Friday, September 30, 2011

Obama Fails Again on Jobs: Loses 835,000 (838,000?) Jobs in Two Weeks

The number for new unemployment claims (a measure of layoffs--gross lost jobs, indicating how stupid Obama rally is hwen talking about minor numbers of GROSSS jobs his programs "create" at MAJOR cost) came out of Thursday. As usual, it was a bad number (although requiring explanantion). First, however, we need to note that this blog has again exposed the media LIES in the way this weekly number is reported. Last week's reported unumber of new unemployment claims was rEVISED upward, as this blog told ou it would be (next week's "news" today!!!!), from 432,0000 to 436,000--about a 3 month HIGH. Was, however, even that number "real"?

Thursday's reported, UNREVISED, number of new unemployment claims was 399,000. Based on history, that number will be REVISED upward next week to either 402,000 or 403,000. You will notice that this APPEARS to be a "drop" of 37,000. Except that is IMPOSSIBLE (not jut improbable). Approximately 2 months ago, the number of new unemployment claims APPEAREWD to "drop" to 400,000 for 3 straight weeks (the last of those weeks being about twomonths ago). Then the number went STRAIGHT UP to last week's 436,000. If youi believe these numbers--falsely regard them as exact numbers, as reported by the media, instead of written on sand or water, as correctly reported here), the job market got steadily WORSE for almost two months, and then dramatically turrned on a dime. IMPOSSIBLE. Didn't happen. What did happen?

Let us go to the AP story yesterday. Despite a LYING headline ("Jobless claims and revision of GDP number ease economic fears"), even the AP could not stomach this impossible 37,000 jobs "turnaround", without any obvious, dramamtic iimprovement in the economy, and despite the tREND of the past two moonths. Oh. And ECONOMISTS (the stupidest people on Earht) had expected above 420,0000. No, the AP appears to have been reading this blog (as the despicable people should, if they want to improve their competence). The AP had an early paragraph--although after the false headline and lead--that said the apparent "drop" in the number of jobless claims was probably due to a glitch in the SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT. Plus, the AP did NOT (having read this blog, I twell you) make a big deal out of the number dropping "under 400,000 (a statistical lie, even if the 399,000 were real, and almost guaranteed to be REVISED above 400,000 next week). I would bet that much of the mainstream media was not--not having the benefit of the continual correction of this blog--able to refrain from LIES about the dramatic "improvement" of the jobless claim number.

Te AP was right (after getting past the lies of the headline and lead). The only explanation for otherwise inexplicable numbers is the SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT. As this blog has told you for YEARS< the number of new unemployment claims (not to mention the monthly numbers on net jobs "created", or lost) is NOT an objective number achieved by Federal bureaucrats couting on their fingers and toes. It is a SUBJECTIVE number, ased on a formula trying to factor out routine SEASONAL changes in the job market (think CHRISTMAS here). This "seasonal adjustment" is LARGE--usually dwarfing the nominal "change" in the number from week to week (or month to month). This means it is a LIE to report the weekly number, as basically all of the media does, as a reliable, exact number. This number does mean something, but only OVER TIME. Weekly fluctuations mean almost NOTHING.

That is why my headline--aside from noting that this week's reported number will likely be revised UP by 3,000 or 4,000 next week--uses a two week AVERAGE to note the real significance of this week's number. That average (taking into acount the probable revison) is 419,0000. That is a TERRIBLE number. The FOUR_WEEK average is above 420,000--a TERRIBLE number. Now this week's number may eventually distort the four-week average somewhat (lookk what happens if we get 3 weeks of 420,000, to go along with this week's 400,000), but it is still a better indication of where we are.

But is it not "good" news that the new jobless claims numbe did not KEEP going up, as it had been, beyond 436,000? Yes, that is the ONLY sense in which this week's reported number of new unemployment claims (the reporting being for last week) was "good" news Was the 436,000 number any more "real" than this week's unbelievable number? Maybe not. This week's number, and the bouncing up and down of the past 6 months, would indicate that we are STUCK in approximately the same place--a BAD place. We seem to be STUCK at a level above 400,000--a RANGE between 400,000 and 440,000. That is a BAD range to be in. However, you cannot say that the number is significantly DETERIRATING. We have NOT IMPROVED this entire year, and we appear to have DETERIORATED (slightly) since the four-week average dropped (briefly) below 400,000 in February (one week going to 375,000). But, OVER TIME< we definitely appear to be STUCK in a BAD place of NO IMPROVEMENT. The unemployment rate cannot improvve with weekly jobless claims consistently above 400,000.

There yu have it. Again, this blog has done what the media will not do: explain these numbers coherently to you (hopeefully coherently, with no proofreading or spell checking, due to my poor eyesight). The MONTHLY numbers on employment will come out. Remember the lessons here. Obama was actually right last month--although that does not keep him form LIES other months, contradiciting his exuces when he thinks he needs them): One month is very unnreliable, because the MARGIN OF ERROR alone in thiese numbers is LARGE. The"seasonal adjustment" is huge. It is subject to HUMAN ERROR. And seasonal patterns CHANGE. Therefore, you have to look at the numbers over time. Over time, they have been BAD, because they are continuing to show NO IMPROVEMENT. Given the present four-week average of new unemployment claims, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the employment numbers for September to be "good". Nor would you expect the number to be significantly worse than for August. What you would expect is that we are STUCK in our bad place, and that any statistical "noise" in the weekly or monthly numbers is meaningless unless and until some sort of real trend is established over a number of months. No, it is NOT true that we are "headed in the right direction". We are presently STUCK--running in place without getting anywhere. That is really where we have been since the summer of 2009.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Chris Christie and Sarah Palin: Stay Out

I don't delude myself that Governor Christie is a conservative. However, I like him, even though I have no doubt that I disagree with him on many issues. What I like about him is that he is NOT about "politics as usual". He actually appears to believe in things, and to be willing to FIGHT for those things in which e believes. Plus, he is able to do so effectively, even when challeganed (by media or political opponents). I think most conservatives recognize that it is probably better to have a politician who EFFECTIVELY asserts your positioin on some important things, and does so aggressively, even though there are things (abortion? Illegal immigration? momosexual "rights"? etc.) upon which he will not be using those talents on "my side". Most conservatives probably think this is better than having candidates who are not EFFECTIVE in asserting ANY conservatgive postion not simply handed to them by default. Romney and Perry: this means YOU. It is like a football team who cannot run the ball, but can pass the ball REALLY WELL (or vice versa). Conservatives recognize that we need some conservative candidates to do rEALLY WELL in at least some areas, instead of just mouthing rote positionis without much conviction. Now I might change my mind oif Christie were an actual candidate, but my present position is that I would be happy to support him against Obama, and would keep an open mind as to whether to support him for the nomination.--IF he had run from the beginning.

Christie has said he should not be a candidate this time. What is it if he "changes his mind" by suddenly getting the Presidential bug? Right . It is POLITICS AS USUAL. It would negatte the very ting that I like the most about thegovernor of New Jersey. Stay out (unless you are drafted at an unlikelly deadlocked convention).

I love Sarah Palin, and am perfectly willing to support her for President. Stil, this blog advised her EARLY not to run for President this time. There just has not been enough groudwork laid. It is even more obvious now that Sarah Palin should NOT run this time. She is making herself something of a joke by being way too COY. She has even said that she will not s"string people along", and then proceeded to string people along. What I said about Christie applies to Palin. She CANNOT get in the race now without making it appear to be cynical "politics as usual" on an even more indefensible scale. With Palin, I would have no problem with her saying that IF there is some sort of deadlock developing, she will keep her options open, but that she does NOT INTEND TO RUN (absent unusual developments.). Sure, she HAS dsaid something like that, but--like Obama--only when she is not saying something different the next or previous day. Palin needed to get in EARLY (for example, to knock off Bachmann and establish her credentials as a serous candidate), or she needs to come in VERY LATE (based on some EVENT that shakes up the race, such as either a looming deadlock or something like a current Romney affair in the tradition of John Edwards). I don't have any problem with Palin keeping her optons open in the event things happen, so long as she makes clear that she is otherwise NOT RUNNING. This excessive coyness is jsut embarrassing. WHY these trips and speeches in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.? It is just too much of a game of "politics as usual", Palin style.

Nope. Both Palin and Christie, absent extraordinary circumstances, should STAY OUT. And no, "extraordinary circumstances" does NOT mean that you come to a personal conclusion that the country "needs" you. That may be true, but then you should have done things differently before now.

No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

St. Louis Cardinals In: This Blog Gets Credit (Not Non-Genius LaRussa)

When this blog carried the article correctly observing that Ton LaRussa had been a FAILURE as a manager this year, and really in the lat five years, the Cardinals were in what appeared to be a hopeless position. LaRussa had managed a talented team, in the league's--maybe baseball's--weakest division--to little better than a .5000 record. And he had done so, at the time the blog article was posted, by losing to BAD teams. It used to be said of the old New York Yankees--Casey Stengel's Yankees--that they may not beat up on the contenders so much, but that they KILLED weaker teams. LaRussa and the Cardinals seemed intent on proving Stengel a great manager by showing how bad it could be when you can't beat WEAKER teams.

My anonymous sources tell me that this blog's article, and similar articles elsewhere (but mainly this blog) made LaRussa LIVID. It should have made no difference, except that Atlanta (along with the Boston Red Sox in the other league) COLLAPSED. The Cardinals, begining in late August, won 11 out of the 13 games they had with GOOD teams Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Atlanta (becoming, of cure, a not-so-good team). Non-genius LaRussa cotinued to show that he could not do so weel against WEAKER teams, as the Cardinals really lost too many games against wweaker temams during the same time period. For example, the Cardinals won 6 out of their last nine games, and two out of their last 3. Good, right? Not really. They NEEDED (because LaRussa had needed this blog to light a fire under the Cardinals earlier) to win 8 out of the 9 games, and at least 7. The first 6 of those games were at home, against the Mets and Cubs. The Cardinals NEEDED to win 5 of those 6. They had just won 3 out of 4 from the Phillies on the road, and NEEDED those games. They were lucky not to g9 3-3 at home, and blew one game against the Mets by losing a 4 run lead in the 9th innning . Then the Cardinals played the WORST team in baseball--the Houston Astros--and LOST the first of three games (a game they really could not afford to lose). Then they fell behind 5-0 in the second game, and trailed all of the way to the 7th inning, before rallying to win. It really was not good enough, against BAD teams, but Atlanta COLLAPSED. Thus, the Cardinals--after this blog helped out by moticating LaRussa--have become the wild card team to face those very same Phillies (against whom they won 6 of 9 games in the season, as LaRussa could not beat WEAKER teams).

I do give credit to LarRussa for at least no giving up, and not letting his team give up, even though I consier him a very erratic manager at the present time. True,. The MAIN credit has to go to this blgo for MOTIVATING LaRussa. "I'll show that SOB what a genius really is" representts the quote from my anonymous source. Still, LaRussa has to get credit for taking the hint and actually making the Cardinals a good team in September, although it APPEARED that there was just not enough time left. And there wasn't--not with the number of games the Cardinals actually won and lost--except for the Atlanta collapse. All Atlanta had to do was play abut 40% baseball in September, and they would have held off the Cardinals.. They may not have been required to do even that well. The Cardinals could not really afford those losses against bad teams--not without the Atlanta collapse. Still, that is why you don't give up. Maybe the other team will collapse, and the Atlanta collpase would not have done the Cardinals any good unless the Cardinals played great overall baseball in September. So, I will congratulate LaRussa, non-genius that he now is, and eat crow, to the extent of acknowleging LaRssa's accomplishment--in the face of apparently insuperable odds--of keeping his team TRING to the very end. Now, if only LaRussa would give this blog credit for MOTIVATING him to rise to the occasion.

The big problem the Cardinals face is that initial 5 game series with Philadelphia having "home field advantage". Except, of cure, not only did the Cardinals win 3 out of the last 4, on the road, against the Phillies, but the Cardinals were a BETTER road team than they were a home geam (or at least as good). The Cardinals rally strugggled to stay afloat that last 6 game homestand. So the Cardinals CAN beat the Phillies--which is not to say they WILL. The Phillies are generally acknowledged to be the bet team in baseball, becaues of their pitching. The Cardinals really have better hitting, whille the Phillies have the pitching and defense. Pitching and defense usually win in the post-season, but we shall see.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Remember, if you criticize me for an article like this, you are showing yourself BIGOTED toward the blind (using, here, the Obama supporter/mainstream media standard of bigotry, as applied to Obama).

Obama: Where Are Colorado and Wyoming? Have AT&T/Yahoo Abandoned Obama?

For awhile this morning, the FEATURED picture story on my AT&T default page (original source not worth figuring out, although apparently NOT the AP) was that: "White House mixes up Wyoming and Colorado on map."

Now I understand that the "White House" is not exactly the sa me as Obama. But I ask yo9u. Who is it that once said there are 57 states? Right. Obama. The White House is clearly getting its signals from the top. And people translate the "White House" as being the President's responsibility (for good reason).

Important? Of coure not. So the White House (seemingly a logt of people wuld be involved) does not know where Wyoming and Colorado should be on the map, or how the map of the U.S. should look. By the way, did Obama USE the map without recognizing the error? Not, tyupically, clear from the first part oft he story (as far as I fet it worth the effort, with jmy eyesight). Just like Miechele Bachmann mixing up where the first battle of the Revolutionary War was fought (New Hampshire or Massachusetts?), this is UNIMPORTANT. I mean really unimportant. Notice, however, that if it wERE Michelle Bachmann, it would be used as an exmple of how she gets things wrong. Meanwhile, the HYPOCRITES (dishonest ones) of the mmainstream media do NOT go through a list of Obama mistakes when another error appears (including misquoting the Declaration of Independence to omit "by their Creator").

Tht is what confuses me a little bit here. Yes, the unfair and unbalanced network might metntion this "White House" mistake. But featured on AT&T//Yahoo? Is this blog again having an effect? Even Monday's blog article playing the "race card" with regard to Obama was a two edged sword. It just did nt have an air of the WORSHIP that used to be in every story about Obama. I would say this does NOT represent a trend of "objectivity", but it is barely possible that the media is becoming embarrasssed about how much CONTEMPT everyone has for them and their dishonest hypocrisy.

No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

Monday, September 26, 2011

Obama, Racism, Racist Leftists and the Racist Associated Press (Boycott AT&T and Yahoo)

I jsut love this story, because it shows so much of what is WRONG with our present society--especially the mainstream media and leftists--while trahshing the despicable Associated Press. Have others joined my futile search for an honest, competent AP reporter? Maybe so.

Here ws the headline on the featured picture story (picture of Obama) on my AT&T/Yahoo internet default page:

"Was transcript of Obama's speech racist?"

No, this story ws NOT from the Associated Press. How do we know that? It is becaues the STORY went on to say, under the headline: "A news service--take that, you despicable people of the AP (editorial comment)--writes up the President's speech, but neglects to clean up grammar."

Say what? It is RACIST to fail to clean up the President's grammar? Does that mean it is RACIST for you to quote something from this blog without "cleaning up" the typos and proofreading mistakes, since I can't see well enough to prevent them? And did yu know that media people ut there are "cleaning up" the President's grammar? I actually did not, although I have no problem with deleting all of the "uhs" and similar obvuos verbal "typos" taht are clearly not part of the text. I actually wuold object if reporters actualy correct GRAMMAR. I don't consider cleaning up obvioius verbal ticks--not the substance of the speech--as "cleaning up grammar". Nobody talks CLEANLY, without "uhs" and "you knows" and etc. But I don't kow what business the AP, or anybody else, has "cleaning up" GRAMMAR (if,for example, the Preisdent splits an infinitive or uses a word incorrectly). Would this be a big deal if the AP had done this to SARAH PALIN or MICEHEL BACHMANN (or even Rickk Perry)? If you see sudden quotes from Rick Perry leavingt in the Sluthern misponunciation, you will know that the mainstream media is ding ti dELIBERATELY in 'revengae" for the "racism' of the LEFTIST Associated Press.

Yes, I find the AT&T/Yahoo headline to be RACIST, just as I find leftists (incluidng in the mainstrream media and in the office of the President of the United States) to be the PRIMARY "racists" left in our society, Yes, I am willing to call the President of the United States a "racist", so long as you understand my reference to the fundamental meaning of the word.

"Racism" is sometimes equated--on the left, mainly--with "hating" black peoiple or "hating" white peole. That is not correct. That is not the eSSENCE of racism, although it is certainly an individual form of racism to "hate" people becuase of the color of their skin. The essence of racism is to DEFININE people by the color of their skin, and assign people rights and benefits--while denying those rights and benefits to others--based on the color of their skin. You can see from this headline that this is exactly what leftists do: DEFINE people--including Obama and those who criticize him--based on the color of their shkin instead of individual, COLOR BLIND merit.

When I saw this main headline I quote above, I asked myself: What the Hell could this possibly mean? Did a member of the Ku Klux Klan somehow alter the President's speech because he or she is a raceist? That is why it made my whle year that we are talking abuot the despicable, incompetent AP here. That is the point. WHY would anyone assume that it is RACIST for the AP to to fail to "clean up" a Presidential speeech? If it were not the leftist AP, I might assume a POLITICAL motive. Yes, I seem to remember Rush Limbaugh making a point of "counting" the "uhs"--or some such thing---in an Obama appearance where he did NOT use the teleprompter. The idea was to show that Obama is not "really" such a great speaker, if yoiu take his teleprompter away. Limbaugh was not making a RACIST point. He was making a POLITICAL point: that the wroship of Obama (I remember this in the 2008 campaign, I believe) was totally over the top.

It is the LEFT (not disappearing rednecks or the joke that is the present Ku Klux Klan) that insists on DEFIING everything in terms of race, without any reason. It is like hiring a blaock person BECAUSE he is black, or giving people special braks to get into certain schools, including professonal schools, BECAUSE of their race or ethnicity. No, again, it is incorrect to suggest that "racism" requires that you "hage balck people" or "hate white people". Dobut that? Don't. If I refuse to hire a black person because of his skin because I think that is best (for whatever reason, including peer pressure), is that racism? Of course it is. If I just don't want to hire a black person because I feel more COMFORTABLE around my own race, is that racism? Of course it. is. It is racism because you are not rtreating people as individuals, but rather dEFINING them based on the color of their skin. "Hate" really has nothing to do with it, although hating someone because of is skin is obviouisly a from of racism bECAUSE you are defining the person based on the color of his skin (assuming that the "hate" is for that reason, and not because the INDIVIDUAL has done something to you).

If you assumer that the only reason that someone would do something "unfair" to President Obama is because of his race, then yoiu are defining EVERYTHING in terms of race. You are, by definition, a RACIST. Ohter politicians get treated unfairly. I mentioned Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Is it automatically SEXIST to say something bad about them? Now WHAT you say may be sexist, as so much of what the SEXISTS in the mainstream media have said about them is sexist. But criticizing Palin and Bachmann is not automatically sexist. What about Herman Cain? He is black. The mainstream media gives him little respect. Clarence Thomas? Again, yI WHAT you say about President Obama is racist, you can make that charge. But if you are simply assuming that some criticism, or mistake, is racist because Obama is black, then it is YOU who are the racist. Yep. I just called the people of AT&T and Yahoo RACIST.

For seven years, this blog has shown you that the despicable AP is INCOMPETENT, and filled with incompetent people. Sure, that incompetence is usually exacerbated by AGENDA,, but they are INCOMPETENT FIRST. There is no reason to believe--absent some sort of really convincing evidence that the Ku Klux Klan has infliltrated the leftist AP--that any botched AP transcript was anything but a MISTAKE, or maybe an attempt to show what an "unsanitized" Obama spech really is. Yep. I am saying that I fail to see what is so bad about OCCASIONALLY transcribing what the President actually SAYS. But I agree it is stupid to insist upon putting out aa transcript that includes every verbal fumble and stumble, incluiding those "filler" words that everyone uses whn "thinking" of what to say ("uh", etc.).

In the end, of curfse, it is unimportant whether Obama gives a good speechor not. Most of us thingk that is part of his problem: that he thinks that eveyrthing is all about a good SPPECH, which may contradict what he said yesterday and what he is going to say tomorrow. Politics should be about SUBSTANCE, Sure, communication ability has some value. But making speeches cannot provide the SUBSTANCE that is not there. This mainstream media idea that substantive criticism of Obama, and every unfair thing concerning Obama (as if Democrats and the mainstream media ewere not desperately trying to do UNFAIR things to Republicans, along with whatever fair things they can do)--this idea that criticizing Obama, or doing something he does not like because he thinks it reflets badly on him, is itself RACIST. It assumes that Obama's RACE somehow protects him from the same things that a white politician has to face. Remember the HATRED for Bush--sometimes stoked by Obama?

That is why this is perversely important. It is not important whether the despicable AP made a mistake, which they do every single day. It IS importatn that leftists want our politics, and our entire society, to be ALL ABOUT RACE, when the rest of us have gone beyond that.

No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Remember, if you quote me (and I freely give you permission to quote this blog without checkig with me) make sure and "clean up" my typos and "grammar". If you don't, I may have to call you a.....................................Hey, what is it called, anyway, when you HATE THE BLIND?

Sunday, September 25, 2011

John Boehner Must Go: Continuing Resolutonis and Politics as Usual (Tea Party Waterloo?)

What did John Boehner PROMIS in the beginning of his term as Speaker of the House, as part of the "debate" on the leftover "continuing resoultioni" to fund the government for the rest of the current fiscal eyar, ending on Septermeber 30? You remember that first "government shut down" debate, right? You remember the SHAM deal where Booehner, with hardly a PEEOP from the Tea Party or Michele Bachmann, promised that BILLIONS of dollars were being "cut" from spending for the rest of this year. Actual "cuts": ZERO (essentially). What Boehner said was that: "This will not happen again. We will not fund the government through thee massive, ominibus spending bills or continuing resolutions. We will have 17 separate appropriatioins bills , and we will do them on time". "Politics as usual" is the KINDEST thing you can say about that. Nope. You can rightly say that Gadhafi of Libya, Mubarak of Egypt, and Asad of Syria MUST GO (or should have beeen forced to go). Boehnr is not in that class of evil, but BOEHNER MUST GO. And for the Tea Party to tamely accept the "politcs as susal" of Boehner and the Republican leadership may well constitute the Tea Party equivalent of Watrloo. Should you vote for a TEA PARTY (or "conservative") Republican who has not OPENLY broken with the "ldeadershi" (not simply a meaningless vote)? I don't thinks so. VOTE THEM ALL OUT. Boehner must go, and Tea Party politicians who have helped enable Boehner have engaged in "politics as usual", and must go as well. This is the key FAILURE of Michele Bachmann. She has not made a difference wher she could have madde a difference. Further, it is obviuios that the Republican Party has not learned a single thing--despite lies to the contrary--from the Tea Party revolution and the "politics as usual" mistakes of the past. That is why I am on the verge of declaring the Republican Party dead, and openly calling for a third (and maybe fourth and fifth) party--whether that means the reelection of Barack Obama or not.

Doubt me about Boehner and the failure of the Tea Party? Don't ever do that. What is part of the news this week? Right. It is about how we are facing a government shut down because Congress is faced with having to pass another one of those "continuing resolutions"!!!!!!! Talk about breaking your promises!!!!!!!! Boehner's promise did not last a single year. The man is a "politics as usual political hack. As this blog has stated, no one should vote for Boehner as even dogcatcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas (that small Arkansas town in which I spent most of the first 12 years of my life). So what did Boehner's "debt ceiling deal" accomplish? Nothing at all, and it was never meant to accomplish anything, except to PUT A GUN TO THE HEAD OF CONSERVATIVES IN AID OF POLITICS AS USUAL. The "gang of 12" has been given the POWWER o betray conservatives, while conservatives are told that: "we have no choice but accept this, or Republicans will be 'blamed' and we will lose the election." Indeed, that was the PUROPOSE of the "gang of 12". But look at how the debt ceiling "deal" has been exposed as a FRAUD, even apart from the betrayal to come.. Remember taht '24 billion" (nothing) that Republicans proclaimed in "cuts" for this coming yar? Well, the present new "government shut down" "crisis" tells lyou exactly how much of a FRAUD that was. And the Repubican establishment is already telling you that Republicans can't afford to be blamed for a government shut down. The problem is that the debt ceiling deal SET ALL OF THIS UP--and more to come.

Rachel Maddow is more honest than John Boehner. Yep. Rachel Maddow is that far left babe on MSNBC--somewhere to the left of Karl Marx. Yet, I ound myself agreeing with Maddow about John Boehner. Boehner have a speech actually saying that a way to find "common ground" between Obama and Republicans is to do things like combine the President's "infrastructure spending" with a Republican plan on producing more energy (i.e. drilling and similar things). Rachel Maddow asked: "What does one thing have to do with the other?" And she was RIGHT. They hage nothing to do with one another. Boehner was simply talking "politics as usual"--the same kind of POLITICAL deals that ALWAYS prevent the deficit from being reduced and spendin gfrom being cut. What about that 24 billion that Boehner said the debt ceiling deal "cut" from the 2012 defict? Boehner, and many other Republicans, are obviously willing to totaly forget about that, and INCREASE the deficit for next year (if only Obama will cooperate with "politics as usual"). Republicans needed to REJECT the entire jobs bill as a BETRAYAL of the debt ceiling deal--such as it was. Instead, Republicans talk as if extending unemployment benefits, a payroll tax cut and inframstructure spending would not make a MOCKERY out of RWEPUBLICAN LIES about how they have "cut" the deficit for 2012 with the debt ceiling deal.

Nope. BOPEHNER MUST GO. And any Tea Party politician who does nto SAY "Boehner must go", in a loud and public manner, MUST GO. Defeat them all. Throw ALL of the bums out. Thje one poll with which I agree is the one that says 54% of Americans would like to THROW ALL MEMEBERS OF CONGRESS OUT. Peole like Boehner are the reason for that attitude.

This blog has yet again been proven right. What did this blog tell you? I told you that the problem with the debt ceiling fight was that it DISTRACTED from the real isues: SPENDING, CURRENT DEFICITS, and DEBT. I told you that there was no way to have that debt ceiling "fight" the way Republicans were having it, and still keep Boehner's promise about getting individual spending bills done. That was the Tea Party's key mistake: concentrating on the debt CEILING, when that is not the problem. The problems are spending, current deficits and debt. The need to raise the debt ceiling is ony a SYMPTOM of those underlying problems. I told yuo-again proven correct--that the ONLY way ou could justify the fight over the debt celing was if you WON--actually instituted "cut, cap and balance". Repubicans did not "win"--agreeing to yet antoehr "poplitics as usual", sham "deal designed to betray conservatives later. If Tea Party Republicans politicians think I will FORGET how I TOLKD THEM SO, then they are out of their minds. I don't forget, and I BLAME THEM (as well as Boehner and the Republican leadership).

Yes, this blog even told Republicans how it had to be done. And it ws not as if it were rockert science. Ben Bernnake, Fed chairman and Worst Failure in the History of World Finance, actually said the same thing. Yep. In one article, I am saying I agreed with both Rachel Maddow and Ben Bernanke on something. You may well wonder whether that means the world is about to come to an end. I digress. Back to Bernanke and the debt ceiling. What Bernanke said , and what this blog told you, was that you had to CONNECT the debt ceiling with the spending, deficit and debt. Right now, they are totally disconnected. Yes, Repubicans were trying to USE the debt ceiling increase as a means to force spending limits, but without directly connecting the debt ceiling to SPENDING BILLS. Why did Republicans not WANT to connect the debt ceiling with spending bills? It is because they believe that such a connection will make their vote on actual spendin gbills impossible. Republicans do NOT WANT peoiple to actually know exactly what is going on. The fact is that EVERY spending bill has consequences for the debt ceiing. For example, that "deal" on the coninuing resolution for the ned of 2011 (though the end of the fiscal year on September 30) REQUIRED an increse of the debt ceiling. Did Republicans want people to realize thatr? Hell no. They wanted to DECEIVE. That includes Tea Party Republicapoliticians.

What did this blog tell you ? I told you that Republkcans should tel people the truth--demand TRANPARENCY in spending. That meant that Republicans needed to acknowledge that THIER VOTE on spending through September 30 required that the debt ceiling be raised by enough to cover the spending that Congress had alrready APPVED. Spending has consequences. Thus, Republicans needed to extend the debt ceiling by just enough to get us through September 30. Then spending, deficits and debt would have been directly CONNECTED to the debt ceiling. That is what Bernanke meant, and it is what this blog told you. Then Republicans needed to MAKE the obvious connection by saying that they would raise the debt ceiling AFTER the spending bills for 2012 were passed, with statments in connection with every spending bill as to its ffect on the debt ceiling reuirement, by jsut enough to hndle the spending that Congress has JUST PASSED. In other words, Congress would raise the debt ceiling by the amount REQUIRED to accommodate the approved spending for the next fiscal year, and tell the people exactly what they are doing and why. This same process would be repeated year after year, and Congress would be REQUIRED to raise the debt ceiling every year by the amount necessary to cover their spenindg. And Congress would do that at the same time as the spending bills are passed, making the connectio between spending and the debt ceiling crystal clear. Thus, the debt ceiling "debate" and the spending/defict debate become directly connected to one another in the way they are connected in realtiy.

By failing to make this connection, as if somehow the debt ceiling could magically cause the spending and deficit problem to go away, Republicans exposed themselves as mainly seeking COVE rather than real honesty in policy. Republicans did not WANT to be obviusly responsible fore the spending they approve. And, to compound the problem, Republicans entered into this SHAM deal that will likely INCREASE the deficit for 2012 (if Republicans accept ANY part of Obama's "jobs bill"). You should see why I have said that Repubican acceptance of any substantial part of the Obama "jobs bill" will cause me to declare the Republican Party DEAD. That statement is still absolutely true.

Boehner must go. That is because "politics as usual' must go. Tea Party politicians who fail to realize this msut also go. The 2012 SPENDING and defict is where Republicans should have made their stand. Insted, they chose to engage in a sham battle over the debt ceiling, which is a CONSEQUENCE of spenidng rather than a cause of anything. Tht tactic could only have been justified if it had WORKED (and was carried through as if they intended it to work). As it is, Repubicans are going to be fighiting over spending after USING all of their political capital DISTRACTING people from the issue of spending (on a concrete basis, instead of simply saying you are against spending wihout saying HOW, which is exactly what OBAMA says).

Boehner must go. But does the Repubican Party have the courage to really take on spending in a non-sham way--not "politics as usual--when REpublicans think they can "win" by simply running against Obama? I doubt it. "A coward dies a thousand deaths, while a brave man dies but once". It seems to me that the Repubilcan Party is dying a thousand deaths, but that the FINAL death is on the horizon if Boehner "politics as usual" continues.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). By theway as I have said repeatedly, I do NOT insist that a politician agree with me right down the line. There is no "perfec" politician. However, I simply cannot accept the kind of "politics as usual" that I blelieve has come close to ruining this country. Thus, Republicans have totally used up their "credit" with me as far as continuing the DECEPTION of "politics as usual" . If you disagree with me honetly, I can accept that. If you SAY you agree with me, and act otherwise, there is no way I will ever forgive youi. Nor do I accept the usual political games where a politician makes a "safe" vote KNOWING he or she is going to be on the losing side---expecting therby to get "credit" for that vote. Not here, you don't, unless you actually IGHT for that vote =, inclulding standing up and saying your leadership is enganging in shams and deception.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Florida: Key Test Vote?

The despicable Associated Press is simply incapable of telling the TRUTH. See my article earlier this Saturday night about the very limited significance of the Florida straw poll (only 3500 people!!!!!!!).

Is the AP really saying that Herman Cain is now the FAVORITE for the Republican nomination? I really doubt it. Is the AP even saying that Herman Cain is now a SERIOUS THREAT for the nomination? I am slightly less sure, but I really doubt it.

Nope. What the despicable AP is doing is advancing the AP AGENDA againt Rick Perry (who you will again note I don't like much, but who I end up constantly defending because mainstream media PROPAGNDA is so often directed at him). Was this a "defeat" for Perry? Sure. It was also a "defeat" for Romney. In fact, it was a "defeat" for everyone not named "Cain". Hoever, you are INCOMPETENT and DIHONSEST if yu put much significance on what is, after all, a MEANINGLESS vote. Even I probably gave it a little too much significance in my earlier article tonight. ALL of the media likes to make too much of these POLLS (straw polls or "scientific" polls) , because the INCOMPETENT media people have no idea now to report an election, or any other issue, wihout resort to the EVIL of polls. Yes, thee people are not interested in reporting really significant FACTS. They jsut want to hyope whatever AGENDA they have, and to do things the EASY way. I continue to have noting but contempt for all of these people.

By the way, did you notie the other AP LIE? Ro review: It was a LIE to say that this was a "key" vote. But, it was also a LIE to call it a "vote". This was a POLL (NOT A VOTE) of an unscientific SAMPLE of Florida Republicans chosen in a very non-random way. While I saw the unfair and unbalanced network (as incompetent as the AP), and the Florida governor trying to say how these poll "voters" were carefully selected to represent certain Republican units throughout Florida, that was all HOGWASH. I just don't think people who chose Herman Cain are "representative" of Florida, although I sort of hope I am wrong about that. You MIGHT regard this as a REBUFF of the Repubican establishment (and yes, Perry), but it is insane to regard it as a true indication of Florida sentiment. It is not "key" in any way, and not a "votge". It is merely a straw in the wind, and probably the LEAST of Perry's problems. The MOST of Perry's problems is that he is UNIMPRESSIVE, as this blog told you IN FORESIGHT (as he was announcing for President). Perry can easily recover from a meaningless "straw pll" vote. He cannot recover easily from an inability to be truly IMPRESSIVE (which he is not capble of being, as I can tell your from having lived in Texas every year in which Perry has held office in Texas). No, that does not mean that Perry cannot end up being an effective candidate, or cannot win the nomination. But he is not going to do it by being turly IMPRESSIVE. (barring a huge transformation). No, and this is Perry's best advantage, I don't think Romney is capable of being truly IMPRESSIVE either--lathough he has learned to be even more slick and smooth than he was in 2008. Now Herman Cain is capable of being IMPRESSIVE. The problem, of course, is that he does not have the RECORD that both Perry and Romney have, and it is going to take a leap of faith to trust that Cain can overcome his lack of ANY experience on a big stage (or in a big job).

Anyway, byou get the pint on the despicable AP. They are just incapable of giving real, relevant facts without AGENDA. This reference to a "key vote" in Florida is no exception. Not "key" and not a "vote".

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

Global Warming and Media Propaganda: Boycott AT&T and Yahoo

Here is the disgraceful headline from the despicable AP, featured a good part of this Saturday afternoon and evening:

"The American 'allergy' to 'global warming'--Why?"

The leftist POLITICAL movement of "global warming" is a FRAUD that would destroy our economy, rather than a real scientific "theory" where scientists CHALLEGNE and TEST the "theory" in a SKEPTICAL way. That's why.

But this article is not going to again set forth my position on "global warming", which this blog has set forth numberous times before (and will again). No, the only purpose of this article is to show you the Orwellian PROPAGANDA that is being pushed every day by the mainstream meida. READ that quoted headline again. "ALLERGY"? A better question is why the mainstream meida has an ALLERGY to actually presenting FACTS instead of propaganda. You may not know since the despicable AP and rest of the mainstream media will not tell you, but the ASSERTIONS of "global warming' (the political "theory" rpesented by Al Gore) are being contradicted by FACTS every single day. I will just mention one: Remember how the arctic ice pack was supposed to have MELTED by now--not to mention Antarctica and almost every glacier on the planet, causing SEA LEVELS to rise to the point that our coastal areas are u nder hundreds of feet of water? Hasn't happened, has it? In fact, most o the "global wareming" CLAIMS on these matters-the specific claims--have been DISCREDITED. Oh, and the world has not really "waarmed" since 1998.

Yep. If you read this blog, you know what is going on. This is part of my lonely Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest, competent AP reporter. Even though I am an agnostic, it is obviously my punishment here on Earth to be in Lot's position of a FUTLIE search for someone who does not exist. This punishment is especailly unfarir since, unlike Lot in the Bible, I have never believed that there is such a thing as a competent, honest AP reporter. Yet, I have been assinged this search anyway. And you thought Job had it bad? Really, for an entity of whom I am skeptical, God is makng my life pretty hard.

Yep. This article is also part of my continuing campaign to get you to BOYCOTT AT&T and Yahoo for featureing ONLY this AP leftist propaganda every day.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). By the way, if you read the above quoted headline, and do NOT recognize it as obvious propaganda, theree is noting I can do to help you. As the fictional people of "1984", you have been brainwashed beyond my ability to get through to you.

Herman Cain: Winner in Florida

The Florida straw poll does NOT mean anything, except to get deserved visibility for Herman Cain. He won the first Republican debate (without too many people thre). On substrance, he won the last Republican debatge (even though thi blog--and almost everyone else--declared Romney the rea "winner" because Cain has not yet broken through to be a credible "alternative" to Romney and/or Perry). What am I saying, by the way? It is not jsut the Florida straw poll that shows the media to be INCOMPETEN, EVIL BOOBS. That includes the unfair and unbalanced network. Not only does ht eFlorida straw poll (and the Iowa straw poll) mean absolutely NOTHING in terms of who will win the nomination (again except for the self-fulfilling attention the "winner" gets), but ALL of these "scientifc" polls mean absolutely NOTHING Further, they SHOULD mean NOTHING. Opinion polls--all of them--are evil things, and we would be better without them.. Further, we CAN accomplish that by simply LYING to pollsters, and/or failing to cooperate with them and telling them WHY (that you don't believve in polls).

The Cain "victory", however, does mean something, I thiink. First, it means a lot of people out there agree with me on polls. What do polls have to do with who SHOULD be Preident of the United Stat? But I think threre is a further meaning, I believe, although only haveing tangential relevance as to who will eventraully win the Repubican nomination. I would, by the way, be HAPPY to vote for Herman Cain for President, which is more tha I can say for either Romey or Perry. That does nto mean I think Cain will get the nomination. I don't. It does not even mean I think Cain would be a good nominee. I have my doubts. But it would be GREAT if he atually became President of the United States.. Will the hypocrites of the mainstream media still trate criticism of the black President as automatic RACISM? We know they won't. We know it because they are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. But, more importantly, we already KNOW that they have made FUN of Herman Cain (Jon Stewart, and others), and have been perfectly willing to criticize heim UNFAIRLY without worrying abourt "racism". Cain's 9-9-9 plan is a truly bold plan. And his "solution" on Social Security is RIGHT--provided we can get there from here, which is a huge problem. I digress.

What is the "message" that these Florida "professionals" are sending to the REPUBLICAN PARTY (yes, john Boehner and Mitch McConnell, this means YOU, and people who think like you)? The message is that people out in the country, especailly conservatives, rEJECT "politics as usual". Yes, as this blog has proven, the REPUBLICAN PARTY has been engaging in "olitics as usual" and that may yet bring that party fo the brink of extinction (even as they should have, and may have, a virtual lock on gaining ful poer in the next election). These SHAM "deals" make people like me--and many more than people like me, if you would suggest there is no one exactly like me--MAD AS HELL (see the movie, "Network"). And what else makes us mad? The INSINCERITY and petty politics of Romeny and Perry. Perry and Romney are NOT out there showing that they are ready to get away from "politics as usual". They are EMBRACING "politics as usual", including demagoguery with regard to each other on things like Social Security . Neither one is showing the ability to attually ADVOCATE conservative principles, and convince people that the class warfare of Obama is wrong. In fact, as I have said, Romney sounds EXACTLY like Obama with regard to his "middle class tax cuts". Romney even uses the sAME NUMBER ($200,000). No, I am not saying that Romney and Perry should not try to distinguish their positions and record, but this desire to beat up on each other more than show that they can ARTIUCLATE conservative principles and solutions, is disaster.

Say Romney, or even Perry, wins the electon after a "politics as usual" campaign in which they RUN AWAY from Tea Partry and conservative positions in the general eletion. If Romney wins the nomination it will probably be because people expect him to win at any cost (to principle)). Roblem: Romney or Perry may actually BELIEVE IT--believe that people jsut want pragmatic "non-principle" rather than a real attempt to THINIK ABOUT and ARTICULATE policies and approaches that are not "poliltics as usual". If Roney or Perry adopts the "politics as suual" approach, either will be a ONE-TERM Persident and will have me as an ENEMY from day one.

To me, that is the "message" of the Herman Cain vote: We don't want "politics as usual". We want to know HOW you intend to defeat Barack Obama, and WHAT kind of THINKING we can expect you to do. Both Romney and Perry are not giving us that. They are not giving ANYBODY that. Herman Cain is little more likely to become the Republican nominee today than yesterday (before the Florida "victory") , But it is not impossible. People are READY for a LEADER who does not think the way to show "leadership" is to DEMAGOGUE your own positioins, and your opponent's positioins, BASED ON POLLS, without really believing a single thing yourself oterh than you want to be President (maybe even believe you will make a good President, but without any CORE of real principle that would ever enable you to be a good President).

Oh. I will give you a "tease". Headline of upcoming article: "John Boehner Must Go: Continuing Resolutions and Politics as Usual."

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

Friday, September 23, 2011

Ben Bernanke: Worst Failure in the History of World Finance

Let us review. Ben Bernanke was appointed Fed chairman in 2006, just as sighns of the bursting of the housing bubble began to appear. Barack Obama, INSIDER, was already a member of the United States Senate, and would become a member of the MAJORTIY in January of 2007 (when Democrats took control of all of Cngress. Even though signs of the bursting of the housing bubble were beginning to appear when Bernanke was appointed, the actual housing "crisis" was still more than a year away--not trulyl becoming dangerous until late 2007. Further, the recession of 2008 was still TWO YEARS away--more than two years away in terms of the financial collapse of Octoer of 2008. Bernanke had TWO YEARS to do somehting. What did he do, besides panic when it was too late? NOTHING. Bernanke presided over the WORST RECESSION since World War II, and was there for the key years leadin gup to thhat recession. This is the man wo somehow gained a reputation on Wall Street as our "savior"--ONLY becaue he BAILED OUT WALL STREET. From the point of view of the country, Bernanke FAILED, and was RESPONSIBLE (along with the peoiple in Washington and the people on Wall Steet) for not doing anything to head off or mitigate the terrible recession that occurred on his wathch. And what of Barack Obama? What did HE do? Well, I guess you could say he did somehting. He RAN FOR PRESIDENT, without doing anyting at all about the coming disaster (not even sounding a warning). In fact, Obama SUPPORTED all of the FAILED Bush/Democrat measures that were supposed to head off the recessioni., including the FAILED "stimulus" of 2008 (the first failed "stimulus" bill from the Democrat controlled Congress). So much for "inheriting" this mess.

You could argue that the ONLY thing that really changed in the time leading up to the recession wa that Democratws took control of Congress; Bernanke was appointed head of the Federal Reserve; and Hank Paulson (Democrat favorite) was appointed Secretary of the Treasury. Why are not REPUBILCNAS maknig the point that Obama inherited the recession from DEMOCRATS, and peoiple fully supported by Democrats? Beats me. Sure, it is overly simplistic to blame Democrats in Congress for everything, just because the recession occurred after Democrats took control of Congress, but it is at least as true as Obama's claim that he "inherited" the mess that a DEMOCRATIC Congress left--a Congress of which Obama was a part of the majority.

Back to Bernanke. Remember, Bernanke, as of October of 2008, has already FAILED to do anything t head off the worst recession since World War II. Furtehr, he has NOT anticipated the recession in any major way. Remember, again, the rrecession supposedly started in January of 2008, even though the economy would continue to GREOW at a very slow pace for the first two quarters of 2008 (just as is true NOW). What did Bernanke do when we were already in a recession? Not much. From January to the Bear Stearns/Lehman Brothers/AIG crisis, bernanke did ery little. He certainly did NOT see it coming--at least not before problems were evident to everyone in the second half of 2008. The man is an UTTER FAILUE. Yet, somehow Wall Street, Democrats, and the mainstream meida seem to regard him as some kind of "expert"--haning on his every word. WHY? Again, it boggles my mind how this record of FAILURE can get you a reputation as a "genius".

But Bernanke was not done with faiure. He had already presided over getting us into the worst recession since World War Ii--since the Great Depression--by October of 2008. He then went into action, primarily by bailing out Wall Street. Did his act5ions WORK. Lok at the record again. This is not ony the wrost recession since the Great Depression. It is alos the WORST RECOVERY since the Great Depression. And Bernanke has presided over that as well. You should get a glimmer of why this blog accurately refers to Bernanke as The Wort Failure in the History of World Finance. But Bernake was still not through.

Through most of this "recovery"--including as recently as about a month, or maybe two, ago---Bernanke and the Fed were still telling everyone that the "recovery" was still on track, even if a bit slower than hoped. In fact, this blog had an article mere WEEKS ago about how Berrnanke gave a speech balaming the "slow patch" in the economy on "special factors" like Japan (tsunami) and other factors outside of Bernanke's control. Bernanke was still suggesting that we would return to better growth in the second half of this year.

What ahappened? ON Wednesday afternoon, the Fed released its present assessment of the econmyh, and it was GRIM. That was a major reason (asied from the computer gaming on Wall Street) that the stock market went down 391 points yesterday (Dow points) . That made well over 600 points in two days. What the Fed said was that there is now a "significant downside risk" in the economy. Translation (as Wall Street understood): We are very close to a SECOND major dip in the recession, or a second recession (if you believe the first one ever ended in any real way). Thus, Bernanke, on Wednesday, told us he has been WRONG--again. We are either in big trouble, or right on the edge of big trouble--BEYOND the trouble we have already been in with the wrost "recovery' since the Great Depresson. For all intents and purposes, Bernake has ADMIITTED that he is the worst failure in the history of world finance. He has not PREDICTED anything right yet. Again, HOW did this FAILURE get a reputation as a "genius"?

You should see why the Fed statement on Wedneday was such a SHOCK. The Fed had been acting like there was a temporary slowdown in the economy, and that the recovery would soon resume. Now the Fed is saying that it was WRONG to dismiss the dangers of another large dip in the economy.

What has Ben Bernanke DONE or SAID that indicates he knows what he is doing? I can't see anything. On Wednesday, Bernanke again PROVED that he does NOT know what he is doing. Why shoudl anyone pay any attention to him on anything?

Okay . One reason is that Bernanke may have DESTROYED the cou ntry. He has asserted "unprecedented" powers for the Fed, and has engaged in "unprecedented" PRINTING OF MONEY in a way the Fed has never done before. All it has done is make things WORSE. The man is a failure.

No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

Republican Debate: Romney Wins,, or Does He

I watched the Republican debate. It was again mostly a waster of time. As I told you in the beginning (as a person wo has lived in Texas throughout his entrie career), Rick Perry is NOT that impressive.. Yes, Perry has been a decent governorof Texas, but as a conservative "savior" he is laughable (and always has been--another case where I have been right and Rusn Limbaugh wrong). I told you previously (next month's news in tthis blog today) that Perry is NOT GOOD on illegal immmigration (from a consrvative point of view), and that was exposed last night as Perry AGAIN asserted that it is fine to give illegal immigrants in-state tuition, while denying the same "right" to citizens of the United States who happen to be citizens of otehr states. As a resident of Texas all of this time, I can telll you that Perry is NOT overall strong on illegal immigratioin. On that, and many other things, he is an ESTABLISHMENT Republican, Texas style (admittedly a LITTLE different from Northeasrt establishment Republicans).

That is why Romney "won" llast night's debate. He came across has slicker and more polished than Perry. If yuo WANT an establishment, oppotunist politician who gives you comfort because he at least knows what he is doing (so long as you don't want real principle), then does not Romney fit the bill better than Perry? I think so. And Perry is coming across as a "politics as usual" guy. As I have said, you cannot DEFEAT Perry FROM THE RIGHT. However, what yu can do is expose him as a "politics as usual" guy rathre than a guy able to go out and articulate conservative principles. If Romney can come across as more conservative and "principled" than Perry on illegal immigration, and look more POLISHED on those areas where Perry is to the right of Romney, then Romney WINS. Tht is what he did last hight, if you only conssider Romney and Perry (which is where the Repubican race now stands, meaning that the performance of the rest is pretty much irrelevant).

Yet, I did not like Romney's performance. It was establishment Republicanism 101. SAY NOTHING, except on very targeted areas. For example, dub in Obama's words and Romney's talk about "middle class tax cuts" would sound just like Obama: CLASS WARFARE, Romney style. Romney is perfectly willing to demagogue, Democrat style, on Social Security. Now Perry has made a mistake by going HARD after Romney, while Romney has been much more subtle and slick about provoking attacks on Perry. Perry would have been better off concentrating on Obama, and just taking swipes at Romney. These direct exchanges between Perry and Romney advance neither many, but especially make Perry look bad.

And that is my problem. If you go beyond style, and how slick and Presidential Romney LOOKS and sounds, Romney was NOT the "winner" last night. On substance, Ron Paul did better. Herman Cain did better, In fact, on SUBSTANCE, and especailly in the question abut his own cancer and ObamaCare, Herman Cain WON the debate. But there is still no indication he can be the nominee. Rick Santorum did better than Romney on substance, although curiously seems unable to distinguish himself with real eloquence. Gary Johnson (the former New Mexico governor and libertarian) got off one of the great lines of the night, and actually SAID something on PRESENT SPENDING (which even Michele Bachmann, in another missed oppotunity, did not reallly do). Johnson said he would present a balanced budget for 2013, and actually gave the impression that he means it. Michele Bachmann, in the debt ceiling farce of a "debate", said that she wanted OBAMA to propose a balanced budget. Too cute by mroe than half, and Bachmann can be regarded as one of the losers last night. Pretty much canned answers, when she needs to show not just that her heart is in the right place but that seh can MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Attacking Perry is not really going to help her. Still, here answers were BETTER than both Perry and Romney., on substance. What I am saying is that if you eliminate John Huntsman as the "media candidate", ALL of the Repubicans on the stage gave better answers to many questions than Romney . PERRY, in fact, had one of the great lines about combining Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain for a Vice President. Ah, Newt. Newt AGAIN had a solid debate with some great lines, although his answer on "unemployment benefits" was a Big Government joke couched as a "conservative" answer. Still, if you take at least the last 3 debates, Newt is the clear oveall WINNER on substance. He will not be President of the United States.

What does it tell you when the two "frontrunners" both lack the ability to give any indication that they can actually ARTICULATE conservative principles with conviction--as real people instead of plastic men? No, I don't think it means that this is a "weak" field. There are a lot of impressive individuals up there. In his own way, Romney is impressive-just not PRINCIPLED or able to relate very well to the common person. What it does show is that there is NO Ronald Reagan up there, able to communicate conservative principles in a way people understand.

Nope. No real attacks on the Obama "jobs bill". No attack on OBAMA for undermining Social Security by these GIMMICK short-term "cuts" in the payroll tax (the only fundin gfor Social Security). NO attacks on Boehner for failing to stand up for conservative PRINCIPLES (an opportunity Bachmann has consistently missed). ALL of these Republicans--especailly Perry and Romney--are having NO effect on the actual debate on what we should do NOW (such as defeat the entire Obama "jobs bill". You will remember how McCain was in that same positon in the financial "crisis" of 2008, where what he said seemed IRRELEVANT. Obama, in fact, wa the SAME, even though he was part of Congerss (part of the MAJORITY in Congress, in fact) at the time. This time, Republicans have the advantage of having the current economy sink the current President, where it can hardly be fatal to be irrelevant to the current debate in the country on PRESENT policy. In other words, Republicans are in the "lead from behind" positoin that Obama was in during the 2008 campaign. Still, there is not much coming ut of these Republican debates giving LEADERSHIP to the people in Congress (Republicans) on what they should be doing. What leadership there is comes from the candidates who most do not feel WILL be the leader of the Republican Party, and therefore has little or no effect. Herman Cain is not going to be able to influence what Republicans in Congress DO. Perry COULD. Romney COULD. But they are not. There was a time when even Bachmann COULD, perhaps, have challenged Boehner for EFFECTIVE leadership in the House. Shje has missed her opportunity.

Overall despite good lines, the debate was not very impressive. Perry and Romney really do need to get back to showing why each would be a better President than Obama, and articulate what they actually believe (no matter how the questons try to provotke a fight), or they are in danger of tearing each other down withoout enhancing each's own case to be theRepublican nominee. Rmney is doing better at avoiding this trap than Perry, but that is just because Romney is SLICKER. You could argue that Romney "started it", and is provoking a good part of it. Romney is just doing it better. Could still hurt him later.

There you have it: all you NEED to know about the Republican debate. Oh yes, Johnson's comment that brought down the house: "my neighbor's dogs have created more jobs than Obama's policies."

No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). And yes, if I had to GUESS (ot based on ridiculous polls but on my own judgment), I would say that Romney will be the Republican nominee in the end. Republicans tend to go with the person whose "turn" it is anyway, bad as that has been, and it is "Romney's turn". And only Perry now seems to stand in his way. It just seems unlikely to me---kiowing Perry--that Perry can suddenly become impressive enough to meet "expectations" that he was going to be the "conservative savior". By default, as the person who most are going to think gives the bet chance of beating Obama, Romney is likely to be the last man standing. Long way to go, of course, and things can change. But January is not so far away, and if Romney gains momentum as the "inevitable" nominee, he may be unstoppable. before anyone esle can gain any traction. Me? I still DOUBT if I can suppport Romeny. As I have stated, it probably depends on whether I DISOWN the Republican Party. There are these "issues' outstanding that Romney COULD influence. If he does not, or uses his influence the wrong way, then Ronmney will share the fate of the Republican Party for me: dead to me. See my previous articles on this subject. Romney just does not hae enough credit with me to overcome a BETAYAL by the Republican Party of conservatives that I still expect. The ONLY reaoson that betaya may not occur is that OBAMA is deliberately making it hard for Republicans to actually betray conservatives. So Obama may yet SAVE the Republican Party and Romney from my wrath (a terribble thing)--no credit to the Republican Party or Romney.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Wall Street and the Stock Market: The Stupidest People on Earth

"Skip, do you ever get tired of being right ALL of the time?"

I get this question a lot. Well, actually I don't, but I should.

The case in point here is these stock market RISES from below 111,000 on the Dow to above 11,5000, whcih have taken place in an EYEBLINK. What I have correctly told you is that such irrational rises are just as UNHEALTHY, if not more so, than the sickening drops that keep occurring. This blog specifically told you that I was SELLING into these strong rallies, as best I could, becaue the rallies just created BUBBLES. Why did I say that? It is because the econom;ic news HAS NOT CHANGED. It is bad, and getting worse. Thus, the ONLY explanatin for these "moves" up and down is that Wall Street has become a COMPUTER GAMING CASINO, hardly conne cted to the rewal world at all.

What has been happening over the last several months? Easy. And it has nothing to do with real economics, except to the extent that the day's "news' is used as a TRIGGER for the compuers to institute their programs on this high frequency trading. What has happened over the past several months is that the stock market (The Stupidest People on Earth) has been moving between the level of 1120-30 on the Standard and Poors 500 and the 1`200 level. What has been happeneing is that a piece of bad news (happening almost every day, and NOT offset by good news to justify a reveversal) will cause the COMPUTERS to drive the maret down to the 1120-30 level on the Standard and Poors 500 Index. Then the computer BUY programs will kick in, because this is a TECHICAL SUPPORT LEVEL. So people will HYPOE a SPEECH or some sort of POLITICAL ANNOUNCEMENT (lol) as a reason to buy, and the "market" will shoot right back up to 1q2000 on the S & P 500. This, of course, is absurd: worthy of The Stupidest People on Earth. And it is happening faster and faster, In really not more than TWO days, we have gone from that 1200 level on the S & P 500 to that 1120 level, and--predictably--we BOUNCED off of the 1120 level at the end of today (gonig from down 525 on the Dow to down 391). That bounce was UNHEALTHY (which no one else will tell you), because it just means that the COMPUTERS are in control. Why should any normal (I am not normal) person invest in the stock market when you KNOW it is being totally manipulated by these computer programs? Answer: If you are a normal person, you should NOTG invest in the stock market, excpet perhaps on a very long-term, MONTHLY basis that smooths out thee outrageous moves.

Could we advance right back to the 12000 level on the S & P 500, in another two days, or week? Sure. In fact, we WILL if there is any excuse for the computers to operate. HOWEVER, the moves are getting more and more irrational and violent, showing the dumbest person that this is a SICLK stock market (sick on the UPSIDE as well as on the downside). When computers are controlling these kinds of violent moves, it is obvious that the stock market is SICK, and that the people contrfoling it are both SICK and STUPID. Notice, again, that I did not say that these people are necessariy dummb in making money. But they are doing so at the risk of the WORLD, counting (economic fasicst that they are) on BAILOUTS when they get in tgrouble. I think I am with the Aermican peole generally on this one (although it has taken them awhile to catch up with me, as I was against the bailouts in 2008): HEll will freeze over before I stand for another bailout of people on Wall Street. I will engage in SIT DOWNS in Watshington. There is NO non-violent thing I will not do to STOP another bailout of a SINGELE Wall Street supported entity. There will be a REVOLT in this countgry if our poliiticians give in to their instinct to do this again. So, I repeat: Whether they know how to make money or not, in a SICKK stock market, thee are The Stupidest People on Earth.

Yes, I am saying that the big drop today was partly FICTION--computer driven, even though there was REAL BAD economic news out there. There has been rEAL BAD economic news for at least a month, and nothing but SPPECHES to offset it Ye, these wild swings are occurring without any REAL change in the situation. Computer driven, based on HYPE and manipulation. A stock market which is not SICK would not make these wild swings based on NO change in the overall situation. And what about people who BUY as the index approaches 1200, and SELL as the index approaches 1120? You can see what would havppen with RATIONAL people. But the people on Wall Street are NOT rational peoiple. With rational people, these swings would be dAMPENED. The S & P 500 MIGHT osciallate around 1150, but it would stabilize at some level--without wild swings--as people realize that the market will swing the OTHER WAY tomorrow, or a few days from now. WHO is it that SELLS when the market is already down 200 (Dow) in a single day, or BUYS when the market is already up 150 in a single day? Only The Stupidest People on Earth. And as economic risk stays HIGH, the market should GRADUALLY SINK--irrepective of political speeches or announced government "policy". Juts what ind of people BELLIEVE "policy makers" who have FAILED at every turn? All together now: The Stupidest People on Earth. Except that they don't believe it. They are just using it to HYPE both their computer moves and their self-interested BAILOUTS because they are The Stupidest People on Earth. They are setting us up for a final collapse, and at some point there will be NO bailout. Too bad that they fully intend to bring all of the rest of us down with them (because they will demand that all of the rest of us spend OUR last dollarr bailing them out to the bitter end). As I said, Hell will freeze over......Yes, Kudlow, this continues to mean YOU, and all of you people on CNBC. Jim Cramer? Definitely you. ALL of you.

Oh, did I put my money where my mouth is, as to this latest COMPUTER move to the downsied (however justified it may have been by economic news)? Yes, I did. Near the low this afternoon, I bough (realtively minor amounts) shares of CITIGROUP, WebMD, and Morgan Stanley . Let me caution you. I do NOT recommend you do the same. These are very SPECULATIVE palys, based on a BOUNCE. My overall belief is that our economy is in real trouble, and that only The Stupidest People on Earth would keep doing these computer driven, BUBBLE "bounces" in the face of this kind of risk. However, I do believe--have you been listening--that thewse ARE The Stupidest People on Earth. I am counting on it. Not, of course, with all of the money I have, but on a gambling basis. If I am not able to SELL the stocks I bought today, within a two weeks, I will be disappointed. You think that is not true "investing"? Your are ight. But think about the people who are buying and selling BY THE MINUTE, and DRIVING the market one direction or anotehr in irraitonal swings?

No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

Death Penalty and Media Propaganda: Boycott AT&T and Yahhoo

See yesterday's article on the death penalty as a distracting social issue. Well, Troy Davis was executed, and the media has treated that as STILL the major issue in this country. Yes, ofer the last two days, the evidence is that our econom;y is falling apart, along with th eworld economy, and the MAJOR "news" featrued on AT&T/Yahoo, CNN and the ret has been the exectution of Troy Davis. (So help me, BOYCOTT AT&T and Yahoo, I beg yoiu). You heard about Nero fiddling while Rome burne? Well, our media is perfectly willing to FIDDLE with the death penatly bazsed on ONE CASE (now over) while America burns. These are EVIL people (:not talking about Goergia or even necessarily Davis, but our media people). Doubt lme? Never do that. Here is the FIRST headline today from the "Atni-American, Despicable Associated Press" (full, o official name), as featured on AT&T/Yahoo:

"Ga. execution of Davis leaves guilt unresolved"

Blatatn propgaganda. NO shame at alll. But then the evil people of the despikicable AP never have any shame. Yes, it is a LIE. No , that is not a matter of opinioni. It should be obviious to you, but i am gong to explain it. The AP is just putting out t outrageous propaganda in support of death penalty opponents, and they know it. Thje people of the AP are uniformly DISHONEST. As I have shown you for s=more than seven years, more than any other person on Earth, there is no worse "news" organization in the universe than the despicable Associated Press, because there cannot be. It is impossible to be worse.

\"Guilt unresolved"? ...................,Sorry, I was too busy laughing to keep from breaking down and crying (my usual reaction to the comic atrocities of the AP). HOW do we "resolve" guilt in this country? Youi hae heard the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty"? That might give you a CLUE (which is more than the AP has). We have only ONE way of "resolving guilt" in this country: it is called a TRIAL. You knnow, you proipoagandists of the AP, abut those quaint little proceedings like we had with Casey Anthony and O. J. Simpson? Yes, yoiu heard me. That is the OJNLY way we have of "resolving" guitl and innocence in thsi country. Once a person is CONVICTED in a tril without legal error, he is GUILTY (by definitoni). Proceedings on appeal do NOT represent a means of "reolving" disputed guilt or nnocence. The TRIAL has already accomplished that. Now it is true that dealth penalty opoponents, as part of their DELAYING tactics, wANT what amounts to MULTIPLE new "trils" on every subject under ths sun, including more trials on guilt and innocence. The Supreme Court, unfortunately, and to its shame--actually bought into one of these dELAYING tactics by ordering a Fedeal judge to hold a HEARING on whether Davis had shown himself to be an innocent man. Hoever, even teh Supreme Bourt did NOT say that Davis still had a "presumptioin of innocence". He did not. He was GUILTY, because a jury had found him guilty in a trial in which a legal error has never been found. Nevertheless, Davis was given an (undeserved and dangerous) opportunigy to PROVE his innocence before a Federal judge. In a 150 page opinioni, the judge said that Davis (his attorneys) had FAILED to show that he was an "innocent" man. By the way I find this present tendency on the left to treat Davis as a HERO to be a travesty of the truth. You did not see any extensive stories on how GREAT a guy Davis was--for the simple reason, I believe, that he was not. In Other words, just by being executged for murder, many people are acting as if Davis were an outstanding citizen, without any proof of that besides the fact that 12 citizens found hi a murderer based on substantial evidence.

No, there are TWO things about the AP story that are flat LIES. First, by definition, the GUILT of Davis was RESOLVED by the guilty verdict at his tril. Second, if Davis were not executed, there is no chance his "guilt" would EVER have been "resolved". A new trial, 20 years after the fact. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Sorry, the laughs just keep coming. Davis HAD a tril, much closer to the events. A"new trial" 20 years after the fact would be a FARCE. If you actually buy that a "new trial' would "resolve" Davis' guilt, then you really should apply to work at the AP. You are their kind of DISHONEST person.

But, don't people get off of death row on a fairly frequent basis on the grounds that they have been PROVEN innocent (as with DNA evidence). Sure. Believe it or not, even before the Supreme Court started disrutping state judicial systems with expanded haveas corupus profiding unconstitutionial "oversight" supervision of state criminal trials, people actually shown to be innocent (withotu dispute) got set free. Every state has a procedure for that,. That is the point. Davis did NOT "prove" he was innocent. All his attorneys, and edeath penalty oponents, did was throw a lot of SMOKE 20 years after the fact. In this case the smoke is just manufactrured soot to throw in people's eyes, and not an indication of actual fire. It remains a FACT that we have only ONE way of "resolving" a person's guilt: a TRIAL. It is only when CONCLUSIVE evidence comes out showing that a trial should never have taken place that we short circuit the entire trial process and say we made a mistrake. As stated, the AP headline is pure, FALSE propaganda.

Yes, it is a "legal error" if a judge submits a case to the jury when there is not sufficient evidence for the case to even go to the jury. However, in the Davis case EVERY court said that there was sufficient evidence to present the case to the jury. The jury made its decision, and there was evidence to suport it. Thereofre, Davis was GUILTY (resolved). The only way for him to get around this, aside fromm showing a LEGAL error in the trial proceedings which the defense could not show--was to CONCLUSIVELY show his innocence. Nowhere in ouur systeme does a person receive a right to multiple trials. Davisl actually received something like multiple trials, and that itself was a misteke.

Still doubt me? Consider the SECOND AP/AT&T/Yahoo headline today alone (straight lpropaganda again):

"After Georgia execution, Davis supporters consider next step"

The headline was bad enough. The lead paragraph was a DISGRACE. And yes, the unfair and unbalanced network pushed this propaganda, although I think they had the grace to stop AFTER the execcution had already taken place (not sure, since I don't watch rgularly anymore),. What am I talling about? I am talking about this disgraceful prfopaganda ssentence: "Hundreds of thousands of people around the world were concerned that the evidence in this case was weak". What can you say about a "news" organizatoin that is willing to make a pure propaganda statement like that? Politcaal hacks? ;Dishonest? Incompetent? You can see why I have FAILED in my Sodom and Gomorrah search to find a SINGLE honest, competent AP reporer.

Oh? You want to know what is wrong with that statement I qauoted? First, this is--internationally, and really even domestically--NOT a matter of the details of tthe Troy Davis. case. Remember Claude Rains in Casablanca? "Round up the usual suspects". Here, those "hundreds of thousands" of people are the USUAL SUSPECTS: the usual death penalty opponents, incluidn gmostly ANTI-AMIERCAN people who like to beat up American about the death penatly. And the quoted AP statement is a clear LIE. Do you really believe that "hundreds of thousands of people around th eworld" thought the "evidence against Davis was weak"? If so, again, you need to apply for work with the despicable AP. You will be a perfect fit. The media in the UNITED STATES have no clear idea of the facts in the Davis case. It is absurd to suggestr that "hundreds of thousands of peole around the world" had any idea of the FACTS of the Davis case. They just knew that leftist, anti-death penalty organizations were making a CAUSE out of the Davis case.

Nope. The AP is a PROPAGANDA outfit, enable by peole like those in AT&T and Yahoo.

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

Obama Jobs Failure Continues: 420,000 Plus Jobs Lost Per Week

The report on new unemployment claims filed last week (people who have lost their job due to layoffs) came out this Thursday morning. First let me again embarrass the media (eas as that is) by again informing you how this blog exposed last week's usual LIE. As usual, this blog have youtoday's "news" LAST WEEK. Last week's reported nuimber for new unemployment claims was 428,000, subject t the usual revision (a caveat NEVER reported by the LIARS of the media). This blog told you last week that the revised number, based on consistent history, would be 431,000 or 432,000. Well, the REVISED number ws released this morning, and it was 432,000. Score another one for this blog.

The number reported this week, to be REVISED next week, is 423,000 . That makes 3 straight weeks that thee number has been above 420,000--a TERRIBLE number. In fact, the four-wek average is above 420,000, and that is disaster. As usual, you got the media LIE that the 423,000 number was a drop of 9,000. Even the media could not "spin" this to be actual "good" news, as clueless economists had predictably predicted a much larger "bounce back" from therecent rise. But readers of this blog know by nowe tat the 9,000 figure is a LIE--comparing apples and oranges (comparing today's unrevised number with today's revised number reported last week). On an apples-to-apples basis (comaping last week's initially reported number with this week's initially reported number), the number of claims "fell" 5,000--a number well witin the margin of error and not "good" news at all (other than at least the number did not keep going up). As stated, the number now appears to be stuck above the 420,000 level, and that is truly BAD news. Oh--again if the multi-year pattern continues, as it has for about 9 out of every 10 weeks--the 423,000 reported for this week will be REVISED to 436,000 or 427,000 next week.

The weekly number of new unemployment claims has now been above 400,000 for many MONTHS. No, since I am not a stupid member of the mainstream media, I correctly do not "count" the one week of 399,000 6 or 7 eeks ago as being "under" 400,000. That number was the sAME as 400,000--NO satistical difference. However, it is true that the weekly number had dropped to right at 400,000 for basically an entire month. Nowe that four-week average is back above 420,000. Not only is lthat BAD news in itself, but it is close to making it IMPOOSSIBLE for the September jobs report to be positive. You will have the media, and even economists, acting like we have to wait for the numbers at the end of September for how the "job market" did in September. That is simply not true. If the number of new unemployment calaims stays high, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for the economy to have "created" any significant number of new jobs, and IMPOSSIBLE for the unemployment rate to have gone down. It is hard to see how the weekly jobless claims number can improve enough during the rest of September to make it possible to have good MONTHLY numbers for September job creation and unemplyment. What if the monthy numbers are better than the weekly unemployment claim numbers would indicate? That just tells you that some or all of the nubeers are WRONG. These ae not numbers which are independent of one another, although they technically measure different things by different methods. You cannot haave significant job growth with a consistently bad weekly number on new unemployment claims.

What is most importatn about these numbers is how they look OVER TIME. At the ned of last year, this number went under 400,000. and in February we actaully had four-week averages under 400,000. Now we are again back to numbers about where we were last November. In other words, we have NOT IMPROVED for all of 2011, and we are fast approaching one year of NO IMPROVEMENT. This is actually consistent with NO IMPROVEMENT in the unemployment rate, and with the almost zero growth shown by GDP figures. It is semi-consistent with the monthly "job growth" numbers--only semi-consistent because those monthly job growth numbers have shown a few months of suspiciously strong job "growth". However, the AVERAGE has been very anemic, and not sufficient to drop the unemplyoment rate or immprove the job market. As you should know by now, the figures showed NO "job growth" for August, and it is hard to see how September can be any better if these weekly numbers do not show a sudden, dramatic improvement. The Fed just announced (Bernanke--Wort Failure in the History of World Finance) that there is a "significant dowside risk" to the economy. That hardly sounds like we ae gong to get a dramatic improvement, although Bernanke has been consistently WRONG--leading me to question myself when I find myself agreeing with him.

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

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Death Penalty, an Unimportant Social Issue: Hyporisy of the Mainstream Media and the Rest of the Left

You remember Dishonest Jack Cafferty, of CNN, who--hypocrite that he is--that he did not see how anyone coulf vote for a Republican when the candidates paid so much attentino to "social issues"? Well, the DEATHH PENALTY is a "social issue". Where is Dishonest Jack talking about how the netire media has paid too much attention to this choregraphed leftist circus, while ignoring the IMPORTANT issues out there (eonomy, jobs, debt, war, etc.)? Where is Dhishonest Jack telling Jimmy Carter, and other leftist politicans and activists, that we shold not be DIVIDING the country over mere "social issues" at a time when the very future of the country is at stake? And what about the mainstream media paying so much attention to this ONE execution, when the country has so many much bigger issues? This is not to mentin that the PEOPLE have settled the death penalty question long ago: consistently showing 2-1 support for the death penalty . And make no mistake about it: the Troyo Davis execution was NOT about whether Davis was guilty or innocent, but all about the LEFTIST (includkng the leftist media) campaign against the death penalty. (Yes, I know that the unfair and unbalanced networrk was pretty much as bad as CNN: Why do you think I have adovcating BOYCOTTING the unfair and unbalanced network?)

Yes, the death penalty is a SOCIAL ISSUE. You doubt me on this, because you buy the lefttist HYPOCRISY that letist views on "social issues" are important, while conservative views are a distraction? Never doubt me. In fact, the death penatly is the SAME basic "social issue" as ABORTION. Both are matter os life and death. Almost every single person who opposes abortion on demand does so because it is the KILLING of a human being already in existence: the equivalent of infanticide. In fact, this is another case where leftists do NOT believe in "science". There is NO--I repeat, NO--scientific doubt that a nine month fetus is a HIGHER form of life than an eighth month premature baby. Ther is NO scientific "evidence" (much less proof) that anything fundamental happens with the mere cutting of an umbilical cord. The exact opposite is true. Form a scientific point of view, "birth" is merely a CHNAGE OF ENVIRNONMENT of an entity DESIGNED to live the first nine months within the environment of the mother's womb. Who knew that the motehr's womb would turn out to be a DEATH TRAP for the human fetus. But the point here is that abortion, for the people who opose it (like me), is an issue of INFANTICIDE. Further, unlike the death penalty, abortion ALWAYS--reallly be definition--involves INNOCENT human liefe. The dath penatlty, in contrast, only very rarely involves the execution of an "innocent" man or woman. Again, where is CNN talking about how this attempt to DIVIDE the coutnry over the death penalty is a DISTRACITON from the real issues facing this country? As I have told you, the mainstream media, and the rest of the let, are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Eart, on two legs or four. I can't even IMAGINE worse hypocritres, and they proveit every single day.

As an aside, I do support the death penalty, while opposing abortin on demand. As I have often said, I would be willing to TRADE the death penalty for outlawing abortion (in most instances--think infanticide here). Such a trade, however, is impossible, and therefore I have to use my intelligence to cmoe up with my position on both issues. It is fair to say that I am somewhat more confident of my positoin on abortion than on the death penalty, but that is not to suggest a lack of confidence in my position on the death penalty . We are taling a difference between 95% confident and 100% confident. No, I am not indonsistent. I favor the death penatly BECAUSE I both respect human life and want to sAVE it. See my articles over the past few days. I am confinced that you SAVE more people with the death penalty than you kill--especailly innocent peple. Further, every argument you make about the "sanctity of life" (and you FAVOR abortion when you are wiling to make those argumetns for MURDERERS?) is an argument more in favor of the death penalty than against it. How can a penalty LESS than death be adequate? They HYPOCRISY here is staggering. What is a sentence of "life without parole" but a DEATH SENTENCE over an extended period of time (with, by the way, less incentive to try and make sure the convinction and sentence is correct). I simply can't understand how a person who commits murder can be allowed to lieve out a life--however confined--that he DENIED to his victim. Makes no sense to me. But, hey, I am willing to tRADE, if anyone can show me a way to do it. Seee how willing to "reach across the aisle to find common ground" I am?

Message to lyou leftist hypocrites out there, including in the mainstream media (the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four): I do NOT respect you. I have nothing but contempt for you. I do not respect your hypocrisy, or the way you operate. Yes, you are WRONG on most things. But that is not why I do not RESPECT you (and I do not--not at all). The reason I do not respect you is that you try to DENY other people the 'right " to even disagree with you. YOU are allowed to have positioins ofn "social issues". CNN is even allowed to be OBSESED with "social issues" from the dath penalty to homosexual issues. YOUR opinion on "social issues' is not an opinion on an uneimportant "social issue", because YOUR opinion is not about the "social issue". It is about right and wrong. Well, YOUJ HYPOCRITICAL SNOBS, my opinion on all of these issures also happens to be about right and wrong. I do not tell you that you have no right to argue your opinion. You DO tell me that, and that the people who agree with me have no right to argue their opinion as public policy . We are UNENLIGHTENED HICKS for wom you show no respect every single day--not even respecting our right to exist and pursue our pint of view. Well, I RECIPROCATE your opinino with regard to YOU. You are HYPOCRITES deserving NO RESPECT, and that is exactly what I give you. Intellectually, you are dishonest. Emotionally, you are incapable of perspective or seeing other points of view. Plitically, you are AUTOCRATIC. Socially, you are SNOBS (even if you come from a humbe background). I frankly can't stand you.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight) . Yes, yhou St. Louis Cardinal fans out there--even the leftiss who I have jut informed I don't respect. You OWE ME for the resurgence of the Cardinals. You can trace the turnaround of the Cardinals directly to my initial article exposing Tony LaRussa as a manager who had FAILED this season (and in recent seasons). Well, since then, LaRusssa seems to have found some of the onld "genius" that he had apparently lost. No, the battle is definitely ot yet won. The Crdianls still NEED to win the next four games to sweep their entire current 6 game homestand. However, the Cardinals---as this is written--are only 1.5 games behind Atlanta. There are not many games left, which is why the Cardinals cannot backslikde. But they are in position. IF they can win the final game against the Mets, and the next 3 games agaisnt the Cubs, the Cardinals will PROBABLY (not certainly, but Atlanta has been fading) have caught the Braves by the end of this homestand. They NEED to do that, to avoid being behind with only a few games left. It does appear that the Cardinals, barring another collapse, will be right there until the end, egen if they have not quite entirely dug themselves out of that hole LaRussa put them in during August. Home games are gold here, and the Cardinals need to win ALL of theirs. Yep. You have to have a LITTLE luck, but the Cardinals have put themselves in position, which is more than seemed possible at the beginning of September. Even now, it seems impossible for the Cardinals to catch the Breweres, but that is what happens when you dig this big a hole.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Megyn Kelly, Dumb as a Rock: Dumb Blonde Stereotype Confirmed

I saw Megyn Kelly address the Georgia death penalty/executioin situation this Tuesday, and it ws embarrassing (for her, and for me to watch). I only watched for 30-60 seconds (all I can stand these days of Megyn on the unfair and unbalanced network), but that was enough to know that Kelly accepted the CNN-type, anti-death penalty narrative on the case. That means talking about the "7 witnesses out of nine" who "recanted" (years after the trial)k, "at least in part" (whatever the Hell that means). Kelly, of course, as is almost always true of the unfair and unbalanced network and always true of the mainstream meida, was unintereseted in the actual FACTS of the alleged recantations, or that the supposed alternative "killer" was--I think, as if I would ever know from dear Meghy--safely DEAD. No mention by Kelly, or apparent intention to mention, the ridiculous (ridiculous that our system even required him to write it) 170 page (lor whatever number of pages) opinion of the Federal judge who rejected the idea that Davis (the convicgted murderer) had shown enough "new evidence" to Constitutionally require some sort of retrail (lol) or commutation of the sentence. Oh, by the way, and what are the FACTS about Davis? What kind of guy was he? What do we know about him? NO. Thsese things are not relevant as to whether he received a fair enough trial that it would be absurd to overfrule the jury, but they are sort of relevant as to whether so many people should be making a HERO out of Davis. Enough. All of this is beside the pohnint. Kely, me and everyone else knows that the ACTIVISTS behind turning this totally legal matter into a circus are not really interested in guilt or innocence. They are only intereseted in PROPAGANDA againt the death penatly. It is in acknowlegeing this point, without raising it, that Kelly showed herself to be a person who blondees should DISOWN as confirming the old stereotype.

"This has turned into a REFERENDUMM on the death penalty."

What can you say about a supposed lawyer (which I was in my former life) who would make a statement like that. Yes, she got the word "referendum" wrong--not even close. A referendum" is a VOTGE. The very essence of anti-death penalty activity is to AVOID A VOTE, and to avoid letting ordinary democracy and due process take place. That is because death penalty opponents KNOW that people in general favor the death penalty. That is why death penalty opponents SUBVERT democracy and the will of the people at every turn. still, it is absurd to refer to this Georgia case as creating a "referendum" on the death penalty. What Kelly probably meant to say, if she were not qauite so dumb, is that death penalty opponents wanted to USE this Georgia case as part of their attack on the death penalty . But no, Kelly could not quite have meaant to say that, because she did not make that point. Okay. I don't quite know what she meant to say, other than to push the death penalty opponent narrative that this kind of case raises general "questions" about the death penalty (not for me, or any other rational person).

WHY does Kelly do this sort of thing? My own explanation is the same reason this blog has advocated a BOYCOTT of any regular viewing of the unfair and unbalanced network. I believe that Kelly, and really most of the unfair and unbalanced network, more and more want to be "accepted" as "real "journalists", jsut like the people at CNN (lol) and on the New York Times (lol). This means adopting the mainstream media NARRATIVE on this kind of thing, even as you may do some stories that the mainstream media stlill will not do.

Doubt me? Never do that. Kelly went on to say (to a guest defending Georgia and the execution) that: "I thought the death penalty was reserved for crimes beyond imagination, wkhere guilt is certain." I about cried then. How can you even make a statement like that, even if you are a dumb blonde? That is not the law, and has never been the law. The Supreme Court, in the series of decisioins which made it obvious that the Court was substituting the peronal opnions of the judges for democracy just as much as Hitler or Mussoline or Stalin ever did (although, of course on a lesser scale of evil), said that a state could not simply execute every person convicted of first degree murder, as I would do, and as the Supreme court FIRST said states should do to avoid discrimination in the impositoion of the deatth penalty--before the justices of the Supreme Court recoiled in horror at the number of death sentences that resulted when the states obediently passed such laws. Rather, the Supreme Court eventually held that states had to DEFINE "aggravating factors" that justified imposing the death sentence--as the state determined to be appropraite (but not EVERY murder). One of the usual aggravating factors is the murder of a polilce officer. Guess who Davis murdered? Right. A police officer trying to protect a homesless person from a pistol whipping to steal his beer.

Davis clearly committed a murder for which Georgia has declared the death penalty appropriate, so long as the jry impses it (or recommends it--I don't know the details of Georgia law). And the "certainty" of guilt? See my previous article. "Life without parole" is a DEATH SENTENCE (just over a lifetime). It is beyond absurd, although death penalty oppponents uggest it all of the time, that the "certainty" should be DIFFERENT for the death penalty. The standard id "beyond a reasonable doubt". That is it. The jury, TWNEY YEAR AGO, found that "certainty" "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is beyond absurd--DUMB--for Kelly to suggest that some sort of highter standard is required for the death penalty. Now, is it appropriate for a "clemency borard" or governor to look at a death penalty case and decide to grant a commutation of sentence (like to "life without parole") because that board or governor blieves that there is p[otential that an irrevocable mistake could be made, even though there is no reason to believe the person innocent? Sure. But this is not a legal requirment, or even a moral one. It is a matter of the person or persons deciding upon clemency reviewing the overall facts and coming to a decision whether clemency is appropriate. Death penalty opponents want you to belive otherwise, but the OPINION of death penalty opponents is irrelevant to this process. Otherwise, we would be a government of men and not laws. That is why the AP article this morning was also abusurd, saying that the parole board made ists decision "despite the support of Davis by a former President (Carter) and former director of the FBI. The OPINION of prominent men means NOTHING, and should mean nothing. Otherwise, we truly become that tovernment of men and not laws. Now you will remember that SOME anti-death penalty governors have granted clemency to ALL people on death row--showing contempt for both democrfacy and law. That, of course, is what death penalty opponents really want, if they cannot get the Supreme Court to eliminate the death penalty altogether--as they have tried, and keep trying, to accomplish.

Nope. Megyn Kelly is a dum blonde. ONE satement, on a "referendum", was more than dumb enough. To follow it up with that absurd statment about "crime beyond imagination", with absolute certainty of guilt, makes this a Hall of Shame day for Megyn Kelly--DUMB BLONDE beyond imagination.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Now my younger daughter, who I keep suggesting would RAISE the level of intelligence at the unfair and unablanced network (and who is not blonde), keeps telling me that Megyn Kelly has a SCRIPT. That would just horrify me more, as it would still leave Kelly as a "dumb blonde", but indict numerous other people on the unfair and unbalanced netowrk as just as dumb. If Kely has a "script", she does an awfully good actiong job as a person who has no idea what stupid thing she is going to say next. Now, if you reaed this blog you will notice that I mistype words, and I jsut don't read well enough to proofread. However, occasionally, I am sure I am typing along and don't use a word quite correctly. But I defy you to find a case whhere I uesed a word as badly as thins. And I defy you to tell me what Kelly was TRYING to say. As I told you, my best guess is that she was suggesting that death penalty opponents were trying to make this case an exuse to put the entire death penalty in questin throughout the United States (true enough), but Kelly did not hagve the STONES to say that. Rather, she tried to hink of a vague way to say soometthing that sounded good to a dumb blonde. Yes, I said "stones'. If Kelly is going to act tough (if stupid), as she does, then she had better have STONES. I see no indication that she has either stones or real intelligence.