This blog has reincarnated the old "Laugh In" (Dick Martin and Dan Ropwan) award of the Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate ("the Finger, for short). For those of you who are curious, it ws NOT the hacking into this blog comments of Dick Martin (best not to investigate FROM WHERE) that led me to put this award on hiatus. The same mainstream media organizations were winning every week, and the award just seemed a redundancy. CNN (Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Soledad O'Brien and all of the rest) was one of those mainstream media organizations that RETIRED the trophy. You will remember (if you are old enough) that Dick Martin used to present the Finger by thrusting the statuette of an INDEX finger at th camera to "honor" the recipient for conspicuous stupdity.
Segue to Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner, whose Twitter account was used (by him?) to send a picture of Winer? in a gross pose emphasizing his "package"--only in underwear, I think, although I have deliberately avoided trying to learn all of the details. Yes, it appears to be a BRET FAVRE MOMENT, including the attempt by Weiner (in a rather amazing press conference to avoid answering direct questions about the incident, while suggesting it was a HACKER who hacked into Weiner's Twitter accouont. Have you stopped laughing yet? No, in a lot of ways this is not important (see below as to Rush Limbauh, hero), but the rampant HYPOCRISY of CNN, and the mainstream media, is what made me rename the "Laugh In" award, as I have reincarnated it, and award the first ever combined award of The Finger and The Weiner to ......drum roll, please......CNN for hypocrisy above and beyond the call of duty. Even for partisan hacks, CNN set a new high (low?) in hypocrisy.
You will remember how CNN and the rest of the media HOUNDED Bret Favre in pretty much a nothing (if sophomoric) incident. You KNOW how CNN would have reacted to a REPBLICAN who gave the kind of ridiculous news conference that Weiner gave. Even Alan Colmes could not defend it--making Alan Colmes LESS of a partisan poltical hack than the people of CNN. Well, you ask, how did CNN react? Did it react differently to the suppsed picture(s) that Eddie Long sent out, or the rather disgusting (but not criminal) communications of Republican Foley in 2006? You bet your sweet bippy that CNN reactged differently.
No, I obviously can't tell you how ALL of CNN reacted. It is too much of a sacrifice for me to actually watch HOURS of CNN to find out something like that. But I was surfing by CNN earlier this Tuesday, and I saw the CNN "prty line" (pun intended) seemingly being developed. You have to realize that I did not even know anything abut this story--did not even know it existed. But after listening to a NUMBER of people on CNN for a few minutes, i KNEW LESS (yes, less than nothing).
CNN was talking abut this totally as a HACKING incident. Nothing about a gross, almost obscene picture being sent to a youn girl and the less than impressive "explanation" by Weiner. I assure you, as I tried to figure out what this was about, that I did not get the impression that there was any question about WEINER'S conduct at all. For CNN, it was all about whether the HACKER would go to jail. CNN virtually had a standing ovation for the apparent statement by Weiner that he did not know if he wanted to call in the FBI (have you stopped laughing yet?), because HE (Weiner) would not want to ruin someone' s life over a mere prank. You might remember that CNN was not worried about the "prank" pulled earllier this year on Governor Walker of Wisconsin, but only about the ATTACK CNN could make on Governor Walker blowing the things that Walker said ut of all proportion. These (the people of CNN) are clearly the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. Imagine Dick Martin THRUSTING "The Finger" at the camera and saying: "CNN, this is for YOU. YouDESERVE it. And you deserve to be the first recipient of the renamed award, THE WEINER (represented by the same statuette). "
I kid you not. CNN almost called Wiener a HERO for not being anxious to PROSECUTE the hacker. I never did understand what the story was even about, until I saw and heard descriptions later in the day (the CNN report was in the morning in El Paso). CNN deserves this award for deliberately HIDING the substance of the story, in addition fo deserving the award for its blatant HYPOCRISY. But this is what CNN and the mainstream media always do. Thre automatic response to a scanda involving a dEMOCRAT, or a left wing organization, is to EXUSE the conduct--by not reporting on the story except interms of the rEACTIONI by the left winger whose conduct is being questioned--and, of course, by ATTACKING the supposed means the story was generated. Too bad Bret Favre did not qualify for this CNN whitewash.
No, it does not even matter whether Weiner did naything "wrong". His reaction was so weird that it hardly seems possibl ehe is entriely "innocent" here. But that is not the point. CNN was UNINTERESTED in the "truth", as they always are. CNN was only interested in AGENDA, and it is for THAT "journalistic" CRIME that CNN is rightly receiving the first combined award of "The Weiner" and "The Finger". And if CNN wants to claim that it is NEVER interested in a story which might be the result of "hacking', or wronguful conduct, then CNN is going to be guilty of MURDER. Yes, I will DIE LAUGHING. These are EVIL people. And I am not talkiing about Anthony Weiner here, although I think he may qualify for the previous things I have heard him say. I am talking about the partisan hypocrites of CNN.
Why is Rush Limbaugh a hero? First, he said on his program today (after I saw the CNN "report", and had no clue wht was going on) that he--Limbuagh--did not "tweet". For that alone, Limbaugh is a hero. This idea that communitcatin in short messages is a "better" means of communication--especailly on serious issues--is absurd. Rush Limbaugh recognizes that, as I do. But he is the one with an audience, and that makes him a hero. He further said that he did not much CARE what Weiner had "tweetd", or this whole deal about "hacking" into Twitter. Limbaugh was right again. It is NOT that big a deal, except for the HYPOCRISY on CNN and other parts of the left.
Yes, you will remember when the son of a Dmocratic congressman hacked into Sarah Palin's email account, and "published" her private emails. Yes, I have previously exposed Politico.com as an EVIL--I mean it literally--lying orgainization. One of the many crimes of Politico was to take those innocuous emails of Sarah Palin and say that she had violated Alaskan law by even having a private email account. Message to Politco: No, I have not fogotten that you people are EVIL, partisan liars. Yes, CNN and the rest of the mainstream media--including Fox--poured over the Paline emails to try to find somehting to USE against Paline. Yes, there is the even more blatant use of STOLEN, CLASSIFIED INFORMATION "leaked" wrongfully.
Nope. CNN has no defense. They deserve this award, as they have deserved it all of the other times they have recceivied it--even before it was renamed "The Weiner" (a name which may or may not stick--I may take a poll and ask CNN to "reportt" the results).
P.S. No, no proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). But the substance of what I put on this blog is so superior to CNN that I would fall on my sword if I were that bad (or as bad as the AP or the rest of the mainstream media). If you want to refuse to report ALL stories like this, fine. But if you are going to be this HYPOCRITICAL, then you have no excuse for existing.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Arizona, Illegal Immigration, the Supreme Court and the Chamber of Commerce (Establishment Republicans)
Yes, last week the United States Supreme Court UPHELD an Arizona law aimed at illegal immigration, on the basis that sates are not prohibited from attemptng to deal with a problem that is mainly a Federal responsibility, so long as the state law is consistent with Federal law. Yes, this is the sameprinciple involved in the Obama Administration high profile lawsuit against Arizona, where Arizona has merely tried to help ENFORCE Federal law, ut it is not the same law or the same case. Rather, the law involved was a law imposing severe penalties on employers for hiring illegal immigraants without adequate inquiry into their status.
Notice that the Obama Administration has still not sued places like San Francisco, who openly OPPOSE Federal law on illegal immigration, and deliberately disobey it and/or obstruct it. Illegal immigration is one of the most blatant areas where leftists, and the mainstream media, expose themselves as the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. Nope. Leftists are NOT interested in "the law". They are merely interested in POWER--getting the Federal courts to imppose their views by dictatorial power. No, leftists do NOT believe in democracy, as this blog has shown you repeatedly. Leftists believe in neithr the "rule of law" or democracy. They believe in the rule of men (themselves), and in dictatorial imposition of their views on everybody--on the basis that their views SHOULD be in the Constitution, even if they are not.
"But Skip," you say, this lawsuit was brought by the CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. Are you saying that is a left wing organization."
In a way, I am saying that. Too many Chamber of Commerce Republicans are ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS, rather than conservatives. That means they are leftist style hypocrites, without real principles. They, too, FEAR democracy, and don't believe in it. They, too, are interested in POWER, rather than in principles of freedom and enforcing our laws. They, too, want to IMPOSE their views on us all by dictatorial means. Amazingly enough, the Chamber of Commerce is SOMETIMES not as bad as the economic fascists who now dominate Wall Street and BIG business, because small business has more influence there, but this case shows how establishment Repubicans think. the Chamber of Commerce regards itself as an INTEREST organization promoting what it perceives as the SELFISH intreests of business, and the country be hanged. We need to stop encouraging illegal immigrants from both entering this country illegally and STAYING in this country illegally? Well, the Chamber of Commerce does nto perceive this as a problem which should inconvenince business.
Yes, way too many establishment Repubilcans, AND establishment "conservatives", do NOT believe businesses should help enforce the law, or even be forced to obey the law. Say hello to sanctuary cities like San Francisco, Chemaber o f Commerce. You ae on the SAME PAGE on this one--the same indefensible page threatening to destroy our country. Too many business people, and Wall Street Journal type Republicans, who regard the main job of the Repubican Party as supporting business in every way, believe that businesses NEED illegal immigrants (9% unemployment be damned) in order to EXPLOIT AMERICAN WORKERS. No, they don't lput it that way, but that is what it comes down to. And it is shameful..
Yes, the OBAMA head of Homeland Security signed this Arizona law into law when she was governor of Arizona. That has not stopped the Obama Administration from FAILING to push for real penalties against businesses who fail to pursue DISCREPANCIES in names and Social Security numbers. Yesa, NO illegal immigrant should be able to get a real job in this country, because we ALREADY MATCH names and Social Security numbers--AND we notify employers of problems with the match (as Meg Whitman found out). However, guess what happened when the Bush Administration finally proposed sending a letter to employyers enforcing new regulations imposing sever SANCTIONS for failing to follow up and investigate discrepancies? Right. The ACLU and the AFL-CIO (Benedict Arnold had nothing on those people, who BETRAYED American labor) promptly sued to BLOCK the new regulations in Federal Court in SAN FRANCISCO (where else). So far as I know, the Ob ama Administration has made no attempt to pursue this easy way of holding employers accountable--by a new Arizona-type law, if necessary. You can see why setablishment Republicans have not really pursued this either. This UNHOLY alliance between business Repubicans, labor, and other leftists is enough to make one despair for this country.
Nope. As never before since World War II, we do NOT NEED "guest workers". Worse, "guest workers' will merely increase the problem of illegal immigration by providing another way for massive numbers of people to get into this country without even having to risk an illegal entyy.
Nope. I will debate ANY 'establishment Republican", or ANY so-callked conservaitve, in this blog or anywhere, as to the DECEPTION of the establishment Republican positioni on illegal immigration (the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty approach, however modified). It is indefensible.
Doubt me? DON'T. Consider what happens so long as present law (based on an extreme reading of the 14th Amendment) is not changed. Presently, as everyone knows but everyone refuses to defend or change, children whose parents are BOTH not permanent residents of this contry (as on "pregnancy tours", or pregnant mothers camped outside the country hospital in El Paso where my mother was once a nursing supervisor) are automaticallyl citizens of the Untied States. This means that children of any "guest workers" born in this country are automaticallly citizens of the Untied States. Absurd. I will NEVER support ANLY "guest worker" program until this is changed-by Constitutional Amendment, if necessary, which would not be an "attack" on the Constitution but the Constitutionial method to change a glitch or outmoded part of the Constitutioni.
Are "establishment" Republicans like this Chamber of Commerce unit "conservative"? This case is a Q.E.D. moment showing they are NOT. I did not really look at the makeup of the 5-4 Supreme Court decision (my problem with eyesight means it is hard for me to pick up these details quickly from written articles), but the cable coverage certainly seemed to assert that the CONSERVATIVE members of the Supreme Court formed the majority. That would be the logical result, as those are the justices who actually believe in a LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, with states exercising authority to the maximum extent possible. Establishment Republicans obviously do NOT believe in that principle. As I said, Q.E.D. It is demonstrated.
Do you understand what I am realy telling you with this article? Yes, I am telling you that I will NEVER support a Repubican politician who thinks this way again. I suported President Bush twice, before disowing him over any number of domestic things (including illegal immigration), and I refuse to vote for a Repubican who thinks the way these establishment Repubicans think. Does that mean I can't support any Repubican who favors a "guest worker" program? Not quite. Too many Republicans think they HAVE to cater to business that way. They think they are opposig unions. Hogwash. But that one item is not make or break. However, any candidate who shows that he or she is PANDERING to the Bush-McCain view on illegal immigration will NEVER get my vote--against Barack Obama or anyone else. I did not vote for McCain, and I will never vote for a similar establishment--leftist--Repubican again in my lifetime. Yes, it does give me qualms on Chris Christie, and it is why I wuoould not automatically suport him if he were to run (despite his great qualities).
P.S. Nope. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Notice that the Obama Administration has still not sued places like San Francisco, who openly OPPOSE Federal law on illegal immigration, and deliberately disobey it and/or obstruct it. Illegal immigration is one of the most blatant areas where leftists, and the mainstream media, expose themselves as the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. Nope. Leftists are NOT interested in "the law". They are merely interested in POWER--getting the Federal courts to imppose their views by dictatorial power. No, leftists do NOT believe in democracy, as this blog has shown you repeatedly. Leftists believe in neithr the "rule of law" or democracy. They believe in the rule of men (themselves), and in dictatorial imposition of their views on everybody--on the basis that their views SHOULD be in the Constitution, even if they are not.
"But Skip," you say, this lawsuit was brought by the CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. Are you saying that is a left wing organization."
In a way, I am saying that. Too many Chamber of Commerce Republicans are ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS, rather than conservatives. That means they are leftist style hypocrites, without real principles. They, too, FEAR democracy, and don't believe in it. They, too, are interested in POWER, rather than in principles of freedom and enforcing our laws. They, too, want to IMPOSE their views on us all by dictatorial means. Amazingly enough, the Chamber of Commerce is SOMETIMES not as bad as the economic fascists who now dominate Wall Street and BIG business, because small business has more influence there, but this case shows how establishment Repubicans think. the Chamber of Commerce regards itself as an INTEREST organization promoting what it perceives as the SELFISH intreests of business, and the country be hanged. We need to stop encouraging illegal immigrants from both entering this country illegally and STAYING in this country illegally? Well, the Chamber of Commerce does nto perceive this as a problem which should inconvenince business.
Yes, way too many establishment Repubilcans, AND establishment "conservatives", do NOT believe businesses should help enforce the law, or even be forced to obey the law. Say hello to sanctuary cities like San Francisco, Chemaber o f Commerce. You ae on the SAME PAGE on this one--the same indefensible page threatening to destroy our country. Too many business people, and Wall Street Journal type Republicans, who regard the main job of the Repubican Party as supporting business in every way, believe that businesses NEED illegal immigrants (9% unemployment be damned) in order to EXPLOIT AMERICAN WORKERS. No, they don't lput it that way, but that is what it comes down to. And it is shameful..
Yes, the OBAMA head of Homeland Security signed this Arizona law into law when she was governor of Arizona. That has not stopped the Obama Administration from FAILING to push for real penalties against businesses who fail to pursue DISCREPANCIES in names and Social Security numbers. Yesa, NO illegal immigrant should be able to get a real job in this country, because we ALREADY MATCH names and Social Security numbers--AND we notify employers of problems with the match (as Meg Whitman found out). However, guess what happened when the Bush Administration finally proposed sending a letter to employyers enforcing new regulations imposing sever SANCTIONS for failing to follow up and investigate discrepancies? Right. The ACLU and the AFL-CIO (Benedict Arnold had nothing on those people, who BETRAYED American labor) promptly sued to BLOCK the new regulations in Federal Court in SAN FRANCISCO (where else). So far as I know, the Ob ama Administration has made no attempt to pursue this easy way of holding employers accountable--by a new Arizona-type law, if necessary. You can see why setablishment Republicans have not really pursued this either. This UNHOLY alliance between business Repubicans, labor, and other leftists is enough to make one despair for this country.
Nope. As never before since World War II, we do NOT NEED "guest workers". Worse, "guest workers' will merely increase the problem of illegal immigration by providing another way for massive numbers of people to get into this country without even having to risk an illegal entyy.
Nope. I will debate ANY 'establishment Republican", or ANY so-callked conservaitve, in this blog or anywhere, as to the DECEPTION of the establishment Republican positioni on illegal immigration (the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty approach, however modified). It is indefensible.
Doubt me? DON'T. Consider what happens so long as present law (based on an extreme reading of the 14th Amendment) is not changed. Presently, as everyone knows but everyone refuses to defend or change, children whose parents are BOTH not permanent residents of this contry (as on "pregnancy tours", or pregnant mothers camped outside the country hospital in El Paso where my mother was once a nursing supervisor) are automaticallyl citizens of the Untied States. This means that children of any "guest workers" born in this country are automaticallly citizens of the Untied States. Absurd. I will NEVER support ANLY "guest worker" program until this is changed-by Constitutional Amendment, if necessary, which would not be an "attack" on the Constitution but the Constitutionial method to change a glitch or outmoded part of the Constitutioni.
Are "establishment" Republicans like this Chamber of Commerce unit "conservative"? This case is a Q.E.D. moment showing they are NOT. I did not really look at the makeup of the 5-4 Supreme Court decision (my problem with eyesight means it is hard for me to pick up these details quickly from written articles), but the cable coverage certainly seemed to assert that the CONSERVATIVE members of the Supreme Court formed the majority. That would be the logical result, as those are the justices who actually believe in a LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, with states exercising authority to the maximum extent possible. Establishment Republicans obviously do NOT believe in that principle. As I said, Q.E.D. It is demonstrated.
Do you understand what I am realy telling you with this article? Yes, I am telling you that I will NEVER support a Repubican politician who thinks this way again. I suported President Bush twice, before disowing him over any number of domestic things (including illegal immigration), and I refuse to vote for a Repubican who thinks the way these establishment Repubicans think. Does that mean I can't support any Repubican who favors a "guest worker" program? Not quite. Too many Republicans think they HAVE to cater to business that way. They think they are opposig unions. Hogwash. But that one item is not make or break. However, any candidate who shows that he or she is PANDERING to the Bush-McCain view on illegal immigration will NEVER get my vote--against Barack Obama or anyone else. I did not vote for McCain, and I will never vote for a similar establishment--leftist--Repubican again in my lifetime. Yes, it does give me qualms on Chris Christie, and it is why I wuoould not automatically suport him if he were to run (despite his great qualities).
P.S. Nope. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Bin Laden Raid Avenges Ft. Hood Massacre
Yes, it is one of the most disgraceful headlines I have ever seen, and one of the most stupid. But what can you expect from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (complete, official name), which continues to prove that there is no worse "news" organization in any UNIVERSE (because it is impossible t be worse). Yes, it is another one of those featured headlines on Yahoo "News" (boycott Yahoo)., which is what I see on my AT&T default page as I go online (which I leave deliberately for material for this blog). Here is the offending headline TODAY (Sunday)--not the week of the bin Laden raid:
"Raid on bin Laden Raid Avenged Ft. Hood Massacre"
You poor fool, you, may have thought that the bin Laden raid avenged 9/11, and needed no more justification. You might further believe, correctly, that it DIMISHES :(even demeans) the raid to look around for other slates to wipe clean, as if you were a police chief or sheriff trying to clear a murder by blaming it on a captured serial killer (or trying to gain publicity for yourself by getting in on the glorly of a captured serival killer).
The Shadow: "Skip, Skip, Skip. You are a serial liar with these false headlines of yours. Here is the correct headline from the AP, although I admit it is puzzling why this was "news" today":
"Raid on bin Laden Compound Avenged CIA Deaths"
Skip: "Hasn't Homeland Seucirty caught you yet? I notice that, like serial killers, you have adopted a name for your serial hacking.
The Shadow: Homeland Security can't catch anyone unless the person is handed to them. Too much political corretness, which I guess is the point of your stupid headline. But, Skip, you have to stop these FALSE headlines. You know you changed the headline.
Skip: "Okay. So you caught me. Your headline is corret. I changed the actual headline, because I thought mine was just as good, or better, than the desgraceful Yahoo/AP headline. What the Hell did the bin Laden raid have to do with "CIA deaths"? Was the CIA really looking HARDER for bin Laden because of CIA deaths in Pakistan or Afghanistan, or elsewhere? This is so STUPID that I can't stqand it. The preventable Ft. Hood massacre was traced to al-Qaid in Yemen, and you can say that the bin Laden raid "avennged" any number of things, if you simply want to MANUFACTURE a sotlry every day on the bin Laden raid. We already know that the bin Laden raid is one of the greatest events in the history of mankind (not), but this is beyond ridiculous. When President Bush was in office, Nancy Pelosi AND the mainstream media played down the significance of getting bin Laden, just in case Bush did that. But these are the worst hypocrites who ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four. Yes, getting bin Laden was a good thing. But it hardly "avenges" every single death of an American at the hands of Islamic militants.
Or is the AP saying that we would not have conducted a raid in violation of Pakistani soverignty except to avenge the CIA? No. The despicable AP can't be saying that, evn if you have a sneaking suspicion that President Obama might be so petty as to look at the raid in terms of avenging some slight against HIM. But even I don't think Obama acted for petty vengance. Bin Laden was an international terrorist. As stated it demeans the whole thing to make this PERSONAL with the CIA--as if it were some act of vengeance against PAKISTAN.
The more I think about this disgraceful headline, the more it makes me angery."
The Shadow: Okay, Skip. I actually understand your anger. I admit I don't understand the purpose of this headline, or story. However, you really have to stop theses faslse headlines, or you will keep hearing from me. And Homeland Seucrity is not going to save you. The Shadow knows what evil lurks in your heart."
"Raid on bin Laden Raid Avenged Ft. Hood Massacre"
You poor fool, you, may have thought that the bin Laden raid avenged 9/11, and needed no more justification. You might further believe, correctly, that it DIMISHES :(even demeans) the raid to look around for other slates to wipe clean, as if you were a police chief or sheriff trying to clear a murder by blaming it on a captured serial killer (or trying to gain publicity for yourself by getting in on the glorly of a captured serival killer).
The Shadow: "Skip, Skip, Skip. You are a serial liar with these false headlines of yours. Here is the correct headline from the AP, although I admit it is puzzling why this was "news" today":
"Raid on bin Laden Compound Avenged CIA Deaths"
Skip: "Hasn't Homeland Seucirty caught you yet? I notice that, like serial killers, you have adopted a name for your serial hacking.
The Shadow: Homeland Security can't catch anyone unless the person is handed to them. Too much political corretness, which I guess is the point of your stupid headline. But, Skip, you have to stop these FALSE headlines. You know you changed the headline.
Skip: "Okay. So you caught me. Your headline is corret. I changed the actual headline, because I thought mine was just as good, or better, than the desgraceful Yahoo/AP headline. What the Hell did the bin Laden raid have to do with "CIA deaths"? Was the CIA really looking HARDER for bin Laden because of CIA deaths in Pakistan or Afghanistan, or elsewhere? This is so STUPID that I can't stqand it. The preventable Ft. Hood massacre was traced to al-Qaid in Yemen, and you can say that the bin Laden raid "avennged" any number of things, if you simply want to MANUFACTURE a sotlry every day on the bin Laden raid. We already know that the bin Laden raid is one of the greatest events in the history of mankind (not), but this is beyond ridiculous. When President Bush was in office, Nancy Pelosi AND the mainstream media played down the significance of getting bin Laden, just in case Bush did that. But these are the worst hypocrites who ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four. Yes, getting bin Laden was a good thing. But it hardly "avenges" every single death of an American at the hands of Islamic militants.
Or is the AP saying that we would not have conducted a raid in violation of Pakistani soverignty except to avenge the CIA? No. The despicable AP can't be saying that, evn if you have a sneaking suspicion that President Obama might be so petty as to look at the raid in terms of avenging some slight against HIM. But even I don't think Obama acted for petty vengance. Bin Laden was an international terrorist. As stated it demeans the whole thing to make this PERSONAL with the CIA--as if it were some act of vengeance against PAKISTAN.
The more I think about this disgraceful headline, the more it makes me angery."
The Shadow: Okay, Skip. I actually understand your anger. I admit I don't understand the purpose of this headline, or story. However, you really have to stop theses faslse headlines, or you will keep hearing from me. And Homeland Seucrity is not going to save you. The Shadow knows what evil lurks in your heart."
Rick Perry: Not a Principled Conservative (Rush Limbaugh Gets It Wrong, Again)
Rick Perry has been governor of Texas for some 10 years--my governor. I know whereof I speak. Rick Perry is NOT a principled conservative. No, he is not a leftist ideologue opportunist like President Obama, but Perry reminds me very much of Obama. Perry LEADS FROM BEHIND. On everything from illegal immigration to social issues to limited government, Perry has been a opporunist who tests where the wind is blowing before he takes a position.
Yes, I have known for years that Perry would like to be Prfesident of the United States. But he has approached it in his usual cautious way--unlike Obama on this, who very quickly moved toward a national reputation when he decided he had high ambitions, to the point that Obama gave the keynote speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. You can search your memory, and you will find NO such moment for Rick Perry. Perry has made headlines by talking about Texas having a "right" to secede from the Union (supposedly setttled in the Civl War), but Perry has NOT uput himself forward as an eloquent advocate of conservative causes (as Obama put himself forward as an eloquent advocate of liberal causes and "change"). Ask yourself. In the 2008 campaign, did you see Perry making an eloquent speech at the convention, or really distinguuishing himself as an advocate of conservative causes? Nope. You did not. Yes, you have seen Perry (as recently on Greta Van Susteren's Fox News prime time show) put himself forward as an advocate of border security. That is one way you know that Perry wants to be President. But Perry, before his recent reelection for governor, did NOT put himself forward as an Arizonaa-type crusader against illegl immigration. Perry believes that there are too many Hispanic votes in Texas for that (cautious man that he is, with few real principles that I can discern). Perry did NOT crusade against the McCain-Kennedy/Bush amnesty bill in 1006. In fact, Perry does not really crusade for anything--again, because I perceive he does not rally believe in much--until he feels he has jumped on a bandwagon. That is why I was a little surprised that Perry talked about Texas "seceding" from the United States. I surmie that Perry had determined that kind of dramatic gesture would help him meet the threat of Kay Bailey Hutchinson in Texas, but it made him look faintly ridiculous on a national level. No, Perry was not that strong against bailouts and TARP when bailouts were being DEBATED in Congress in 2008 (ture of way too many Repubicans, as is evident from the fact that House Republicans voted AGAINST the bailout bill, only to have the Repubican Party in general fail to give them enough support).
That 2010 race for governor of Teas between Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Perry was a marvel. BOTH ran a NEGATIVE campaign aginst the othre accusng each other of not being a "real', principled conservative. The funny thing is that BOTH were right. Yes, we are talking abut the Repubilcan primary here, as it was obviouis the winner of that primary was going to be governor of Texas. Now Hutchinson (former Senator from Texas) was part of the Washignton establishment, even if you can regard Perry as part of the Texas establishment. Therefore, Hutchinson rightly had no chance of convincing people of Texas she was a committed conservative. Even more than Perry, she was not. That is probably the best thing about Perry. The fact that Hutchinson was willing to take him on indicates that there are elements of the Repubican establishment who regard Perry with disfavor. Therefore, if Perry allies himself with conservatives, he MIGHT "stay bught". It is not like he owes the national Republican establishment anything.
Although I have always had the impression that Perry is an intellectual lightweight, with few real principles, he has been a decent governor of Texas. That is partly because the governor of Texas has little real power and influence, and the Texas legislature is not going to do anything real stupid (like impose unions or an income tax--not to say that many fees and taxes have not been raised unde Perry, but Texas still remains a low tax state without an intrusive government). Texas has done well in the recession. While I would not give Perry that much credit for that, he has not rocked the bboat. As I say, Perry has been a decent governor, if not an eloquent advocate of conservative causes.
Problem: George W. Bush was also a decent governor of Texas--pretty much in the Perry mold, or rather the other way around. Perry was lieutenant governor under Bush, and has pretty much folowed in Bush's footsteps. Yes, I said that Bush was NOT a conservative when he ran for President (although I voted for him twic--back before I decided that voting for the "lesser evil" can be a fool's game). Bush, himself, did not claim to be a conservative, although Perry may. From observation of them both, however, I hink Bush was MORE of a social conservative than Perry, although hardly willing to fight very hard for those issues. We know how weak Bush was on illegal immigration, and you delude yourself if you believe Perry is not similarly weak. Yes, if you want to be kind, you can saay that Perry has been awakened to the problem of our Mexican border by the CARNAGE along the Mexican border (mainly in Mexico, but bullets have flown in El Paso from funfights in Mexico). However, as John McCain has shown, taking about "border security" does NOT make you an advocate of enforcing our immigration laws. The best I can say about Perry is that he has to appreciate the Mexican border problem, and the problem of Mexico, better than President Obama.
No, as usual (foresight being my specialty) this is NOT a new topic for me (the topic of Rick Perry not being a princiipled conservative). I have written previous articles about it. In fact, before the Obama Presidency, I wrote an article (I think of Newsvie) about the Perry EXECUTIVE ORDER (exceeding his authority) that schools require all young (junior high and above) girls in Teax to be vaccinated for the HPV virus (a sexaully trasmiitted disease where a particular form of the virus is known to create a risk of cancer). I mentioned the other ways in which Perry was not a conservative. I maintained then, and maintain now, that a governor who would REQUIRE parents to bget young girls vaccinated for a sexually transmitted disease cannot be a conservative. My pharmacist brother (pharmacist in Texas) agrees with me that Perry's order was ridiculous. As far as I know, it did not stand. The point here is that I got a COMMENT to that previous article telling me that I was wrong to expect Perry to be a committed conservative, instead of a "pragmatist" interested in "solving problems" without being bound by right wing ideology. I believed then, and believe now, that Perry IS a "pragmatist"--interested mainly in Perry and leading from behind. Incidents like that vaccination order indicate to me that Perry is tone deaf to real conservative principles, which can get him in trouble when you least expect it. In other words, I believe that Perry is perfectly willing to throw conservatives under the bus, just like Gingrich, if he feels it will advance him.
This brings us to Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh gave a boost, a week or so ago, to the Perry "boomlet" by essentially referring to Perry as the knight on a white horse about to come in and "save" both the conservative cause and the country from Barack Obama AND the Republican establishment. I have been unhappy before with Limbaugh's failure to use his obvious influence in a positive way in the Reppublican Party (of which I do NOT regard myself as a member)). In December of 2008, I TOLD Limbaugh (in this blog, with a copy to him--no, I did not expect him to pay any attentioin) that it was NECESSARY for consrevatives to get behind Mitt Romney as the only 2008 real contender to be willing to carry the conservative banner. No, I don't trust Romney either, but he was the man talking like a conservative, despite his own record of opportunish, and conservatives needed to get behind him (may still happen this time again, although I see no reason to support Romney so early). I still BLAME RUSH--correctly--for McCain's nomination in 2008. After Rush gave his Oscare winning performance of Hamlet--"I have no intention of trying to pick a nominee, or tell you how to vote"--for month after month. And after Rush's lead was followed by Hannity and other conservative talk show hosts. We got McCain, because Rush came out for Romeny TOO LATE--as I had TOLD you, and him, in foresight. Rush has an obligation , if he truly regards himself as more than an entertainer, to see things as they are, and not as he might like them to be. Yes, and I think he has an obligation to ACT in a timely manner. He FAILED in 2008 as badly as a conservative can fail. He may be making the same mistake--or maybe you can regard it as the opposite mistake--here in the 2012 race. You can trust me on this. Rick Perry is NOT the Second Coming of Reagan, or any kind of savior for conservatives. He is NOT going to really be able to take it to Obama verbally.
Well. Does that mean I would never vote for Perry? I don't expect to vote for him for the Republican nomination (assuming he runs). I would probably vote for Perry against Obama because I believe Perry is going to position himself as a conservative. And Texas shows that Perry will not rock the boat. That means he is unlikely to LEAD, but wil likely follow the conservative lead with a Republican Congress. Dangerous, but Perry may end up being the most reasonable candiate against Obama. Yes, I am leaving open thee option of even supporting Perry for the nomination, although I wll be extrememly reluctant to do so. As of now, Romney would still be my choic over Perry. And that is not to mention people who I really LIKE, such as Michelle Bockmn, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum, but who I thik are longshots to develop public support. And yes, I do like Sarah Palin, and would support her, although I believe she should not run THIS TIME. You can see Perry is WAY down the list, but the situation is fluid. Perry is enough out of the Repubican establishment that I do not reject the idea of supporting him, even though I know he is not a principled conservative. At heart, Perry is an establishment Repubican, but they may well reject him (and partially have). If establishment Repubicans were to embrace Perry, then I would get real worried. Yes, Perry also has a better RECORD to run on than Obama, because Perry has been fortunate enough to be Texas governor and not rock the boat.
Yes, this article is being written because the despicable AP, and rest of the mainstream media, are finally getting around to saying that Perry is a potential candidate for President (helped by Perry's sudden encouragement of this possibility). The AP story this weekend said something like: "After months of resisting calls for him to get in the race, Perry seems to be considering it.". The AP, of course, is INCOMPETNET. Perry has always "considered it". And perry--I assure you--has NOT been "resisting" "calls" for him to get in the race. Until Limbaugh's comment, I would have said there were not such "calls". Limbaugh opened my eyes to a movement out there to get Perry into the race, but I assure you that the ONLY reason Perry might have been "resisting" is doubt over whehter it is really the right move for him. Perry has been positioning himself for a Presidential race for years, but has never been able to gnerate much enthusiasm. He may misread Limbaugh as showing that people will be enthusiastic about him. If so, I believe both Perrry and Limbaugh are deluding themselves. Yes, Perry might be Preisdent. But he is going to have to show me a very different Pery if he expects to generate real enthusiasm, and be a real leader.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). And yes, my 89 year old mother (who ATTACKED me for saying she was 89, when she will not be that age until July 13)--the one who realizes Obama and the Democrats are ut to kill her, as stated in a previous article this week--isdubious about Perry. My mother has been in Texas just as long as I have, and has sseen Perry's failure of leadership on things like illegal immigration. Again, I did not have to prompt here. She knew. Limbaugh should worry some when my 89 year old mother, who is developing memory prlbems and is on 24 hour oxygen, is more clear thingking than he is. Perry may be a wrothy addition tothe Repubican field, if ony to contrast Texas to liberal states, but he is hardly an Obama-like Messiah ready to lead conservatives to the Promised Land (at least, not without a major transformation Perry has not yet shown he can accomplish).
Yes, I have known for years that Perry would like to be Prfesident of the United States. But he has approached it in his usual cautious way--unlike Obama on this, who very quickly moved toward a national reputation when he decided he had high ambitions, to the point that Obama gave the keynote speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. You can search your memory, and you will find NO such moment for Rick Perry. Perry has made headlines by talking about Texas having a "right" to secede from the Union (supposedly setttled in the Civl War), but Perry has NOT uput himself forward as an eloquent advocate of conservative causes (as Obama put himself forward as an eloquent advocate of liberal causes and "change"). Ask yourself. In the 2008 campaign, did you see Perry making an eloquent speech at the convention, or really distinguuishing himself as an advocate of conservative causes? Nope. You did not. Yes, you have seen Perry (as recently on Greta Van Susteren's Fox News prime time show) put himself forward as an advocate of border security. That is one way you know that Perry wants to be President. But Perry, before his recent reelection for governor, did NOT put himself forward as an Arizonaa-type crusader against illegl immigration. Perry believes that there are too many Hispanic votes in Texas for that (cautious man that he is, with few real principles that I can discern). Perry did NOT crusade against the McCain-Kennedy/Bush amnesty bill in 1006. In fact, Perry does not really crusade for anything--again, because I perceive he does not rally believe in much--until he feels he has jumped on a bandwagon. That is why I was a little surprised that Perry talked about Texas "seceding" from the United States. I surmie that Perry had determined that kind of dramatic gesture would help him meet the threat of Kay Bailey Hutchinson in Texas, but it made him look faintly ridiculous on a national level. No, Perry was not that strong against bailouts and TARP when bailouts were being DEBATED in Congress in 2008 (ture of way too many Repubicans, as is evident from the fact that House Republicans voted AGAINST the bailout bill, only to have the Repubican Party in general fail to give them enough support).
That 2010 race for governor of Teas between Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Perry was a marvel. BOTH ran a NEGATIVE campaign aginst the othre accusng each other of not being a "real', principled conservative. The funny thing is that BOTH were right. Yes, we are talking abut the Repubilcan primary here, as it was obviouis the winner of that primary was going to be governor of Texas. Now Hutchinson (former Senator from Texas) was part of the Washignton establishment, even if you can regard Perry as part of the Texas establishment. Therefore, Hutchinson rightly had no chance of convincing people of Texas she was a committed conservative. Even more than Perry, she was not. That is probably the best thing about Perry. The fact that Hutchinson was willing to take him on indicates that there are elements of the Repubican establishment who regard Perry with disfavor. Therefore, if Perry allies himself with conservatives, he MIGHT "stay bught". It is not like he owes the national Republican establishment anything.
Although I have always had the impression that Perry is an intellectual lightweight, with few real principles, he has been a decent governor of Texas. That is partly because the governor of Texas has little real power and influence, and the Texas legislature is not going to do anything real stupid (like impose unions or an income tax--not to say that many fees and taxes have not been raised unde Perry, but Texas still remains a low tax state without an intrusive government). Texas has done well in the recession. While I would not give Perry that much credit for that, he has not rocked the bboat. As I say, Perry has been a decent governor, if not an eloquent advocate of conservative causes.
Problem: George W. Bush was also a decent governor of Texas--pretty much in the Perry mold, or rather the other way around. Perry was lieutenant governor under Bush, and has pretty much folowed in Bush's footsteps. Yes, I said that Bush was NOT a conservative when he ran for President (although I voted for him twic--back before I decided that voting for the "lesser evil" can be a fool's game). Bush, himself, did not claim to be a conservative, although Perry may. From observation of them both, however, I hink Bush was MORE of a social conservative than Perry, although hardly willing to fight very hard for those issues. We know how weak Bush was on illegal immigration, and you delude yourself if you believe Perry is not similarly weak. Yes, if you want to be kind, you can saay that Perry has been awakened to the problem of our Mexican border by the CARNAGE along the Mexican border (mainly in Mexico, but bullets have flown in El Paso from funfights in Mexico). However, as John McCain has shown, taking about "border security" does NOT make you an advocate of enforcing our immigration laws. The best I can say about Perry is that he has to appreciate the Mexican border problem, and the problem of Mexico, better than President Obama.
No, as usual (foresight being my specialty) this is NOT a new topic for me (the topic of Rick Perry not being a princiipled conservative). I have written previous articles about it. In fact, before the Obama Presidency, I wrote an article (I think of Newsvie) about the Perry EXECUTIVE ORDER (exceeding his authority) that schools require all young (junior high and above) girls in Teax to be vaccinated for the HPV virus (a sexaully trasmiitted disease where a particular form of the virus is known to create a risk of cancer). I mentioned the other ways in which Perry was not a conservative. I maintained then, and maintain now, that a governor who would REQUIRE parents to bget young girls vaccinated for a sexually transmitted disease cannot be a conservative. My pharmacist brother (pharmacist in Texas) agrees with me that Perry's order was ridiculous. As far as I know, it did not stand. The point here is that I got a COMMENT to that previous article telling me that I was wrong to expect Perry to be a committed conservative, instead of a "pragmatist" interested in "solving problems" without being bound by right wing ideology. I believed then, and believe now, that Perry IS a "pragmatist"--interested mainly in Perry and leading from behind. Incidents like that vaccination order indicate to me that Perry is tone deaf to real conservative principles, which can get him in trouble when you least expect it. In other words, I believe that Perry is perfectly willing to throw conservatives under the bus, just like Gingrich, if he feels it will advance him.
This brings us to Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh gave a boost, a week or so ago, to the Perry "boomlet" by essentially referring to Perry as the knight on a white horse about to come in and "save" both the conservative cause and the country from Barack Obama AND the Republican establishment. I have been unhappy before with Limbaugh's failure to use his obvious influence in a positive way in the Reppublican Party (of which I do NOT regard myself as a member)). In December of 2008, I TOLD Limbaugh (in this blog, with a copy to him--no, I did not expect him to pay any attentioin) that it was NECESSARY for consrevatives to get behind Mitt Romney as the only 2008 real contender to be willing to carry the conservative banner. No, I don't trust Romney either, but he was the man talking like a conservative, despite his own record of opportunish, and conservatives needed to get behind him (may still happen this time again, although I see no reason to support Romney so early). I still BLAME RUSH--correctly--for McCain's nomination in 2008. After Rush gave his Oscare winning performance of Hamlet--"I have no intention of trying to pick a nominee, or tell you how to vote"--for month after month. And after Rush's lead was followed by Hannity and other conservative talk show hosts. We got McCain, because Rush came out for Romeny TOO LATE--as I had TOLD you, and him, in foresight. Rush has an obligation , if he truly regards himself as more than an entertainer, to see things as they are, and not as he might like them to be. Yes, and I think he has an obligation to ACT in a timely manner. He FAILED in 2008 as badly as a conservative can fail. He may be making the same mistake--or maybe you can regard it as the opposite mistake--here in the 2012 race. You can trust me on this. Rick Perry is NOT the Second Coming of Reagan, or any kind of savior for conservatives. He is NOT going to really be able to take it to Obama verbally.
Well. Does that mean I would never vote for Perry? I don't expect to vote for him for the Republican nomination (assuming he runs). I would probably vote for Perry against Obama because I believe Perry is going to position himself as a conservative. And Texas shows that Perry will not rock the boat. That means he is unlikely to LEAD, but wil likely follow the conservative lead with a Republican Congress. Dangerous, but Perry may end up being the most reasonable candiate against Obama. Yes, I am leaving open thee option of even supporting Perry for the nomination, although I wll be extrememly reluctant to do so. As of now, Romney would still be my choic over Perry. And that is not to mention people who I really LIKE, such as Michelle Bockmn, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum, but who I thik are longshots to develop public support. And yes, I do like Sarah Palin, and would support her, although I believe she should not run THIS TIME. You can see Perry is WAY down the list, but the situation is fluid. Perry is enough out of the Repubican establishment that I do not reject the idea of supporting him, even though I know he is not a principled conservative. At heart, Perry is an establishment Repubican, but they may well reject him (and partially have). If establishment Repubicans were to embrace Perry, then I would get real worried. Yes, Perry also has a better RECORD to run on than Obama, because Perry has been fortunate enough to be Texas governor and not rock the boat.
Yes, this article is being written because the despicable AP, and rest of the mainstream media, are finally getting around to saying that Perry is a potential candidate for President (helped by Perry's sudden encouragement of this possibility). The AP story this weekend said something like: "After months of resisting calls for him to get in the race, Perry seems to be considering it.". The AP, of course, is INCOMPETNET. Perry has always "considered it". And perry--I assure you--has NOT been "resisting" "calls" for him to get in the race. Until Limbaugh's comment, I would have said there were not such "calls". Limbaugh opened my eyes to a movement out there to get Perry into the race, but I assure you that the ONLY reason Perry might have been "resisting" is doubt over whehter it is really the right move for him. Perry has been positioning himself for a Presidential race for years, but has never been able to gnerate much enthusiasm. He may misread Limbaugh as showing that people will be enthusiastic about him. If so, I believe both Perrry and Limbaugh are deluding themselves. Yes, Perry might be Preisdent. But he is going to have to show me a very different Pery if he expects to generate real enthusiasm, and be a real leader.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). And yes, my 89 year old mother (who ATTACKED me for saying she was 89, when she will not be that age until July 13)--the one who realizes Obama and the Democrats are ut to kill her, as stated in a previous article this week--isdubious about Perry. My mother has been in Texas just as long as I have, and has sseen Perry's failure of leadership on things like illegal immigration. Again, I did not have to prompt here. She knew. Limbaugh should worry some when my 89 year old mother, who is developing memory prlbems and is on 24 hour oxygen, is more clear thingking than he is. Perry may be a wrothy addition tothe Repubican field, if ony to contrast Texas to liberal states, but he is hardly an Obama-like Messiah ready to lead conservatives to the Promised Land (at least, not without a major transformation Perry has not yet shown he can accomplish).
Saturday, May 28, 2011
New York Republican Party Keeps IMPOSING the Wrong Candidate, as Democrats Figure Out How to Win NY Special Elections
You remember the previous New York special election in a "Republican district"? Sure you do. It was the distict where Michael Steele's downfall (as Republican Party chairman) reallly accelerated. The Republican Party nomominated a Republican for the special election for a House sea who was somewhere to the LEFT of 75% of all DEMOCRATS. She would eventually pull out of the race, and essentailly declare herself a dEMOCRAT (endorsing the Democratic candidate). The consrevative, rank and file Repubicans rejected the nominee imposed upon them, and supported a third party conservative candidate running on the conservative line. With the SABOTAGE of the Repubican Party establishment (which is what they do best), and the betrayal of the Repubican Party candidate, the conservate candidate lost in the "safe" Republican district.
What did that mean for 2010? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I said so at the time on Newsvien, the MSNBC site where I was putting most of my articles. Democrats were saying how much more signnificant that special election was than Repubican victories in New Jersey and Virginia, because it was more about Obama. Hogwash was what I said then-coreectly, in foresight. That is also what I say about claims that the New York special election in 2011--the one just lost by the Repubican---means anything for 2012. It does not, other than that the Repubican Party establishment--especially in New York--still does not have its act together (unless you regard the constant sabotage by the Repubican Party establishment of conservative candidates to be their real objective).
Yes, again there was a third-party candidate calling himself the "Tea Party candidate'. However, this time the condidate was not really a conservative--having previously run several times as a DEMOCRAT. In the Nixon era, or even hits year, this would have been called a DIRTY TRICK, if REPUBLICNS had sabotaged the Democrat with such a stalking horse candidate. What Democrats have learned is how to win "special elections". I have noticed that for decades, and it has no predictive value as far as whether Democrats can do better in the next general electioni. This is obviously true in New York, where Democrats have used the same kind of "divide and conquer" method in two straight special elections, although in slightly different scenariaos.
We know why the propagandists of the mainstream media would ply this as a rejection by "the people" of the Paul Ryan/House Republican budget (with its Medicare reform), even though it is not true. But WHY would the Repubican establishment join with the mainstream media with panic over this meaningless election? Come on. You know the answer to this one. It is the same reason the Repubican Party in Nw York chose a lackluster candidate unwilling to ATTACK the Democrat on Meicare, and unwilling to expose the manifet FAILURE of Obama and the Democrats on Medicare. As stated in a prior article this week, in fact, it is DEMOCRATS who are "trying to kill grandma" (NOW, and not ten years from now, which is the earliest the Pual Ryan plan would have any real effect on Medicare). Yes, I know that New York law seemingly requires the Repubican Party to designate a candidate, but that totally gegs the question. The Republican Party could try to reach out to conservatives and designate at least a candidate acceptable to conservatives and willing to present the positions that Repubicans supposedly now have (on a national level).
This blog has previously explainied to you how BOTH leftist Democrats and Repubican establishment people regard conservative/Tea Party Republicans as MORE of an enemy than al-Qaida. You may be getting the impression that my attitude toward the kind of Repubican Party establishment people I criticze in this blog--including, of course, John McCain--is pretty much the same. You would be approximately right, even thoiugh I am not nearly as self-destructive, and just plain bad, as these people (leftist Deomocrats and Repubican establishment people).
Yes, I am still willing to vote for SOME Republican "establishment" candidates. That is becoming less and less true, but it remains true. I do not call Repubicans who are pro-abortion MUDERERS, and refuse to ever vote for any of them, even though leftist Democrats and establishment Republicans are perfectly willing to take that attitude against me (and cnadidates I supprot). Yes, the Republican establishment regards me as a "hick", even though I graduatged from the University of Texas School of Law with high honors. They feel the same way about Michelle Bockman, with better creedentials than almost any of them. And I don't turn the other cheek. Therefore--as evidenced by my refusal to vote for John McCain--I will OPPOSE ay Repubican candidate who evidences this attitude toward ME, and the peoiple I support. And no,k it does not matter to me if I lect Obama in the process (as it does not matter to them if they do).
Thus, there are a number of Repubilcan candidates out there I will not support. These include John Huntsman of Utah. I would have included Mitch Daniels, but he thankfully chose not to run. Showing I am not as bad as the Repubican establishment, or much of it, I WOULD probably vote for Mitt Romney--who I supported in 2008 and would be willing to support again, despite "RomneyCare " and that Romney is really an establishment kind of guy. I MIGHT support Tim Pawlenty in the general election, although I might not (and would never support him for the nomination). I probably WOULD support Chirs Christie, maybe even for the nomination, although he is suspect on pro-life issues and illegal immigration, among other things--as Christie is so much better than most Repubicans on the things he is good at. You get the picture.
The pint is that the "lesson" Repubicans should learn from the New York special elecions (plural) is that Republicns MUST nominate people willing to ATTACK Obama and the Democrats--not act defensive and ahsamed to be even associagtted with conservatives. That does not mean every Republican has to support Paul Ryan's exact plan (which takes ten years to even really make progress on getting the deficit way down). But Repubicans have to be willing not to be ASHAMED or AFRAID of the House budget. Republicans have to be willing to SAY--aggressively--that Obama and the Democrats are trying to dESTROY Medicare and Social Security. Republicans have to be wiling to ATTACK ObamaCare for CUTTING MEDICARE, but using the supposed savings to support a massive government program at the expense of seniror citizens who are already senior citizens (in other words, PRESENT senior citizens). Repbuilcans have to be willing to say that Obama nd the Democrats are intneding to impose ObamaCare by HURTING Meidcare, and the treatment availlable under Medicare, including access to care and restricting care through a government establiished advisory board. republicans who are not willing to do these things--whatever "plan" they support--are worthless. And Republicans who call Ryan's ATTEMPT at saving Medicare "right wing social engineering" are byond saving. Newt Gingrich will never be President. I said that beofree that statement of his--another example of my foresight rather than hindsight.
Indeed, the New York special election may be the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party, IF the party learns the right lessons. At the vey least, every Republican running for office, who is worth anything, has to have learned that you MUST avoid being put in a tpta; defensive position on Medicare, where you act like you don't like being part of a party which would propose somtething like the Ryan plan. In other words, Democrats have "peaked" way too soon. NO Repubican canddate can be surprised by this kind of attack (the "Republicans intend to kill Medicare" attack). Any Repubican who is not prepared to meet the attack, both in ads and in debates, deserves to lose. Rather than doing what the candidate in New York did (evasons and inability to defend the Repubican House budget) would be better off simply repudiating Ryan and the House Republicans (somewhat like Gingrich). It will not work, but evasion is a guaranteed LOSER. Every Repulican HAS to ATTACK the Deomocrats, and be supportive of at least the courage of republicans trying to save Medicare, whatever else the candidate dos about the details of what plan the candidate supports.
Message to Karl rove (by the way): Karl, I have not forgotten you. I STILL would never vote for you as dogcatcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas (where I spendt most of my early childhood). IN fact, I am tempted to say that I will not support any candidate you support, but I oopose guilt by association. I regard you as an example of the WORST of establishment Republicaniam, and responsbile--as much as any other person--for the FAILURE of Bush's second term (plus the worst asppects of Bush's first term). Rove is brought to mind because I saw Rove give a typically weak "analysis" of the New York electon, keyed mainly to the Democratic cnadidate getting only 1% above Obama's vote in 2008 (evidently forgetting that if OBVAMA gets 1% more than his vote in 2008, nationally, he will be elected in a landslide). Yes, I know Rove was balming the defeat on the third--party candidate, as I PARTLY do above. But if you read what I say closely, you realize that I CORRECTLY am really balming the defeat on the Republican Party in New York and people who think like ROVE (no principles, who are constantly playing politics as usual).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). If only that were the problem among establishment Repubicans, rather than a fundamental lack of real principles.
What did that mean for 2010? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I said so at the time on Newsvien, the MSNBC site where I was putting most of my articles. Democrats were saying how much more signnificant that special election was than Repubican victories in New Jersey and Virginia, because it was more about Obama. Hogwash was what I said then-coreectly, in foresight. That is also what I say about claims that the New York special election in 2011--the one just lost by the Repubican---means anything for 2012. It does not, other than that the Repubican Party establishment--especially in New York--still does not have its act together (unless you regard the constant sabotage by the Repubican Party establishment of conservative candidates to be their real objective).
Yes, again there was a third-party candidate calling himself the "Tea Party candidate'. However, this time the condidate was not really a conservative--having previously run several times as a DEMOCRAT. In the Nixon era, or even hits year, this would have been called a DIRTY TRICK, if REPUBLICNS had sabotaged the Democrat with such a stalking horse candidate. What Democrats have learned is how to win "special elections". I have noticed that for decades, and it has no predictive value as far as whether Democrats can do better in the next general electioni. This is obviously true in New York, where Democrats have used the same kind of "divide and conquer" method in two straight special elections, although in slightly different scenariaos.
We know why the propagandists of the mainstream media would ply this as a rejection by "the people" of the Paul Ryan/House Republican budget (with its Medicare reform), even though it is not true. But WHY would the Repubican establishment join with the mainstream media with panic over this meaningless election? Come on. You know the answer to this one. It is the same reason the Repubican Party in Nw York chose a lackluster candidate unwilling to ATTACK the Democrat on Meicare, and unwilling to expose the manifet FAILURE of Obama and the Democrats on Medicare. As stated in a prior article this week, in fact, it is DEMOCRATS who are "trying to kill grandma" (NOW, and not ten years from now, which is the earliest the Pual Ryan plan would have any real effect on Medicare). Yes, I know that New York law seemingly requires the Repubican Party to designate a candidate, but that totally gegs the question. The Republican Party could try to reach out to conservatives and designate at least a candidate acceptable to conservatives and willing to present the positions that Repubicans supposedly now have (on a national level).
This blog has previously explainied to you how BOTH leftist Democrats and Repubican establishment people regard conservative/Tea Party Republicans as MORE of an enemy than al-Qaida. You may be getting the impression that my attitude toward the kind of Repubican Party establishment people I criticze in this blog--including, of course, John McCain--is pretty much the same. You would be approximately right, even thoiugh I am not nearly as self-destructive, and just plain bad, as these people (leftist Deomocrats and Repubican establishment people).
Yes, I am still willing to vote for SOME Republican "establishment" candidates. That is becoming less and less true, but it remains true. I do not call Repubicans who are pro-abortion MUDERERS, and refuse to ever vote for any of them, even though leftist Democrats and establishment Republicans are perfectly willing to take that attitude against me (and cnadidates I supprot). Yes, the Republican establishment regards me as a "hick", even though I graduatged from the University of Texas School of Law with high honors. They feel the same way about Michelle Bockman, with better creedentials than almost any of them. And I don't turn the other cheek. Therefore--as evidenced by my refusal to vote for John McCain--I will OPPOSE ay Repubican candidate who evidences this attitude toward ME, and the peoiple I support. And no,k it does not matter to me if I lect Obama in the process (as it does not matter to them if they do).
Thus, there are a number of Repubilcan candidates out there I will not support. These include John Huntsman of Utah. I would have included Mitch Daniels, but he thankfully chose not to run. Showing I am not as bad as the Repubican establishment, or much of it, I WOULD probably vote for Mitt Romney--who I supported in 2008 and would be willing to support again, despite "RomneyCare " and that Romney is really an establishment kind of guy. I MIGHT support Tim Pawlenty in the general election, although I might not (and would never support him for the nomination). I probably WOULD support Chirs Christie, maybe even for the nomination, although he is suspect on pro-life issues and illegal immigration, among other things--as Christie is so much better than most Repubicans on the things he is good at. You get the picture.
The pint is that the "lesson" Repubicans should learn from the New York special elecions (plural) is that Republicns MUST nominate people willing to ATTACK Obama and the Democrats--not act defensive and ahsamed to be even associagtted with conservatives. That does not mean every Republican has to support Paul Ryan's exact plan (which takes ten years to even really make progress on getting the deficit way down). But Repubicans have to be willing not to be ASHAMED or AFRAID of the House budget. Republicans have to be willing to SAY--aggressively--that Obama and the Democrats are trying to dESTROY Medicare and Social Security. Republicans have to be wiling to ATTACK ObamaCare for CUTTING MEDICARE, but using the supposed savings to support a massive government program at the expense of seniror citizens who are already senior citizens (in other words, PRESENT senior citizens). Repbuilcans have to be willing to say that Obama nd the Democrats are intneding to impose ObamaCare by HURTING Meidcare, and the treatment availlable under Medicare, including access to care and restricting care through a government establiished advisory board. republicans who are not willing to do these things--whatever "plan" they support--are worthless. And Republicans who call Ryan's ATTEMPT at saving Medicare "right wing social engineering" are byond saving. Newt Gingrich will never be President. I said that beofree that statement of his--another example of my foresight rather than hindsight.
Indeed, the New York special election may be the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party, IF the party learns the right lessons. At the vey least, every Republican running for office, who is worth anything, has to have learned that you MUST avoid being put in a tpta; defensive position on Medicare, where you act like you don't like being part of a party which would propose somtething like the Ryan plan. In other words, Democrats have "peaked" way too soon. NO Repubican canddate can be surprised by this kind of attack (the "Republicans intend to kill Medicare" attack). Any Repubican who is not prepared to meet the attack, both in ads and in debates, deserves to lose. Rather than doing what the candidate in New York did (evasons and inability to defend the Repubican House budget) would be better off simply repudiating Ryan and the House Republicans (somewhat like Gingrich). It will not work, but evasion is a guaranteed LOSER. Every Repulican HAS to ATTACK the Deomocrats, and be supportive of at least the courage of republicans trying to save Medicare, whatever else the candidate dos about the details of what plan the candidate supports.
Message to Karl rove (by the way): Karl, I have not forgotten you. I STILL would never vote for you as dogcatcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas (where I spendt most of my early childhood). IN fact, I am tempted to say that I will not support any candidate you support, but I oopose guilt by association. I regard you as an example of the WORST of establishment Republicaniam, and responsbile--as much as any other person--for the FAILURE of Bush's second term (plus the worst asppects of Bush's first term). Rove is brought to mind because I saw Rove give a typically weak "analysis" of the New York electon, keyed mainly to the Democratic cnadidate getting only 1% above Obama's vote in 2008 (evidently forgetting that if OBVAMA gets 1% more than his vote in 2008, nationally, he will be elected in a landslide). Yes, I know Rove was balming the defeat on the third--party candidate, as I PARTLY do above. But if you read what I say closely, you realize that I CORRECTLY am really balming the defeat on the Republican Party in New York and people who think like ROVE (no principles, who are constantly playing politics as usual).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). If only that were the problem among establishment Repubicans, rather than a fundamental lack of real principles.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Geitner, Tax Cheat and Obama Treasury Secretar, Gets Stimulus Funds
"Tax Cheats Receive Funds from Stimulus"
That was a Yahoo featured picture story headline last week. It is the only time I have ever seen a Yahoo featured picture story which has to be regarded as unfavorable to the Obama Administratioin. Yes, it turns out that people show OWE the government money for unpaind taxes actuall received money from the Obama/Democrat "stimulus" bill. "Tax cheats" is obviously a pejorative term that MAY not apply to all of them, as it has not definite meaning.
"Oh, Ski"
"I can't believe it is you again. I thought I called Homeland Security to stop you from hacking into my blog anymore". .
"They can't even do anything about the Mexican border, although I admit that they are hdandicapped by Obama and the Democrats pandering to what they think Hspanics want--the Hispanic vote--which may be about the most bigoted approach to Hispanics in the country tody. But I digress, mainly to keep you from saying it. Homeland Security has no chance against The Shadow. 'What evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows.' I may not know what evil lurks in the hearts of all men, Skip, but I know what evil lurks in your false headlines. Yuo KNOW that Geitner did not receive any stimulus funds. And you KNOW that the headline featured on Yahoo did not refer to Geitner."
"Hey. They headline said that tax cheats got stimulus money. Geitner is a tax cheat (although I admit that is a pejorative term of no exactd meaning). Simple deductive logiv tells you that Geitner received stimulus funds."
"Skip, Skip, Skip. You sometimes brag about your course in classical logic you took at New Mexico State Universiy, while you were majoring in physics before going on to law school after an army stint. You KNOW that a classical logical syllogism like this must start with LL tax chearts receiving stimulus funds. Not only did Geitner eventaully pay all of his delinquent taxes, albeit when he was aware he had to if he wanted to advance in his career, the headline did NOT mean that ALL tax cheats recceived stimulus funds. It is libel for you to say that Geitner received any stimlus funds while workig as Treasury Secretary for the Obama Administration."
"Okay. Okay. I admit I got carried away. I still can't believe that a 'tax cheat' got appointed Treasury Secretary. No Republican President could have gotten away with that. And look at all of those ObamaCare waivers, if you want to see CORRUPTION at work. But I guess that even the people of the Obama Adminstration could not be THIS corrupt as to have the Treasury Secretary pay himself stimulus funds. I take it back. That raises the question of WHO did receive funds from the "stiimulus" bill, since it basically seems to have been a Democrat sush fund. But that is for another article. In the meantime, I am going to have to see what Homeland Security is doing about you. The Obama Administration is probably spending all of its time checking out my criticisms of Obama. Did you see where the Obama Administration has a guy whose sole job is to monitor what people are ssay;ing about Obama oline? NOT the Secret Service?
"Yes, Skip. I DID see that, and I knew you would eventually bring it up. You know you are not important enough for them to worry about."
That was a Yahoo featured picture story headline last week. It is the only time I have ever seen a Yahoo featured picture story which has to be regarded as unfavorable to the Obama Administratioin. Yes, it turns out that people show OWE the government money for unpaind taxes actuall received money from the Obama/Democrat "stimulus" bill. "Tax cheats" is obviously a pejorative term that MAY not apply to all of them, as it has not definite meaning.
"Oh, Ski"
"I can't believe it is you again. I thought I called Homeland Security to stop you from hacking into my blog anymore". .
"They can't even do anything about the Mexican border, although I admit that they are hdandicapped by Obama and the Democrats pandering to what they think Hspanics want--the Hispanic vote--which may be about the most bigoted approach to Hispanics in the country tody. But I digress, mainly to keep you from saying it. Homeland Security has no chance against The Shadow. 'What evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows.' I may not know what evil lurks in the hearts of all men, Skip, but I know what evil lurks in your false headlines. Yuo KNOW that Geitner did not receive any stimulus funds. And you KNOW that the headline featured on Yahoo did not refer to Geitner."
"Hey. They headline said that tax cheats got stimulus money. Geitner is a tax cheat (although I admit that is a pejorative term of no exactd meaning). Simple deductive logiv tells you that Geitner received stimulus funds."
"Skip, Skip, Skip. You sometimes brag about your course in classical logic you took at New Mexico State Universiy, while you were majoring in physics before going on to law school after an army stint. You KNOW that a classical logical syllogism like this must start with LL tax chearts receiving stimulus funds. Not only did Geitner eventaully pay all of his delinquent taxes, albeit when he was aware he had to if he wanted to advance in his career, the headline did NOT mean that ALL tax cheats recceived stimulus funds. It is libel for you to say that Geitner received any stimlus funds while workig as Treasury Secretary for the Obama Administration."
"Okay. Okay. I admit I got carried away. I still can't believe that a 'tax cheat' got appointed Treasury Secretary. No Republican President could have gotten away with that. And look at all of those ObamaCare waivers, if you want to see CORRUPTION at work. But I guess that even the people of the Obama Adminstration could not be THIS corrupt as to have the Treasury Secretary pay himself stimulus funds. I take it back. That raises the question of WHO did receive funds from the "stiimulus" bill, since it basically seems to have been a Democrat sush fund. But that is for another article. In the meantime, I am going to have to see what Homeland Security is doing about you. The Obama Administration is probably spending all of its time checking out my criticisms of Obama. Did you see where the Obama Administration has a guy whose sole job is to monitor what people are ssay;ing about Obama oline? NOT the Secret Service?
"Yes, Skip. I DID see that, and I knew you would eventually bring it up. You know you are not important enough for them to worry about."
Gas Prices and Mainstream Media Propaganda, as Obama and the Democrats Fail Again (While Obama Travels)
"Experts Expect Gs Prices to Drop 50 Cents by Summer"
The above was the AP/Yahoo "news" (boycott Yahoo) headline about two weeks ago--part of a mainstream media propaganda blitz to convince you everyone that high gas prices were already almost a thing of the past. I RIDICULED that headline, and that propaganda blitz, on the basis that a small decline in gas prices (the average went down less than a cent at the time, and went down a few cents after that) did NOT give you a basis to say the gas "crisis" was over (a "crisis" which did NOT keep "world citizen" Obama from "focusing on jobs" by going overseas,, AFTER spending all of his time offending Israel--see this week's articles). As to this partiicular quoted headline, I told you that it was NOT "news" :(not an opinion, but an objective fact), because it was really just SPECULATIOIN about futre events. You can get SOME "expert" to telly you anything that fits your own agenda, which is what the despicable AP did, but if these "experts" knews so much about gas and oil prcies they would all be RICH> Further, if economists were so good at "predicting", they would have "predicted" the HOUSING PRICE BUBBLE before it started to burst, and they would not be "surprised" week afater week by the new unemployment claims number released every Thursday (see my regular articles). But whether you agreed with me or not on my previus article, did you realize that I would yet again be PROVEN right, sooner rather than later? I bet you did ot think it was possible. But I KNEW that a few day's decline in the price of oil hardly a "trnd" made.
"Gas tanks draining family budgets"
Yep. That is the headline from the despicable AP (featrued on Yahoo "News", as usual). Yep. You got it right. The AP itself PROVED I was right to ridiculue the previous headline. "Wait a second, Skipe," you might say. "Might not gas prices still drop "by summer. Why believe this headline and not the previous one."
You still don't get the point , do you. I am not sayng that this newest headline is RIGHT (in its "crisis" like implication). I am just saying it proves the previous headline was WRNOG, and entirely propaganda and speculation rather than "news". What was the point of that first headline I quote above? After all, we are going to SEE what happens. Why SPECULATE, and call it "headline news"? Nope. The AP itself has proven my ridiculue of its stupidity and propaganda to be correct. And I was right to cal it STUPID, because you can't do successful propaganda when peoople can SEE what is happening to their budget. The previoius headline merely discredited the AP, and the mainsinstream media--or would have if they had any credibility left to be discredited. They don't.
There is a seasonal pattern here, by the way, although "seasonal patterns" do not necessarily hold. Things change. Gas prices usually rise in anticipation of Memorial Day, and the summer driving season. They may actually level off, and fall a little bit, by Memorial Day itself, and then they RISE GAIN heading into the July 4 holiday. This emphasizines again how really ridiculous that first headine above was. What is "summer"? It officially begins on June 21(for you leftists out there). Over that period between the previous headline and summer, you might expect gas prices to BOTH go down a little (not really 50 cents, altythough I am not saying it could not happen), and go UP (at different points). The question of whether gas prices will STAY HIGH, or end up going higher still, is a matter of PREDICTION and SPECULATION--where not one has shown the ability to correctly make those "predictions". Yes, by the way, I AM saying that what "experts expect" (any "experts", but especailly mainstream media favorite "experts") "expect" is NOT news. It is a Wall Street cottage industry, but that does not make it "news"--not headline news, anyway.
What gas prices will do is ultimately the result of many factors that are hard to predict. Middle East? Hurricanes? Demand in China and the rest of the world? But I, unlike the Associated Press, have told you the paradox here. One of the factors here is the STALKLLING U.S. economy. If gas prices fall DRAMATICALLY during the summer, or as we ead into summer, what is the most likely explanation? The most likely explanation, although not the ony possible one, is a FAILURE of the U.S. economy. A dramatic slowdown in the U.S. economy, or even evidence that same is occurring, or in the world economy, may drive down oil and gas prices. Is that "good news" or "bad news". You decide. What you should decide is just how bad our economic policy has been to put us in a position that we are facing such INFLATION in gas AND food prices at a time when our economy is still so weak--making it basically impossible to have a real recovery. Yes, Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve (one of the worst FAILURES in the history of world finance) bears his share of the blame for this, but Obama and the Democrats have put us in this position (as Obama himself virtually admits by suddenly taling about "oil production", as if it can be turned off and on merely with Obama's magic wand--true for "off", but not for "on").
P.SS. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
The above was the AP/Yahoo "news" (boycott Yahoo) headline about two weeks ago--part of a mainstream media propaganda blitz to convince you everyone that high gas prices were already almost a thing of the past. I RIDICULED that headline, and that propaganda blitz, on the basis that a small decline in gas prices (the average went down less than a cent at the time, and went down a few cents after that) did NOT give you a basis to say the gas "crisis" was over (a "crisis" which did NOT keep "world citizen" Obama from "focusing on jobs" by going overseas,, AFTER spending all of his time offending Israel--see this week's articles). As to this partiicular quoted headline, I told you that it was NOT "news" :(not an opinion, but an objective fact), because it was really just SPECULATIOIN about futre events. You can get SOME "expert" to telly you anything that fits your own agenda, which is what the despicable AP did, but if these "experts" knews so much about gas and oil prcies they would all be RICH> Further, if economists were so good at "predicting", they would have "predicted" the HOUSING PRICE BUBBLE before it started to burst, and they would not be "surprised" week afater week by the new unemployment claims number released every Thursday (see my regular articles). But whether you agreed with me or not on my previus article, did you realize that I would yet again be PROVEN right, sooner rather than later? I bet you did ot think it was possible. But I KNEW that a few day's decline in the price of oil hardly a "trnd" made.
"Gas tanks draining family budgets"
Yep. That is the headline from the despicable AP (featrued on Yahoo "News", as usual). Yep. You got it right. The AP itself PROVED I was right to ridiculue the previous headline. "Wait a second, Skipe," you might say. "Might not gas prices still drop "by summer. Why believe this headline and not the previous one."
You still don't get the point , do you. I am not sayng that this newest headline is RIGHT (in its "crisis" like implication). I am just saying it proves the previous headline was WRNOG, and entirely propaganda and speculation rather than "news". What was the point of that first headline I quote above? After all, we are going to SEE what happens. Why SPECULATE, and call it "headline news"? Nope. The AP itself has proven my ridiculue of its stupidity and propaganda to be correct. And I was right to cal it STUPID, because you can't do successful propaganda when peoople can SEE what is happening to their budget. The previoius headline merely discredited the AP, and the mainsinstream media--or would have if they had any credibility left to be discredited. They don't.
There is a seasonal pattern here, by the way, although "seasonal patterns" do not necessarily hold. Things change. Gas prices usually rise in anticipation of Memorial Day, and the summer driving season. They may actually level off, and fall a little bit, by Memorial Day itself, and then they RISE GAIN heading into the July 4 holiday. This emphasizines again how really ridiculous that first headine above was. What is "summer"? It officially begins on June 21(for you leftists out there). Over that period between the previous headline and summer, you might expect gas prices to BOTH go down a little (not really 50 cents, altythough I am not saying it could not happen), and go UP (at different points). The question of whether gas prices will STAY HIGH, or end up going higher still, is a matter of PREDICTION and SPECULATION--where not one has shown the ability to correctly make those "predictions". Yes, by the way, I AM saying that what "experts expect" (any "experts", but especailly mainstream media favorite "experts") "expect" is NOT news. It is a Wall Street cottage industry, but that does not make it "news"--not headline news, anyway.
What gas prices will do is ultimately the result of many factors that are hard to predict. Middle East? Hurricanes? Demand in China and the rest of the world? But I, unlike the Associated Press, have told you the paradox here. One of the factors here is the STALKLLING U.S. economy. If gas prices fall DRAMATICALLY during the summer, or as we ead into summer, what is the most likely explanation? The most likely explanation, although not the ony possible one, is a FAILURE of the U.S. economy. A dramatic slowdown in the U.S. economy, or even evidence that same is occurring, or in the world economy, may drive down oil and gas prices. Is that "good news" or "bad news". You decide. What you should decide is just how bad our economic policy has been to put us in a position that we are facing such INFLATION in gas AND food prices at a time when our economy is still so weak--making it basically impossible to have a real recovery. Yes, Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve (one of the worst FAILURES in the history of world finance) bears his share of the blame for this, but Obama and the Democrats have put us in this position (as Obama himself virtually admits by suddenly taling about "oil production", as if it can be turned off and on merely with Obama's magic wand--true for "off", but not for "on").
P.SS. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Obama Loses 1,754,000 Jobs in Last Four Weeks--No Improvement This Year, and No Improvement for Well Over 6 Months
Yes, the headline is ot a joke. It is absolutely accurate. As usual on Thursday, the "adjusted" number of new unemployment claims (a measure of layoffs--lost jobs) came out this morning. It was yet another BAD number (424,000), as the number has not gone as low as 400,000 (itself a pretty bad number) in six weeks, while the four-week average is back to the level it was at LAST FALL. The number of repported new unemployment claims went UP 10,000 (and counting) this wek, and the four-week average stayed essentailly the same (438-439 thousand) as my article set forth last week. The four-week average, at least, should improve some next week, because we will be dropping off that rather anamolous 478,000 week. But the number had dropped to 400,000 and below by the end of last year, and there were a number of weeks below 400,000 (the four-week average even falling below that number) early in this year--lathough not by much. Obviously, whatever minor improvement we had last fall has STALLED completely.
These are the numbers for the last 4 weeks of reported new unemployment claims, as revised (from most recent to least recent): 424,000 (to be revised next week); 414,000 (revised UP from 409,000); 438,000 (revised UP from 434,000); and 478,000 (revised UP from 474,000). Note that the media LIES every time they report the weekly number--including comparing apples and oranges. For example, look at this week's number, and last week's REVISED number. The media headline today is that new unemployment claims went up 10,000, but that is FALSE. It is comparing apleds and oranges, because this wweek's number will be REVISED. The media is comparing last weeek's REVISED number with this week's UNREVISED number. A lie. No, we don't even know how much the new unemployment claims increased from the previous reported week, although 14,000 would be a good guess (because the revised number has consistently--although not always--gone UP 4,000, as is true for the last four weeks, except that this last revised number went up 5,000, from 409,000 to 414,000). You can see that the media also lies by reporting this weekly number as a CONCRETE, EXACT NUMBER, when it is no such thing (as is true of all of these employment numbers--which are not only revised but arrived at through a SUBJECTIVE formula of seasonal adjustment). Thus, it is obviouis that each weekly number has a limited meaning. That is why I report--being more accurate than the mainstream media--the numbers for FOUR WEEKS, and put even those in context of the trend over many months. That trend has been BAD over the past six months.
Further, the economic news in general has been BAD. The government put out a report (yes, the Obama Administration showing up its own leader as Liar-in-Chief) that this is the WORST job recovery, by far, in SIXTY YEARS (essentially since World War II), and that there are 5% LESS jobs in the economy now than when the recovery began in 2009. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product--a broad measure of economic growth) was CONFIRMED for the first quarter to show essentially a flat line (especially when you consider mommodity and food infaltion, and the Federal Reserve doing its own failed "stimulus")--the "growth" being an anemic 1.8%. For comparison, the "growth" the first six months of the RECESSION was reported at 1% or so--including another failed "stimulus" by Bush and the Democrats who controlled Congress as our economy tanked. Housing data continues to be dismal. Unemployment rate ROSE to 9%. All of these numbers, AND the rise in new unemployument claims, gives lie to the one anomaly here: the supposed adding of 244,000 new jobs in April. If you think these are concrete, indisputable numbers, you might remember--as it is true--that the government REVISED net jobs added at one point last year by REDUCING the previus reported numbers by some 330,000.
Yes, the weather can affect the number of new unemployoment claims. But athat is true BOTH WAYS. That is, "god" weather can make the numbers appear better than they should (because of the seasonal adjustment). We do seem to have had more bad weather this year, but that should not really affect the nweekly number OVER TIME (another reason to ignore the media lies in reporting each weekly number). The only way that the weather MAY affect the number of new unemployment claims over a rather extended period of time is if the weather affects the whole economy. In that case, however, we may have a PERMANENT effect on the economy, which means something in itself (albeit not Obama's fault, as most of this dismal performance is). No, you can't even say HOW the weather will affect each weekly number. Yes, bad weather can cause a TEMPORARY jo loss (in construction, for example). But, at the same time, bad weather can cause unemployment offices to CLOSE and people dealing with tornados to not get around to filing an unemployment claim. Again, this shows that the weekly number, in and of itself, is not nearly as significant as the media reports it is. It is impossilbe to really figure out the TIMING of how eather will temporarily affect new unemployment claims. But the TEMPORARY effect should disappear over relatively few weeks.
Let us go to the Obama/Democrat "stimulus" program, which utterly FAILEXD to "create jobs". I got a comment earlier this week--easy to find since it is the ONLY comment this week, which is one more than most weeks)., That comment correctly said that the Obama Administration claim of GROSS jobs "created and saved" was a crock. But it is a crock not just because much evidence shows the claimed numbers were MADE UP, and false (as shown by that government report on how we have LOST JOBS under Obama). Look again at my headline above. I told you it is not a joke, and it is not. It is accurate. However, it can be misleading if you do not understand that these are GROSS JOBS (not net). But look at how the Obama Adminjistration tried to claim jobs "saved and created". They tried to measure GORSS JOBS--a completely meaningless and misleading number, even if accurate). In other words, the Obama policies may have--in fact, DID--LOSE more gross jobs than they "created" (even if the Obama Administration could ot even get this meaningless number right). Yes, the number of new unemployment claims actually has MORE meaning--even though referencing gross jobs-than the "stimulus" jobs "saved/created", since the number of new unemployment claims does show something about the state of the job market (if only the media would have a clue as to how to report the real meaning).
Yes, inflation is out thre (courtesy of Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve, as well as out of control spending). That is why food and commodity prices are so high. As I have repeatedly shown, what Obama has done is create the "perfect storm". Inflation is somwwhat hidden, except for things like gas prices and food prices, because the economy is so WEAK. But the moment the economy starts to show strngth, things like gas prices will go completely out of control (along with many things not presently out of control because of the weak economy). That will SHUT DOWN the economy. We have created a situation where stagflation is inevitable. Our economy CANNOT GROW in any substantial way. Yes, Wall Street and corporatioins can make money by EXPLOITING the weak job market. But the economy can't really grow, and the job market can't really improve. This is just one of the ways that our enourmous deficits and debut--not to mention Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve--are KILLING any chance of a recovery. Yes, I have never been convinced of Ron Paul's crusade agaist the very idea of the Federal Reserve, but Ben Bernanke is lamost single handedly moving me toward Paul's point of view (even if I am not quite there yet).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Note that I do appreciate comments, even though I can't really read them. That is one reason I will not usually directly respond to a comment. The other reason is that I have actually found it impossible to directly respond to comments because of the security methods Google uses (or at least used, since I gave up trying a few years ago). Be assured that I TRY to read any comments, rare as they are. And I do appreciate them, if only because they give me soome hope that I am not writing this blog solely for my own amusement, and to keep my mind busy. To me, that is not a very good reason to write a blog. I actually put a lot of thought into these articles, and I don't think much of people who say they don't care whether people read what they write. I would like people to read this blog--especailly considering the frustration that it may entail because of no proofreading. That is, I don't think people should read tihs blog BECAUSE of lack of proofreading, but that if I had readers who put up with it, it would--in a left handed way--indicate that they think the blog is worth the effort. As it is, I do not get the feeling that many people feel that way. This is perfectly understandable, especailly since I make NO effort to make this blog reader freindly (ther than to type as best I can, and organize my thoughts as best I can, realizing that there will be NO editing, meaning that what you see here is prettymuch straight "stream of conscioiusness", without any polishing at all). This is a long-winded way of saying I do appreciate the comment this week, and wish I had more, even though I know that any peole commenting will not receive the kind of feedback--from me, anyway--that might encourage them further. This is the reason that I, for awhile, posted my articles on the MSNBC blog website. I actually did get more readers (if not a whole lot moe), but I found I could not take the MSNBC mentality. So I came back here, to complete anonymity. If you are one of the few who read this blog, rest assured that you are getting better information on the meaning of these weekly new unemployment claim numbers than you can get anywhere else.
These are the numbers for the last 4 weeks of reported new unemployment claims, as revised (from most recent to least recent): 424,000 (to be revised next week); 414,000 (revised UP from 409,000); 438,000 (revised UP from 434,000); and 478,000 (revised UP from 474,000). Note that the media LIES every time they report the weekly number--including comparing apples and oranges. For example, look at this week's number, and last week's REVISED number. The media headline today is that new unemployment claims went up 10,000, but that is FALSE. It is comparing apleds and oranges, because this wweek's number will be REVISED. The media is comparing last weeek's REVISED number with this week's UNREVISED number. A lie. No, we don't even know how much the new unemployment claims increased from the previous reported week, although 14,000 would be a good guess (because the revised number has consistently--although not always--gone UP 4,000, as is true for the last four weeks, except that this last revised number went up 5,000, from 409,000 to 414,000). You can see that the media also lies by reporting this weekly number as a CONCRETE, EXACT NUMBER, when it is no such thing (as is true of all of these employment numbers--which are not only revised but arrived at through a SUBJECTIVE formula of seasonal adjustment). Thus, it is obviouis that each weekly number has a limited meaning. That is why I report--being more accurate than the mainstream media--the numbers for FOUR WEEKS, and put even those in context of the trend over many months. That trend has been BAD over the past six months.
Further, the economic news in general has been BAD. The government put out a report (yes, the Obama Administration showing up its own leader as Liar-in-Chief) that this is the WORST job recovery, by far, in SIXTY YEARS (essentially since World War II), and that there are 5% LESS jobs in the economy now than when the recovery began in 2009. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product--a broad measure of economic growth) was CONFIRMED for the first quarter to show essentially a flat line (especially when you consider mommodity and food infaltion, and the Federal Reserve doing its own failed "stimulus")--the "growth" being an anemic 1.8%. For comparison, the "growth" the first six months of the RECESSION was reported at 1% or so--including another failed "stimulus" by Bush and the Democrats who controlled Congress as our economy tanked. Housing data continues to be dismal. Unemployment rate ROSE to 9%. All of these numbers, AND the rise in new unemployument claims, gives lie to the one anomaly here: the supposed adding of 244,000 new jobs in April. If you think these are concrete, indisputable numbers, you might remember--as it is true--that the government REVISED net jobs added at one point last year by REDUCING the previus reported numbers by some 330,000.
Yes, the weather can affect the number of new unemployoment claims. But athat is true BOTH WAYS. That is, "god" weather can make the numbers appear better than they should (because of the seasonal adjustment). We do seem to have had more bad weather this year, but that should not really affect the nweekly number OVER TIME (another reason to ignore the media lies in reporting each weekly number). The only way that the weather MAY affect the number of new unemployment claims over a rather extended period of time is if the weather affects the whole economy. In that case, however, we may have a PERMANENT effect on the economy, which means something in itself (albeit not Obama's fault, as most of this dismal performance is). No, you can't even say HOW the weather will affect each weekly number. Yes, bad weather can cause a TEMPORARY jo loss (in construction, for example). But, at the same time, bad weather can cause unemployment offices to CLOSE and people dealing with tornados to not get around to filing an unemployment claim. Again, this shows that the weekly number, in and of itself, is not nearly as significant as the media reports it is. It is impossilbe to really figure out the TIMING of how eather will temporarily affect new unemployment claims. But the TEMPORARY effect should disappear over relatively few weeks.
Let us go to the Obama/Democrat "stimulus" program, which utterly FAILEXD to "create jobs". I got a comment earlier this week--easy to find since it is the ONLY comment this week, which is one more than most weeks)., That comment correctly said that the Obama Administration claim of GROSS jobs "created and saved" was a crock. But it is a crock not just because much evidence shows the claimed numbers were MADE UP, and false (as shown by that government report on how we have LOST JOBS under Obama). Look again at my headline above. I told you it is not a joke, and it is not. It is accurate. However, it can be misleading if you do not understand that these are GROSS JOBS (not net). But look at how the Obama Adminjistration tried to claim jobs "saved and created". They tried to measure GORSS JOBS--a completely meaningless and misleading number, even if accurate). In other words, the Obama policies may have--in fact, DID--LOSE more gross jobs than they "created" (even if the Obama Administration could ot even get this meaningless number right). Yes, the number of new unemployment claims actually has MORE meaning--even though referencing gross jobs-than the "stimulus" jobs "saved/created", since the number of new unemployment claims does show something about the state of the job market (if only the media would have a clue as to how to report the real meaning).
Yes, inflation is out thre (courtesy of Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve, as well as out of control spending). That is why food and commodity prices are so high. As I have repeatedly shown, what Obama has done is create the "perfect storm". Inflation is somwwhat hidden, except for things like gas prices and food prices, because the economy is so WEAK. But the moment the economy starts to show strngth, things like gas prices will go completely out of control (along with many things not presently out of control because of the weak economy). That will SHUT DOWN the economy. We have created a situation where stagflation is inevitable. Our economy CANNOT GROW in any substantial way. Yes, Wall Street and corporatioins can make money by EXPLOITING the weak job market. But the economy can't really grow, and the job market can't really improve. This is just one of the ways that our enourmous deficits and debut--not to mention Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve--are KILLING any chance of a recovery. Yes, I have never been convinced of Ron Paul's crusade agaist the very idea of the Federal Reserve, but Ben Bernanke is lamost single handedly moving me toward Paul's point of view (even if I am not quite there yet).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Note that I do appreciate comments, even though I can't really read them. That is one reason I will not usually directly respond to a comment. The other reason is that I have actually found it impossible to directly respond to comments because of the security methods Google uses (or at least used, since I gave up trying a few years ago). Be assured that I TRY to read any comments, rare as they are. And I do appreciate them, if only because they give me soome hope that I am not writing this blog solely for my own amusement, and to keep my mind busy. To me, that is not a very good reason to write a blog. I actually put a lot of thought into these articles, and I don't think much of people who say they don't care whether people read what they write. I would like people to read this blog--especailly considering the frustration that it may entail because of no proofreading. That is, I don't think people should read tihs blog BECAUSE of lack of proofreading, but that if I had readers who put up with it, it would--in a left handed way--indicate that they think the blog is worth the effort. As it is, I do not get the feeling that many people feel that way. This is perfectly understandable, especailly since I make NO effort to make this blog reader freindly (ther than to type as best I can, and organize my thoughts as best I can, realizing that there will be NO editing, meaning that what you see here is prettymuch straight "stream of conscioiusness", without any polishing at all). This is a long-winded way of saying I do appreciate the comment this week, and wish I had more, even though I know that any peole commenting will not receive the kind of feedback--from me, anyway--that might encourage them further. This is the reason that I, for awhile, posted my articles on the MSNBC blog website. I actually did get more readers (if not a whole lot moe), but I found I could not take the MSNBC mentality. So I came back here, to complete anonymity. If you are one of the few who read this blog, rest assured that you are getting better information on the meaning of these weekly new unemployment claim numbers than you can get anywhere else.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Obama and Democrats Intend to Kill My 89 Year Old Mother, and She Knows It
My 89 year old mother grew up in a union household in the Great Depression. In other words, she has been a lifelong, FDR Democrat. She bascially thinks Herbert Hoover tried to kill her, by payng more attention to the WORLD than to making sure she had enugh to eat. Further, my mother despised Geoge W. Bush (from the beginning), while I voted for him twice (before disowning him in 2006 for the same reasons I could never vote for Obama, since Obama is in the midst of Bush's third term on domestic issues--and many foreign ones, although where he has followed Bush Obama has found his only real froeign policy succcesses). I tell you this just so you know that my mother has never been a conservative, although I have been one since high school.
My 89 year old mother regards President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as just as bad as Herbert Hoover (her ultimate standard for bad public officials, even though I try to explain to here that Roosevelt actually FAILED to end the Great Depression-which was finally ended by World War II--and Roosevelt's failure actually extended over a much greater time than that of Hoover). Not only does my mother (correctly) believe that Obama is trying to kill her (with the only question being whether she will live long enough for him to have to kill her), but Obama reminds her of Herbert Hoover--with Obama's focus on being a "citizen of the world" rather than on the interests of the United States and its people. In fact, one of my mother's main mermories of Hoower was of him overseas promising to make a better world, while she was facing not having enough to eat. She sees Oama overseas every time she turns around, saying the same sort of thing, and she has these nightmare flashbacks to Hoover (who was, by the way, tone deaf and too much a bloodless technocrat, rather than a free market conservative like the much less talented Warren G. Harding). Hooever did not actually "cause" the Great Depression, or do any worse in getting us out of it than Roosevelt (although Hoover made disastrous mistakes like protectionist tariffs, matched by Roosevelt RAISING TAXES). But Hoover deserved my mother's scorn, even if FDR did not quite deserve her praise. This is not really a digression, as the point is that my mother has SEEN Presidents who did not have her intrest at heart, and sees Obama as such a President. The difference between my mother and other lifelong Democrats (many of them) is that my mother is SMARTER. She does not buy into SCARE TACTICS on Mdicare. She sees clearly who is trying to kill her, and I have never seen her so stron in an opinion as the opinion(it is an opinion) that Obama and Congressional Democrats (like Reid and Pelosi) are trying to kil her.
Yes, I have mentioned my mothr before, as a KOOK because she continues to believe that Obama is a Muslim. Now I have shown you--me and Bill Maher--that Obama is NOT a Christian. But he is not a Muslim either. His religion is that very leftist philosophy that leads my mopther to believe he is trying to kill hre. FDR never gave my mother (rightly or wrongly) the impression that he was discarding all traditonal American values. Obama does give my mother that impression. Yes, my mother LIKES Social Security and Medicare (unlike me, who believes that we needed a very different approach to acieve, better, the same objectivews). But she still realizes Obama and the Democrats are trying to kill her, and DESTROY Medicare and Social Security. My mother does not trust Repubicans, and would not really trst me, but she KNOWS what Democrats are trying to do to her; to Social Security; and to Medicare.
You say that Democrats are trying to "save" Social Secruity and Medicare from those killer Repubicans? You should be ashamed of yourself. My mother--who despises Obama worse than I do, which totally explains that obviously false opinion that Obama is a Muslim--SEES THROUGH the scarfe tactics of Obama, the mainstream media, and Democrats without any difficulty at all (and without my prompting, as we ARGUE about politics more than we really agree).
WHAT does my mother know that many of you out there do not know? She knows that it is OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS who "cut" (supposedly) $500 BILLION dollars from Medicare, but is NOT using the money for Medicare. My mother KNOWS that trying to institute a massive Federal Government, central planning health care progaram for everyone is gokng to DOOM Mdicare. She is supported in this by the Medicare actuary, who says that much of ObamaCare carries the potential of HURTING care under Mediicare. Yes, my mother actually knows lthat Paul Ryan and Repubicans in the House are not propsoing--unlike Obama and the Democrats--to take ONE DIME fromMedicare for her, or for anyone now 55 years of age or older. Does that mean my mother cares nothing for her grandchildren (most of her children being 55 and older, including me)? No. That is because my mother KNOWS, and insists that FDR knw, that a Fedral Government spending out of control will KILL Social Security and Medicare. The programs cannot exist without a SOLVENT Federal Government, and my mother sees a Federal Government out of control. She says that FDR at least made people WORK for their money, while today everybody expects everything for nothing.
Does my mother totally approve of the Paul Ryan proposed FUTURE restructuring of Medicare? I don't know. I have some doubtrs on that. But my mother sees Republicans in the House TRYING to do something about an out-of-control Fedreral Government that she KNOWS is going to KILL Social Security and Medicare SOONER rather than later, because it is gong to kill this country. Further, my mother realizes that this means they --Democrats and Obama--are trying to KILL HER.
Yes, my mother has more direct reasons than even that for her opinion that Obama and the Democrats are trying to kill her. My mother knows all about the "Independent Payment Advisory Board". My 89 year old mother has picked up upon the fact that the ONLY way Obama and the Democrats can EXPAND MEDICAID, and create ever more "free" health care for "everyone", is to RESTRICT health care for people like her (on osygen and a "burden" on the system). My mother, wihout knowing who Paul Krugman is (big leftist theorist pretty much behind Obama and the Democrats)--my 89 year old mother KNOWS that the ONLY way that you can even attempt to get away with tis exploding spending, and ever more "entitlements", is to KILL OFF people like her. No, even that will not work, but my mother KNOWS that is what is ultimately intended--as Krugman said when he worte an article that the whole idea of "death panels" would have to be reborn (as if it ever went away), once the "hysteria" dies down.
Hold everything, you say. Am I really saying that Obama and Congressonal Democrats intend to KILL PEOPLE like my mother? Yes, I am saying that. I agree totally with my mother. And if you think I am being "harsh", look again at what Democrats are planning to MISREPRESENT for the 2012 election, to scare serniors. Already, there is that ad with Paul Ryan pushing a struggling grandmother off of a cliff. I am tired of swimpy Repubicans. REpubicans need to be SAYING that Obama and Democrats are trying to KILL Social Security and Medicare (whethr they really understand that or not). And, yes, they fully intend to limit Medicare, and deprive people like my mother of the care she is now receiving. In this latter case, I believe Democrats KNOW that they are going to have to use "death panels", and extensive rationing. They just refuse to admit it.
Back to my mother. How do I know that my mother thinks worse of Obama than I do? Well, you should hear what she says about him (nope, no racial epithets, but she despises him--trust me on this one)? I have a concrete example of my mother's opinion of Obama. She has been DEPRIVED of one of her main breathing medications--one that SHE believes does her the most god. Medicare won't pay for it, and it is EXPENSIVE. Yes, my brothers or I would pay for it, and the Medicare Drug Benefti Program is one of my many reasons for disowning President Bush. But you have to understand my mother. She has the fruga, soul of a Presbyterian SCOT (her married name being Scottish, but she being of basically 100% Swedish ancestry). My mother is going to use the medication Medicare pays for, if it kills her. BUT. She blames Obama. In a way, of course, she is right. This is EXACTLY what Obama and the Dmeocrats are moving towards. Eventually, with ObamaCare and out of control spending, EVERYONE in the position of my mother is ONLY going to get the care people like Krugman APPROVE (without right of suit or appeal, as you have with insurance companies). However, even though my mother surely has a case that Medicare is ALREADY trying to tiptoe in this direction, I don't really think Obama can be "blamed" for my mother no longer being able to get her favorite breathing medication under Medicare.
You can see just how convinced my mother is that Democrats and Obama INTEND TO KILL HER. And she is right, in thse sense that their prsent course of action is going to KILL people like my mother, and probably kill both Social Security and Medicare.
P.S. Yuo may think I and my brothers should FORCE my mother to buy whatever mediation she likes, without worrying about Medicare coverage. As stated, you don't know my mother. She REFUSES gifts. She REJECTS them, even at the cost of hurting the giver. She REJECTS bouquets. She won't buy CANDY BARS unlesss they are on sale. No, she is not poor, and neithr are her children (although none of us is rich, either). Yes, you might say my mother is going to LET Obama and the Democrats kill her, but you miss the point here. Once the Federal Government has complete control of the health care system, only the VERY RICH (and vavored--see those ObamaCare waivers) are going to have a CHOICE as to what kind of helath care they get.
P.P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I know that you seniors out thre who are willing to be SCARED by Democrats (leftist, politician kind) can try to use the excuse that you can't possibly read my articles, and that very few people read them anyway. That may be true. But, again, you should be ASHAMED. My 89 year old mother, on 24 hour oxygen, SEESS TRHOUGH OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS, even though she was an FDR Democrat from a Democratic, union family. And FDR is still her hero. If even my mother can see exactly where Obama and the Democrats are taking us, and the LIES they are trying to cover themselves with, then I have NO sympathy for you other seniors out thre who let the Democrats continuously lie to you. Okay, I used up all sympathy I was born with by age 10, and would not sympathize with you anyway. But I don't even UNDERSTAND you. If you are this easily led, I am sorry to be part of such a SENILE group (almost, anyway, at 64). And what can I say about you Repubican politicians out thre? You RUN from the mainstream media and the term "death panel". You RUN--again probably in fear of the partisan mainstream media--from accusing DEMOCRAS and OBAMA of DESTROYING MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY--ultimately killing people. Instead, you want to "talk around" the Ryan plan. Now I am no great fan of the Ryan budget, because it TAKES TOO LONG to even make a dent in the budget. But to accuse Ryan of tryig to "kill Meicare" is beyond stupid. If Republicans cannot defend themselves against that, they SHOUYLD LOSE. And is seniors let Democrats lie to them, they deserve what they get. And they WILL get it. My mother is not wrong here. Obama and the Democrats are out to kill her.
My 89 year old mother regards President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as just as bad as Herbert Hoover (her ultimate standard for bad public officials, even though I try to explain to here that Roosevelt actually FAILED to end the Great Depression-which was finally ended by World War II--and Roosevelt's failure actually extended over a much greater time than that of Hoover). Not only does my mother (correctly) believe that Obama is trying to kill her (with the only question being whether she will live long enough for him to have to kill her), but Obama reminds her of Herbert Hoover--with Obama's focus on being a "citizen of the world" rather than on the interests of the United States and its people. In fact, one of my mother's main mermories of Hoower was of him overseas promising to make a better world, while she was facing not having enough to eat. She sees Oama overseas every time she turns around, saying the same sort of thing, and she has these nightmare flashbacks to Hoover (who was, by the way, tone deaf and too much a bloodless technocrat, rather than a free market conservative like the much less talented Warren G. Harding). Hooever did not actually "cause" the Great Depression, or do any worse in getting us out of it than Roosevelt (although Hoover made disastrous mistakes like protectionist tariffs, matched by Roosevelt RAISING TAXES). But Hoover deserved my mother's scorn, even if FDR did not quite deserve her praise. This is not really a digression, as the point is that my mother has SEEN Presidents who did not have her intrest at heart, and sees Obama as such a President. The difference between my mother and other lifelong Democrats (many of them) is that my mother is SMARTER. She does not buy into SCARE TACTICS on Mdicare. She sees clearly who is trying to kill her, and I have never seen her so stron in an opinion as the opinion(it is an opinion) that Obama and Congressional Democrats (like Reid and Pelosi) are trying to kil her.
Yes, I have mentioned my mothr before, as a KOOK because she continues to believe that Obama is a Muslim. Now I have shown you--me and Bill Maher--that Obama is NOT a Christian. But he is not a Muslim either. His religion is that very leftist philosophy that leads my mopther to believe he is trying to kill hre. FDR never gave my mother (rightly or wrongly) the impression that he was discarding all traditonal American values. Obama does give my mother that impression. Yes, my mother LIKES Social Security and Medicare (unlike me, who believes that we needed a very different approach to acieve, better, the same objectivews). But she still realizes Obama and the Democrats are trying to kill her, and DESTROY Medicare and Social Security. My mother does not trust Repubicans, and would not really trst me, but she KNOWS what Democrats are trying to do to her; to Social Security; and to Medicare.
You say that Democrats are trying to "save" Social Secruity and Medicare from those killer Repubicans? You should be ashamed of yourself. My mother--who despises Obama worse than I do, which totally explains that obviously false opinion that Obama is a Muslim--SEES THROUGH the scarfe tactics of Obama, the mainstream media, and Democrats without any difficulty at all (and without my prompting, as we ARGUE about politics more than we really agree).
WHAT does my mother know that many of you out there do not know? She knows that it is OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS who "cut" (supposedly) $500 BILLION dollars from Medicare, but is NOT using the money for Medicare. My mother KNOWS that trying to institute a massive Federal Government, central planning health care progaram for everyone is gokng to DOOM Mdicare. She is supported in this by the Medicare actuary, who says that much of ObamaCare carries the potential of HURTING care under Mediicare. Yes, my mother actually knows lthat Paul Ryan and Repubicans in the House are not propsoing--unlike Obama and the Democrats--to take ONE DIME fromMedicare for her, or for anyone now 55 years of age or older. Does that mean my mother cares nothing for her grandchildren (most of her children being 55 and older, including me)? No. That is because my mother KNOWS, and insists that FDR knw, that a Fedral Government spending out of control will KILL Social Security and Medicare. The programs cannot exist without a SOLVENT Federal Government, and my mother sees a Federal Government out of control. She says that FDR at least made people WORK for their money, while today everybody expects everything for nothing.
Does my mother totally approve of the Paul Ryan proposed FUTURE restructuring of Medicare? I don't know. I have some doubtrs on that. But my mother sees Republicans in the House TRYING to do something about an out-of-control Fedreral Government that she KNOWS is going to KILL Social Security and Medicare SOONER rather than later, because it is gong to kill this country. Further, my mother realizes that this means they --Democrats and Obama--are trying to KILL HER.
Yes, my mother has more direct reasons than even that for her opinion that Obama and the Democrats are trying to kill her. My mother knows all about the "Independent Payment Advisory Board". My 89 year old mother has picked up upon the fact that the ONLY way Obama and the Democrats can EXPAND MEDICAID, and create ever more "free" health care for "everyone", is to RESTRICT health care for people like her (on osygen and a "burden" on the system). My mother, wihout knowing who Paul Krugman is (big leftist theorist pretty much behind Obama and the Democrats)--my 89 year old mother KNOWS that the ONLY way that you can even attempt to get away with tis exploding spending, and ever more "entitlements", is to KILL OFF people like her. No, even that will not work, but my mother KNOWS that is what is ultimately intended--as Krugman said when he worte an article that the whole idea of "death panels" would have to be reborn (as if it ever went away), once the "hysteria" dies down.
Hold everything, you say. Am I really saying that Obama and Congressonal Democrats intend to KILL PEOPLE like my mother? Yes, I am saying that. I agree totally with my mother. And if you think I am being "harsh", look again at what Democrats are planning to MISREPRESENT for the 2012 election, to scare serniors. Already, there is that ad with Paul Ryan pushing a struggling grandmother off of a cliff. I am tired of swimpy Repubicans. REpubicans need to be SAYING that Obama and Democrats are trying to KILL Social Security and Medicare (whethr they really understand that or not). And, yes, they fully intend to limit Medicare, and deprive people like my mother of the care she is now receiving. In this latter case, I believe Democrats KNOW that they are going to have to use "death panels", and extensive rationing. They just refuse to admit it.
Back to my mother. How do I know that my mother thinks worse of Obama than I do? Well, you should hear what she says about him (nope, no racial epithets, but she despises him--trust me on this one)? I have a concrete example of my mother's opinion of Obama. She has been DEPRIVED of one of her main breathing medications--one that SHE believes does her the most god. Medicare won't pay for it, and it is EXPENSIVE. Yes, my brothers or I would pay for it, and the Medicare Drug Benefti Program is one of my many reasons for disowning President Bush. But you have to understand my mother. She has the fruga, soul of a Presbyterian SCOT (her married name being Scottish, but she being of basically 100% Swedish ancestry). My mother is going to use the medication Medicare pays for, if it kills her. BUT. She blames Obama. In a way, of course, she is right. This is EXACTLY what Obama and the Dmeocrats are moving towards. Eventually, with ObamaCare and out of control spending, EVERYONE in the position of my mother is ONLY going to get the care people like Krugman APPROVE (without right of suit or appeal, as you have with insurance companies). However, even though my mother surely has a case that Medicare is ALREADY trying to tiptoe in this direction, I don't really think Obama can be "blamed" for my mother no longer being able to get her favorite breathing medication under Medicare.
You can see just how convinced my mother is that Democrats and Obama INTEND TO KILL HER. And she is right, in thse sense that their prsent course of action is going to KILL people like my mother, and probably kill both Social Security and Medicare.
P.S. Yuo may think I and my brothers should FORCE my mother to buy whatever mediation she likes, without worrying about Medicare coverage. As stated, you don't know my mother. She REFUSES gifts. She REJECTS them, even at the cost of hurting the giver. She REJECTS bouquets. She won't buy CANDY BARS unlesss they are on sale. No, she is not poor, and neithr are her children (although none of us is rich, either). Yes, you might say my mother is going to LET Obama and the Democrats kill her, but you miss the point here. Once the Federal Government has complete control of the health care system, only the VERY RICH (and vavored--see those ObamaCare waivers) are going to have a CHOICE as to what kind of helath care they get.
P.P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I know that you seniors out thre who are willing to be SCARED by Democrats (leftist, politician kind) can try to use the excuse that you can't possibly read my articles, and that very few people read them anyway. That may be true. But, again, you should be ASHAMED. My 89 year old mother, on 24 hour oxygen, SEESS TRHOUGH OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS, even though she was an FDR Democrat from a Democratic, union family. And FDR is still her hero. If even my mother can see exactly where Obama and the Democrats are taking us, and the LIES they are trying to cover themselves with, then I have NO sympathy for you other seniors out thre who let the Democrats continuously lie to you. Okay, I used up all sympathy I was born with by age 10, and would not sympathize with you anyway. But I don't even UNDERSTAND you. If you are this easily led, I am sorry to be part of such a SENILE group (almost, anyway, at 64). And what can I say about you Repubican politicians out thre? You RUN from the mainstream media and the term "death panel". You RUN--again probably in fear of the partisan mainstream media--from accusing DEMOCRAS and OBAMA of DESTROYING MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY--ultimately killing people. Instead, you want to "talk around" the Ryan plan. Now I am no great fan of the Ryan budget, because it TAKES TOO LONG to even make a dent in the budget. But to accuse Ryan of tryig to "kill Meicare" is beyond stupid. If Republicans cannot defend themselves against that, they SHOUYLD LOSE. And is seniors let Democrats lie to them, they deserve what they get. And they WILL get it. My mother is not wrong here. Obama and the Democrats are out to kill her.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Netanyahu, Israel and the Anti-American (but pro--Obama, Anti-Israel Associatd Press (Boycott Yahoo)
AP headline hat has been eaturedd ALL day on Yahoo "News":
"Netanyahu, Israel ready to make painful compromise"
I actually saw ALL of Netanyahu's speech, and th eabove headline is an absolute disgrace. Yes, Netanyahu used those words, but NO "news' organizatioin without an genda would consider that even a major point of the speech--much less THE main point. Netanyahu used that phrase to explain that Israel is not an OCCUPIER of Palestine, but that the Jews' ancestral home incudes basically all of Palestine--hence making it a"painful compromise" to give up ANY of the land that constituted the ancestral home of the Jews. This was actualy another REBUKE of Obama, as weas the whole speech, in that Netanyahu set forth terms for peace that he rightly called a "painful compromise" for Israel, but REJECTED Obama's version of a "painful compromoise" (more like a surrender). Here is a much more correct headline:
"Netanyahu gives stirring defense of Israel to standing ovations from Cngress"
Or:
"Netanyahu lables Iran as the main Meiddle East threat, and warns of danger of nuclear Iran"
The "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (complete, official name) has confirmed that there is o worse "news" organization in ANY UNIVERSE than the despicable AP, because it is impossible to be worse. Yes, this is a headline with a PROPAGANDA AGENDA: that agenda being to defend the indefensible--to defend Obama's outrageous throwing of Israel under the bus in an outrageous poer play branding Obama an enemy of Israel.
Yes, the "anti-American" part of the official AP name comes from SEVEN YEARS of constgant monitoring on my part of the AP--making me more of an exert than any person alive. This particular story is not so much anti-American as anti-Israel, and partisan propaganda designed to bail Obama out of the hole he got himself into with his indefensible speech. Netanyahu actually handed Obama's head to him, and made every sane person wish NETANYAHU was President of the United States instead of Obama. From his condemnation of Iran to his accurate labeling of "militant Islam" as the main danger in the world today (including Iran), Netanyahu was more on target than Obama has ever been. This includes Netanyahu's warning that Arab mobs yelling for "deomocracy" do not mean that democracy and fredom are actually going to occur in the Middle East. As Netanyahu said, the one million Arabs living in Israel are the ONLY Arabs in the Middle East turely living in freedom, while the remaining 300 million Arabs live under REPRESSION (to one degree or another).
No. This headline is an absolute disgrace. Again, BOYCOTT YAHOO, which features these terrible headlines (and articles) from the AP every single day (as AT&T puts on my defaut page, which I leave for the very purpose of monioring Yahoo and the despicable AP).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bady eyesight)
"Netanyahu, Israel ready to make painful compromise"
I actually saw ALL of Netanyahu's speech, and th eabove headline is an absolute disgrace. Yes, Netanyahu used those words, but NO "news' organizatioin without an genda would consider that even a major point of the speech--much less THE main point. Netanyahu used that phrase to explain that Israel is not an OCCUPIER of Palestine, but that the Jews' ancestral home incudes basically all of Palestine--hence making it a"painful compromise" to give up ANY of the land that constituted the ancestral home of the Jews. This was actualy another REBUKE of Obama, as weas the whole speech, in that Netanyahu set forth terms for peace that he rightly called a "painful compromise" for Israel, but REJECTED Obama's version of a "painful compromoise" (more like a surrender). Here is a much more correct headline:
"Netanyahu gives stirring defense of Israel to standing ovations from Cngress"
Or:
"Netanyahu lables Iran as the main Meiddle East threat, and warns of danger of nuclear Iran"
The "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (complete, official name) has confirmed that there is o worse "news" organization in ANY UNIVERSE than the despicable AP, because it is impossible to be worse. Yes, this is a headline with a PROPAGANDA AGENDA: that agenda being to defend the indefensible--to defend Obama's outrageous throwing of Israel under the bus in an outrageous poer play branding Obama an enemy of Israel.
Yes, the "anti-American" part of the official AP name comes from SEVEN YEARS of constgant monitoring on my part of the AP--making me more of an exert than any person alive. This particular story is not so much anti-American as anti-Israel, and partisan propaganda designed to bail Obama out of the hole he got himself into with his indefensible speech. Netanyahu actually handed Obama's head to him, and made every sane person wish NETANYAHU was President of the United States instead of Obama. From his condemnation of Iran to his accurate labeling of "militant Islam" as the main danger in the world today (including Iran), Netanyahu was more on target than Obama has ever been. This includes Netanyahu's warning that Arab mobs yelling for "deomocracy" do not mean that democracy and fredom are actually going to occur in the Middle East. As Netanyahu said, the one million Arabs living in Israel are the ONLY Arabs in the Middle East turely living in freedom, while the remaining 300 million Arabs live under REPRESSION (to one degree or another).
No. This headline is an absolute disgrace. Again, BOYCOTT YAHOO, which features these terrible headlines (and articles) from the AP every single day (as AT&T puts on my defaut page, which I leave for the very purpose of monioring Yahoo and the despicable AP).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bady eyesight)
Monday, May 23, 2011
ObamaCare and Medicare: American People Condemn ObamaCare for Cutting Medicare
You will remember that the Obama/Democrat health care "reform" bill CUTS $500 BILLION dollars from Medicare. However, you will also remember that such amount will NOT be used to help save Medicare. Not one single dime of that $500 billion dollars will be applied to help the solvency of the Medicare system. Instead, it is all to be used to "pay for" (lol) the Obama/Democrat health care bill (ObamaCare).
Here is the actual AP/Yahoo "News" headline (boycott Yahoo):
AP-GFK Poll: Americans say we don't have to make Medicare cuts"
Isn't that a "marvelous" piece of propaganda from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (complete, official name)? I could write an entire book on the things wrong with that headline. But don't despair and hang yourself ("Airplane"). I am not quite going to do that.
Yes, you can see that the headline does not lie to you (my headline). If Americans truly do--this is the same polling outfit that WRONGLY found Obama to have a 60% "approval rating" a week or so ago)--thinnk that no cuts should be made in Medicare, then they are CONDEMNING ObamaCare (which does not even use its cuts in Medicare to help Medicare).
Nor is Paul Ryan's plan to "cut" Medicare. NO person 55 or over will even see a change. In fact, this is a reason people like me (64, by the way) think the Ryan plan is not good enough. It DELAYS any real deficit savings until ten years or so in the future. No, I am not saying we should have major, immediate cuts in Medicare. I AM saying that we NEED massive cuts NOW in Federal spending. I have previously outlined some of the draconian things (from a leftist point of view) I would do. However, you can see the problem with this PROPAGANDA "poll" from the partisan political hacks at the AP. There is NO WAY the pollster could explain the Ryan plan to people, and yet the poll is designed to suggest that people "oopose" the Republican plan to "cut" Medicare. Not only does the Republican plan--the Ryan plan--not "cut" Medicare for anyone 55 years of age or older, but it really does not "cut" Medicare AT ALL. It rESTRUCTURES Medicare into the same kind of program now represented by the Medicare Drug Benefit program and by Medicare Advantage (which ObabaCare intends to destory). The idea is that people presently under 55 will have a competitave, lower cost program BETTER than preesnt Medicare, and certainly better than the Medicare that they can expect in the future if Obama and the Democrats have their way.
Yes, and I am serious enough about this to seriously consider not voting for a Republican candidate who does not do it, Obama and the Democrats need to be CORRECTLy accused of DESTROYING Medicarein the very near future. The news in the past week is that Medicare will RUN OUT OF MONEY in 2024--6 years earlier than previously expected. And even before then, the combination of Medicare and Medicaid (increased by ObamaCare) is going to bankrupt us. Republicans need to be running ADS, without FEAR of the mainstream media, accusing Democrats of being willing to destroy Medicare--as illustrated by that $500 billion being cut without even helping the solvency of Medicare. HOW are Democrats planning on having Medicare exist for the people Paul Ryan is trying to save it for? Easy. DEATH PANELS, and rationing. Since Democrats are unwilling to do anything else, that is the ONLY way to "save" Medicare (while killing off seniors). Yep. Ads again. For every Democrat ad accusing Repubicans of wanting to kill seniors and destroy Medicare, there should be TWO ads accusing Democrats of wanting to kill off seniors (deprive them of medical care) and destory Medicare.
Republicans need to AGGRESSIVELY assert (correctly) that they are the party trying to save Medicare, while Democrats are perfectly willing to see it destroyed--even willing to accelerate the process with ObamaCare. The Medicare actuary in the Obama government has laready said that ObamaCare will ADVERSELY affect care under Medicare.
If Republicans are unwilling to stand up to Obama and the Democrats on this, aggressively, AND stand up to the attacks from the mainstream media, then they deserve what they get.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight making it way too time consuming, eve if bad typing makes it pretty darn desirable).
Here is the actual AP/Yahoo "News" headline (boycott Yahoo):
AP-GFK Poll: Americans say we don't have to make Medicare cuts"
Isn't that a "marvelous" piece of propaganda from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (complete, official name)? I could write an entire book on the things wrong with that headline. But don't despair and hang yourself ("Airplane"). I am not quite going to do that.
Yes, you can see that the headline does not lie to you (my headline). If Americans truly do--this is the same polling outfit that WRONGLY found Obama to have a 60% "approval rating" a week or so ago)--thinnk that no cuts should be made in Medicare, then they are CONDEMNING ObamaCare (which does not even use its cuts in Medicare to help Medicare).
Nor is Paul Ryan's plan to "cut" Medicare. NO person 55 or over will even see a change. In fact, this is a reason people like me (64, by the way) think the Ryan plan is not good enough. It DELAYS any real deficit savings until ten years or so in the future. No, I am not saying we should have major, immediate cuts in Medicare. I AM saying that we NEED massive cuts NOW in Federal spending. I have previously outlined some of the draconian things (from a leftist point of view) I would do. However, you can see the problem with this PROPAGANDA "poll" from the partisan political hacks at the AP. There is NO WAY the pollster could explain the Ryan plan to people, and yet the poll is designed to suggest that people "oopose" the Republican plan to "cut" Medicare. Not only does the Republican plan--the Ryan plan--not "cut" Medicare for anyone 55 years of age or older, but it really does not "cut" Medicare AT ALL. It rESTRUCTURES Medicare into the same kind of program now represented by the Medicare Drug Benefit program and by Medicare Advantage (which ObabaCare intends to destory). The idea is that people presently under 55 will have a competitave, lower cost program BETTER than preesnt Medicare, and certainly better than the Medicare that they can expect in the future if Obama and the Democrats have their way.
Yes, and I am serious enough about this to seriously consider not voting for a Republican candidate who does not do it, Obama and the Democrats need to be CORRECTLy accused of DESTROYING Medicarein the very near future. The news in the past week is that Medicare will RUN OUT OF MONEY in 2024--6 years earlier than previously expected. And even before then, the combination of Medicare and Medicaid (increased by ObamaCare) is going to bankrupt us. Republicans need to be running ADS, without FEAR of the mainstream media, accusing Democrats of being willing to destroy Medicare--as illustrated by that $500 billion being cut without even helping the solvency of Medicare. HOW are Democrats planning on having Medicare exist for the people Paul Ryan is trying to save it for? Easy. DEATH PANELS, and rationing. Since Democrats are unwilling to do anything else, that is the ONLY way to "save" Medicare (while killing off seniors). Yep. Ads again. For every Democrat ad accusing Repubicans of wanting to kill seniors and destroy Medicare, there should be TWO ads accusing Democrats of wanting to kill off seniors (deprive them of medical care) and destory Medicare.
Republicans need to AGGRESSIVELY assert (correctly) that they are the party trying to save Medicare, while Democrats are perfectly willing to see it destroyed--even willing to accelerate the process with ObamaCare. The Medicare actuary in the Obama government has laready said that ObamaCare will ADVERSELY affect care under Medicare.
If Republicans are unwilling to stand up to Obama and the Democrats on this, aggressively, AND stand up to the attacks from the mainstream media, then they deserve what they get.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight making it way too time consuming, eve if bad typing makes it pretty darn desirable).
U. S. Supreme Court: Accessory To Murder and Rape
Okay. The headline is not completely accurate. It should refer to only five justices of the Supreme Court, who just upheld a lower Federal Court order (Federal judges almost all being made in the mold of Napoleon as far as their dictatorial inclinations and ego) that apparently requires California to release 30,000 (net) from its prison population.
Yes, I include Justice Kennedy in this condemnation, even though he sometimes votes with the four conservativtives. The issue here is whether Federal judges have the Constitutional authority to take over an entire state's prison system, and tell the state how it is going to be run, just because the system is "ovrcrowded" , and federal judges don't like the medical care the inmates are receiving.
Sorry, Justic Kennedy and your four liberal justices, you ARE guilty of tow things:
1. Violation of the Constitution by making yourself, and lower Federal judges, tin horn dictators making a mockery of "democracy" and our federal system.
2. Making yourselves an accessory to rape, murder, and hwo knows how many other crimes by FORCING the release of dangerous criminals. Presumably, they would not even be in prison--with obviously some exceptions--unless they were dangerous, especailly with so much pressure on California to stop overcrowding its prison system.
Yes. This is yet another example of leftist HYPOCRISY (the worst hypocrites ever to walk the Earth, on two legs or four). California COULD build more prisons. But who opposes that? Sure, some "fiscal" conservatives, and ordinary citizens worrried about California spending more money than it has, may oppose more preisons. But I have followed this "debate" for decades, and I can assure you that LEFTISTS almost universally oppose the building of new prisons. Why is that? You know this one. It is because most leftists don't think ANYONE--except their perceived enemies on a political level--should be in prison. That is the dirty little secret here. Leftists woud be trying to get inmates released, and complaining about the considitions, NO MATTER WHAT.
Am I defending the condistions in LEFTIST California's prison system? Nope. They may be fairly bad. But Federal judges don't have the authority to supervise "bad" prison conditions, when we are merely talking about the kind of conditions that have been present in prisons from the beginning of prisons. The Constitution prohiblits "cruel and unusual" punishment. It is ABSURD to suggest that such clause was meant to justify examination by Federal judges of prison CONDITIONS (basent whipping or physical abuse that would be cruel and unsual punishment if only ONE prisoner were involved). The idea that each prisoner in a state prison can calim it is a CONSTITUIONAL vioilation for him to be in an overcrowded cell, or not to have the medical care the ACLU thinks he or she should have, is a PERVERSION of our democratic republic and of Constitutional law. It makes every Federal judge a SUPERVIOSOR of every prison in this country. That is an unconstitutioinal usurpation of power-a rule of dictatorial MEN (Federal judges) and not of law.
Do I mean the headline? Yes, I do. I would be glad to see Justice Kenneddy and the four liberal justices led away in handcuffs ("perp walk") the very first time one of the convicts they have forced to be released kills or rapes someone (or commits another major felony). Yes, I am fully aware it will not happen. But it would absolutely not bother me to see it happen--even before a rape or murder for the violation of the Constitutioin and oath of office that this decision represents.
How do people change prison conditions if the Supreme Court will not allow Federal judges to supervise mere prison conditions? Easy. DEMOCRACY. People VOTE. Activist LOBBY. You may remember that President Obama lamented that the Supreme Court has not interpreted the Constitution to mean that Federal judges can REQUIRE poor people be "helped" in the way that leftists want them helped (back before Obama became President). This idea that Federal judges can simply override democracy because they see a problem that is not being addressed is a truly evil idea. It is an idea--this dictatoriial power of Federal judges to impose their personal views of morality on the rest of us--that threatens to DESTROY our deomocratic republic.
Yes, Justice Kennedy, you can expect this blog to ACCUSE you of MURDER (so long as I hear about it occurring--not a certainty since I don't live in California and can't depend on the media to follow up on this). Yes, you might as well assume that I am already ACCUSING these five justices of the Surpeme Court of murder, since it is inevitable--merely a matter of time--that a convict released under this order will kill someone.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Yes, I include Justice Kennedy in this condemnation, even though he sometimes votes with the four conservativtives. The issue here is whether Federal judges have the Constitutional authority to take over an entire state's prison system, and tell the state how it is going to be run, just because the system is "ovrcrowded" , and federal judges don't like the medical care the inmates are receiving.
Sorry, Justic Kennedy and your four liberal justices, you ARE guilty of tow things:
1. Violation of the Constitution by making yourself, and lower Federal judges, tin horn dictators making a mockery of "democracy" and our federal system.
2. Making yourselves an accessory to rape, murder, and hwo knows how many other crimes by FORCING the release of dangerous criminals. Presumably, they would not even be in prison--with obviously some exceptions--unless they were dangerous, especailly with so much pressure on California to stop overcrowding its prison system.
Yes. This is yet another example of leftist HYPOCRISY (the worst hypocrites ever to walk the Earth, on two legs or four). California COULD build more prisons. But who opposes that? Sure, some "fiscal" conservatives, and ordinary citizens worrried about California spending more money than it has, may oppose more preisons. But I have followed this "debate" for decades, and I can assure you that LEFTISTS almost universally oppose the building of new prisons. Why is that? You know this one. It is because most leftists don't think ANYONE--except their perceived enemies on a political level--should be in prison. That is the dirty little secret here. Leftists woud be trying to get inmates released, and complaining about the considitions, NO MATTER WHAT.
Am I defending the condistions in LEFTIST California's prison system? Nope. They may be fairly bad. But Federal judges don't have the authority to supervise "bad" prison conditions, when we are merely talking about the kind of conditions that have been present in prisons from the beginning of prisons. The Constitution prohiblits "cruel and unusual" punishment. It is ABSURD to suggest that such clause was meant to justify examination by Federal judges of prison CONDITIONS (basent whipping or physical abuse that would be cruel and unsual punishment if only ONE prisoner were involved). The idea that each prisoner in a state prison can calim it is a CONSTITUIONAL vioilation for him to be in an overcrowded cell, or not to have the medical care the ACLU thinks he or she should have, is a PERVERSION of our democratic republic and of Constitutional law. It makes every Federal judge a SUPERVIOSOR of every prison in this country. That is an unconstitutioinal usurpation of power-a rule of dictatorial MEN (Federal judges) and not of law.
Do I mean the headline? Yes, I do. I would be glad to see Justice Kenneddy and the four liberal justices led away in handcuffs ("perp walk") the very first time one of the convicts they have forced to be released kills or rapes someone (or commits another major felony). Yes, I am fully aware it will not happen. But it would absolutely not bother me to see it happen--even before a rape or murder for the violation of the Constitutioin and oath of office that this decision represents.
How do people change prison conditions if the Supreme Court will not allow Federal judges to supervise mere prison conditions? Easy. DEMOCRACY. People VOTE. Activist LOBBY. You may remember that President Obama lamented that the Supreme Court has not interpreted the Constitution to mean that Federal judges can REQUIRE poor people be "helped" in the way that leftists want them helped (back before Obama became President). This idea that Federal judges can simply override democracy because they see a problem that is not being addressed is a truly evil idea. It is an idea--this dictatoriial power of Federal judges to impose their personal views of morality on the rest of us--that threatens to DESTROY our deomocratic republic.
Yes, Justice Kennedy, you can expect this blog to ACCUSE you of MURDER (so long as I hear about it occurring--not a certainty since I don't live in California and can't depend on the media to follow up on this). Yes, you might as well assume that I am already ACCUSING these five justices of the Surpeme Court of murder, since it is inevitable--merely a matter of time--that a convict released under this order will kill someone.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Obama, Jobs and Israel: The "International Community" and Obama as "Citizen of the World" (Focusing on International Jobs)
What was probably the most disturbing thing abut Obama's speech throwing Israel under the bus (see previous article)? Right. It was Obama's reference to how Israel needed to cater to the "international community". This, of course, continues Obama's practice of paying more attention to the traditions and values of other countries than Obama does to the traditions and values of the United States. It is not only Israel which should be worried about this. It is no accident that Obama quickly proclaimed himself a "citizen of the owrld" as President, while aPPOLOGIZSING for the USA throughout the world and BOWING from the waste to the king of Saudi Arabia.
Remember how every OTHER week Obama (as Liar-in-Chief) proclaims that almost his sole focus is on JOBS. Then the next week Obama is off on a foreign trip, or suing some state about illegal immigration, or taking some action on homosexual rights. The industrial grade HYPOCRITES of the mainstream media, however, continue to suggest that Repubicans should ONLY talk about jobs, and that they are "distracting" the natiion to talk about anything else. These, indeed, are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four (CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, the despicable AP, Yahoo "News", Fox "News", MSNBC and all of the rest). Notice how Obama deliberately instituted this fight with Israel, just as he is off to EUROPE for a WEEK (even telling Israel that he wanted to be able to defend Israel in his trip to Europe for the G8conference). NO "fouces on jobs" for this President!!!!!
Yes, I am tired of Republicans faiiling to make an issue out of the obvious. Why do Republicans not start talking about how LITTLE Obama is focusing on jobs and the economy, and how MUCH he likes to travel overseas? President Obama has travelled overseas more than any President in my lifetime, and I am 64 years old (not 90, as you may have believed, and onlyl decrepit in terms of my failing eyesight). President Obama clearly ENJOYS travelling--both overseas and on CAMPAIGN trips in the United States--more than he likes the JOB of being President of the United States. And President Obama likes to view himself as (first) citizen of the world more than he likes to view himself as a President pursuing the interests of the United States (or our friends, like Israel).
What is this "international community" to which Obama keeps referring? You know this one. It is mainly a group of dictators, murderous thugs, and vicious thocracies, along with the tired "old world" of Europe that a vigorous America used to pretty much--correctly--despise. You may remember that the United States of America became pretty much the ONLY democratic republic in the world at a time when Europe was still involved with kings, emperors and dictatiors. Yes, the "international community" usually combines TWO of the categories I mentioned in one country--sometimes all three (thugs, dictators and viciious theocracies--to remind you of the categories). It is no accident that LIBYA was on the United Nations "human rights commission" (or whatever lying name it is called), and that SYRIA was cheduled to take its pace on that commission until a stink was raised. Vladimir Putin, of Russia (who lectured Obama and the Democrats, correctly, on adopting the FAILED philosophy of dominant government previosly represented by Communism) is BOTH a thug and a dictator, and has announced that he has decided to again become President of Russia (after "stepping dow" in name only over the previous few years).
What does Obama "mean" by the "international community". Well, in part he does mean that collection of dictators, thugs, and vicioius theocracies. You will remember that, until Obama suddenly embraced "democracy" after having been shwon the way by Arab mobs, that Obama thinks it is arrogant of the United States to consider our way as better than that of others. This is, also, prettty much the view of our HYPOCIRITES in the mainstream media, who will criticize an American evanglical for merely saying that homosexuality is a "sin", while giving Muslims a pass for considering it a CRIME sometimes punishable by death (as the President of Iran proudly announced that he HANGS homosexuals). And you know the general Muslim view of women, which does not keep HYPOCRITE Anderson Cooper from featureing Arab woman after Arab woman as the "face" of the "democratic" protest movement in the Arab world.
Yes, there is that view that the "international" community shoudl run the world, even if they are dictators, thugs and vicious theocrats. That is sort of a leftist article of fait: that the Untied Sates of America takes too much on itself, and is the mains source of evil in the world. But you know as well as I do what Obama and the mainstream media mainly mean when they refer to the "international community". They really mean LEFTISTS who think just like they do: who believe the United States of America should not regard itself as the leader of the world spreading a message of both economic and political freedom, but that the international LEFT should be running the world becsue they are the only "enlightened" people out there. No, this is not a "conspiracy theory". It is a SHARED IDEOLOGY of an international leftist "community" which rejects American traditions and values. Obama regards himself as part of that community, and it is time some Repubicans started saing so.
Jobs? Don't make me laugh. Obama has CONSISTENTLY concentrated on ideology. That every other week speech about "focusing" on jobs "like a laser beam" is merely Obama in his role as Liar-in-Chief.
P.S. If you get the feeling that Republicans should sart telling the mainstream media to take a hike, when those HYPOCRITES start telling Republicans they should not be paing any attention to naything but jobs and the economy, then you have finally notten the meassage. Republicans have to show the cojones of Netanyahu and start PUSHING BACK on this kind of thing by noting how much Obam is out of the country concentrating on the "international community".
P.P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Remember how every OTHER week Obama (as Liar-in-Chief) proclaims that almost his sole focus is on JOBS. Then the next week Obama is off on a foreign trip, or suing some state about illegal immigration, or taking some action on homosexual rights. The industrial grade HYPOCRITES of the mainstream media, however, continue to suggest that Repubicans should ONLY talk about jobs, and that they are "distracting" the natiion to talk about anything else. These, indeed, are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four (CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, the despicable AP, Yahoo "News", Fox "News", MSNBC and all of the rest). Notice how Obama deliberately instituted this fight with Israel, just as he is off to EUROPE for a WEEK (even telling Israel that he wanted to be able to defend Israel in his trip to Europe for the G8conference). NO "fouces on jobs" for this President!!!!!
Yes, I am tired of Republicans faiiling to make an issue out of the obvious. Why do Republicans not start talking about how LITTLE Obama is focusing on jobs and the economy, and how MUCH he likes to travel overseas? President Obama has travelled overseas more than any President in my lifetime, and I am 64 years old (not 90, as you may have believed, and onlyl decrepit in terms of my failing eyesight). President Obama clearly ENJOYS travelling--both overseas and on CAMPAIGN trips in the United States--more than he likes the JOB of being President of the United States. And President Obama likes to view himself as (first) citizen of the world more than he likes to view himself as a President pursuing the interests of the United States (or our friends, like Israel).
What is this "international community" to which Obama keeps referring? You know this one. It is mainly a group of dictators, murderous thugs, and vicious thocracies, along with the tired "old world" of Europe that a vigorous America used to pretty much--correctly--despise. You may remember that the United States of America became pretty much the ONLY democratic republic in the world at a time when Europe was still involved with kings, emperors and dictatiors. Yes, the "international community" usually combines TWO of the categories I mentioned in one country--sometimes all three (thugs, dictators and viciious theocracies--to remind you of the categories). It is no accident that LIBYA was on the United Nations "human rights commission" (or whatever lying name it is called), and that SYRIA was cheduled to take its pace on that commission until a stink was raised. Vladimir Putin, of Russia (who lectured Obama and the Democrats, correctly, on adopting the FAILED philosophy of dominant government previosly represented by Communism) is BOTH a thug and a dictator, and has announced that he has decided to again become President of Russia (after "stepping dow" in name only over the previous few years).
What does Obama "mean" by the "international community". Well, in part he does mean that collection of dictators, thugs, and vicioius theocracies. You will remember that, until Obama suddenly embraced "democracy" after having been shwon the way by Arab mobs, that Obama thinks it is arrogant of the United States to consider our way as better than that of others. This is, also, prettty much the view of our HYPOCIRITES in the mainstream media, who will criticize an American evanglical for merely saying that homosexuality is a "sin", while giving Muslims a pass for considering it a CRIME sometimes punishable by death (as the President of Iran proudly announced that he HANGS homosexuals). And you know the general Muslim view of women, which does not keep HYPOCRITE Anderson Cooper from featureing Arab woman after Arab woman as the "face" of the "democratic" protest movement in the Arab world.
Yes, there is that view that the "international" community shoudl run the world, even if they are dictators, thugs and vicious theocrats. That is sort of a leftist article of fait: that the Untied Sates of America takes too much on itself, and is the mains source of evil in the world. But you know as well as I do what Obama and the mainstream media mainly mean when they refer to the "international community". They really mean LEFTISTS who think just like they do: who believe the United States of America should not regard itself as the leader of the world spreading a message of both economic and political freedom, but that the international LEFT should be running the world becsue they are the only "enlightened" people out there. No, this is not a "conspiracy theory". It is a SHARED IDEOLOGY of an international leftist "community" which rejects American traditions and values. Obama regards himself as part of that community, and it is time some Repubicans started saing so.
Jobs? Don't make me laugh. Obama has CONSISTENTLY concentrated on ideology. That every other week speech about "focusing" on jobs "like a laser beam" is merely Obama in his role as Liar-in-Chief.
P.S. If you get the feeling that Republicans should sart telling the mainstream media to take a hike, when those HYPOCRITES start telling Republicans they should not be paing any attention to naything but jobs and the economy, then you have finally notten the meassage. Republicans have to show the cojones of Netanyahu and start PUSHING BACK on this kind of thing by noting how much Obam is out of the country concentrating on the "international community".
P.P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Obama and Israel: Enemy of Israel--"Friedn" Undermines "Friend" (Liar-in-Chief
What is Obama's "defense" of his indefensible attempt to throw Israel under the bus, for no purpose except to advance OBAMA and his out-sized ego? I actually saw this part of Obama's incredibley lame and thin-skinned "attack" on his critics. I will summarize what Obama said: "my critics are so dishonest. I did not SAY ANYTHING. I merely stated long-standing United States policy in effect for decatdes, and which has been stated PRIVATELY many times."
Do you see how DISHONEST Obama is (projecting his own dishonesty on his critics)? If you don't get it, as most leftists profess not to, then this article laying it out for you will probably not phase you. Actualy, however, I hink most people DO get it, and are not longer impressed by Obama's WORDS in his role as Liar-in-Chief.
Look carefully at Obama's thin-skinned "defense". Obama is saying he does not understand what the fuss is about, because he merely stated that it is up to Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate a peace, and all Obama did was state the general outline of the end borders of Israel that many U.S. Presidents have envisioned, with actual borders to be detrmined by "mutual ly agreed land swaps (whatever that means, and you get the feeling Obama has no clue other than to try to use it as an "out" to explain that he did not say what everyone heard him say). And Obama says that "friends can disagree."
Putting it as bluntly as I can: Our President is incapable of telling the truth, and maybe of even knowing what the truth is. Can "freiends disagree"? Sure. But do "friends" UNDERMINE/betray "friends" and remain friends? Not a chance. Yet, that is exactlly what Obama did. WHY is it that NO American President has said what Obama said--much less right BEFORE (ot after) a sceduled meeting with the prime mininster of Israel? Yes, a "friend" might express to the Prime Minister Netanyahu, at the scheduled meeting, that a "friend" thinks that further efforts should be made to again start a peace process with the Palestinians, even though the PALESTINIANS seem uninterested in peace with Israel and have pretty much allied themselves with Israel. In othr words, when EVERY other American President decided NOT to say what Obama said, terrorist organization Hamas had not been "elected" to essentially lead the Palestinians, or a big section of them. In other words, an HONEST Obama would admit that EVERY single American President before Obama has considered what Obama said to be a BAD idea. That is because publicly undermining your "friend" is the act of an ENEMY. Yep. Obama is an ENEMY of Israel, and Netanyahu knows it.
What has been the propaganda position of the Arab/Muslim word since 1967? Right. It has been that Israel MUST withdraw to its 1967 borders BEFORE any meaningul "peace" negotiations. SOMETIMES, the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims will HINT that they MIGHT recognize Israel's right to exist as part of that withdrawal, but the Palestinians have NEVER been willing to enter into a "comphrhensive" peace before that withdrawal happens. That is apart fromt he problem that the 1967 borders are INDEFENSIBLE, as Netanyahu said.
What Obama did was try to FORCE Netanyahu into a croner when Obama had scheduled a meeting with Netanyahu for the very next day. And Obama did that by UNDERMINING the negotiating position of Netanyahu. EVERY other U.S. President has recongized this, even if most (who have faced the problem) might say that Obama was not far off as to the END position which needs to be reached ON BORDERS. The problem, of course, is that there are many other issues besides borders, and "borders" represents the PALESTINIAN issue. It is like CLNN framing the "issues" in the Presidential race so that only the Democrat formulation of the "issues" is presented. Again, IF Obama (as he says) was NOT saying anything "important", or different than everyone already understood, what did Obama expect to accomplish by this (obviously premeditated) statement? Npe. Obama cannot tell the truth. OBVIOUSLY, he thoiught he was making a "bold" statement that woudld both put pressure on Netanyahu AND give Obama "credit" in the Muslim world for PUSHING Israel to embrace the main demand of the Palestinians. (Nope. I have not forgotten, by the way, that Egypt made a separate peace with Israel, but Obama forced the main who made that peace, Mubarak, to leave office and the whole treaty is in doubt--although I acknowledge Mubarak was a dictator we had no business supporting, though we should have been much more on top of the whole situatioin)
Netanyahu COMPLAINED bitterly ahead of Obama's speech, as a "friend" who disagreed, and Obama PUBLICLY gave the speech anyway. This is NOT the act of a "friend". If you have a friend who is taking a positioin in negotiations with--say--a community activist, would you regard it as an act of betrayal to PUBLICLY criticize your friend's netotiating position? Of course you would. More to the point of Obama's dishonesty, would OBAMA regard it as a betrayal for a "friend" to PUBLICLY say that Obama is mishandling the Afghanistan war (or netotiating with an unjustified position when Obama was a "community activist")? You KNOW Obama would be livid if such a thing happened. Indded, that is what (see my article on Friday) the LEFTIST SUPPORTERS of Obama are saying. They are saying that NETANYAHU was DISRESPCTFUL OF OBAMA (lol). How can you be more disrespectul of an foreign leader than to publicly undermine that foreign leader's position on the single most important inssue facing his nation? That is what Obama did to Netanyahu. (Yes, I would go on abut the hypocrisy of the left and the mainstream media here, but you already know those people are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth on two legs or four--the problem for Jewish leftists being that it is now obviious that they are betraying Israel by supporting Obama.)
Again. Yu don't have to agre with, or ven follow, all I say above to understand just how dishonest Obama is being about his statements on Israel. All you have to do is ASK yourself WHY every single U.S. President, until Obama, did not make this kind of statement on the 1967 borders of Israel? Obama is directly saying that he has AGREED with every previous U.S. President, when it is exactly the opposite. EVERY single U.S. President has DISAGREED with Obama on the advisability of making this statement (whatever they may think of the policy goal itself, and I reject the idea they all agreed totally with the way Obama put it).
Yes, the Palestinians do have another "precondition" for peace that is absurd. That is the "right of return", where Palestinians want the "right" to go "back" into Israel, from which some of them--maybe--were evicted in 1948. And why don't we give Manhattan back to the Indians? I know. I know. I should NEVER give Obama an idea like that. Jews conducted a WAR for creating a Jewish state, and "Palestinians have been used as a PAWN ever since. They should long ago have been absorbed elsewhere, except no one else wanted them, AND all of their "friends" (the Obama kind of "friend") wanted these poor people as a WEAPON against Israel rather than being really concerned about their welfare. Am I saying that there is no "right of return"? Yep. I am RIDICULING the idea, correctly.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). However, my eyesight is clear enough to see that Jews who continue to support Obama are betraying Israel. As stated in my article on Friday, even MSNBC recognizes that EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS are more willing to vote based on their concerns for Israel than Jews apparanetly are (from various polls, albeit I continue to regard all polls as evil things).
Do you see how DISHONEST Obama is (projecting his own dishonesty on his critics)? If you don't get it, as most leftists profess not to, then this article laying it out for you will probably not phase you. Actualy, however, I hink most people DO get it, and are not longer impressed by Obama's WORDS in his role as Liar-in-Chief.
Look carefully at Obama's thin-skinned "defense". Obama is saying he does not understand what the fuss is about, because he merely stated that it is up to Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate a peace, and all Obama did was state the general outline of the end borders of Israel that many U.S. Presidents have envisioned, with actual borders to be detrmined by "mutual ly agreed land swaps (whatever that means, and you get the feeling Obama has no clue other than to try to use it as an "out" to explain that he did not say what everyone heard him say). And Obama says that "friends can disagree."
Putting it as bluntly as I can: Our President is incapable of telling the truth, and maybe of even knowing what the truth is. Can "freiends disagree"? Sure. But do "friends" UNDERMINE/betray "friends" and remain friends? Not a chance. Yet, that is exactlly what Obama did. WHY is it that NO American President has said what Obama said--much less right BEFORE (ot after) a sceduled meeting with the prime mininster of Israel? Yes, a "friend" might express to the Prime Minister Netanyahu, at the scheduled meeting, that a "friend" thinks that further efforts should be made to again start a peace process with the Palestinians, even though the PALESTINIANS seem uninterested in peace with Israel and have pretty much allied themselves with Israel. In othr words, when EVERY other American President decided NOT to say what Obama said, terrorist organization Hamas had not been "elected" to essentially lead the Palestinians, or a big section of them. In other words, an HONEST Obama would admit that EVERY single American President before Obama has considered what Obama said to be a BAD idea. That is because publicly undermining your "friend" is the act of an ENEMY. Yep. Obama is an ENEMY of Israel, and Netanyahu knows it.
What has been the propaganda position of the Arab/Muslim word since 1967? Right. It has been that Israel MUST withdraw to its 1967 borders BEFORE any meaningul "peace" negotiations. SOMETIMES, the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims will HINT that they MIGHT recognize Israel's right to exist as part of that withdrawal, but the Palestinians have NEVER been willing to enter into a "comphrhensive" peace before that withdrawal happens. That is apart fromt he problem that the 1967 borders are INDEFENSIBLE, as Netanyahu said.
What Obama did was try to FORCE Netanyahu into a croner when Obama had scheduled a meeting with Netanyahu for the very next day. And Obama did that by UNDERMINING the negotiating position of Netanyahu. EVERY other U.S. President has recongized this, even if most (who have faced the problem) might say that Obama was not far off as to the END position which needs to be reached ON BORDERS. The problem, of course, is that there are many other issues besides borders, and "borders" represents the PALESTINIAN issue. It is like CLNN framing the "issues" in the Presidential race so that only the Democrat formulation of the "issues" is presented. Again, IF Obama (as he says) was NOT saying anything "important", or different than everyone already understood, what did Obama expect to accomplish by this (obviously premeditated) statement? Npe. Obama cannot tell the truth. OBVIOUSLY, he thoiught he was making a "bold" statement that woudld both put pressure on Netanyahu AND give Obama "credit" in the Muslim world for PUSHING Israel to embrace the main demand of the Palestinians. (Nope. I have not forgotten, by the way, that Egypt made a separate peace with Israel, but Obama forced the main who made that peace, Mubarak, to leave office and the whole treaty is in doubt--although I acknowledge Mubarak was a dictator we had no business supporting, though we should have been much more on top of the whole situatioin)
Netanyahu COMPLAINED bitterly ahead of Obama's speech, as a "friend" who disagreed, and Obama PUBLICLY gave the speech anyway. This is NOT the act of a "friend". If you have a friend who is taking a positioin in negotiations with--say--a community activist, would you regard it as an act of betrayal to PUBLICLY criticize your friend's netotiating position? Of course you would. More to the point of Obama's dishonesty, would OBAMA regard it as a betrayal for a "friend" to PUBLICLY say that Obama is mishandling the Afghanistan war (or netotiating with an unjustified position when Obama was a "community activist")? You KNOW Obama would be livid if such a thing happened. Indded, that is what (see my article on Friday) the LEFTIST SUPPORTERS of Obama are saying. They are saying that NETANYAHU was DISRESPCTFUL OF OBAMA (lol). How can you be more disrespectul of an foreign leader than to publicly undermine that foreign leader's position on the single most important inssue facing his nation? That is what Obama did to Netanyahu. (Yes, I would go on abut the hypocrisy of the left and the mainstream media here, but you already know those people are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth on two legs or four--the problem for Jewish leftists being that it is now obviious that they are betraying Israel by supporting Obama.)
Again. Yu don't have to agre with, or ven follow, all I say above to understand just how dishonest Obama is being about his statements on Israel. All you have to do is ASK yourself WHY every single U.S. President, until Obama, did not make this kind of statement on the 1967 borders of Israel? Obama is directly saying that he has AGREED with every previous U.S. President, when it is exactly the opposite. EVERY single U.S. President has DISAGREED with Obama on the advisability of making this statement (whatever they may think of the policy goal itself, and I reject the idea they all agreed totally with the way Obama put it).
Yes, the Palestinians do have another "precondition" for peace that is absurd. That is the "right of return", where Palestinians want the "right" to go "back" into Israel, from which some of them--maybe--were evicted in 1948. And why don't we give Manhattan back to the Indians? I know. I know. I should NEVER give Obama an idea like that. Jews conducted a WAR for creating a Jewish state, and "Palestinians have been used as a PAWN ever since. They should long ago have been absorbed elsewhere, except no one else wanted them, AND all of their "friends" (the Obama kind of "friend") wanted these poor people as a WEAPON against Israel rather than being really concerned about their welfare. Am I saying that there is no "right of return"? Yep. I am RIDICULING the idea, correctly.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). However, my eyesight is clear enough to see that Jews who continue to support Obama are betraying Israel. As stated in my article on Friday, even MSNBC recognizes that EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS are more willing to vote based on their concerns for Israel than Jews apparanetly are (from various polls, albeit I continue to regard all polls as evil things).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)