'Donnell realize that the PEOPLE are going to be on Trump's side and not on his? Something like that is exactly what Trump, and others, say China is doing. The main way China is doing this is by UNDERVALUING its currency--perhaps by MORE than 25%.

You can see how COMPLEX this issue is, and how HYPOCRITICAL O'Donnell is for accusing Trump of stupidity. Being TOUGHER with China is something I fully endorese, and I am sure I am on the side of the American people on this. O'Donnell is not.

But I oppose a tariff war with China. I have told you why. There is a case for it based on the SINS (deliberate) of China. But the damage to international trade is simply too great--even if China is subsidizing its trade, unfairly, to the tune of 25%. Free trade is a principle to abandon only as a last resort. No, I do not think this is a last resort, because O'Donnell is right in one sense. A 25% tariff would be paind by AMERICAN CONSUMERS. What is China doing when it subsidizes its exporrts--maknig them so cheap they undercut U.S. businesses? China is SUBSIDIZING American consumers, and supporting our lifestyle. Is that benefit greater than the detriment to American manufacturing and jobs? Not clear. But the overall world principle of free trade is important enough not to risk it over this fight.

Have you worked out why ODonnell's "sales tax" comment is a LIE? Firt, why does O'Donnell whink his audience thinks that is BAD? Leftist Democrats have never seen a tax they do not like, and the sales tax (or its deceptive cousing, the Value Addded Tax) is not exception. Why does O'Donnell think his listeners will believe his HYPOCRISY in suddenly rejecting a tax. Further, it is NOT really the equivalent of a general sales tax. Rather, a 25% tariff (or threat of same) is much more analogous to a SIN TAX like that on acohol and cigarettes. Those are a type of "sales tax", but really aimed at CONDUCT. A tariff aimed at China is really a SIN TAX aimed at China's SINS in international trade, and against our businesses. To call it a "sales tax" serves no purpose, and completely distorts the debate around what is fundamentally a lie. You could more accurately call a 25% tariff on China exports a FINE for unfair international trade ractices. I ooopse such a taqriff, but not because I want to use an excuse to UNFAIRLY ridicule Trump. I DARE any economist to comment on this blog and tell where I am wrong as to the possible CASE against China. I just don't think that case is enough to undermine the principle of free trade.

What people perceive, and what hypocrite O'Donnell knows they perceive, is that Trump is sending a message that we should play HARDBALL (yes, an MSNBC program name) with China. While I do not agree with undermining free trade, I agree with Trump on the general idea that we need to play more HARDBALL with China. Instead, leftists like O'Donnell are busy supporting the UNIONS preventing a free trade agreement with Columbia (frindly country, as stated). Are rules suggested by unions to be REQUIRED of people with whom we make a free trade deal (union-type rules adding to costs of labor) the equivalent of a SALES TAX on American consumers? Damn right, and with not nearly as much justificatioin as we have for punishing China.

Is this all of my case as to why O'Donnell is a world class hypocrite? Not on your life, bison breath. What is O'Donnell trying to do here? He is trying to ridicule Trump for making outrageous statements that he knows are ridiculous. Now the tariff for China is not one of those statements, although it is probably hyperbole on Trump's part. But the thing that makes O'Donnell a world class hypocrite is that OBAMA routinely engages in the same kind of hpberbole and outright lies. Doubt me? Don't.

Yes, it was Obama who deliberately tried to SELL his health care plan by saying that he was giving small businesses a 3000% savings on their premiums. Trump has NEVER said anything that outrageous. And the "explanation" was just as bad. The "explanation" was that Obama meant to say that businesses would get a $3,000 savings on health care premiums with the Obama subsidy. Problem: This was a lie as well, and made no sense in the context of the speech (where only a percentage made any sense). Peoop out of O'Donnell, except perhaps to defend Obama? Not a chance. ODonnell (and all of MSNBC) is nothing but a partisan political advocate for Obama. It is as an advocate that he is over-criticizing Trump. You might almost expect that O'Donnell has been bought off by Trump, because O'Donnell--as stated---is doing his best to make Trump look good. After a few minutes of O'Donnell (the most I ever see), I think a lot better of Trump.

Oh, Obama and O'Donnelll hypocrisy? What about the outrageous speech when Obama told that Orwellian Big Lie about how surgeons got $20,000, $30,000 or even $40,000 for amputaton of a leg, because preventative diabetes care did not make them nearly so much money. What can you say about a LIE this bad from our Liar-in-Chief? Again, you can say it was worse than anyfalsehood Trump has ever told--at least in terms of any example I have heard from O'Donnell. You can say that HYPOCRITE O'Donnell did not ridiculue Obama over this obvious falsehood, on MANY LEVELS. The actual surgeon's charge for an amputation is often under $1,0000, and very unlikely to go as high as $5,000.00 (especailly under Medicare, Medicaid, or insurance company rules). Further, the surgeon is NOTA the same doctor who does the preventative care. The diabetes doctor, as a general rule, will NOT benefit from neglecting preventative care. Nope. Obama is an obvious liar, and O'Donnell is an obvious hypocrites.

I could go on. There is the time Obama said that 1000 people had died in that Kansas tornado, in a POLITAICAL effort to accuse President Bush of depriving Kansas of adequate National Guard resources (untrue). The actual number of deaths was something like 13. But being off by a factor of 100 (two orders of magnitude) is not unusual for Obama. He was "tired". And Trump is being HARRASSED by people wanting to harm him (an experience Obama simply never faces). Yes, there was Obama misquoting the Declaration of Independence. There was Obama and the 57 states. There was Obama seeming to mix up Memorail Day and Veteran's Day, or else he just did not care. The list just goes non and on, but the mainstream media hypocrites are not interested. And many of these things are DELIBERATE on the part of Obama--to SELL by LIES.

Enough. Let us get down to fundamentals. When Obama says that "the Federal Government has to learn to live withinn its means (within the revenue it gts), like ordinary families", do you believe him? How can you. He shows it to be an obvious LIE every single day. When Obama says new spending is "apid for", when we have not "paid for" the old spending, do you realize that is OBJECTIVBELY a LIE? You should. dAgain, Trump is not saying things any more outrageous, and usually less outrageous, than these things.

Nope. O'Donnell is a world class hypocrite, and IF Trump were ever to become President (don't think so), it will be the mainstream media---people like O'Donnell--who will have made it possible.

P.S. Nope. No proofreading or spell checking (my eyesight). However, my younger daughter APPEARS to have fixed the paragraphing problem--letting you answer the burning question of whether you believe my paragraphing is so bad that I am better off with Google and my computer disregarding the paragraphs shown on my comosition screen. You can tell I am not really of the computer age when I do not understand why what you see is not what you get (often, especailly for me, as to the difference between what is on the computer screen and what comes out).

Monday, April 18, 2011

Obama, Social Issues and Illegal Immigration: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs?--NOT

Is Illegal immigration a social issue? In part, it certainly is, although STOPPING it is a JOBS issue. Juan Williams--leftist political hack, and a dishonest one, on Fox) would certainly call illegal immigration a "social issue", as he called "global warming" (and every other issue Republicans wanted to bring up) a "social issue, and constantly pushed the leftist line that REPUBLICANS (lol) are more interested in a "social agenda" than our deficit). What do leftist Democrats, including the mainstream media, mean by "social issues"? Well,, they often mean ABORTION (and only abortioni, on the subject of which leftist Democrats are so obsessed they will sell out the whle country just for that "principle" of death). But WHO is it that was willing to STUT DOWN the government over TAXPAYER FUNDING of Planned Parenthood? Yep. It was DEMOCTATS--those people so fanatic and obsessed with "social issues" that they are willing to SHUT DOWN the government over it. Who was it that did not get a budget passed partly because they were fooling around with HOMOSEXUALS IN THE MILITARY and AMNESTY for illegal immigrants? Yep. Again it was those social issue obsessed DEMOCRATS. You see the MASSIVE hypocrisy here. "Social issues' reallly translates to: Issues where we are right and Repubicans are wrong, and our obsession is "princiiple", while theirs is merely exhibiting the wrong priorities. You say--with no evidence--that Democrats have "learned their lesson", and that Obama is finally ready to show that he really is "focused like a laser beam" on "jobs, jobs, jobs"--as he promised near the BEGINNING of his Presidency? Nope.. What was the AP/Yahoo "News" (boycott Yahoo) laugher headline of the day? Yep (cant' make this up-as I can't make up Juan Williams, or anyone else that bone deep stupid): "Obama to hold meeting on immigration reform". SSay what? Jobs, jobs jobs? Again, the way to help AMERICANS get jobs in this country is to ENFORCE the immigration laws. But Democrats (leftist kind, as in the mainstream media) only believe in "the law" when it suits their POLITICAL PURPOSES. "Reform" translated: AMNESTY. No, if you tell me we need reform to import WORKERS, then you are going to make my head explode. That is the fallacioius argument of establishment Republicans wanting to EXPLOIT WORKERS (joining with the AFL-CIO in that). I digress (sort of). Where are the mainstream media stories about how it DISTRACTGS from the real issues facing this country to be focusing on an "issue" ("comprehensive reform") on which Obama does not have a snowball's chance in Hell of passing HIS kind of bill? Of course the mainstream media is not saying that, as they would if Republicans were pushing immigration matters, because the media position is that it is only the REPUBLICAN position that is a "social issue". The Democrat positioin is simply "social justice". No, Republicans in the House CANNOT pass an immigration "reform" bill that Obama and the Democrats would let through. WHY? Because they would not get reelected (besides tehe fact it would be wrong). So this is USELESS POSTURING by Obama, and both he and the mainstream media know it. And I don't care how many "establishment" Repubicans they quote. Every such quote just makes me rsolve to continue to treat estabishment Republicans as the ENEMY, and House Repubicans know how many people think the same way I do. Why the posturing? Come on. You know this one. Obama has begun his reeelection campaign. He wants to put together the same "coalition" that he thinks won him the previous election (which the economy really won for him). That coalition includes HISPANICS. Now you and I may wonder why Hispanics want to be identified with illegal immigrants. But De,mocrats think they can get away with confusing an opposition to illegal immigrants with opposition to Hispanics, and Democrats know that the mainstream media will help them with that. That is the entire explanatino for this excursion into "social issues" by Obama (as he is doing in suing Arizona, and any other state which wants to try to do something about the problems caused by illegal immigration in that state). Yes, the mainstream media is composed of the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or fouor. This is really another example, where the mainstream media will not point out that Obama is NOT focusing on "jobs, jobs, jobs". And it is certainly a DIVISIVE issue that Obama and the mainstream media have made more divisive (by telling Hispanics that the whole purpose of all of this is to discriminate against them). Count on it, by the way. No matter what fancy words may come from a "meeting" on this subject, it will all be DECEPTION. I once did about THIRTY articles on the DECEPTION of proponents of illegal immigration, and they have not changed. Yes, I gave details. If the "issue" heats up, I will do it again.

Donald Trump and Lawrence O'Donnell: Hypocrites and Jokes (O'Donnell Says Barack Obama Not Qualified to Be President)

Donald Trump and Lawrence O'Donnell are BOTH jokes. However, I don't know how much of a hypocrite Trump is. He is pretty honest about promoting Trump, and not really caring that much about "facts", so long as he feels he is raising important "issues" (a trait Trump shares with MSNBC--a network of partisan political hacks). Now you probably do not know who Lawrence O'Donnell is, since nobocy watches MSNBC. O'Donnell is a leftist (admimitted socialist, as far as I can tell) with a prime time show on MSNBC ("leftist" not helping describe O'Donnell much, since it describes EVERYONE on MSNBC--but also EVERYONE on CNN and in the rest of the mainstream media). Well, Trump is a joke (as a candidate for President--which he will not be--certainly not for long). What does that make the mediapeople, like O'Donnell, who are seemingly OSESSED with Fox. Nope, the POLLS do NOT "justify" this media insantiy, because everyone knows that polls at this pint--especailly for a "new face"--are MEANINGLESS. They are actually meaningless and evil at any point, but that is another article. The media is simply helping Trum do what he likes best: promote Trump. As Bill Cosby said, Trump is "full of it". But if you are dissatisfied with present politicians (all of us?), will you not tell a pollster that you favor Trump? Of course you will, and you will not decide if you are serious--as Trump will not--until the rubber meets the road. Bu;t O'Donnell is so obsessed with Trump that every time I surf by his program he is ridiculing Trump for another "factual error"--the kind of thing I do almost daily with regard to the mainstream meida (still more significant than Trump, although becoming a joke themselves). What is the latest really serious "factual error" O'Donnell "caught" Trump in? Well, it was not too clear to me, but it appears to be that Trump did not know how many Representatives are in the House of Representatives. Say what? O'Donnell, you have to be KIDDING. You think it is important whether a person really knows exactly how many people are in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVEWS? You are INSANE, and it is no mystery why you have no audience. Yes, I think (and I have NOT looked it up, as any fool can do) that there are 435 members of the House of Representatives. But that is one of those "facts" I do my best not to retain. Who cares? And that number is NOT "exactly" correctd (most of the time). What about the "honorary" member from the District of Columbia? What about the routine situation where someone has died or resigned, and not yet been replaces? But that is not eveen what prompted this article. O'Donnell went on to say that Trump probably does not even know how many states there are (the relatiioinship of this to the number of Representatives being unclear, although it is directly related to the number of SENATORS--two per state). Does O'Donnell know that he has just called Barack Obama UNQUALIFIED to be President of the United Stqates? O'Donnell's clear implication was that Trump is unqualified to be President if he does not know things like this. Well, Barack Obama (although pretty much ignored by the mainstream media) said there are 57 STATES--the very error that O'Donnelll merely SPECULATED on with regard to Trump. (Yes, there are 50 states, for those of you educated at Harvard and Columbia.). You say that kind of slip of the tongue/mind is not important to whether a person makes a good President? Hey, I am telling you O'DONNELL said a person who gets the number of states wrong is unqualified to be President--not me. Nope. I thinjk this kind of stuff beloved of the mainstream media with regard to Sarah Palin (and any conservative) is IRRELEVANT (except as a passing amusement). The point, of course, is that O'Donnell--as is true of virtually everyone in the mainstream media--is a member of that class (leftist Democrats--especially the people of the mainstream media) who are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. Nope. I will NOTG back off on this statement. Ask yourself what O'Donnell would do if Obama made this kind of factual error? What am I sa;ying. I just told you that Obama DOES make this kind of factual error (including misquoting the Declaration of Independence), and MSNBC merely makes EXCUSES for him (if they ever report the error at all). O'Donnell does not really believe that these kind of factual errors are that important. He just PRETENDS to believe it for POLITICAL purposes (in his role as leftist political hack). Message to O'Donnell: I have nothing but contempt for you, and the mainstream media in general. Yes, a forthcoming article will be about CHRIS MATTHEWS saying that Barack Obama is not qualified to be President of the United States, as he thought he was saying that about Michelle Bockman. Stay tuned. (

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Budget (2011): How 38 BILLION Became 352 MILLON (Hohn Thune, R.I.P.!!!!!) (Republican Party, R.I.P.) (Greta Van Susteren, Idiot)

I am often asked (well, I should be): How does it feel to be right so often, IN FORESIGHT? Yes, review my articles--especially criticizing Fox Newes--saying that the bottom line NUMBER as to budget "cuts" for the rest of the 2011 budget year was MEANINGLESS? You heard the mainstream media, including Fox, and Democrats talking about how the parties had almost agreed on the "number", and that Democrats had already reached the "number" that the Repubicans had originally demanded. Problem: What difference does the "number" make if it is NOT REAL. The Republican Speaker even warned about "smoke and mirrors", but failed to warn that he, himself, would agree to a "deal" consisting mainly of smoke and mirrors. Yes, it was always obvious that the "number" was NOT the important thing. It was ONLY the details that matter. But I was about the only one telling you that truth (in terms of the media, anyway, and FEPUBLICANS failed really to vigorously make this obviious point, calling into sever question whether they were being honest about how "ard" they were fighting fro REAL spending cuts). Ente the CBO (Congressiional Budget Office). Now the CBO is hardly perfect. Democrats, especialy, leearned to GAME the CBO in the health care debateby REQUIRING the CBO to make certain assumptions, and putting in "back loaded" "cuts', "savings" and even taxes that will never actually take place. Still, when the CBO says that numbers are FALSE, they usually are. The CBO found that the supposed 38 BILLILON dolllars in "cuts' for THIS fiscal year (ending in October) will only reduce the deficit 3352 MILLION dollars. Now you know why the despicable Associated Press had a featured headline (on Yahoo "News"--boycott Yahoo) saying: "Most Americans will not notice budget cuts." There are few REAL cuts, and Repubicans are hardlly even making a case that the CBO is wrong. Duncan Hunter--in another deisgraceful Republican performance--ADMITTED it was a bad deal , and did not even try to challenge the CBO. He said that all he was worried about was paying our military. Talk about not being serious about cuts!!!!!!!!!!! The Republican Party still does not get it, and I have nlong since pretty much given up on them (only the Tea Party giving me hope). Segue to Greta Van Susteren--last night (Wednesday night on Fox). You will remember that Van Susteren was one of those who was talking as if the "bottom line" "number" was all that mattered--as if lthe details did not matter. Well, last night she called HERSELF an idiot by acting outraged that Republicans so misled us by touting 38 billion dollars, when the REAL number appears to be more like 352 million dollars. Note that MORE than 352 million could have been saved by defunding Planned Parenthood, NPR, PBS, and the Natioinal Endowment for the Arts (and prohibiting the money from being spent elsewhere). Bu;t Republicans--especailly the establishment--obviously had no stomach for the budget battle. You wonder-actually I don't, since I know they are--if Republicans are not reallyl Big Government people at heart (establishment Repubicans who spent like that when they were in power). Anyway, Van Susterne asked John Thune, Republlican Senator, about this CBO report that the 38 billion is basically accounting tricks (Van Susteren ignoring that she was thereby also criticizing Fox and HERSELF for being UNINTERESTED in the DETAILS of the "number" "saved" by the supposed "cuts"). More foresight. This is the SECND article where I have put John Thune, R.I.P. in the title of a previous article. That was when Thune, in a smarmy, whining performance, said he would not run for President because he did not think ANY Republican could beat Barack Obama in 2012, or raise enough money. The HONEST thing to say, of course, was that THUNE did not have enough support to raise anywhere near enough money for a Preesidential run. But Thune chose the DISHONEST approach, which was used by the mainstream media to try to sabotage the chances of any Republican to take on Obama. Yes, Thune tried the old gambit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. I bnet you thought this blog could never be PROVEN right on Thune? Guess again. Thune gave an answer to Van Susteren that was even more SMARMY and dishonest than what prompted the previous article--proving this blog right on many levels. First, Thune said that try;ing to analyze whether this budget "deal" actually CUT spending was going "into the weeds", and beside the point. You will remember (foresight again) that my article criticizing Fox News for not wanting to talk about the details of what "cuts" were being discussed said that Fox used that exact description: "going into the weeds" (Fox trying the same gambit as Thune, implying that people don't want you to "go into the weeds" because it is too boring and complicated--showing CONTEMPT for you and I). Thune then went way beyond the INCOMPETENCE and dishonesty of Fox. Thne (I should leave this as an exercise for the reader, since you should know what a SMARY, dishonest politician would say) proceeded to say that it was IRRELEVANT how much this budget deal actually "cut", because Repubicans had won by getting everyone "talking about cuts, instead of spending increases", and that is the first time that has happpened. Thune, you are a LIAR.--a smarmy one (which I can't even adequately describe). Ihave been following politics closely since at least 1964, when I strongly supported Barry Goldwater. I can't even tell you how many times politicians--Democrat and Republican--have TALKED about "cutting spending".. Democrats even pulled this game on Reagan--promising spending cuts that never happened. They pulled the same thing on Bush 41, as he BETRAYED the Reagan revolution ("Read my lips"). Clinton did nothing but talk about "cuts", along with raising taxes. The Repubicans, of course, actually did impose some spending discipline on Clinton, but then EXPOSED themselves as Big Government guys when they got control of the government. OBAMA has done nothing but TALK about "cuts', except when he is talking about spending. Remember when the Liar-in-Chief said he was ging to go through EVERY spending bill LINE BY LINE in order to cut every dime that was not being spent wisely? Nope. Thune, you are one of the WORST liars I have ever seen, outside of our Liar-in-Chief. ALL we have done FOREVER is TALK about "cuts". The problem is that the "cuts" are NEVER REAL> So all this budget deal represents is "politics as usual". And there are indications that too many Repubicans think like Thune. TALK is NOT going to cut it for the Republican Party. This is their last chance. If they betray us again, the party will absolutely not survive it. At some point, Republicans either have to be willing to acdtually ACT, or there is no reason for the Republican Party to exist. See my articles on Donald Trump--an intellectual joke, but a person willing to tak turkey in a way that Republicans seemingly can't. As I have shown previously,m if Republicans cannot even PUBLICLY make a case against Planned Parenthood and NPR to shame the Democrats willing to shut down the government over funding them, then Repubicans should not be there. They are worthless. No, Thune was NOT through being smarmy (believe it or not). He went on to tout a BIANNUAL (two years at a time) budget as some sort of procedural way to help our budget process. Thune, you are NOT qualified to be dogcatcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas (the small Arkansas town in which I spend my pre-high school years). That is my test for whether a politician is hopeless, and Thune is one of the most hopeless I have ever encourntered. Talk about "in the weeds"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So we are suposed to let politicians play even more games by making the spending bills TWICE AS BIG ( (two years covered instead of one), enabling politicians like Thune to have TWICE as much "cover" to hide their spending. Nope. Any Repubilcan who believes they can sell this one automatically does not qualify to even by dogcatcher of Mt. Ida (a charming town, at least when I lived there, but less than 1,0000 people when I lived there). Again, it is disturbing that it is not just Thune who has floated this particular balloon (with the excuse it will give Congress time for OVERSIGHT, and other things--as if that is a GOOD thing). Thune, just go away. You disgust me. Okay,m Skp, what would you do? Well, first I thought Repubilcans were going to have all Federal agency spending, in the "discretionary" areas of the government, go back to the levels of the 2007 (they may have said 2008, but the 2007 budget ENDING in October of 2008 is the appropriate standard). That does not mean GAMES. That means really CTUTTING spending authorization back to the 2007 levels. ELIMINATE farm subsidies. If we do not do that now, when politicians and the Fed have raised FOOD PRICES to incredible levels, then we never will. End ethanol subsidies. Yes, I WOULD end most "tax expenditures", by which I do NOT mean raising tax rates for the "rich". Whaty I mean is what the President's Debt Commission recommended (in large part, anyway, as I am sure not all of their recommendations are the type of SSPECIAL TAX BREAK I mean. What do I mean? Yes, eliminate SUBSIDIES for oil companies. Again, if we are not willing to do that now, when will we (with gasoline and oil near all--time highs). But this also means "tax expenditures" for ALTERNATIVE ENERGY--tax breaks that distort our economy and really HELP THE RICH (and people feeding off of the Federal trough). End ObamaCare . That will save us a TRILLION dollars. If they made sense, we could even keep the 500 billion dollars in Medicare "savings', which we desperately need to SAVE MEDICARE. But nobody expects those "savings" to really happen anyway (more fantasy "cuts"). Yes, do what Paul Ryan suggests, and give MEDICAID to the states, who have a CHANCE of more efficient administration (with block grants). No, I am not wild about Ryan's proposal on Medicare, even though the criticism o fit are ridiculous. We already HAVE something like Ryan's proposal in both Medicare Advantage (which Democrats want to get rid of--the only apart of that 500 billion which they ever indtended to happen, to pay off AARP), AND the Medicare Drug Benefit Program (Bush) is basically Ryan's plan, and already PART OF MEDICARE. So I have nothing against trying Ryan's plan, but Ryan is talking about 2040, or some such time period. That will NOT keep us solvent. We need cuts NOW, to get us to 2040. Yes, Medicare and Social Seucrity need to be "reformed' to SAVE MEDICARE and SOCIAL SECURITY (and keep them from eventually bankrupting us). but that is really ong-trm stuff. Long-term "cuts' DO NOAT HAPPEN (the message of the last 50 and mroe years, desipite the terrible John Thune). So. Not only go back to 2007 levels, but CUT 5% off from EVERY government agency, and EVERY government salary. Yes, I would exemt the military, except I would include people in the military with a rank of full colonel or above. That is, I would exclude lthe military from most of the SALARY cuts. I would cut the military budget that 5%, and tell the MILITARY to figure out where. Van Susteren (idiot) keeps talking about "waste and abuse". Forget it. We can never approach it that way. We need to tell government agencies they only will have so much money, and MAKE them tell us where they can cut. THAT has a CHANCE of getting rid of a lot of waste and abuse. I am not through. RETIREMENT. Federal emplyees are NOT part of Social Security. Maybe they should be. But, assuming they should have a retirement plan of their own, it needs to be REDUCED. States are doing it. The Federal Government is just as broke, but is not required to "live within its means". CONGRESS has the world's best "retirement" plan: full salary after ONE TEMR> Forget it. CUT THAT DRASTICALLY. No, desite the Debt Commission, do NOT cut the mortgage deduction. It is too much intertwined with the housing industry. Deductoins, by the way, are much better than CREDITS (like on so many "alternative energy" iteems). Credits are TAX PAYMENTS. Deductonis are merely, well, deductions where you still pay mot of the cots. You don't get full credit for every dime--to the point of getting a WELFARE PAYMENT if you don't have taxes enough to absorb the credit. I would--as the main part of my "tax expenditure" "reform"--pretty much ELIMINATE tax CREDITS (welfare payments for specific industries or groups). Yes, I would even do a ONE TIME ONLY reduction of Social Security payments for ONE YEAR ONLY--in a nominal amount like 2%. Are yo telling me that Social Security recipients cannot afford a 2% reduction in their checks for one year? Shared sacrifice, anyone (and I receive Social Security). In fact, maybe a ONE YEAR fee could be imposed on EVERYONE receiving money from the Federal government, besides salaries and retirement, such as that same 2%. I know we went the opposite direcdtion with that DEAL at the end of 2010, but that WELFARE PAYMENT/"stimulus" was STUPID. It, and the ridiculous continued extension of unemployment benefits to almost two years, COST us several times the most optimistic measure of what Repubicans "saved" from the 2011 spending. You should get the idea. REAL cuts NOW. Republicans AND Democratrs keep saying that revenue has fallen (Federal revenue) to a post-World War II low, while SPENDING has risen to a post-World War II high. When that happens to a private business, the business has to CUT BACK--including cutting salaries and employees (which I have not even mentioned, because it could be includied in that 5% reduction in ALL agency budgets). The point is that we are not really serious about matching revenues and spending until we start cutting NOW. No, even I do not think we can balance the budget in one year, although I think we can come CLOSE. We have a 3.7 TRILLION dollar budget, and something like 2 TRILLION in revenue (to get to the 1.65 trillion dollar deficit). Can we run the Federal Government on 2 TRILLION dollars? I think we can, and I further think low taxes and a return to a PRIVATE economy can RAISE revenue. But I doo not count on it. We CAN plan on existing on the revenue we have, Not one year (for balancing the budget), but you can see from my suggestons that we could come fairly CLOSE. And by two years, or 3, or 5, we CAN do it. Republicans are talking about 30 years, and that is ridiculous. No battle plan survives conntact with the enemy, and no government budget makes any sense for ten or twenty years down the road. The purpose--the only legitimate purpose--of a ten or twenty year "estimate" by the CBO is to let everyone know how much a spending program may cost OVER TIME, so that we can think twice about it. It is absurd to take these ten year estimates of deficits seriously. Think what has happened since 2007, if you doubt me on this. We have PERVERTED the proper use of a ten year projection to use it to PLAY GAMES by postponing "cuts' to the later years. ObamaCare. Yes, I say above it should be ended. But I have not told you how badly we need to end it. Do you realize that ObamaCare is another ENTITLEMENT program where the costs are surelly underestimated. Our PRESENT "entitlement" programs--Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security--are BANKRUPTING us in unfunded liabilities. WHY would we NOW add another entitlement program--poentially bigger than all of the others? It is INSANE> If we let ObamaCare stand, we deserve what e get. No, I do not delude myself that all of my suggetions are politically possible. But if Repubicans cannot do better than they are doing as far as the "politically possible", then they are doomed (as a party). And I believe that my suggstions could actually be SOLD, by someone talented enough to do it (not me). Too bad no present Republican seems that talented. Again, that is why Donald Trump--joke that I believe him to be--can get so politically popular so quickly. He seems willing to actually consider doing away with "politics as usual" (much as I doubt he really means it). He can even get the public to consider whether Obama was born in Kenya, weird as making that a political "issue" is. If we are not willing to REALLY "think outside the box", then we deserve what we get. We might even get Donald Trump, and I am actually beginning to wonder how bad that would be (see how DESPERATE Republicans, and so many of you people, are making me). Nope. NO tax rate increases for the "rich". More about this later, as I have said enough for now. P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I know. "The Horror; The Horror" (quoting Joseph Conrad from "Heart of Darkness"). Facing the above, knowing the typos and other mistakes are all still there, has to discourage even the most courageous among you. But I have no sympathy for you. First, I used up all sypathy I was born with by age ten. Further, if "you people" are intent upon me facing the horror of a government out of control, without even any theoretical way it can work, then you DESERVE to have to read my stream of consciosness rants (which is not to say I don't ut a lot of time and effort into them). As I have repeatedly stated, people get paid money for composing puzzles not as challenging as my non-proofread articles. You should appreciate me more.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Donald Trump: Continues to Shame Republicans

Obama gave a typical Obama speech on the budget today, saying nothing new in his role as Liar-inChief. The despicable Associated Press (featured on Yahooo "News') said that Obama proposed to "cut spending" and raise taxes on the wealthy. Wrong. That is a LIE (BOYCOTT YAHOO). Sure, Obama SAID he wanted to "cut spending", as he has said all along, while spending more than any other President in American history. But he did NOT "propose" any NET "spending cuts" (meaning, in any honest world, tghat the government spends LESS, and not simply less than OBAMA would have spent,, except for this deficti--spending MORE, in other words). Obama repeated the LIE (by any objective standards) that the "wealthy" are payhing less taxes now than at any time in the previous 50 years--a tortured assertion based on tax COLLECTIONS rather than TAX RATES. Nope. It is a LIE by our Liar-in-Chief. Notice that it is the CONSERVATIVE assertion (corret) that tax collections have little to do with tax RATES. Is Obama agreeing with us that higher tax rates do not increase tax revenues? Tax rates are clearly higher, for higher income people, than they were under Reagan--whose tax cuts caused an INCREASE in tax revenues. What does this have to do with Donald Trump? Well, you will notice that Repubicans are suddenly willing to criticize OBAMA--something they have been unwilling to do. Republicans rightlyl exocriated this speech as a PARTISAN campaign speech rather than a serioujs attempt to address spending and the deficit. No, Repubicans have NOT generallly done that in the past. Suddenly, Repubicans are willing to mention Obama by name, and unfavorably. Why? I give some of the credit to Donald Trump. No, I have not changed my mind about agreeing with Bill Cosby (article some days ago). Donald Trump is "full of it", and realy a joke as far as a potential President is concerned. But he is a joke WITHOUT FEAR. He has shown Repubicans that you can take on BOTH Obama and the mainstream media, and WIN. Trump is suddenly actually LEADING in the polls (meaningless as that is) for the Republican nominatioin. There is only one reason for that: People believe Trump is willing to actually call a "spade a spade" (not a racial reference)--to say what he means in clear language--rather than talk around things vaguely, as Republicans have STILL been doing over the past two years. (By the way, do you not find it interesting that so many on the left now agree with me that Cosby is a HERO, when they have--many of them--previouisly criticized Cosby forf daring to say that African-Americans need to accept much more personal responsibility, rather than have excuses made for them by all of theese "leftists" who simply want to treat them as victims. As this blog has proven time and time again, leftists, including the mainstream media, are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four.) Examle on Trump. Earlier this week, Trump said OBAMA was repsonsible for high oil prices. Have you heard Repubicans saying that? The reason Pawlenty is getting no tracton, and Romney is langushing, is that they have SAID NOTHING but the usual "political speak". Romney is holding near the top, but mainly because of last election. Pawlenty is polling at 3% (meaningless, again, as present polls--or any polls--are). Congrast that with Trump, who is quoted as flat out saying--correctly--that Obama is reponsible for present high gasoline and oil prices. Yes, oil and gasoline are further examples of Obama as Liar-in-Chief. His Middle East policy is a shamb les of weakness and lack of leadership. But that is not even the main problem. Obama, in his role as chief liar, actually took CREDIT for oil production in the United States being higher last year. EVERYONE (and I mean everyone) knows that this was DESPITE Obama. Obama has SHUT DOWN drilling tin the Gulf of Mexico, despite court orders that he acted improperly. Obama has done basically everything he can to STOP oil drilling in this country, and EVERYONE agrees that oil production is now FALLING in this country. The (small) rise last year was because of CLINTON and BUSH drilling permits. It is OBAMA--remember, he is Liar-in-Chif--who said in his election campaign that oil drilling toook at least 5 years to produce resultes. That is somewhat of a lie in itself, but it is true enough that the Obama OIL DRILLING POLICIES are just now beginning to take effect to REDUCE oil production in this country. Further, of course, Obama WANTS higher oil prices, since that is the only way "alternative energy" will ever make any "progress". Enough. The point here is that TRUMP SAID IT, while Repubilcans generally would not. Yes, Republicans might engage in "political speak" saying that Obama is hurting jobs by not drilling, and hurting our oil production. But Republicans simply will not do what OBAMA and the Democrats are willing to do (as shown by Obama's speech tonight): BLAME Obama directly for things like rising oil and gasoline prices. Does the relatively aggresive Republican response today to Obama's speech indicate that they are finally getting the point? Maybe. We will seee. But I give credit where credit is due, and Donald Trump deserves some of the credit if Repubican POLIATICIANS suddenly grow a SPINE. Will they suddenly start openly saying how ridiculous it is to fund Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars, instead of vaguely talking around the issue? Don't hold your breath. But they should. And the people, including me, will PUNISH them if they don't. It is not enough to simplly keep tryong to devise "talking points" that say you don't want to fund Planned Parenthood (only used as an EXAMPLE here), without ATTACKING the other side vigorously on the issue. It is sad, ut to be expected, that Trump--a political novice--has already learned the lesson that the best defense is a good offense. P.S. No proofreading or spell checking, as usual (bad eyesight).

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Debt Ceiling and CNN: The Liar Network Lies

Logical syllogism: 1. CNN thinks it, and other leftist Democrats, gained traction in the debate on "shutting down" the government by running stories about Social Security checks not going out, the military not being paid, etc. SCARE TACATICS, in other words, using propaganda. Therfore, CNN--as a leftist political action committee--is going to use this tactic whenever it can, whether or not it makes any sense. 2. The debt ceiling vote is a votte where such scare tactics seem plausible. 3. Therefore, CNN will run scare stories about how a vote against raising the debt ceiling will hurt ordinary citizens by keeping the military from being paid, stopping Social Security checks, etc. Okay. I admit I cheated. I KNEW CNN had done exactly what I describe above (today, Wednesday) before I typed it. This was not a case of my famous foresight, although I could have predicted it. Yes, CNN actually said today that failing to raise the debt ceiling will cause the military not to be paid and Social Security checks not to go out. This is a LIE. The Federal Government has money, and is getting more all of the time. Further, the present debt ceiling already allows the BORROWING of TRILLIONS of dollars (our debt). What we are talking about is a proposed INCREASE in the debt ceiling, meaning we can borrow MORE. Failing to authorize this does NOT "shut down" the government. It does not even mean we automatically "default" on our debt. We would just be unable to BORROW more. Now don't be misled. We NEED to borrow more, because we are still spending way beyond our means. We don't have the money. But we can manipulate funds, and use the money we DO have, in such a way as to not cause much immediatge effect when we reach the present debt ceiling. Contrary to the LIARS at CNN (The Liar Network), the main danger here is NOT that Social Security checks will fail to go out, or that the military will not be paid. That will not happen--and, in fact, cannot happen. Again, we will still have MONEY. We just won't be able to BORROW more. That means that everything will continue pretty much as normal, as the crunch GRADUALLLY occurs. Yes, it is not clear exactly what happens when we reach the point that we don't have the money, and can't borrow it. Do we "pro-rate"? Notice that Social Security checks will still go out, but maybe a 1% reduction will occur. That is hardly no Social Seucirty checks going out. Same with military pay. The government is NOT shut down. It just can't borrow any MORE NET MONEY (as it still can maintain present borrowing). And it is LIKELY that things like Social Security and military pay will not be affected at all, as we simply hold off parying for less essential things. Not so bad, right? Right. Except. The economic fascists on Wall Street, and in the "international community", are going to get real nervoijs if it appears their gravy train is about to be derailed. Despite the CNN propaganda lies, the ONLY real immediate danger here is that the economy of the U.S. and the world will be adversely affected by panic. Further, of course, Republicans in general are NOT saying that the budget must be "balanced" in 2012. What Repubicans are saying (see previious article) is that we have to have a SERIOUIS move toward fiscal discipline before they will vote for increasing the debt limit. I would, ad do, take the same position. And the results of "playig chicken" here are NOT so obvious as shutting down the government (where even there nothing really serious would occur for a long time) . If we don't raise the debt ceiling, it will be MONTHS before anyone will notice. It would be YEARS before we would have to put a BIG crimp in Social Security and military payments. So much for the LIES of CNN. The propaganda scare tactics. But what should we do? Lots of things. Paul Ryan has suggested some. And it is DEMOCRATS who would rather endanger Social Security payments than cut money for UNNECESSARY things like Planned Parenthood and NPR/PBS. But what about reducing Federal salaries 25% ? Sounds "harsh"? Not so. My older daughter had her salary reduced by abut 1/3 becaues of the recessioin. My brother (one of them) had his salary reduced a full 70%. Federal employees--including Congress--now earn MORE, on average, than private employees. WHY? We can't afford it. I am willing to flatly state that we should reduce all Federal salaries at least 10%--subject to being reinstated when we have the money. 25% is not, in fact, unreasonable, but probably politically impossible. And what aobut PENSIONS. Federal employees have much too generous pensiion benefits--especailly Congress. So far as I knoiw, a Congress person is entitled to FULL SALARY for life, AFTER ONE TERM. I still don't understand why people have not taken up their pitchforks and invaded Washington (as in "Frankenstein"), over this particular outrage. Federal pensions should be more in line with private pensions. WE DO NOT HAVE TGHE MONEY. When that happens to private businesses, they have to cut back DRASTICALLY. The Federal Government fails to cut back at all. At best, it stops INCREASING SO FAST. It should not be increasing at all, but swhould be substantially DECREASING--however we have to do it. I will address taxes in another article. P.S. You know, it boggles my mind. Back to no paragraphing, after one article where my frist screen showed the same paragraphing as the final, published product. But onlyl one article. Would it be too paranoid of me to sugget that Googe is trying to drive me actually crazy? Yes, I agree it probably would be too paranoid, but it is driving me nuts. I don't get published what the screen shows, AND it changes from day to day for no apparent reason. My younger and older daughters are in Mexico for my older daughter's 30th birthday ()yes, her life is OVER--as is true of all women at 30). When (if?) they get back, I am gong to try to solve this once an for all. You may not think enough of my paragraphing to even care, ubt it is really getting to annoy me (assuming my final screen accurately reflects what everyone else is seeing, and even if it is just my computer it is annoying).