Thursday, June 30, 2011

Republicans and the Balanced Budget Amendment: Give It a rest

I again heard a Republican,, as I do almost every day, talking about the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment as if it is THE solution to our debt/defict crisis. Yet, it lamost has NOTHING to do with our present debt/deficit crisis. First, no such amendment is going to pass the current Congress, since it requires a 2/3 vote. Second, even if it did pass Congress, it would not take effect in time to do ANYTHING about our current deficit and debt problem. See my articles on this subject over the weekend.

Two thiings bother me about this. First, it smacks of "politics as usual", where Republicans are trying t make POLITICAL points with a FANTASY, because they don't have the GUTS to do something about PRESENT SPENDING. As this blog has stated, and as is true., Republicans in the House have the POWER to STOP SPENDING (without any Democratic help at all). NO spending can occur without the House of Representatives passing a bill. And Republicans control the House. Thus, they have COMPETE POWER to do refuse to apropriate ANY money they do not wish to spend. Sure, they may pay a political price as Democrats "shut down the government" rather than accept the limits Repubilcans place on spending. But this is a matter of COURAGE and POLITICS, not a matter of POWER. The Republicans have the POWER to do whatever they consider to be right on spending, because any spending has to have the approval of both houses of Congress. I wish Republicans would make the point that our system is set up to require a CONSENSUS on spending: that noting be spent unless the spending is approved by both the House land the Senate, and even the President. This SHOULD represent a check on spending, since the system has a built in bias against spending. The OPPOSITE has happened--a bias in FAVOR of spending--because politicians of both parties have developed lthis habit of putting all of this spending in some grand "deal", instead of being accountable for the spending in individual votes.

Yes, that is what bothers me most abut this "balanced budget amendment" talk. It seems designed to conceal "politics as usual", where Republicans use their lack of power to force a balanced budget amendment to CONCEAL their deception on failing to act lwhere they dO have the POWER: namely the power to determine what we spend and what we don't spend.

Message to Republicans: I will still hod you accountable for the sPENDING you AUTHORIZE for this NEXT YEAR, and every subsequent year, and no posturing on things like a balanced budget amendment is going to save you from my wrath (or from the wrath of many who think like me). The government can spedn NO money you don't aruthorize. You say that politically you can't stand the heat of being blamed when the government shuts down? Well, that is YOUR problem. You are the ones saying how important these things are. If they are that important, SOMEONE has to have the GUTS to stand lup and be counted, even if their policial future is damaged. I give NO credit for "effort" on the fantasy of a balanced budget amendment.

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

Obama Fails Again on Jobs: Loses 1,707,000 Jobs in Four Weeks

Yes, the weekly number of new unemployment claims filed in the previous week (which, by definition, means lost jobs) was announced today (as it is announced basically every Thursday). Again, it was bad news. Remember, this number went down to r00,000 at the end of last year, and was bounding around that number (as low as 375,000) in February of last year. We are now back at the same level we were in November of LAST YEAR. We are not that far from the range weere in for 10 months, beginning in late November of 2009 (445,000-500,000).

Here are the numbrs of new unemployment claims for the past 4 weeks, beginning with the just announced number for last week: 428,000 (to be revised next week), 429,000 (no revision, for the firt time in almost forever); 420,000 (revised upward from 414,000); and 430,000 (revised upward from 427,000).

You will note that the headlines LIE yet again, indicating that the "journlists" writing the stories have either no concept of what is going on or feel that you are too dumb and inpatient to be told the real facts. "Joless claims edge down 1,000" is the way the lying headlines go. Sure, even the mainstream media cannot make this seem like "good' news. But it is still a LIE. For almost every week in six months--maybe a year or more-the weekly number has been REVISED the next week by at least 2,000--usually averaging about 3,000. Tahat means the number pobably "edged" UP this week--not down. The four-wek average definitely "edged" up. The media continues to report this weekly number as if it were a "hard" number. Well. I have told you that thesee people are incomopetent and dishonest. I guess I should not be surprised that they continue to be that way. Yes, they SHOULD do what I do: report at least the last four weeks, and even put the number in context over time.

Bottom line: There has been NO IMPROVEMENT in the job market for at least eight months. There has been very little improvement in 2 years. So long as the weekly new unemployment claims remain above 400,000, there caan be NO real improvement in jobs numbers. Thus, since that has been true for all of June, the number of net jobs "created" in June CANNOT be a good number, unless it is a false number. Yes, the headline of this article refers to GROSS jobs, as Obama does from time to time when talking aoubt the "success" of his "stimulus" program. It is net jobs that are more important, and new unemployment claims do not directly address net jobs. But you CANNOT have any significant growth in NET jobs wiehn the number of gorss jobs lost per week stays above 400,000 . That number needs to be 300-350,000.

Are people reading this blog, or am I just good I tild you last week that the 6,000 revision might mean that the revision this week would not be so large. as usual. It turned out to be NO revision!!!!!! Are people getting embarrassed by how obvious it is that these numbers are writtenn in sand? Maybe. Thee revisions are a fascinating story in themselves, if there were any competent reporters to write the story. Then there ae the SEASONAL ADJUSTMENTS--anatoerh fascinating story inn how these numbers are not really as solid as the media presents them.

Be comforted. You may fear for you job, or not have one. But you have Obama's word: "Iim here." Except when he is not, like going to Puerto Rico, Ireland, or--today--to Philadelphia for a fund raiser. On the job all of the time, that's him. Now it is ture that we are probably BETTEROFF the less he is on the job.

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

President Obama, Liar-ini-Chief: "I'm Here" (Fact Check)

Fact Check: No, President Obama is usually NOT "here" (in Washington, actually doing the WORK of being President).

You may remember a few weeks ago, when this blog did a similar article on a similar blatant lie from the President of the United Stateas. That was when the President, ofr at least the 100th time, said he was "focusing on jobs". What did the President do the NEXT DAY? He headed off for a totally useless (except maybe politically, to him) trip to PUERTO. This is the President who is almost never "here". He is off on an overseas trip. Or he is fund raising. in some city. Or his is on vacation. Or he is playing golf (including that STUNT of a golf game with Republicans).

But where is the President TODAY? Right. He is NOT going to be "here". He is off to Philadelphia for yet another fund raiser. The man is NOT INTERESTED in the JOB of being President of the Untied States. All he likes to to do is give speeches, campaign and travel around the world. He has been "here" only for a few BRIEF , photo-op meetings with Republican and Democrat leaders, where Obama has time to do no more than say : "get it done". He is NOT "here", continually goading everyone tward some kind of "soution". In fact, Obama has made it HARDER to reach any kind of souutiion, with his partiasan, campaign-style rehetoric (saing the same things over and over again, including this ridiculous fixation on spending MORE money on 'high speed rail"--lol, transportation "inrastructure, and other "investments", while INCREASING the deficit with welfare payments disguised as "payroll tax cuts").

But can't the President "work" away from Washington? Obviusly, he has to do SOME work away from Washington. I remember recently when he was OVERSEAS when he needed to sign a bill, so he used the "auto-pen" from overseeas (or some such rot). However, Obama is NOT actively involved in things. He is farming out all of the "netotiations" to Biden, Reid and who knows who else--Obama's pattern ever since he has been President. All he does is make a grandstand speech saying something has to be done, and maybe set forth a talking point otr two, and then step back in to take credt after OTHERS fianlly get the ("politics as usual") "deal" done. That is not even the Big Lie. in the President's speech. He has "defended" the fund raising trip to Philadelphia by suggesting that he can "walk and chew gum at the same time". BUT. Waht ws the context of the President's "I'm here" statement? Right. He ws saing Congress needed to BE in Washington. What a sociopathic liar this man is. Congresspeople, of course, excuse their time away from Washington by saying that it is part of their JOB (dealing with constituents at home, and finding uot what they thinnk). Is fund raising part of Obama's job? The main is hopeless!!!!

When Obama says "I'm here", what can he possibly mean by such a blatant lie? Easy. First, he thinks is SOUNDS GOOD, like those 100 times he has said he is "focusing like a laser beam on jobs", just before leaving the country or focusing on some "gay rights" matter or whatever. The other thing Obama is saing, of course, is that "I am here" to SIGN OFF (with great fanfare) on the deal I expect YOU to negotiate. You cann't expect me to get my hands dirty. I am above all of that.

Now about this hogwash about Obama being against government helping out the "rich". Now conservatives like me simply recognize that TAKING MONEY from people--ther own money--is not the way toward prosperity for all. Once you gte away from the economic fascists of Wall Street, who regard themselves as "partners" with Obama and the government, conservatives do not want the government to driectly AID the wealthy. AIDING the wealthy--welfare for the wealthy--is exactly what Obama DOES (for those he favors). Yes, it is OBAMA, and not conservatives, who has subsidized big business and the big banks, and is still dong so (along with Bernanke). Doubt me? Look at the CNBC BUSINESS story this morning. The government has given 4 BILLION dollars in loan GUARANTEES to First Solar--a PRIVATE maker of solar panesl.s. Obviously, this is direct AID to VERYWEALTHY people If they were not ewalthy before, they are surely wealthy now. Compare that with my brother's truking comopany, employing 20 people, which ws kiled off by a combination of the recession and government policy. My brother had the company on the right track, but GE and others refused to let him restructure his loans and costs to enable him to get through the recesson. What could my brother have done with 4 BILLION dollars in loan guarantees from the Federal Goovernment? You can see why he is one frustrated man. It is not that he thinks it would have been good government policy to bial his comany out But he watches the government CHOOSE winners and losers, and it drives him nuts.

Nope. President Obama is a piece of wokr. There is no greater "friend" (until he turns on you) of the RICH out there htan Obama. He wants TAXPAYERS to help the RICH Obama wants to help . Obama's ultimate goal is simply to have the government dominate the whole economy, so that Obama, and people like him, DO get to choose all of the winners and losers. TAXING the "rich", while printnig money for SOME of them, is just a means of GROWING GOVERNMENT. Obama thinks he knows how to spend people's money beterr than they do.

How does it feel to have a "Liar-in-Chief" as President? And he keeps getting worse.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Obama: Liar-in-Chief

Yes, I saw parts of President Obama's press conference (all I could stannd), and heard about other parts. One of the parts I heard was this outrageous lie that Obama has repeated time and aagin:

"The rich are paying less taxes now than they have ever paid."

This was a more blatant, intentional lie than Michele Bachman has ever told. And Obama even made it clear he was intending to refer to ALL of the "rich"--referencing "hdege fund managers", CEOs, Barack Obama and Harry Reid.

Hacker Boy (hacking into this disgraceful blog again): "No, Obama idd not reference himself or Hrry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or any other rich Democrat. That is just Skip's sarcasm."

We did not even have an income tax until 1913, or thereabouts. Obviously, Obama was making a very deliberate lie, intended to be an overstatemet that Obama thinks sounds good. No, the "rich" are not paying a lower percentage of total income taxes now, either. The top 5% of income earners are paying towards 50% of the total income taxes. The bottom 40% of income are paying NO income tax. The bottom 50% are paying maybe 3% of the total income taxes. It should actually disturb you that so few people are bearing most of the tax burden for everyone else. It makes Ayn Rand seem propetic, when she suggested that the parasit majority was going to make SLAVES of the exceptionally talented (eventually , of course, leading the exceptionally talented to rebel). Now Ayn Rand (believe it or not) is too extreme for me, but it is amazing how "Atlas Shrugged" seems to be coming true. Even Ayn Rand is said to have thought she was exaggerating. I digress, as this article is about the OBVIOUS lie told by Obama.

Where are the "fact checkers" when you need them? Forget it. I know where they are. They are checking every word Michele Bachmann has said, to see if they can catch her in some minor untruth. In the meantime, our Liar-in-Chief is telling BLATANT lie, intentionally, and he is doing it based on left wing propaganda (as Michele Bachmann is alleged to sometimes use questionable sources for some things she has said). But Obama keeps rEPEATING the same lie, because the media won't call him on it. Meanwhile, poor Bachmann gets called on every minor factual mistake she has ever made. And Fox is srtill out theere (boycott Fox News) suggesting that this is so pervasive and UNFAIR (while Fox participates in the unfairness) that it makees it hard for Bachmann to win. Yep. Fox is suggeting you fight evil by joining it.

If you read this blog, this partrticular lie is not new to you. I wwote an article about it more than a month ago. Fox (Cavuto) just discvoered this LIE (by Obama) TODAY. Yes, they are incompetent, in addition to being fellow travellers in evil. And Fox (Cavuto) still got it WRONG. What Cavuto suggested was the Obama "mispoke", or maye deliberately overstated, and was really referring to capital gain tax rates (which may be as low as they have been since World War II). This is not correct, and this blog have you the correct story. For months, the LEFT has been circulating this propaganda that the "reich", or people in general (it vaires from leftist to leftist), are paying less income taxes now than at any time since World War II. As stated, that is a transparent LIE, because there is no such person known as the "rich", and tax RATES are higher now than under either President Reagan or the first President Bush. How can the left, and Obama, tell an obvious lie like this? Sleight of hand, and deliberate glossing over of talking about "the rich" as if he or she were a single person. Income taxes, as a percentage of GDP, AS COLLECTED, or a lesser percentage now than at tany time since about World War II. However, that is mainly because so many lower income people are paying NO income tax at all. Now what the left has done is extrapolage from this "percentage of GDP data, AND try to GUESS at some kind of "rfeal" tax rate for the "rich", after figuring in "captial gains", and all of the other tax "breaks" that the "rich" get. Problem: the "rich" donot ALL get tax "breaks". For example, Obama has given his FAVORED "rich" people all kinds of tax, and other "breaks" including waivers from ObamaCare and "green" tax credits". It is simply an outrageous lie to say that "the rich" are paying less in taxes now than ever ("ever" being since World War II). You simply can't make that overgeneralization. Now you could say, as Obama does say (without qualifying his lie) that we have too many special tax "breaks' in our tax code. But many of those tax 'brakes" are OBAMA FAVORED. That meanns all of these "green" tax credits, educational tax credits, and tax credits for almost anything else a good Democrat might want to favor. This is not a matter of "the rich" (the central Obama lie), but a matter of CONGRESS choosing winners and losers. Meanwhile, the "rich" pay an ever increasing share of the income taxes. No one ever talks, by the way, about the "rich" who have CAPITAL LOSSES (which they can't even fullly take off of their income tax, being limited to $3,000 a year)?

No. This is a blatant LIE--whether from Obama or his far left "sources". You simply cannot say that "the rich" are paing less taxes now than under Ronad Reagan (which I have seen directly said from left wing sources). SOME of the "rich" may be paying less, because of their ability to manipulate a tax system that Obama wants to further COMPLICATE. Most of the "rich" did not pay that 90% top tax rate in effectg until the JFK tax cuts. All high tax rates do is make tax avoidance more universal . It is funny. Obama is sugesting that a non-existent statistic (the overall percentage of their total income that the "rich" pay in taxes) be used to justify a higher tax RATE, at the same time Obama is saying that "the rich" DO NOT PAY the nominal taxrate. Further, at the same time Obama is suggesting MORE complication of the tax code with further TAX CREDITS in the areas Obama wants to favor.

To me, the Obama press conference was a particularly weak one. Obama came across as a petualnt child (despite the AP/Yahoo--boyctoo Yahoo, too--headlines about Obama lecturng the Congress and the GOP). While Obama was purporting to tell Congresss and the GOP to "get it done" (Ap/Yahoo headline), EVERYONE could see that Obama was making it HARDER to "get it done', with his class warfare language and lies. And he gave strange answers. His answer on the NLRB/Boeing/South Carolina plant especailly wandered all over the map, to the point that Obala seemed totally to lose himself. He ended up saying (sor of, and I could never make this up): "Copanies have to follow the law. The NLRB is an independent board, and I can't really comment. But we are better off moving jobs withing the United States--like to Sought Carolina?--rather than having them move overseas. What a mess I have lput myself in (no, before Hacker Boy jumps, in, he did not really say that). Wat really need to be done is that labor and management need to WORK TOGETHER to solve these things, rather than against one anotehr." I kid you not. That last sentence is NOT Skip sarcasm. That is where Obama ended up. "Can't we all just get along?" (Rodney King). And who, exactly is it who is ecnouraging labor to pick these UNPRESCENDENTED fights with "management"? Right. It is OBMA'S ADMINISTRATION, including the people he appinted to the NLRB (including a "recess appointment" to avoid scrutiny by Congress).

Again Michele Bachmann could NEVER be THIS dishonest. I could pick out 18 statements in Obama's press conference that were deliberate LIES (not mere "misstatements"). I am referring to that "fact check" that 18 statements Bachmann made were allegedly false. Yes, Obama keeps repeating the ridiculous lie that we are not engaged in "hostilities" in Libya. And he claims to have "consulted" with Congrss. because panels of Congress have held hearings (OVER HIS OBSTGRUCTION--it being news to Congress that Obama has "consulted" with them)". What is the meaning of "is"--or, in this case, "consulted". I don't have the time or energy--not having a staff--to list all 18 lies here. Take my word for it. Notice how much BIGGER the Obama lies are than the "faffes" alleged as to Bachmann. Then notice which lies get all of the coverage.

We truly do have a "liar-in-Chif.". The man overstates every single thing he says, and dow it deliberately. What can you say about somone who still insists he is for "deficit reduction", and "living within our means", evn while lthe only SPECIFIC things he advocated in teh press conference were SPENDING for high speed rail and other transportation projects, and extending the payroll tax reduction that is gonig to expire--that is, besides RAISING TAXES. Exactly where is the reductin in spedning? That is the biggest LIE of all. Obama and the Democrats intend NO reduction in spedning. They want an INCREASE in both spending and the deficit (except to the extent they can add taxes and/or cut the military budget). The rest is all a SHAM. Just like in the prevgious budget talks (for the yyear about to end--remember when the government almost shut donw), Obama and the Democrats plan to do some sort of massive legistlation where all of the spending "cuts" are either illlusions or so far in the future that the Democtats expect they will never happen. As Obama again made clear, Democrats pan on RAISING spedning, and increasing the deficti, for this next year (including with that "stimulus" of a welfare pyament known as that "payroll tax cut").

Yes. I want to weep. I write articles (like the one on Obama's previoiusly repeated lie about the rich paying less taxes now than they ever have). They disappear into the void. In the meantime, both media peiople and politicians seem more interested n gong along with the SHAM. You have heard that there is already agreement on "1.3 trillioin" dollars in "cuts", and Republicans are demanding 1.3trillion more. Howgwsh. We would not NEED to raise the debt ceiling if we cut 2.5 trillion dollars from the spending for NEXT YEAR. The debt ceiling will ony be good for about two years (just past the election). the supposed spending "cuts" willl be ove TEN YEARS. That, alone, is an outrageous lie (that cutting spending over 1 years, even if it happens, makes nay dent on the CURRENT DEFICTI POBLEM). And you can bet any spending cuts will be weighted toward the END of those ten years, with little likelihood they will ever be implemented (especially as now written, although we may well have a REAL "crisis" requiring Greece-like "austerity" well before 10 years).

I jsut can't stand the DECEPTION. That is why I promised to really lower the boom on Republicans if they enter into another sham dea. And what about the appropriatons bills? IF Repubicans end up agreeing to some sort of omnibus "continuing resoluton", they can forget about me. I will be their ENEMY forever. That is why I suggeted that Repubicans simply do a short term extension of the debt ceiling to bring us up to the beginning of the fiscal year (October 1) when the government will shut down (without funding). Then wokrk on APPROPIATIONS BILLS for next year to CUT SPENDING for next year. ONLY THEN worry about "the future'. The spending "cuts" that MATTER are CURRENT CUTS. "The future" is in the future, and a lot of things can happen by then. Do something about Medicaid NOW. Cut next year's spending NOW. Then worry about restructuring Medicare and the far future, when Republicans don't have the votes to do what they want on Medicare anyway. Warning to Repubilcans: Next year's spending, which should already be dtermined by Appropriations Bills (about 17 of them) is ALL I am really looking at. Another one of your "sham" "rand" "compromises" is just going to make me MAD at you . Madder than I have ever been, and that is sayig a lot. Yes, I am confident Meichele Bachmann will votge against all of this, which is one of the reasons I am supporting her. But the Republicans who vote for this stuff will be in real trouble. Further, I am not really impresssed with these GAMES where some Republicans get to vote against a deal, so long as enough Republicans support the deal to squeak it by. Michele Bachmann has earned my trust. The Republican Party has not. I will BLAME the whole Republican Party for another sham dea. And I will BLAME the whole Republican Prty for yet another SHAM TAX CUT like that "payroll tax reductio")--merely a "simullus" bribe to voters.

P.S. no proofreadin or spell checking (bad eyesight)..

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Anderson Cooper, Dishonest Hypocrite: On Michele Bachmann (Keeping Him Honet)

Yes, the day Michele Bachmann annnounced her candidacy for President of the United States, what was Anderson Cooper talking about: DMEMANDING, in fact, that Bachmann appear on his program to answer HIS ATTACK QUESTION? (Cooper is a piece of work: No more ARROGBANT HYUPOCRITE exists.)

Wa it an alleeged violation of the law that Cooper ws demanding Bachmann answer? Was it an ethcial violation? Was it a personal character defect, like an alleged adultery? Not a chance. It iwas not even important. It was merely a "GOTCHA", irrelevant question that Cooper thought he could embarrass Bachmann with. Now, form what I ahve seen of Bachmann, she is not easilty embrrrassed. But WHY should she allow herself to be interviewed by a man who has virtually declrared himself her ENEMY, as--really--has all of CNN. I am serious here. I see no reason for ANY conservative to appear on Anderson Cooper's show, except to ATTACK COOPER (and Bachmann probably feels she does not dare do that, absent outrageous provacaton which Cooper may or may not give her with questions she knows will be unfair).

That is the first HYPOCRITICAL LIE here? Cooper asked his audience to belelieve that thhere is something WRONG with Bachmann not dropping everything and coming on his show to answer HIS ATTACK. Why would she want to do that? Not only does she have no obligation to do that. It would be STUPID of her to mar her day that way, and Cooper knows it. Yes, this is the standard media EXTORTION of suggesting that they will continue to attack any person who is not willng to subject himself or herself to their unfair attacks. Yes, Fox does it to. Hannity, for example, keeps asking why Barack Obama will not submit to a Hannity interview (lol). The point here is that Cooper has TOLD EVERYONE that he palnned to aTTACK Bachmann--not any less obviously than Hannity attacks Obama. And Cooper is not even SUBTLE about the dishonest extortion going on here. He wants the audience to condemn Bachmann for not changing her schedule to answer COOPER'S ATTACK, on HER DAY, This was Michele Bachman's big day. She would have to be INSANE to sudmit to this kind of attack on HER DAY, and dishonest hypocrite Cooper knows it. It would be a cold day in Hell before I ever again went on his program, if I were Bachmann. (Don't worry, I am sure Bachmann is gald I am not her, as much as your are.) DEMOCRARTS will generally not appear on Fox News--really LESS biased than CNN (although just as unfair). Yet, Fox News has MUCH BETTER ratings than either CNN or MSNBC. I faiil to see why Repubublicans submit themselves to such UNFAIR questioniing from people they know are their enemies. On Cooper's program, CNN virtually served notice that it is now out to "get" Bachmann. "Now that she has gained in the polls, she will have to face more scrutiny." Translation: Bachmann now is enough of a threat for us to realy HAMMER her. "

Oh, you want to know what Cooper was trying to "ask' Bachmann about? Well, the father of Bachman's husband has a farm which receives government subsidies (as do ALL farms), Nothing wrong with that (except we should not be subsidizing farms, but more about that later). But Bachmann has evidently said that she has not "received one penny" from the farm. However, she is legally a partner in the farm (or is it only her husband--Cooper not clear as he is not interested in the facts nayway). Bachmann has filed disclousre forms, which have to include her husband, I believe, in terms of full disclousre of things in which she may have an interest). It turns out that these disclousre forms indicate that Bachmann has reported 10 years or so of farm income at about $10,000 a year. Peanuts. Further, WHO SAYS Bachann really received any of that money? Thoseof you familiar with partnership law (with which I used to be involved as a lawyer), are aware that partners are REQUIRED to reoport income, if the partnership makes money, even if they don't actually receive the money (because, for example, it is reinvested in the farm). Yes, it is true that you can say Bachmann "benefitted" from the subsidies, whether or not money actually appeared in her bank account. So what?

I mean it. So what? I am not even sure why Bachmann, and other conservatives, are so defensive aoubt this Does DISHONEST HYPOCRITE Cooper ask DEMOCRATS who want the "rch" to pay more taxes, whether rich Democrats VOLUNTARILY pay the taxes that they think everyone should be paying? Does BARACK OBAMA voluntarily pay the higher tax rate he thinks people should pay? Diid he do that when he was making all of that money form his books? Yes, the Federal Government WILL accept voluntary payments. Cooper made it clear that this was his main ATTAACK. No, he ws not rally that much interested in the minor falsehood, if it were a falsehood, that Bachmann had received minor benefits from farm subsidies ("minor' in comparison to her overall income). What HYPOCRITE Cooper wanted to do, although he will not do it with regard to Democrat hypocrisy, is accuse Bachmann of being a HYPOCRITE for acceptig government money while opposing government spending. You should be able to see that Cooper is a LIAR. If you can't, I will explain it in the next article (on why it is NOT "hypocristy" for a person who opposes government spending to accept government money). For now, consider this: Bachmann and her family PAY TAXES (unlike many of the people from whom Obama and the Democrats want to buy votes). Further, OTHER FARMS get subsidies, and ALL farms are subject to certain restrictions in the whole "comprehensive" program. Why should Bachmann PUNISH her father-in-law, and herself, because the COUNTRY will not do what Bachmann believes the country should do.

The idea that one who opposes Big Government, but pays taxes for that Big Government, should accept no government money is ABSURD (more in that next article). As stated, I believe that the main thing of which you can accuse Bachmann is being too defensive about this. It is actully MORE HYPOCRITICAL for rich Democrats to not voluntarily pay higher taxes--whatever they think eveyrone should pay--because THEY are pushing for the very government spending that they say makes higher taxes "necessary". That is not ture of conservatives who accet government money to which they are entitled. Thos conservatives are already PAYING for that Big Government they OPPOSE. Why should they refuse to get some of their money back?

Nope. Anderson Cooper is a dishonest hypocrite. If she is smart, Michele Bachmann will take a page out of the CNN book. Now that she has a "high profile", and is a real factor in the race (meaning CNN now needs her more than she needs thme), she should give more SCRUTINY to whom she gives interviews. Before she ws known, she could not really be choosy. Now she can. No, like Democrats and Obama, she can give interviews to SELECTED mainstream media people, under very careful guidelines. But, as a "serious candidate (confrimed by this blog's endoresement), Bachmann should be serious about MANAGING her campaign. That means not worrying about dispeleasing DISHOONEST HYPOCRITE Anderson xCooper.

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

CNN, The Liar Network: When Did You Stop Beathing Your Wife? (The Mainstream Media Narrative on Bachmann)

I bet yo thought I was exaggerating when I previously told you that the mainstream media--including, it turns out, Fox News) is fond of asking questions that cannot be answered (literally) without hanging yourself. The classic law school example, and I have seen it often in my former life as a trial lawyer is: When did you stop beating your wife? You will note that answering the question at all admits that you have beaten your wife. I saw the CNN morning anchorwoman interview Michle Bachmann this morning and she almost LITERALLY asked that question--changing the words to fit the situation and present mainstream meedia narrative. Yes, you DO know that UNFAIR nrrative: that Michele Bachman is some sort of Joe Biden, who canot help from making misstatements and gaffes every single day. See Monday's articles, where I showed that Michele Bachmann's alleged misstatements are hardly in a league with those made by President Obama--much less Joe Biden (who said, with hardly a mainstream media peep, that FDR went on television to explain the 1929 stock market crash--Biden forgettting that televison had not yet been invented and that FDR was not President at the time of the stock market crash).

Here is the question: "A fact-checking group has found that 18 of 26--lol--of your statements it examined were false. WERE THESE JUST MISSTTEMENTS, OR WERE THEY INTENTIONAL."

I could never make this up. YOU try to figure out how AnYONE can answerf that without supposedly admitting that almost every statement the person mkes is false. "When did you stop beating your wife?"

What did Michele Bachmann do? Well, I would have ATTACKED the question, and I believe Bachmann is going to either have to do that or sTOP giving interviews to CNN and MSNBC. Not of mention Chris Wallace. But Bachmann handled it really well, when you consider that she has obviusly been told not to directly attack the questions. or the reporter.

Waht Bachmann said was: They were obviusly just misstatemetns, and not what the American people are concerned about. What lthe American people want to hear is how we are gonig to get jobs in this country, and get the economy moving again. Since the reporter had not listed the SUBSTANCE of the alleged falsehoods, this answer was harmless to Bachmann, even though it tacitly admitted that she had made lots of false statements.

This is especially true because The Liar Network then made its AGENDA obvious. The next question was whether the CNN/MAINSTREAM MEDIA NARRATIVE out thre (not put that way, of course) was not a major distraction to her campaign. Bachmann had no trouble with that question, because the only DISTRACTGION is the refusal of CNN and the rest to let her make her case (in favor of concentrating on these alleged "gaffes"). What would you do after Michele Bachmann refused to get flustered, and simply said that she was concentrating on the REAL ISSUES the American people are interested in, and therefore it is not a distraction. What the CNN reporter did (The Liar Network, remember) was to say, TWICE (after two perfectly reasonable attempts by Bachmann to answer the stupid question): "Well, I hear you, but it has to be a distraction for people to be talking about nothing but your false statements" (or words to that effect). I could never make lthis up. After Bachmann again reasonably ansered THIS, the reporter repeated AGAIN: "I hear you, but......" Michel Crichton ("Airframe") would again be proud of how accurately pegged these people (mainstream media). The reporter was NOT INTERESTED in INFORMATIN (as Bachmann well knew). She was only interested in forcing Bachmann to BREAK DOWN and sy somehting stupoid. The ONLY answer the reporter was going to accept was: "Yes, the distraction is terrible. I don't know how I can go on. My campaign has suffered a death blow, and YOU will get the credit for it from your similarly propagandist cohorts int he rest of the mainstream media."

Nope. This is digraceful stupp. It is EVIL stuff (when you LIE, and claim to "hear" an answer in which you are obviously not interested, because it is not the answer you want). There is a reason CNN EARNED the designation as The Liar Network. I assurel you that Bachmann did NOT "evade" the questin. Thereporter did not even accuse her of evading the question. The reporter simply did not like the answer, because it did not fit the NARRATIVE being pursued.

As Usual, I am not calling for a BOYOCOTT of CNN, because you are already doing that--without even being, for the most part, consciously aware of it.

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

Feminism: My Mother Is Disguted and Dismaeyed as She Realizes I am Out of the Closet as a Feminist

Yes, other people's mothers get distressed when their sons come out of the closet as homosexuals. I told my 89 year old mother that I had endorsed Michele Bachmann for President and she was DISMAYED. (No, like every other woman out ther, she does NOT read this blog..) My mother said: "This is getting ridiculous. All they have to do is drag a woman into the race, and you are ready to vote for her.."

What can I say? I have fought it and fouught it, but leftists, including the mainstreammedia, have forced me to come out of the closet as a FEMINIST (more a feminist than almost any of them). Any intelligent mother of a son would be distressed by this news.

Yes, it was SARAH PALIN who caused me to say I would support John McCain. I had to go back on that, because Joohn McCain remained JOHN MCCAIN. I could not take it. I still wanted to vote for Palin, and thought, correctly, that she was treated terribly because she happened to be an attractive, conservative Republican woman. Nope. If you think she is more "unqualified" to be President of the United States than Barack Obama was, and is,m you are deluded.

Then I voted for HILLARY in the Texas primmary. AND I vowed to support Hillary i the general election, against John McCain (which I did not do with Obama, although I refused to support McCain).

Now I have endoresed Michele Bachmann. You can see why I cn't fight it any longer, no matter how hard I try, and why my mother is so distressed.

She did not say this, but I know what she was thinking: "Why did you not just turn out to be homosexual like so many other modern boys. How am I going to be able to get over the SHAME. You are goig to force me into my grave, a bitter, shamed woman."

And I can't even contradict her. It is some sort of disease. My MIND keeps telling me all women are these vicious, mentally challenged people. And yet my HEROINES now are all women. Bibe if tge nakes rybbubgm ir wgi nat rybm aooeak ti ne tgat nycg (although I might vote for several of them if one of them gets to the general electon). Is there an AA program for this DISEASE?

Chris Wallace: Sexist, Leftist, Partisan Hack (Boycott Fox News--Don't Watch)

Yes, on Sunday Chris Wallace asked this INSULTING question of Michele Bachmann: "Are you a falke?" Michele Bachmann promptly SMAKCED DOWN Wallace by correctly saying she was insulted, and by stating her really impressive resume as a "serious person". Chris Wallace, useless parasite, could only dream of having a resume like that.

In context, it is worse. This blogmany months ago--in 2010--correctly designated Chris Wallace as a partisan political hck. It is standard Wallace technique to try for a "gotcha" moment. That is because Wallace has consistnetly shown himself to be the very eipitome of a modern "journalist", as described by the late Michel Crichton in his fine noevel of ides: "Airframe". The Crhichton thesis is that you have to realize theat themodern "jouurnalist" is NOT INTERESTED in actual information. The modern "journalist" is only interested in his or her narrative, and how that narrative can be advanced by unfariquestins where "information" is the very last thing the "journalist" wants. In the case of Chris Wallace, I would add a corollary: For "journalists" like the despicabvle wallace, it IS all abuot the question The idea is to confront someone with an insutling and/or unfair question, so that the "journalist" can achieve a "gotcha" moment. Who cares if lthe public gets any actuual information. This is all about the "JOURNALIST". It is intended to be all about the "joournalist". It is intended to advance the "career" and EGO of the "journalist". Yes, Chris Wallace, I have notthing but total CONTEMPT for yuo, and have said that in the past (long before your apology for this latest "journalistic" crime).

What, exactly,, did Wallace do, besides the insulting questioin itself.? What he did was take a LIST of supposed "gaffes" made by Michele Bachmann--therby devoting a good part of the interview time to a REHASH of the supposded worst moments of Michele Bacmann over a period of months or years, without rehashing any of her bet oments--and then suggesting that "people" want to know whether Michele Bachmann is a flake. As I said, in context, Wallace was WORSE than the quetion itself suggets. WHO are these "peopple" who want to know whether Michele Bachmann is a flake? Right. They are the people in CHRIS WALLACE'S circle of mainstram media/leftist people who look down on people like Michele Bachmann. The whole purpose of this question was to get Wallace approval from the mainstreaam media type of people. That has also become--to often--the goal of Fox News, which is "cricling the wagons" around Chris Wallace. That is why--after years of criticism--I have finally called for a BOYCOTT of Fox News. Fox News has always been part of the problem, rather than part of the solultioin. But I have come to a final decisioin that the "good" things about Fox News are now FAR outweighted by the bad. How can I calll for a boyctoo of Fox News, whhen I still intend to SURF Fox News on the same basis I now surf CNN, MSNBC and any number of other sources I don't respect? Well, I don't have a problem with you doing what I am doing, so long as you don't regularly watch Fox News, or surf it any more extensively than others. But you don't need to. I will tell you all you need to know. You would be better off listening to Rush Limbaugh and using Drudge for an overview of the news.

What about the "apology"? Well, I saw the Chris Wallace apology, and it confirmed every single bad thing I am saying about him. Yes, Mark Davis, on the Rush Limbaugh program (see yesterday's article: Mark Davis: Certified Idiot) said the "aplogy was sinncer and an abject admission of wrongdoing. lMark Davis is a CERTIFIED IDIOT. The Wallace apology was no such thing.

wallace starts off by sayng that he did not "intend" to "insult" Michele Bachmann. That is a LIE. What else to you call that litany of alleded "miistatements from Wallace, and the obvious INTENT to ask an "in your face" questioin? There is absolutely no doubt that Wallace INTENDED a "gotcha" question. So he is a LIAR, on top of everything else. His istake was a SEXIST istake. He thought he could get away with the over-the-top way he asked the question he INTENDED to upset her. Wallace thought he could get away with it, and that Bachmann could not handle it, because Bachmann is a WOMAN. But Bachmann handled it, and that is the ONLY reason for the Wallace apology. He looked BAD, and he knew it. His problem is that he now loooks WORSE. Yes, Fox should FIRE him, but that would not change my suggeted boycott of Fox News. Instead of firing Wallace, of course, Fox is totaly in COVER UP mode--even going so far as to ADMIT that Fox is NOT FAIR (see yesterday's articles). There is no redeeming Fox after that.

Nope. I am not done with this Wallace "apology". Wallace did say he "messed up", but obviously ONLY referred to his use of the word "flake'. Wallace did NOT apologize for his "gotcha" approach to the questin. l(Mark Davis: BITE ME--it goes without saying you should boycott Mark Davis, on the Rush Limbaugh program or his own radio show in Texas). This was made clear y the disgraceful final part of wallace's "apology", which showed you totallly who and what Wallace is (Michael Crichton would be proud to be vindicated on this level).

Why did Wallace say he asked this question? He said that tis (impression of Michel Bachmann as a falke) was "out there" (in Wallace's circles, and the circles in which he wants approval). Therefore, Wallace wanted to give Bachmann "a chance" (lol) to comment on this incestuous "criticism" of her on the Washington cocktail/social circuit, and in mainstream media circles.

Yes, you understand correctly. What Wallace was doing was ADMITTING--as virtually all of Fox News admitted all day yesterday--that Wllace was pushing the NARRATIVE of the mainstream media--a narrative that is INSULTING to Michele Bachmann. You just do not get any lower than Chris Wallace, unless you are in the mainstream media, or on Fox News. In his apology, Wallace really ADMITTED that he was INTENDING to "insult" Michele Bachmann, and his only regret is that he went over the top i the way he did it. Wallace even said: This has become about the question, which it should not be, since it is the answer that should get the attention.

Did I tell you that Wallace, in the apology, again proved himself a LIAR? If you do not understand anything else, or agree with anything else in this article, know this: Wallace INTENDED it to be all about the questin. He INTENDED to get "credit" for asking a "tough question" which caused Michele Bachmann to cry (or at least melt down in some way). Wallace wants a REPUTATION. It is like a gunslinger in the old West trying to get a reputatioin as a fast gun. That is what "gotcha' questions like this are about, and Wallace knows it. The "apology" made clear that all Wallace regrets is that the question did not work, and that he has been called on it.

"Wait a second," you say. Did not Wallace get in a big FIGHT with leftist Jon Stewart because Wallace tried to get Stewart to admit that Stewart was a leftist activist, and Stewart would not? Or something like that. Yes, but that is IRRELEVANT to this article. What did I just tell you about Wallace? He wants a REPUTATION. A "play" fight with Stewart--a comedian--is an easy way for Wallace to get a reputation (and punch up his ratings). That does not change that his questions of POLITICIANS usually push the mainstream media NARRATIVE, because that is where Wllace wants approval. This means you may get MILD "tough' questions of lefti politician, but not any real stingers. You won't hear Wallace asking a Dmocrat: Do you think Barack Obama was really qualified to be President of the United States." I GUARANTEE you that MORE PEOPLE wonder that than wonder whether Michele Bachmann is a "flake". It is well known, of course, that it is a DISHONEST way to cover BIAS and UNFAIRNESS for a "journalist" to ask a pquetion beginning: "People are saying...." It is even worse to justify a quesstion after the fact on that basis. "People" is often jut a word meaning "I", or "journalists liek me".

Nope. Chris Wallace IS a seixt, leftist, partisan political hack. No, I don't care what he calls himself I would GUESS he calls himself an "independent". So what? He has shown you who and what he is, as I told you LAST SUMMER.

Message to Mark Davis: Forget it. You are either incompetent or dishonest. As far as I am concerned, you are now a non-person.

Message to Rush Limbaugh: FIRE Mark Davis. By that, I mean never let him guet host your program again. No, I will not boycott you just for not taking this advice, but I will lose a little repect for you. I will lose even more respecvt if you come back and pull a Fox News: defending Mark Davis and/or criticizing Michele Bachmann in a way dsigned to bolster the absurd things that Davis said to make this problem about Michele Bachmann rather than about the despicable Chris Wallace.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad yeesight).

Michele Bachmann Should Be President of the Untied States

Yes, this blog has now officially endorsed Michele Bachmann for President of the United States. This decision came after I consulted my hidden, inner feminist self--pushed into again coming out of the closet by the sexist mainstream media and sexist Fox News.

Think of it. You former Obama supporters (surely there are not any current Obama supporters outside of the mainstream media) have the opportunity to make HISTORY, twoce. Yos, you can say you voted for the first African-American President of the Untied States and the first woman President of the United States.

And Christians get to vote for an actual Christian (as distingushed from the "secular humanist" that Barach Obama is--a pont on which I and Bill Maher, as declared agnostics, both agree: the point that Barack Obama is NOT a Christian).

Do you think I should form a group: AGNOSTICS FOR MICHELE BACHMANN? I will think about it. Maybe I can recruit Bill Maher.

Monday, June 27, 2011

Yahoo: Boycott Yahoo and Any Other Source Using the Despicable AP as Its Main Source for "News"

"AP Fact Check: Bachmann bomblets raising eyebrows"

The "Anti-American, Despiable Associated Press" (complete , official name, with the "Anti-American being formally made part of the name aftre a sseries of stories blaming the USA for alleged atrocities in the KOREAN WAR) is simply a PROPAGANDA operation Look at that current headline being now FEATURED on Yahoo "News". "Bomblets?" "Fact check? The day Bachmann announces. You now. I have NEVER SEEN an OBAMA FACTG CHECK ffrom the AP. See lthe previious article. And "bomblets" is INSULTING. That alone is a reason to BOYCOTT YAHOO.

Yep. The real reason I am posting this article, which appeared while I waS writing the previous two articles, is that it CONFRIMS what I said about Fox News in the previous article. Yes, this is pure Propaganda fro the despicable AP. But it is propganda also SPREAD BY FOX NEWS (probably with knowledge of this headline, as Fox News USES the desicable AP far too often). Yes, I am talking aoubt that ridiculous "John Wayne" sotry. Anyone who thinks that isworthy of a "fact check", or a "featrued" news story, whould be sent to a "journalist" research/training camp well in the Arctic Circle. This is absurd, and Fox (as Fox admitted) is PARTICIPATING in this UNFAIR PROPAGANDA.

Raising eyebrows? The only "eyebrows" raised, outside of the mainstrem media and similar leftist circles, are MINE. Yes, my eyebrows are raised because I have MADE my Sodom andGomorrah report on the desppicable Associated Press. You will remember that I had been assigned a Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest, competent AP reporter. After more than seven years of searching, I was confidently able to report that no such person exists. Why are my eyebrows raised? I ask you. Do YOU see any pillars of salt around? Have thunderbolts blasted AP offices. No wonder I am an agnostic. I had expected ACTION.

Yes, I did suggest a NEW Sodom and Gomorrah search: a search for a single, FAIR, Fox News reporter/personality. What I am afraid of is that this Sodom and Gomorrah search of the AP was PUNISHMENT. In other words, I am afraid I am already in HELL, where I had always expected to encounter ALL of the AP reporters. But I obviiously can't be allowed to KNOW I am in Hell, or it would not be Hell for me (with the AP down here with me). What if my report is rejected, and I am told to keep searching? Will that be enough to prove that this search is really my PUNISHMENT, for all eternity? I am afraid so.

Can any of you out there doubt that there is a mainstream media NARRATIVE on Michele Bachmann, which infects every story about her? I can't see how you can doubt it. And I further do not see how you can doubt that Fox News has chosen to PARTTICIPATE in that narrative, rather than ignore it (in favor of honest reporting).

See, again, the late Michael Crichton's "Airframe" (a great novel of ideas with the definitive analysis of today's "journalism'). Crichton's central insight is that today's "journalist" is NOT INTRESTED IN INFORMATION. All he or she is interested in is his or her own narrative, and finding things to support it. That is obviously true of the despicable AP. But it is also true of Fox News--Cavuto, Wallace and all of the rest who pick up an unfair narrative from the mainstream media (sometimes, of course, iniating one) and spreading it. INFORMATION--informing the public--is NOT the goal here.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight, and my fingers type worse as I get tired). And yesm, these people (the mainstream media, Fox, and all of the rest with the long knives out for Michele Bachmann) are just about to cause me to............................... To Hell with it. I now officially endorse Michele Bachmann for President of the United States. This blog will notw promote her candidacy. Not Rick Perry. Not Mitt Romney. Not Tim Pawlenty. I am now totally on the side of Michele Bachmann. What else could a CLOSET FEMINIST like me do? I think this must be Hell, when you people out there keep FORCING me to come out of the closet as a feminist. What the Hell 2: BOYCOTT FOX NEWS. I will continue to surf for material, but I no longer consider Fox News a reliable source of news on ANYBODY. Take it all with barrels of salt, if you do not take my advice to BOYCOTT FOX NEWS. I now put Fox News in the same category as tthe despicable AP, CNN and MSNBC (along with the ret of the mainstream media). Michael Crichton had it right as to them ALL. How can Republicans get me to OPPOSE their nominee (when I wouldnow be open to all except Huntsman and Gingrich)? Easy. MISTREAT MICHELE BACHMANN AND YOU ARE TOAST.

Barack Obama and Michele Bachmann: Who Is the Bigger Flake?

Yes, this article was going to be the article about Chris Wallace (partisan, leftist political hack). But I thought of this, and decided to dash it off.

You know those things Chirs Wallace and Brit Hume ga e as examples of how Michele Bachmann may be a "flake". I especailly like (sarcasm) the Brit Hume exmaple of Bachmann mistating that John Wayne came from Waterloo, Iowa, when his parents only lived there a while and he, himself, had lived 150 miles away. Now THAT is a burning issue in the country. Yes, I think Michele Bachmann, and ALL Republicans, should start ATTACKING the media, including Fox News, over making so much out of these absurdities.

What Has Barack Obama said (only a partial list):

1. My health care bill will save small businesses 3,000 % (talk about a subsidy, if only it had been true).

2. 1,000 people died in that tornado in Kansas, and the National Guard was depleted because of President Bush. (13 or so people died, and the governor of Kanasas, now in the Obama cabinet, denied that there was any problem with the National Buard response)

3. Doctors are waiting for an amputation to be necessary, rather than doing preventive diabetes care, because they get 30,000, 40,000 or even 50,000 for an amputation. (Slander on doctors to try to push Obamacare bill. Of course, the docotrs involved in preventive care and the surgeons performing amputations are NOT the same doctors. Ah. But the beaut is that "$30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 amputation--numbers may have been 20,000, 30,00 or 40,000, but you get the idea. It turns out that the SURGEON"S fee for an amputation is usually somewhere between $500--under Medicare, I believe, or similar insurance/government restriction--and maybe 3,000. Hey, for Obama to be off a factor of 10 is not bad. He was off a factor of 100 or so about that Kansas tornado.

4. I have campaigned in all 57 states, or words to that effect. (For youo Obama supporters, there are only 50 states)

5. Misquoting the Declaratin of Independence, by LEAVING OUT the reference to "Creator".

I could go on, but you get the idea. But what about that speech a last week? A year or two ago, Obama awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor POSTHUMOUSLY (after death, if I end up not spelling this correctly). Obama actually gave the award to the PAREANTS. Well, i this speech in the last week or so, Obama gave this affecting story about how he hadd given the Medal of Honor to a LIVE recipient, maybe even saying that he pinned the medal on his chest.

I ashk you: Has Michele Bachmann EVER made a mmistake this bad? No, I don't think she has made a mistake as bad as miszuoting the Declartion of Independence, either. And I think Republicans should stop answering these ridiculous questions without FIRST bringing up one of the many OBAMA examples. "Have you asked President Obama why he left "by their Creator" out of the Declaration of Independence? When you do, I will anser yoru ridiculous quesdtion. In the meantime, let us concentrate on the imprtant issues". Or: "Hae you asked President Obama why he said he pinned the mMedal of Honor on a live man, when the awaard was actually posthumous, and the man was dead?......" And so on.

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

Fox News: Fair and Balanced? Forget "Fair", Fxo Admits (Villanins Cavuto and Brit Hume)

You have heard the promo from Fox News: Fair and balanced. I have told you previsouly that I actually think Fox is fairly balanced (especailly in comparison with everyone else), but NOT "fair". I bet yu thought Fox would never ADMIT I was righ about that? Think again. Fox did admit it TODAY (Monday).

Don't ever doubt me on this. I have criticized Cavuto before ("Your World on Fox). He is not bad on pure economics, but on anyting else he is TERRIBLE (a disgreace). I saw his interview with Newt Gingrich, and it amounted to about the worst interview I have ever seen on televisioin.

Yes, I have told you, correctly, that Newt Gingrich will never be President. I told you that years ago--as far back as 2008, and multiple times since. Further, I have said I would not vote for Newt Gingrich for President, even against Barach Obama. That said, I am FAIR. Fox is NOT, and Cavuto ADMITTED it!!!!

At least five times-it seemed like more--in abut a 15 minute interview, Cavuto started off questions with "it may not be fair, but...." Oh the wording may have slightly varied. Sometimes it was: "It may be unfair, but...." What folowed th "but"? You know that.

Yes, Gingrich was DESPERATELY trying to tell me--futitilely, it is true--why he would make a good President. You know. Gingrich was trying to talk abut UNIMPORTANT things like JOBS and the ECONOMY, and what Obama is doing wrong and what Gingrich woud do bettter. Cavuto, of course, could see that. But ALL Cavuto was interested in was the resignations of all of those staffers, and whether it dooms Gingrich's campaign. Okay. ONE question. That is alll the slack I give. This story on the rsignation of Gingich staff is now TOW WEEKS old, or more. Enough, already. What does it have to do with whether Gingrich should be President? Even it has some SMALL, tangential relevance, the public already KNOWS all it needs to know on the subject. I will say that Gingrich soldiered on. Question after question came his way on the subject of how "it may be unfair, but..."--followed by a question again trying to suggestg that Gingrich has no business even tryig to go on. Time after time, Gingrich would respond by referring to Ronald Reeagan, and how his staffers had quit in 19810, and then TRY to talk about a substantive reason people should consider him for President. Cavuto kept IGNRING the answers, and going back to the same subject again. Cavuto simply would NOT let Gingrich talk about real issues. ALL Cavuto would let Gingrich talk about was what CAVUTO said was the UNFAIR OBSESSION with Gingrich's staff problems. It was only in the last two minutes that Gingrich got any FAIR questions at all.

No, that is not all. Cavuto SANK himself as a "journalist" FOREVER, in my discerning eyes. Cavuto is not worth watching--now or ever, on anything. Why do I come to this conclusion? On more than one occasion, Cavuto brougt up GINGRICH'S WIFE--obviusly suggeting the wife is behind all of Gingrich's trubles.

Now readers of this blog know that it is people like Cavuto--despicable human beings trying to be UNFAIR--who have forced me out of the closet as aFEMINIST (think of yourself being called a NAZI, by YOU, to realize the devastating effect this has on my self-image). Yes, what RELEVANCE does it have whether Gingrich's wife has a big influence on his campaign. Abigail Adams had a BIG influece on John Adams. So what? You can argue it was mainly for the good, although Abigail was accused of being behind the infamous "Alien and Sedition Acts". In this day and age Cavuto is saying that we need to be CRITICALLY examining the role a wife is playing in a political campaign? When the candidate takes full responsibility? Iam OFFENDED on behalf of wives and women I have yet AGAIN been driven out of the closet to admit I am a closet feminist. Cavuto, for that alone you are gong to be condemned to HELL, if Hell exists.

Nope. Not done. Then came the beginnig of the "O'Reilly Factor", with Juan Williams (antoher partisan political hack, although he does better as host than as guest). standing in for O'Reilly. Brit Hume was a guest. Now Brit Hume is the man I respect MOST in modern "journalism" (admittedly, not saying much). Therefore, it pains me to say that Brit Hume seeems to have been consciouslyl a part of the "cricle the wagons" defense of Chris Wallace (see previous article early today on Mark Davis, and the next article to bel posted on this blog). Williams asked Hume about Michele Bachmann, and guess what the disgracefu answer was?

Yep. You guessed it. It was Hume channeling his inner Cavuto, and his inner Chris Wallace. At least TWWO times, Hume said that it MAY BE UNFAIR, but Bahmann is gong to face a Plain-type DEMONIZATION from the mainstream media, and that made it unlikely that she could beat Barack Obama. Hume emphasized that the mainstream media would UNFAIRLY pick at every mistake Bachmann makes, and blow up each such mistake. Now you would THINK that Fox would do its best to MKE UP for this 'unfairness", at least to the extent of being scupulously fair themselves? Not on your life. Not this UNFAIR version of Vox News that is evolving. Nope. Rather, Hume proceeded to cite a Wallace-type EXAMPLE of tghe "unfair blowing up of small gaffes" that Bachmann will face. The more I think about it, the more I believe this was a dEFNESE of Chris Wallace, without ever having the guts to mention his name. I am ashamed for Brin Hume. He used to be better than that. Oh? The smear? The unfair smear? Evidently Bachmann has said more than once that John Wayne "came from" Waterloo, Iowa, where Bachmann was born. It evidently turns ut that John Wayne actually lived a whole 150 miles away, and that only his father and mother had lived in Waterloo for a short time. I know. I did not believe it either? Birt, you have the NERVE to talk about 'unfairnesss", and then give THAT stoury as an example of how petty YOU can be--saying all of the time that it is not YOU who would be so unfair as to blow up a story liek that.

When will I call for a BOYCOTT of Fox News? I am gald you asked me that. SOON. Yes, I have about had it with the smiling HYPOCRITES of Fox News, making money off of being "fair" to conservatives while ADMITTING it is being just as UNFAIR as the maninstream media. In fact, what were Birt Hume, Chris Wallace and Cavuto all telling you? They were telling you that they felt they had NO CHOICE but to follow the mainstrream media UNFAIR narrative. Why is that? I NOW what it is for Chris Wallace, and other at Fox. They want ACCEPTANCE in those mainstream media circles, and that means adopting the mainstream media nrrative in questioning. Cavuto, I think, is jut an indiot accepting that he is not a good interviewer--meaning he falls back on the mainstream media narrative as an a "guideline' on how to do an interview--asking what they would ask, although even MORE STAUPIDLY. As stated, I believe Brit Hume is just trying to cover for Chris Wallace.

So mcuh for "ari and balanced". Fox News contains some of the most UNFAIR peope in media. "Soon" (that call for boycottt) is comging closer. As it is, I suggest you do what I do. SURF Fox, CNN and even MSNBC to get a sense of the NARRATIVE out there. Take everything you hear--including on Fox--with a barrel of salt. Then read this blog for the truth. Or surf elsewhere on the net. Check in on Rush Limbaugh. Check out Drudgee. No, you don't NEED Fox. You don't NEED CNN. You definitely don't need YAHOO (boycott Yahoo)/AP "News". If you look at a variety, however, you can figure out what is going on (so long as you don't make the mistake of BELIEVING what you see and hear). Oh, you can believe ME, if you can get past the typpos. I have been right so often, it is beeginning to get a little boring. It is about time I was proven wrong on something, to add a little spice. To my recollection (admittedly a little biased), I have not been roven wrong for at least TWO YEARS.

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

Keith Olbermann, Despicable Human Being (Blog Proven Right Again--BOYCOTT YAHOO)

For the leftist politcal hacks at Yahoo "News", Keith Olbermann is IMPORTANT. Two times in the past three weeks or so he has been FEATURED as THE featured picture story on my default page provided by Yahoo "News" (AT&T internet welcome page). The one a few weks ago was all breathless about Olbermann getting a NEW SHOW just like his old one (after he was THROWN OFF MSNBC). Today's story was about how Olbermann has been RELEASED by the New York Yankees. Now this is hardly like releasing Alex Rodriguez or Mariano Rivera, and most people would regard it as unimportant, but for the LEFTISTS at Yahoo is was the featured story of the day.

No, I have AOVIDED featuring Olbermann for years. It was YEARS ago that I labeled Olbermann as one of the most obnoxiuos, despicable human beings that has ever lived.--the WORST "journliast"/"news" host who has every lived. Then I abandoned him as not worth the trouble, and unimportant.

But I figrure this is worth an "I told you so". This guy has managed to get FIRED by BOTH MSNBC (lol--look at the people still there) and the New York Yankees. Has any person ever been PROVEN more right than I have been, and on a statement that you would never expect I could be vindicated to this extent. And this is TWICE in one day. See the previous article, where I show I have been VINDICATED as to Chris Wallace.

Mark Davis, Certified Idiot

No, I am not certifing Mark Davis as an idiot because he can't spell his own name. ("Marc" is clearly the correct spelling.)

Hackr Boy breaknig in): "Skip, where do you get off suggesting that "Marc" is the conventional spelling, and "Mark" the weird spelling. I seem to recall that the Biblical "Mark" is spelled that way."

Skip: Well, Hacker Boy is probably right But my BROTHER spells his name 'Marc'. Blood is thicker than water. I am willing to slam a conservative like Mark Davis, who I do NOT consider a brother, but I am unwilling to slam my own brotehr and mother (who named him, obviously not that familiar with the Bible, although she chides me for being an agnostic)."

Mark Davis (digression over) is the guest host today of the rush Limbaugh program. He is from Texas. Alll not good enough. He is still a certified idiot. You will remember that this blog correctly labeled Chris Wallace (Fox News) as a PARTISAN POLITICAL HACK (meaning a leftist, mainstream media partisan political hack). You may have though--fool that yoiu are--that I could never be PROVEN right on this. After all, Wallace is on Fox. How far does he DARE go in spouting the mainstream media/Keith Olbermann/Rachel maddow/Wolf Blitzer party line?

Well, Chris Wallace lost it on Sunday, and made it crystal clear who he is. He asked Michele Bachmann this question: "Are you a flake?" No, I smply could not make this up. Michele Bachmann said she was "insulted". Good fr her. I woud probably have haulte doff an decked him. IMAGINE Chris Wllace asking Barack Obama that because Obama once said his health care bill was going to save small businesses "3,000%" on their health care insurance premiums. Even when Obama was a mere candidate, Wallace woud NEVER have asked Obama, or other Democrats: "Are you really qualified to be President?" Yes, Wllace asked that about Sarah Palin. This is not only a bvery good reason not to watch Wallace, but it is a very good reason not to have any loyalty to Fox News (more modern "journalists" than compoetent "journalists'). Since at least one of myu own articles has previously--last fal--labeled Wallace, correctly as a partisan political hack, you see how this latest Wallace meltdown has PROVEN me correct.

What does this have to do with Mark Davis? Well, Mark Davis was jumping all over MICHELE BACHMANN. No, I could never make this up. He was jumping all over Michele Bachmann for "not accepting Wallace's apology and moving on". Even before that, Davis prettry much defended Wallace.

Message to Mark Davis: If you are a conservative, and criticize Michele Bachmann for not accepting an apology, rather than partisan hack Chris Wallace for being part of the mainstream media, pack, then you are NOT MY KIND OF CONSERVATIVE. I don't even like Newt Gingrich (politically), and have been willing to defend him from unfair attacks. You should examine your soul, mMakr, change our first name, and see if you can look at things clearly again.

No. This is NOT a minor thing. First, Michele Bachmann is dong conservative a VAVOR by exposing Chris Wallace for who and what he is. Second (youi IDIOT, Mark Davis), NO "jounalist" , or selfl-respecting person, should be ASKING Michele Bachmann whether she is "accepting" Chris Wallace's aopology. Who in the HELL is Chris Wallace that Michele Bachmann should dignify him with that kind of importance. And this whole business of "apologies", and "accepting apologies", and making a big deal out of that (a lbigger deal than the CRIME for which apology is being made) illustrates why everyone should hold the mainstrream media in absolute CONTTEMPT. If I were Michele Bachman, that is what I would be saying in REFUSING TO TALK ABOUT CHRIS WALLACE. I would say that I am focusing on jobs, since President Obama is clearly not willing to do it, and that I am not willing to discuss STUPID media "controversies". They can discuss it among themselves. As far a I (Bachmann) am conerned, it is a minor thing in the past. If you media people lcannot worry about more important things then this, then noboobdy should pay any attention to you. (Yes, getting abck in my own skin, it is ALREADY clear to most people that they should pay NO attention to media peoople, including many of those on Fox News).

Yes, Mark Davis has bought into this mainstream media narrative, and that makes him STUPID. Or is he? Doe he have an gaenda? Maybe.

The other stupid thing Mark Davis did on today's Rush Limbaugh program wa do substantial propaganda on behalf of Rick Perry. Now there is a good chance Perry (MY governor for ten years) will annnounce his candidacy for President of the United States in the nesxt month or so. Davis went out of his way to dismiss CONSERVATIVE criticism (in Texas) of Rick Perry. As I have previouisly informed you, Richk Perry is NOT a "principled conservative". He is much more like George W. Bush, and was, in fact, Bush's lieutenant governor. If you live in Texas, and think otherwise, then you are an idiot for that aone. As I have said, Rick Perry MAY turn into an ACCEPTABLE Presidential nominee. But if you regard him as a "principled conservative", you will be disappointed.

But is Mark Davis a Rick Perry supporter (as a matter of state pride or personal interest)? Maybe so. In that capacity, Davis has an incentive to RUN DOWN Michele Bachmann. If Perry runs, he will be fighting mainly Michele Bachmann for the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Perry is never going to challenge Romeny for the "let's pick a safe winner", pragmatic wing of the Republican Party, even though I consider Romney and Perry as not being very different.

Forget motivation. That is mainlyl cable TV specualtion of the kind I rightly condemn. Let us just say that Mark Davis is an idiot, and leave it at that. Maybe Rush will do better next time in his choice of guest hosts. The other Marc, who spells lhis name correctly, is much better.

Jon Huntsman, Michele Bachmann, Mike Huckabee and Herman Cain:: I Wish You Would Spell Your Names Correctly

Yes, what Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, Michele Bachmann and Mike Huckabee have in common is that I have spelled their names differently from the way they spel their names. I would have said that I spelled their names WRONG, except that I bewlieve it is THEY wo are spelling their own names wrong. Should a person be President who cannot spell his or her name right.

Look at Jon Huntsman. You and I both know how to spell "Hohn". Jon Huntsman does ot. And his own staff called him on it. When he announced for President, his staff issued some sort of rather prominent document identif;ying him as "John Huntsman".

Then there is MICHELE Bachmann. Okay . I admit I have spelled her LAST name "bochman", but what kind of spelling is "Bachmann" anyway. But look at that FIRST name!!!! Who spells "Michelle" as Michele". I don't even think she PRONOUNCES her name right, if she is going to spell it that way.

Mike Huckabee? What kind of name is "Huckabee"? It looks STUPID. I like my spelling a lot bettr: "Huckaby".

Herman Cain? Does he really WANT a last name of the most famous borther-killer of all time? Or have I got my Bible story mixed uP? Isn't it Cain that slew Abel, or do I have it reversed. It is hard to keep these things straight. But has the Herminator never heard of "Citizen Kane".

I ask you: Have these people really spelled their names right?

How do I even catch on that famous people are spelling their names wrong? Well, I can't SEE names flashed on a television screen. But I CAN--almost--see names in the AP /Yahoo headlines that appear on my "Welcome" screen when I go online. As you know, I keep that default screen because of my futile Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest, competent AP reporter. What this means is that the despicable AP almost NEVER puts some of these names in its headlines. Bachmann was a heroine of mine for at least a year before I finally saw her name in an aP headline (after the debate). And even then I did not notice how she spells her first name. I can't pick up letters that easily, unless I REALLY try to puzzle them out letter by letter. I never even dreamed that Michele Bachmann would spell "Michelle" that way. Same with Herman Cain. And I don't even feel lbad about John Huntsman, whose own staff did not know how he spells his first name.

Could I not look these things up? Yes. And I do, when I see something that makes me think I am spelling the name differently than the person is spelling his or her own name. But there are only two here that I feel I really should have looked up and/or noticed earlier: "Huckabee" and "Bachmann". That is because my spelling of "Bochman" is not much better than hers. The only reason I can think of that I did not look up that name--after all, she is a HEROINE of mine--was that I got it in my head that I HAD seen the name spelled "bochman". And--who knows--maybe I had. But I feel bad about it. Nope. I refuse to feel bad about "Michele". Huckabee--who I have knnown about since the late 1990s when he was a regular on the Imus in the Morning radio program, is another matter. I think eve the despicable AP has put "Huckabee" in headlines. My mind has obviously passed over it. My mind obviously considers Huckabee" a ridiculous name. My mind is right. And I have never much liked Huckabee, even back in the day when he was governor of Arkansas and appearing with John McCain on Imus all of the time My spelling of "Huckaby" may not be some sort of outstanding name either, but it is BETTER than "Huckabee". However, I do think thre is a MENTAL BLOCK I have with Huckabee. I even spelled his name wrong AFTER I had said, in this blog, that I had spelled his name wrong. I think that is clearly a Freudian, mental block.

Have I spelled all of these names right--fully right--even now? Who kows? It is the kind of thing I refuse to worry to much about. I used to look pu Arnold's name all of the time (that Democrat sleazeball in California who posed as aRepublican). But I could never fix the spelling in my mind, and I got tired of lokkng t up. So I just called him "Governor Arnold". EVERYONE, of course, calls the Duke coach "Coach K". Names truly are not that imporatant, but I am sure it frustrates people when other people get their names wrong. My two daughters blame ME (and their mother) for naming them "Kenda" and "Kyla". MANY people get those names wrong. And it annoys my daughters. As I said, however, they are mainly annoyed at ME for sticing them with those names. Kenda is often told, in effect, that she is spelling her name wrong (Kenda" innstead of "Kendra"). Come to think of it, I think she IS spelling her name wrong. We obviously meant to name her "Kendra"!!!!!!

P.S. Since I can't see (much), as described above, there is no proofreading or spell checking.

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Repunlican Fantasy Weekend: Balanced Budget Amendment and Sincere Conservatives

See the previous two articles. Are there not SINCERE conservatives, in Congress and out, who really believe that a "nalanced nudget amendment is the ONLY final answer to the spending urge of politicians of both parties? don't I know lthat the Amendment now being proposed contains a spending cap (a Constitutioonal amendment I would certainly favor, as contained in my first article on the subject this weekend), and that the adherents of a balanced budget amendment propose spending cuts and spending caps in the meantime, as a "price" of raising the debt limit?

Yes, I am perfectly aware of all of that. It is still all FANTASY. Thee is abaolutely no way a balanced budget amendment, other than one with so many loopholes it is a fraud, will get through the United States Senate. No, I don't have any problem with Republicans proposing a "balanced budget amendment" (with teeth), as a stand alone thing. What I have a problem with is proposing the balanced budget amendment as a SOLUTION to the present deficit problem. Yes, I see both the Democrats and the Repubican establishment USING "true believers" to hold a "carrot" of possible action on a balanced budget amendment before conservatives, so long they hold off spending cuts to the indefinite future. I KNOW Republicans are TALKING like that won't happen, but they tALKED that way before the 2010 budget "deal". It is too tempting, for politicians, to get some sort of FACE SAVING PROMISE on a "balanced budget amendment"--which they cannot possibly get passed in this Congress, with the idea of it being a POLITICAL GAIN. But what do the "true believers" do when they are faced with the rEALITY that they will not GET a balanced budget amendment--at least no until they rEFUSE to raise the debt limit for a LONG TIME?

That is my whole problem with the concept of putting the balanced budget amendment as FIRST PRIORITY in the debt limit fight. What I suggeted Republicans do is pass a VERY SHORT TERM, small, debt limit extension with the EXPRESS NOTICE that either REPUBLICAN SPENDING BILLS/BUDGET BILLS get passed, or there will be no further debt limit extension. And then concetrate on UNILATERALLY cutting spending, recognizing that Democrats are not going to aloow Meidcare to be transformed in this Congress and are not going to flly repeal ObamaCare. Put Democrats and Obama to the choice of either accepting MAJOR SPENDING CUTS< or not getting the debt ceiling raised. I tend to think it would be a good thing if Republicans REFUSED TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING by the deadline.

Yes, I would WITHDRAW my criticism of the balanced budget amendment--at least most of it--if Republicans were willing to refuse to pass the debt cciling unless BOTH a balanced budget amendment and spending cuts are PASSED first. In other words, either RepublicaNs should be serious about a blanced budget amendment, WITH TEETH, or they should not be throwing it arond as a "bargaining chip". As a "bargaining chip< I stand by every criticism I have leveled. It smacks WAY too much of "politics as usua" The problem here is whether the Repulicans in Congress are going to agree to another SHAM deal that contains no real CURRENT budget/spending cuts. It seems clear to me, and really everyone else, that such ws the diretion the "bipartisan" budget talks were headed. As with the 2010 budget "deal", Democrats are aiming for a FRAUDULENT "deal" announcing trillions of dollars of spendnig cuts IN THE FUTRE (probably way in the future), rather than cutting spending now. Both the balanced budgetr amendemnnt and the "payroll tax cut/holiday", seem to me to be merely political ploys to CONCEAL the ultimate lack of action on CURRENT SPENDING. I hepe I am wrong on that. I know some Republicanss are willing to make me wrong on that. But those Repulicans are being USED, if Republicans in general fail to act on current spending--or even INCREASE the deficit with extra "stimulus" spending and tax gimmicks.

Yes, Republicans are pushing things--or seeming to push things--like the balanced budget amendment that they cANNOT GET without actually refuseing to raise the debt limit. Okay. I am ready for that fight, and even encourage it (the willingness to engage in that fight being the entire basis of the ANTI-SPENDING strategy I proposed. But you have to be willing to accept the CONSEQUENCES of that strategy. If all lyou get is a "politics as usual" bill, then your failure will be OBVIOUS. In other words, if you really BELIEVE that a balanced budget amendment is the ONLY way to approach this poblem, or at least the most important thing to the point it is the main thing you talk about, then it is NOT good enough to suggest you "fought the good fight" and were prevented from succeeding by those EVIL Democrats. If it is really THAT imporaant, then "fighting the good fight" means NOT RAISING THE DEBT CEILILNG unless you get PASSAGE of a balanced budget amendment.

No, I do NOT think the balanced budget amendment, which itself solves NO present fiscla problem, is viewed as that important by MOST Republican politicians. IF Republicans were willing to FIGHT for my (or something like it) proposed amendment limiting spending, then I would be for it. But I don't think Republicans in general are willing to go to the mat for a Constitutonal Amendment wither like I propose or like they propose. This makes it all look like POLITICS, and like Republicans are AVOIDING the REAL FIGHT over where to CUT SPENDING (not 10 years in the future, but NOW).

Refusing to raise the debt ceilig is high stakes poker. Are lRepublicans really willing to follow through on their bluff--showing it is NOT a bluff? I ddoubt it. This will then be followed by "shut down the government" votes on lspending, if Republicans do NOT resolve those issues bky September 30 (which is what Republicans should be doing NOW, in my view). No, refusing to raise the debt ceiling does NOT "shut down the government", but it has a similar problem in terms of what you do when OBAMA decides that he no longer has authority to send out soldiers' checs, or lspend money on Medicare? Are Republicans really up to facing that? I realy doubt it. I have seen no evidence they are, outside of the Tea Party minority.

Sorry. I will not back off my criticism of this RHETORICAL concentration on a "balanced budget amendment". Despite the "true believers'" (of whom I would count myself as one, except I don't buy into fantasy), my judgment is that this is POLITICAL POSTURING. In short, I believe that the Republican "leadership" is fullly willing to SELL OUT the "true believers" in exchange for a "face saving" "deal".

Problem for the Republican leadership: Expecially after the farce of the previous budget "deal", not to mention the "deal" on the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2010, the "leaderhip" may have used up all of its credibility Yes, I am sayng that MAYBE the "leadership" will be unable to get done what I fully believe they want to gt done. If so, it serves them right, and they deserve it. If lyou don't rally believe in the things you are saying, and are trying to MISLEAD your own voters (not just the opposition) as to the principles in which you believe, then you deserve what you get. In this case, that would either be a REVOLT in the rank and file or a reluctant "leadership" being dragged into a debt ceiling increase REFUSAL that they don't want. It may have come down to the same thing, since the leadership has no real principles, but my positon is that they would have been better off fighting this battle all along on CURRENT SPENDING issues that HAVE to be resolved by September 30.

Unless Republicans plan to agree to yet another "continuing resolultion" that the Speaker of the House said he would AVOID. Yep. That is another way Republicans could get me REALLY MAD at them--the other way being a sham "deal" that aovids tough spending choices for CURRENT SPENDING: If you see Republicans agreeing to a "continuing resolution"--especially one big bill--to keep the government running after September 30, then you KNOW that the Repubican Party has fully lost me. Already, of course, I say that I am not a Republican. But I am about ready to affirmatively support a third party--whatever the short term consequences of that (a conservative third party) may be.

This has nothing to do with insisting that the Repubican Party do what I want, or I take my marbels home. It has to do with the Republican Party engaing in a minimal amount of HONESTY and willingness to STAND LUP for what they supposedly believe. I can vote for a Republican who does not agree with me on gay marriage. I cannot vote for a Republican who continually LIES to me, with the idea I have nnowhere to go. Yes, I do. So I could vote for Mitt Romney, despite RomneyCare, but I cn't vote for Mitt Romney if I come to the view that he really is a man who tells me SOME of what I want to hear, but does not believe a word of it. Mitt Romney ,of course, has the great advantage of not being in Congress, along with most other Presidential candiates (outside of Michelle Bachmann, who will probably vote against all of this stuff anyway--including any final "deal"). Therefore, I am gong to have to judge based on my own view of the sincerity of the candidates, and my view of whether they will STAY BOUGHT (in other words, stand behind their conservative rhetoric, whether they believe it or not).

eanwhile, I continue to cringe whenever a Republican--even Michelle Bachmann--mentins how a "balanced budget amendment" is such an important part of this battle. Even if it is an important battle in its own right, I am confident it is not an important part of THIS BATTLE. If it is a sticking point that prevents the debt ciling from being raised, then I will have been wrong about that. But I am no tsure I will have been wrong about the Republicans fighting the wrong battel at the wrong time. It is important to deal in the REAL wold, and not i a fantasy world. You may think it is obvious I live in a fantasy world of my own, but I assure you that is not true. Would I,for example, refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless a Constitutional Amendment is passed doing away with Roe v. Wade (one of my darest wishes)? Nope . Yes, I know that abortion is not "related" to the debt celing, but I also know that no balanced budget amendment is gong to pass (not a real one) n this Congress. One is just as much fantasy as the other.

Republican and Democrat Fraud: Budgets and Spending (as Republican Fantasy Weekend Continues)

What did my previous article show you? It showed you that "The Emperor Has No Clothes". As the article showed, it is an absolute fact that Republicans can FORCE a "balanced budge"--force the government to spend only what it receives in money--which makes it absurd for Republicans to talk as if they don't have that POWER. Nop. It does not matter if Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency. The government cannot spend any money not authorized by the REPUBLICAN House.

Doubt me that the "Balanced Budget Amendment" is only cynical politics as usual? Don't!!! I actually saw one of those "panel discussions" of "journalists" (in their dreams) discussing why Republicans are RETHINKING the idea of forcing a vote (maybe as part f a CAVE on real spending cuts) in the Senate on a balanced budget amendment. Read my previous article. The SOLE purpose of Republicans, in pushing the idea of a balanced budget amendment in the first place (which they KNOW will fail to pass) is to put DEMOCRATS "on record" as being against a balanced budget. Forget it that REPUBILCANS are "on record" as opposing a blanced budget when they pass deficit spending bills. Remember, the REPUBLICAN House has to approve EVERY spending bill, or the bill cannot become law. Yep. Pepublicans have a VETO over spending at the present time. They don't HAVE to pass any budgett, or any spending bill, that they don't want to pass. This is all about FANTASY, and not reality. The Republican idea is to POSTURE in a FANTASY vote that they know will lose. But this panel suggested, and I agree with them on this, that Democrats may be more than willing to have a "balanced budget amendment" vote in the Senate. It takes only 34 votes to defeat a proposed Constitutional Amendment. There are something like 53 Democratic Senators. Even with no Republicans voting against, some 19 Democratic Senators cn vote for the "balanced budget amendment" and still have it FAIL. What the panel did not say--cynical, but not cynical enough, although I think they implied this--is that many REPUBLICANS would vote for the balanced budget amendment for the very same reason most of those 19 Democrats might: TO GET REELECTED. Thus, while Republicans might plnan to aid Republican candidates in "red states" with souch a vote, it might well BACKFIRE. Taht is because it gives Democrats in redd states an opportunity to say they voted FOR a "balanced budget amendment" in a MEANINGLESS vote.. The whole point of theis Republican Fantasy Weekend series of articles (which mayextend beyond the weekend), is that these political games are NOT ACCEPTABLE. You, as voterrs, should HURT (by means of your vote, or withholding it) politicians who play these games--whether Michelle Bachmann, Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. I mention Michelle Bachmann because she is one of the LEAST LIKELY to play games, and yet I often get the feeling she is. Before the 2010 election, I told you that the ONLY Republican in the United States Senate (taking into account I don't know a few of themm that well) who I would not THROW OUT is Jim Demint (and I was not too sure about him). Rand Paul, Mike Leigh, Marco Rubio, and maybe another one or two were added in 2010. But Republican politicians are primarily game players, and it is no longer acceptable (if it ever was).

But what about the Democrats? Ah, as far as fantasy politics this is like going from Class A (Republicans) to the major leagues (Democrats). Democrats have not even passed a budget in mor than TWO YEARS. What does a "balanced budget amendment" have to say when Congress, or one branch of Congress (Democratic Senate right now), simply does not pass a budget? Yes, this is basically ILLEGAL. But ther is NO TEETH in budget procedural requirements and all of the rest. Democrats, even while controling BOTH houses of Congress (first two years of the Obama Administration), simply refuse to pass a budget if they feel it will POLITICALLY hurt them. That, alone, is reason enough to vote against EVERY sintgle Democrat in Congress.

But you have heard from the Democrats how they have "inherited" this mmess from President Bush, and how Bush "started" all of thesee big deficits. Now we graduate from tantasy to the Orwellian Big Lie. DEMOCRATS controlled BOTH HOUSES of Cnngress as of January of 2007. Indeed, you can argue that the ONLY thing that was DIFFERENT when our economy collapsed, in 2008m8, was DEMOCRATIC CONTROL of Congress. Now that may be taking the argument further than it can really supportt, but it is absolutely true that dEMOCRATS controlled every single spending bill that passed Congress after January of 2007. In fact, Democrats controlled almost all of the domestic agenda. You could not even get a VOTE in the Senate unless Harry Reid approved it. It boggles my mind that Republicans don't make a big point of this, except that establishment Republicans are too afraid it will amount to a criticism of President Bush (who collaborated with Democrats in too mcuh of this, including the Wall Street bailouts).

But what about Pressident Obama.? He has said that he was surprised by how Washington worked, and he ran as an OUTSIDER, as if he were coming to Washington as a completely new experience. That is the BIGGEST LIE of all. President Obama has NOT failed for just 2 and one half years. He has FAILED for FOUR and one half years. That is how long Barack Bobam has been either part of the MAJORITY party in control of Congress, or President of the Untied Staes. For four years, Obama was part oft he party with COMPETE CONTROL of Congress. If Obama had PROPOSED something, it had a good chance of going through. I Obama OPPOSED something (vocally), it had almost no chance of going trhough. After all, after the middle of 2007, Obama was not only a senator but a MAJOR candidate for leader of the Democratic Party . It is one of the GREAT LIES of history that Barack Obama was an "outsider". Of course, Obama was in the Senate--on of the "insiders" that got us into this mess--as of January of 2005. To say The Emperor Has No Clothes with regard to Barack Obama is an understatement. Like Ben Bernanke (failure as head of the Federal Reserve), Barack Obama has been an integral part of the DISASTER that has stricken this country since 2006. You wnat to say that Obama was not really a "leader" before he became President? Do you really want to make it that obvious that Obama has NEVER been a leader, and is not a leader now? That just makes it how obvious it is that Obama was just as repsonsible, if not more responsible, than President Bush for the economic mess we endeup up in. Oaama AND the Democratic Party.

Yes, this is the beef that so many conservatives have with REPUBLICANS. They not only take positions where it is obvious that they have no clothes, but they refuse to point out when the OPPOSITION has no clothes (often in apparent terror of the now toothless mainstream media, unless you cooperate in giving them false teeth).

Republican Fantasy Weekend will continue, with "New York and Gay Rights: Why Christians Cannot Trust Republicans", and "Republicans and Capital Gains: Mixing Religioin and Public Policy". No, it is doubtful both articles will be finished this weekend, and s9--like the momosexual marriage bill in New York--it is likely that this series will be extended beyond the official end date by popular demand (perhaps indefinitely).

Hacker Boy: "What popular demand? I don't see any popular demand. I don't see any comments at all.."

Skip: "Hey, Hacker Boy, if Democrats and Republicans (Politician kind) can play the deceptive games that they play, I can invent "popular demand". I feel psitively CLEAN in comarison with the slimy politician that we keep voting into office. And the way I feel about my honesty, in comparison with the mainstream media, is beyond description. I have thought abut it. The best way I can put it is that I PREVIOUSLY thought it would not be so bad if Hell exists--not certain for an agnostic like me--because I would meet all of those people (mainstream media people) there. Now I am beginning to have hope. What if the mainstream media people, and politicians--not to mention leftists--are SO BAD that I look GOOD by comparison? Might I not get into Heaven (if it exists) after all, sort of by default? Why esle would I have been given that Sodom and Gomorrah assignment to futilely look for an honest, competent Associated Press reporter?

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad yeesight). One rason I am so redundant is that if you can't figure out a sentence, because of the outrageous typos, then you don't need to worry. I repeat the sentence again for you. All you have to do is move on. And if you believe this one, I have hthis bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. I can even take you on a guided tour of my bridge in Brooklyn, as I plan to be visting my daughter in NYC at the end of July (alnog with my daughter in Boston). Yes, I will again be entering the land of the ENEMY, with my life at risk. And by "enemy", I do not just mean my feminist daughters.

Balanced Budget Amendment: Fraud and Politics as Usual (part of Republican Fantasy Weekend Series)

Simple truth 1: Repepublicans have the POWER to FORCE a "balanced budget" for THIS NEXT YEAR (the government fiscal year beginning in October). Doubt me? Don't. This is not even a matter of opinion. It is a fact. The government cannot spend ANY money not authorized by Congress. No money has been authorized for next year (despite the absurd idea by SOME Republicans to have a TWO YEAR budget: Hohn Thune, just go away---disappear--as you are hazardous to my mental health and blood pressure). The House of Representatives is part of Congress ("this is a football"--it being neccessary to go back to basics for lefts and sOME Republicans). The House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans, with a substantial majority. Q.E.D. NO spending bill can pass Congress without the cooperation of Repubicans in the House of Representatives. If those Repubicans demand that SPENDING be no more than revenue ("balanced"), then we have achieved the purpose of a "balanced budget". In fact, we will have done BETER than a "balanced budget", because Congress can overspend,, and has overspent in the past, the "budget". Who cares abut the BUDGET? Control the SPENDING. You say it will be political suicide for Republicans to cut spending that abruptly--that it would mean having to slash Medicarfe and Social Security? Maybe. I don't advocate it, although I advocate MAJOR steps in that direction NOW, so that we can see a "balanced budget" in three years, four years, or five. It is INSANE, however to suggest that we can IGNORE current spending because a "balanced budget amendment" will take care of the problem. That is what some Republicans almsot sesem to be suggesting, and it makes me CRINGE.

Simple truth no. 2: Republicans do NOT have the power to pass a "balanced budget amendment". That requires a 2/3 vote of Congress, AND ratification by 3/4 of the states. So why make a point over a "balanced budget amendment" that you CANNOT PASS, instead of the spending control that you HAVE (no amendment necessary)? Answer: POLITICS. Republican politicians (most of them) do not WANT to "balance the budget"--that is, to spend only the money that we have. But those samepoliticians want to DECEIVE the public into believing that they are serious about balanceing the budget, wihout actually having to do it. A "balanced budget amendemnt" is a SHAM idea designed to do exactly that--an idea endorsed by too many conservatives who should know better.

Simple truth no. 3: If you have NO proposal to "balance the budget" NOW, or at least in a few years, no one believes you when you suggest that you are "serious" about a "balanced budget". Propoing a "balancecd budget amendment" you cannot pass, and which would not even go into effect--at best--for some 8 years, does not convince anyone. No, I don't believe ie. In fact, every time I hear a Republican talk about a "balanced budget amendment, without talking about cutting spending NOW, I feel like voting AGAINST that Repubican. Such a Republican is merely showing himself to be a politican willing to LIE to me for my vote. But isn't this a way of getting sppending contol by "sleight of hand", when tehe public will not otherwise accept it? That is, the public is not willing to accept a "balanced budget" NOW, because it would cut too many of the programs they WANT. But-the theory goes--the public is willing to be for a "balanced budget amendment", BECAUSE it does not really operate until sometime in the distant future. Why is that not a goood strategy? Moan. First, it is based on LIES and DECEIT. No, I don't care about that etither, if they can work. They can't work, because EVERYONE sees through this. You can't get a "balanced budget amendment" passed, and if you could it will certainly contain LOOPHOLES that make it useless. I would remind yu that we now HAVE a debt ceiling, although it does not have Constitutional authority behind it, and all that means is that Congress has to RAISE (waive, realy) the debt ciling every so often.

Simple truth no. 4: Thos Republicans who suggest that Republicans should trade real spending control (again, which Republicans have the POWER to enforce) for a mere VOTE on a b "balanced budget amendment" shoud be SHOT. No, merely voting against lthese people is not good enough. Figuratively speaking, they need to be shot. Am I saying that I will NEVER support a Repubican poliltician who makes a "deal', or votes for a "deal", where one of the main things Republicans get is a "vtoe" on a balanced budget amendemtn? Yep. You are finally getting it. In fact, my present inclination is to vote AGAINST any Republican involved in trading preesnt spending control for PASSAGE of a balanced budget amendment. But I don't have to worry about that, beause it ain't going to happen. What Republlicans are doing, if they trade real spending control for a mere vote on a balnced budget amendment, is ADMIT that the the whole thing is a SHAM desined for no other purpose than to put Democrats on record against a blanced budget amendment, when Republicans have no intentiion of actually balancing the budget. You will remember that Ryan's budget, which Democrrats will not accept, does not even propose balancing the budget in TEN YEARS. In this context, to talk about a "balanced budget amendment" is a SHAM deceit, and everyone knows it. That means it is not even an effective lie.

5. Simple truth no. 5: The only "amendment" we should be looking at, for the LONG TERM (knowng that e can't pass it now, but could run on it with a clear conscience) is something like this: "No Congress shall authorize spending, in any fiscal year, more than 28% of the Grosss Domestic Product. Congress shall moniotr spending during every fiscal year, and correct the spending level if it appears to be hedling toward a igher amount in any fiscal year. Every member of Congress , who is a member at any time during a fiscal year in which thi spending limit is exceeded, shall be INELIGIBLE for relectioin to the same seat held at any time during the fiscal year when the violation occurred, and shall further be ineligible ofr ANY election to ANY state or Federal office for at least two years. Nor shall any such member of Congress be APPOINTED to any state or Fedral office for a period of tw years. Further, the President of the United States shall be authorized and directed to ILMPOUND--not spend--funds that would exceed the 18% limit, in the absence of Congressional action in any fiscal year. If the President fials to do this, he or she shall be ineligible for reelection, and it shall be regarded as an impeachable offense. Congress shall be authroized to exceed this 18% limit in time of war, or other national emergency, ONLY if the emergency is so grave that members of Congress are willing to accept the sanctions of this article. In other words, an emergency shall NOT excuse or change the snctions provided by this article, but actions of Congress and the President to spend more than authorized by this article shall not be subject to legal challenge. The spending shall stand. The Congress and/or President shall go".

Now THAT is the kind of amendment I would support. Yes, I have used dramatic effect, especially at the end, and the wording might have to be cleaned up a little. But you get the concept. CONGRESS and the PRESIDENT should face AUTOMATIC SANCTIONS for violating the amendment, and should be allowed to overrule the amendment (in an "emergecy") ONLY if they are willing to accept the santctions--only if lthey believe it is that much of an ememergency.

You should et the picture. It is one of the reasons I am holding back on endorsing Michelle Bachmann. The TEST that needs to be applied to Republicans now is what they do with CURRENT SPENDING. Forget the gimmicks. Forget the SHAM "balanced budget amendment". Forget the "pyroll tax cut/holiday". Forgetr other tax GIMMICKS. CT SPENDING (which you have the power to do), or slinnk home with your tails between your legs. Cut spending for the CURRENT YEAR (tat is, year that begins in October, as you already blew it for the current year that is ending). Yes, I believe in cutting income tax RATES==mpt om s[ecoa;ozed tax BREAKS. And any Republican who agrees to RAISE income tax RATES might as well fall on his sword. He or she will be history. And it is a terrible mistake to RAISE TAXX RATES (on the "rich", or anybody else, and what happened to the idea of a SIMPLE tax system?). REDU:CING tax RATES was the thing to do when Obama came into office. However, Obama has succeeded in making that absurd, UNLESS you do away with enough "tax expenditures" (those metasticizing "tax credits" and subsidies for everything from ethanol/farms to "green" energy and technology). MAYBE you can switch these tax exe]penditures into a reduction in tax RATES, like the Debt Commission proposed. But I doubt if the political will exists. Yes, ultimately LOWERING tax RATES (not gimmicks) RAISES revenue. But we can no longer AFFORD the SHORT TERM hit of a gneral tax rate cut without REFORMING the tax code.

See my article yesterday on the FRAUD of a "payroll tax cut/holiday". This article fits fright in, and with what I have been waring Republicans ever since the SHAM "deal" at the end of 2010 (which INCRESDED the defict more than the spending "cuts" Republicans have made since, and that is NOT counting the correct extension of the Bush tax cuts--that is, the sane policy of not RAISING taxes). Ryan's Medicare plan is almost not releveant here. It is never gong to pass THIS CONGRESS. Yes, we need to save Medicare. We need to repeal ObamaCare (rather urgently). But the votes are not there to do those things in this Congress. The votes ARE there, because they have to be (no spending occurrigng unless authorized by Congress) to CTU SPENDING THIS NEXT YEAR. As far as I am concerned, that is the only TEXT of Republicans now. YOU are the ones wo have to AUTHORIZE ALL SPENDING. If you make some kind of "deaL' to avoid the responsibility to CONTROL that spending NOW, then you are TOAST (burned again, as in 2006). Nope. We will not be impressed by some sort of deal on spending "cuts" ten years in the future (that will never happen). We will ot be impressed by some sort of "trade" where you get some action on a "balanced budget amendment" (lol). We will definitely not be impressed by another "deal" where you INCREASE the deficit with more extensioins of unemployment insurance and "payroll tax cuts/holidays".

Yes. The Republican Party is in the balance here, and I am far from confident it can meet the test. So far, it has FAILED. And Eric Cantopr waws right. I was ready to hold HIM, and other Republicans responsible for where those "talks' for yet another "comprehensive deal" were headed. As this blog stated yesterday, it seems unlikely that any "deal" that is not a SHAM can really be made. That means that Republican, if they really want to control spending (which they have the POWER to do), would be better off to fight spending BILL BY BILL. No money can be spent unless Republicans authorize it. Republicans can try to HIDE behind a "deal" but that is the simple truth. That truth may well lhang them.

You should see why I CRINGE every tie a Republican or conservative talks about a "balanced budget amendment". It is like there are 10 seconds left on the clock in a playoff game, and we (the country) are behind. Instead of figuring out a play to score a toughdown, and win the game, however, we are designing the ideal game plan for NEXT YEAR (when wwe know there will probably be a new coach, new players, and entirely different situation, and our game plan is a mere exeercise in fantasy at this point). Nope. The GAME is THIS NEXT YEAR. If we don't start doing something about spending NOW, there may not be a country left by the time Republicans start getting serious about CURRENT SPENDING.

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