Haley Barbour and Karl Rove: Shut Up and Go Away; Just Go Away (Mt. Ida and Herman Cain)

I would not vote for Governor Haleey Barbur as dogcatcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas (which, as I have said before, is not meant as any kind of apsersion on Mt. Ida, the small Arkansas town where I spent a hayyy childhood through the sixth grade). This blog has previously pointed out that no one should pay any atention to Karl Rove, who I would also not vote for as dogcatcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas. Herman Cain? His only connection with Mt. Ida is that I WOULD vote for him as dogcatcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas, and have, in fact, endorsed him for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. There is a reason Cain has a chance to be Preisdent, while Barbour did not even have enough support to run. Barbour is a grade A, dishonest, incompetent politician of the "old school". That description also fits Karl Rove. Cain, Barbour and Rove are connected because CNN used Barbour, and Barbour used CNN, to do a HIT PIECE on Herman Cain (Owhich dooms Barbour, forever, in my view). In the same breath, CNN CONNECTED Rove and Barbour, and I totally believe that connetion. this blot has DISOWNED Rove long ago. Yep. See my previous two articles on thiis subjet, where I told Republclicans (especailly Romney, who is TEETERING on the edge hre of an "I ACCUSE" blog artticle, as I come very close to promising to FIGHT against Romney all of the way through the general election) that I would hold Republicans RESPONSIBLE for bringing out the "long knives" againt Herman Cain. Barbour brought out a very long knife this Monday night, and Hell will freeze over before I will forgive him for it. Do't doubt me. I KNOW lhow these peole think, and the code words they use. Oh, you may have wondered why I did not call Barbour an "evil racist" (see previous articles on this subject). I would have, except that Barbour is governor of the Southern state that leftists love to hate. It was just too much of a steortype for me to call Barbour a "racist", even if he has joined the racists of the left in taking out the long knives against Herman Cain.


What can yoiu say about the propagandists at CNN? This is The Liar Network, and earns the title again every night. We are talkihng about that new babe on at 7 p.m. (5 in El Paso), replacing John King. But all CNN people are the same, with some only being a very smal degree worse than the others. How did this program beging? I already hinted. The babe anchor went into a COMMERICIAL for Haley Barbour and Karl Rove as the MONEY men who are gong to raise the money to defeat Barack Obama. Rove has a target of raising 240 million to defeat Obama, and CNN was careful to say that Barbour had raised over 100 million to support Republican goovernors, and was now joining forces with Rove. Now CNN HATES Barbour and Rove. So why the commercial. I know. Do you?


Were you thinking of voting for Herman Cain? Will you do so if yoiu think that Cain will NOT have the support of people who are out there raising, and contributing, the most money to defeat Barack Obama? The not-so-subtle mmessage CNN was trying to send is that the MONEY PEOPLE do not have any confidence in Herman Cain. Screw them. Yoiu heard me. Conservatives are often told, in effedt: "Screw you. You have nowhere else to go.". Well, Haley Barbour and Karl Rove havbe nowhere else to go. And I would be glad to tell them so to their face. Rove even flatly says that he is raising money to dEFEAT OBAMA, and that he will try to do so no matter who the Republican nominee is. However, you can take it to the bank: Barbour and Rove SUPPORT ROMNEY (over any conservative, anyway), even if they will not publicly sayso. The only question is (the fate of Mitt Romeny hanging by a thread--at least with me--on whether I ultimately decide that ROMNBEY is behind things llike the Barbour appearance on CNN)--the only question is whether Mitt Romney (see previous parenthesis) is BEHIND these attacks on Herman Cain (or at least is sending out the message that he wants such attakcks to be made by the establishment people he surely believes are in his corner).


you ask what Haley Barbour SAID? I am glad you asked lthat. It is a textbook example of how to take out the LONG KNIFE and try to ASSASSINATE someone. Did Barbour say that this kind of hysterical PROPAGANDA, based on SPECUALTION and CHARGES (of not much), is an example of LEF WING (including left wing media) hypocrisy and unfairness? Not a chance. Barbour was there to ASSASSINATE Herman Cain. What he did was say taht whether it would "derail" (the CNN word) teh Cain campaign depended on what "facts" came out, but that it was just not what Cain wanted to be talkig about at this time (the purpose of the unfair attack in the first place, which Barbour could have said, but did not). Barbour repreated mroe thatan once, as if ite were IMPORTAN, that the Cain campaign "could do without" this kind of publicity forcing Cain to talk about this. NO "defense" of Cain. Just a "long knife" in the BACK (Barbour being a Republican RACIST , in the CNN view, being the only reason he was on CNN to make the attack CNN would like to keep its fingerprints off as much as possible). What Barbour was saying was that this will HURT the Cain campaign, whehter it is true or not, and that he is going to withhold judgment on whether it shold totally END the Cain campaign until the "facts" are fully presented (never, by the way, as it is impossible to FULLY pshow the facts att his late date).


Rush Limbaugh had this right: For leftists, including the leftists of the mainstream media, the FACTS do not matter at all. Al aht mattters is the SERIOUSNESS of the "charege". And, as this cases shows, you can even distorth the CHARGE. The decade old "complaint" against Cain ws NOT really a charege of "secual harrassment" (except as a legal term of art). That did not keep the DISHOENST media, including the unfair and unbalanced network, from reporting that Cain had been "charged" with "sexaul harrassment" (having a very different connotation from the specific facts actually alleged), and must have been "tuillty" because money was paid to stop the charges from going forward. In the law (as a plaintiffs' tril lawyr for 35 years, I can tell you this as a FACT), this is known as a "sttlement" of a "doubtful and disputed claim" (the language in every release I ever saw). In the world of business, these settlements occur all of the time, because it makes BUSINESS sense to settle (and the lawyers are telling you that there is no telling what a jury might do, exctly bECAUSE "sexual harrassment", as a legal matter, is a very VAGUE concept depending mostly on the eye of the beholder). .


What did Haley Brrbour and CNN really say? You can summarize it this way: We don't know whether there is anything to this or not, but the mere rEORTING of SPECUALTION is hurting Herman Cain at a time when he cannot afford it. Furtehr, you have to worry about what else might come out, now that the unfair, leftist media are in a FEEDING RENZY (racists that they are) to "get " Herman Cain on "sexual misconduct". Even further, you can be sure that tghe MONEY will not foow in to Cain, or maybe even againt Obama if Cain looks like he will win the nomination, and WE are the "money men" who know about that."


I guarantee you I am right on this. Haley Barbour had the "long knnives" out for Cain, and I now have my "long knife" out for Barbour.


On the general issue, think of how EVIL it is to suggest, as Barbour almsot does, and meant to, that all the propagandists oft eh mainstream media have to do is bring up AnYTHING against a conservative like Cain, and it idoes not matter if it is true,. or unimportatn. All that matters is that the CHARGE ahs been made, and the media thinks it has a green light to not only SPECULATE aobut that "charge" (and distort it), but that they also have a green light to engage in a FEEDING FRENZY to "discredit" a BLACK MAN. "Racist" is too kind a word for theese evil people. Yes, lurking at the bottom of all of this is the REPUTATION (among racists, to whom CNN is pandering) taht black men are sexually "dangerous". If I were questioning Haley Barbour, I would ask him that: "Don't you think that this matter is getting so much play partly because of the old RACIST attitude that black men are DANGEROUS sexually?"



You think I am kidding? I am not. That is exactly the kind of questin the mainstream media--the worst hypocrites to ever walk teh Earth, on two legs or four--has asked with regard to EVERY criticism of black man Barack Obama. yet, with Barack Obama, thre usually ha been NO obvius connection with old racial stereotypes. Thus, the mainstream media, hypocrites, have said that it is RACIST to call Obama a "socialist". Say what? How is it one of the old reacial stereotypes that blakc men are SOCIALISTS. Never even occurred to me.


And letist Democrats, and the mainstream media, are out there DEFENDING Barack Obama against "unfair" attacks (including tryong to ignore, and then dismiss, Jeremiah Wright, who was certainly more important thatn this "rinky dink" "charrge" of "inappropriate conduct" in the workplace). Here Haley Barbur is throwing Cain to the wolves, while leftist Democrats are willing to scream "RACISM" every time a black Democrat is accused of AnYTHING. I know that conservatives are against "playing the race card", but you have to label UNFAIR attacks as UNFAIR, and note lthe HYPOCRISY here.


The Republican Party (CNN is obvious, and not worthy of concern) remains ON THE EDGE. The Republcian establishement, is unwillng to stand up for either principle OR conservatives . Well, I am unwilling to stand up for THEM, and am on the verge of walking totally away from the Republican Party FOREVER.


You may think I am am special case. Dont' be so sure of that. There are more people out there like me than you would think, and more every day (as the games become obvious, and even Newt Gingrich fees that it is an advantage to pint them out). . The MONEY MEN (lol--again, the peole that CNN HATES, except when supporting Barack Obama) had better watch out. They are on the verge of losing all control. And it si NOT "Occupy Wall Street" that is bringing us to the point of a "revolution" against the establishment. It is people like the Tea Party people, and like ME.


I repeat yesterday's endorsement: I endorse Herman Cain for President of the United Staates, both for the Republican nomination and in the general elecdtin (assuming he makes it there, where if he does not there is EXTREME doubt I will support the Repubilcan nominee, as I refused to support John McCain).


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

Fox News: Boycott Fox, The Unfair and Unbalanced Network

If Obama can grant waivers from ObamaCare, I can grant a waiver to MYSELF on this blog's rule that Fox News, the unfair and unbalanced network, not be mentioned by name in this blog. The purpose of this waiver is, of course, to make it crystal clear who I am talking about, as I REAFFIRM my suggestion that you BOYCOTT Fox News. I, myself, have decided to reduce my total daily SURFING time to nomore than 5 minutes of Fox "News" (the only amount of time I can stand, and the same limit I have on every otehr TV "news' outlet. The only exception, obviously, will be if--as last tnight--I watch a "story for MATERIAL for this blog, as I get angrier and angrier. No, I do not support SPONSERS advertising on Fox, either. 5 minutes was all I could stand this morning, as I followed up on the atrocoius Fox story on Hrman Cain "broken" last night. See the previous blog article.


No, tjhe terrible, evil racists of Fox "News" did NOT improve over Geraldo Rivera this morning. There was all of the SPECUALTIOIN about whether there will be "more" allegatioins surfacing, and all of thehysteria about how, somehow, this is some sort of major "news" event. Contrast this with the way the mainstream media STONEWALLS much more major stories played up on Fox "News"--often more valid stories--on the grounds that the stories are not imporant (just the "conservative" Fox pursuing an agenda). Yet, Fox is fully as BAD as tthe WORST oft eh mainstream media on a story like this non-sotry on Herman Cain. Oh, Fox will put on more "conservative' counterpoints than the mainstream media, but that is just for the sake of CONTROVERSY. It does nto help either Herman Cain OR the "truth". Enough. Let me just assure you taht 5 minutes of Fox this morning was enough to CONFIRM my low opiinion of Fox--not only form last night, but from the past 5 years. You could almost see the GLEE as Fox's Carl (Karl?--who cares?) Cameron, and friends, virtually told viewers that now that this l"story" has GONE PUBLIC, Fox feels perfectly free to declrae that all coundaries and standards are gone. This is the typical Fox atrtitude, and it is an EVIL one. The mainstream media actually has a SUPERIOR attitude on this, although they use it selectively as a PROPAGANDA tool. Evil is evil, even if someone else has "broken the sotry first. Fox is going to report EVERY "rumor" on Cain over the next week or so, and Cameron and friends virtually told you so (actually, I would delete the "cirtually"). Fox "News" to viewers: Let the feeding frenzy beging, as WE grat white sharks circle for the unfair attacks. Again, let me remind you that the "unbalanced" in the headline does NOT refer to politcal bias, but to evil INSANITY.


No, I will not watch Fox 'News" for even a single minute more today. Not O'Reily. Not Hannity. Not VanSusteren. NOBODY. NO program. And Fox can be assured that I will abide by my 5 minute daily limit from now on. And I will NOT be enticed by mere "controversy" into watching more. To the extent I watch more individual stories when I surf across one, it will be no more often than CNN, or any other cable TV network. Fox is dead to me. This self-granted waiver is now over. His is the last time, barring another waiver for the purpose of pushing this boycott, that "Fox" will apper, by name, in this blog. Again, this blog is reverting to the correct name and description: the unfair and unbalanced network.


R.I.P., unfair and unbalanced network.

Geraldo Rivera, Polito.com and Herman Cain: Evil Racists (Racists in the Mainstream Media and on the Unfair and Unbalanced Network)

Geraldo Rivera came on breathlessly with "breaking news" tonight, which was neither "breaking" nor "news". By the standards of the mainstream media, AND Geraldo Rivera (racist standards, needless to say), the "breaking news" "story" ws CLEARLY RACIST: a clearly racist attack on Herman Cain. By my, much higher and mroe correctg standards, the "breaking news" story was a RACIST story by EVIL RACISTS who have no redeeming social value. The story was "borken" by Politico.com, which this blog ACCURAGTELY labeled as EVIL LIARS years abgo. The evil, lying people of Politico.com are political propagandists, pure and simple, but the same thing can be said of the mainstream media and Geraldo Rivera. If any of you have ever questioned my decision to call for a BOYCOTT of the "unfair and unbalanced network", can you possibly have any doubt tonight. You can already see the "feeding renzy" forming, as people in the mainstream media--and evil people like Geraldo Rivera--try to blow this "sory" out of all proportion. My CONTEMPT for these people grows each and every day. They are EVIL people spreadking evil. They are the real RACISTS out there. I can't tell you how low my opinion is of these "journalists", although I keep trying. Your opinioni should be just as low, and polls (evil though those are) tend to show that it is. Good. You should not even shake hands with any of these peole, if you meet them. I am serious about this. These are EVIL people.


Oh, yoiu want to know about the non-story, which Geraldo Rivera IMMEDIATELY (evil racist that he is, on the truly unfair and unbalanced network) put on a mounful and "sad" face, and virfutually called the Cain campaingn dead. It is, of curse, Geraldo Rivera, AND the unfair and unbalanced network, who should be DEAD to all reasonable and moral people. Yes, jsut like the rest of the mainstream media, Rivera is also one of those worst hypobcrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. Rivera is a wll known SEAZEBALL with regard to women, having been married multiple times.


Oh, the non-stopry. It is so insignificant I keep forgetting to eve describe it. Herman Cain--actually a reather significant qualification for him--was once the President (or chairman, or whatever) of the Natioinal Resturant Association. In that capacity, he was faced with "complaints" (apprently) from two women alleging "inapropriate" conduct. Demanding sex? Nope (at least not as of tonight's non-story). Groping? Again, apparently not. Demanding ANY kind of sexual favor? Apparently not. We are talking about "inapppropriate language", and maybe "gestures". What a crock. What a NON-STORY. The conduct alleged was evidently not even as bad as that alleged against Clarence Thomas, and Clarence Thomas now sits as a justice of the United States Supreme Court (deservedly so, and sill married to the same woman, who happens to be white).


I can't even stand it. On these "facts" (as if Rivera, the mainstream media, OR the unfair and unbalanced network were EVER concerned with merely presenting facts, or presenting the facts at all), Geraldo was shaking his head as to how a "minister" and man "married 43 years to the same woman" (ENVY here from the despicable Geraldo), could be accused of this "horrible" cnduct (the word "hoorible' nto being expressed, but a MILD word for the way Geraldo was reacting, as if Cain had committed adultery and then MURDERED his wife). Oh, by the way, this allegely happened more than a decade ago, which is not going to keep the mainstream media from holding a LYNCHING of Herman Cain--a kangaroo curt "trial by medai", evilly RACIST at its core and proving that these are turly evil people The unfair and unbalanced network is already saying taht CBS "News" had a "team" "shadowing" Cain today, as the great white sharkds of the reacist media circuled. Ecept, of course, sharks are not EVIL, while these "journalists" are EVIL RACISTS spreading evil.


No, I have not even reached the end of the EVIL of Rivera, and Politicocom (not to mention all of the mainstream mediia) Gerald Rivera did his EVIL best (I would turn my back on him if I ever were in a position to meet him, AFTER telling him why)best to imply that Cain PAID OFF the women, as in "blackmail" and "extortion" (legal extortion being probably what this was, but Rivera did not bother to mention that probability).


I have mentioned my previoius life as a PLAINTIFFS' trial attorney. This is all about MONEY. Under present law, you cand get MONEY by alleging that an executive has created a "hostile work place" (sexaully hostile) by mere inappropriate language and/or gestures). This means that if an executive uses the "f" word a lot, or curses, he can be accused of creating a "hostile' worklplace" for the "tender sensibilities" of employees. I assume it was employees who were complaining, since otherwise the allegations really don't amount to anything. This is obviusly SUBJECTIVE, even if the Supreme Court might allege otherwise. Who knows what a "hostile workplace" is. You koiw, and I know, that almost EVERYONE says F--- all of the time--especially women nowadays. My younder daughter has beeen know to use the word in almost every other sentence. I believe that the use of the word, especially be "comedians", is the refuge of a small mind. But who knows whatSOPME PEOPLE (especially on a jury) might consider "inappropriate conduct" by an executive. "Honey"? Some women object. "Sugar"? Some women object. So what does the National Resturant Association, or any large organization, do when faced with this kind of allegation? They SETTLE. They PAY SOME MONEY in SETTTLEMENT of the allegations, without admitting that anything wrong was done (as wold be IMPOSSIBLE to estalbish one way or the other after more than a decade, even though the EVIL RACISTS of the mainstream media are going to subject Cain to a kangaroo court, making the whold Presidential campaign of Herman Caiin, if they have anything to do about it, be about this FALSE "issue"). Herman Cain needs to strike back HARD on this, and call these people out. The entire Republican Party--even more so, since Cain is the "self-interested" caNdidate who may be seen as "playing the race card" just like Obama)needs to CAlL OUT the media on this.. Yes, if it wansts to maintain the respect of other people besides myself--who has lost all such respect already, the unfair and unbalanced ntwork needs to call the rest of the media RACISTS. They need to do BIG STORIES abut whehter this is racism against Herman Cain.l Conservative commentators--not just me and Rush Limbaugh-need to CALL these EVIL RACISTS out as the EVIL RACISTS taht they are. It is a COST OF DOING BUSINESS to occasionally "settle" suits like this. You can--if you are a dishonest hypocrit an dpropagandist--talk about how you have to "fight" this kind of allegaion, "n principle", and that is what Cain should have done (even if the lawyers accurately told him to "settle", and the National Resurant Association overall thought that was the best thing to do?). Hogwash. This is not REAlITY. In the real world, you SETTLE, if you can do so for a limited amount of money, because who needs this kind of lawsuit costing more ATTORNEY'S FEES than the settlement? If you are facing a whole lot of these lawsuits, you MIGHT start defending them "on principle" (really to discourage plaintiffs' attorneys like I was from thinking they have an easy time EXTORTING money for flimsy cases). Ordinarily, however, you SETTLE this kind of comoplaint, and you are bettter off ding it as soon as possible (before any actual lawsuit). Geraldo Rivera is an attorney. He KNOWS this. But Geraldo Rivera is also an EVIL LIAR, willing to say anything to pursue an agenda (as he did way back when, in the disgraceful episode of "Al Capone's vault").



What are the standards of racism for Politico, Geraldo Rivera and CBS (along with the rest of teh mainstream media)? You know this one. Criticism--especially strong criticism--of a BLACK man is RACIST (even if not, on its face, based on race). Thus, the Tea Party is "rfacist. Nwt Gingrich is "racist" for calling Obama the "food stamp President", even though that is not about race on its face. And the criticisms of Barack Obama habve almsot all been aobut POLICY. that has not kept the mainstream media fromm calling them RACIST, because they say only a black man would be treated that way (patently false), and because of the history of the way blacks have been treated int his country. But look at thhese allegations agaisnt Herman Cain!!!! They are not even about policy. They are clearly targeted at a rACIAL STEROTYPE (the "black man" as a SEXUAL PREDATOR who is a danger to white womn everywhere--and may, in folklore, RUIN women for the puny pneis and sexual prowess of a WHITE MAN). You can't get any moreRACIST than this. Yes, this was true of the allegations against Clarence Thomas as well, which were also OLD and about nothing. Geraldo River, evil racist, mentioned Clarence Thomas as if Clarence Thomas were FEFEATED.. Rivera, racist, clearly believes Thomas should have been lynched. However, Thomas WON. He was confirmed by a ;arge vpte. omc;idomg De,mocrats.


What about my higheer standars? You know that I don't believe in turning substantive arguments into arguments about race. I have correctly told you that RACISM is DEFINING somene bsed on the color of his skin. That is exctly what leftists, including media leftists, are doing with Herman Cain (and tried to do with Clarence Thomas). Yes, they are trying to USE the sexual "reputation" of black men. But it goes way beyond that. For leftists, a blak man is NOT ALLOWED to be a conservative. They DEFINE "real" black men aS liberals. Black men (not to mention black women, Hispanic men and Hispnic women) are not allowed to think for themselves. They have to "support", and think like, THEIR RACE (even to spporting white Democrats, because their RACISL interest is supposedly advanced that way). This is RACISM, and leftists constitute the vaSt majority of real racists in this country today. Herman Cain is just another example.


Then there is Joe Biden. Multiple times 'our Joe' (joke that he is) has been "caught" using the "F" word. Has Joe Biden acted "inappropriately"? Most of us think Joe Biden is a walking, talking "inappropriate' human being. But ti shows how fuzzy this "lie" is nowadays in the wokplace. SOME womn might have a much more foul mouth than most men out there. Other women may even complain of the foul mouthed WOMEN. And that is not even to consider the modern MAN, who may be making complaints of his own. As I sad, this is maily all about MONEY. My brother, who co-owned a trucking business before Obama faied to bail him out, almost foams at the mouth talking aobut the EXTORTION aided and abetted by the Federal Government (EEOC, OSHA, the Labor Department, EPA, and so much else). To him, facing these mainly unjustified complaints was a useless, infuriating cost of doing businees. Even when my borther "won", he lost, becaZuse his compnay usually eneded up pauying attorny'es fees mroe than he could have sttle for. My brother would sometimes--no always---"stand on principle", because he wsa so mad at the extortion going on., and how the government helped it. However, my brother recognized that it was often better to "pay the two dollars", rather than spend incredible amounts of money he could not afford. A sad state we have gotten into. And Obama has made it all worse. It was bad beofer Obama. It is notw worse.


Herman Cain. I am about to repeat a mistake. I was GOADD into prematurely endorsing Michele Bachmann for President because of the media. She proved a disappointment, although I still admire her.ll I have previously withdrawn the endorsement, AND said that Herman Cain was the only apparent "conservative" with a chance to WIN the nomination (this blog having correctly declared Rick Perry as dead, and I don't like Perry much anyway). Yet, I have held back on actualy endorsing Cain, because I belive he may not be able to stand up to the kind of hammering he is going to get. How right I was aobut the "hammering" is shown by this ridiculous story, and it remains to be seen if Cain can stand up under the UNFAIR, racist attacks. But I refuse to REWARD EVIL. As I have said, I would be glad to have Herman Cain as President of the United States. Therefore, I am notw formally EDORSING HERMAN CAIN for President of the United States. In one sense, I should not let the evil media goad me into this. In another sense, hoever, it is about time to fish or cut bait. In 2008, I endorsed Romney in December of 2008, with CORRECT articles telling Rush Limbaugh that HE was ging to be repsonsible for the nominatioin of McCain (as he, Limbuahg, WAS, by effectively supporting Romney TOO LATE). I see the flaws in Herman Cai. But, as I have previously said, IF the American people are not to convict THEMSELVES as hypocrites, at some pont we have to sop demanding that we only elect POLITICIANS who PARSE every word they say. Even this "problem' fo Herman Cain arose because his is OUT THERE in the real world--not the fantasy world of politics. In the real world, business peoople face complaints and lawsuits, and they may have to SETTLE those complaints (if they want to be rational uman beings, and folllow the adivce of their lawyers--based not on "guilt" or "innocence', but on RATIONALITY). I invite my brother, by the way, to comment on Hreman Cain and this article. My brotehr tends to get hysterical on this subject, but in this case you might rightly figure that he cannot get more hhsterical than my reacitn to this really evil attack on Cain.


Message to Mitt Romney: Do not even THINK about trying to "use" this against Herman Cain.. If I even SUSPECT you of being behind attacks on Cain based on this, I will use every iota of my energy to OPPOSE you for President. That means not only agaiNst Cain, but against OBAMA. Yes, I laredy am leery of supporting you against Obama. Any attack on Cain on this spurious baSis would be the last straw. Further, I am NOT deceived by political games. If your OPERATIVES put out the long knives for Cain, even if you try to "keep your skirts clean", I will hold YOU responsible. In fact, I hink you, Romney, should DEFEND Herman Cain against this kind of attack (once the vacts are fully out---see next paragraph).


Now I am gong on the FACTS as they now appear. No, it will ot affect my judgment if the fats are a little more "serious" than I suggest, and then even Geraldo Rivera suggested. I have lost all patience with this kind of CHARACTER ASSASSINAIOTION. Unless Cain SEXUALLY ASSAULTED a woman, as Bill Clinton was accued of doing by MULTIOPLE WOMEN (racism to dismiss claims agiaNst Clinton and not against Cain?), I am jsut not gong to pay any attention to this kind of allegation(s). We have to stop encuraging this sort of thing, which has NOTHING to do wtih whether Herman Cain should be President. What could change? Maybe there will be CREDIBLE assertoions that Cain actually SEXUALLY ASSUALTED a woman, or women. I doubt it, which is why I have endorsed Herman Cain. But it is, of courrse, possible. But this is the PURPOSE behind this kind of hysterical' "hcarge". The idea is to SCARE people that "where there is smoke, there is fire". I refuse to be that stupid. Right now, I am not aware of any FACTS that i would hold against Herman Cain, even as much as I would hold ADULTERY against Newt Gingrich (and that is not much--not because I approve of adultery, but because I don't think Presidential campaigns should sink to the level of arguing about what 50%,and more, of men allegedly do). It is jsut SORDI, and ridiculous, to make so much of his kind of CHARACTERRASSASSINATION (the ultimate in "negative aDs", BY OUR MEDIA). The media takes the attitude taht once this kind of allegation "surfaces", then they are EXCUSED in all of the specualtion and hysteria they want to enagate in. Well, I do not give those EVIL people that kind of pass. Message to the unfair and unbalanced network: This especailly means YOUI. Every time you react this way (you, the media), wiht this kind of evil hysteria, I think LESS of you (and STOP listening to you in any way, aS even my SURFING of "news" on televiosn has gone down to 15 MINUTES or less a day).


You may wonder how I SAW Geraldo Rivera tonight, for about 30 seconds (until the ridiculous "reporting" caused me to stay on for the material for this article). I asure you that I do NOT watch Geraldo Rivera. It has been MONTHS, since I even "surfed" his program. Why tonight? Well, it is because the DallaS Cowboys were being STOMPED on NBC. I was bored. I thought I would jsut look at what the unfair and unabalanced network was doing this Sunday night. Low aNd behold, there was Geraldo, with 'breaking news'. It is almost enough to make me--sitll an agnostic, despite my Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest,compettent AP reporter--believe in God. What are the oods that I would turn to Geraldo Rivera, for the first time in MONTHS, at just the right time to hear this "breaking news'? Interesting, isn't it?


Yes, I realize that the RACISTS in the media are notw gong to think that Herman Cain is "fair game" for ALL sexual allegations. You may have women coming out of the woodwork claiming Cin has committed adultery, or engaged in sexual misconduct. This kind of thing was DISMISSED, for this very reason, at the time of Bill Clinton (who was PROVEN to have engaged in more disgusting conduct than has even yet been ALLEGED agaInst Cain). We know, hoever, that the mainstgream media is composed of the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four. So you can expect STORY AFTER SOTRY accusing Cain of sexual misconduct--exaggerating wahtever alleagations there are, and were. None of this will affect ME, except to make me think LESS every day of these evil "journalists". That is why Cain has to go on the ATTACK, as do people on his behalf. You jsut can't let these people get away with this, or Cain will be "defeated" by EVIL, RACIST SPECUALTION ratiher than facts. That would be a very bad thing. What is a legitimate sotry I will tell ou if I see one. I don't expect any. But if there is slid EVIDENCE (liek the blue dress) of rape, or other SERIOUS sexual misconduct, I never ahve a closed mind. I jsut KNOW how this works, and I refuse to stand for it. I even said some of these same things with regard to Bill Clinton. The Paula Jones allegations, for expample, were never impressive to me, and I thought the case should NEVER have been allowed to go forwrd while Clinton was President. Remember, again, that Paula Jones, is ony one of SEVERAL women who alleged rape or some kind of sexual assault against Clinton. With Clinton, the media demanded PROOF. With Cain, ALLEGATION is all they are going to need. Nope. As stated, I refuse to stand for it. You should not stand for it either.Is it enough reason to endorse a man for President? I think it is, IF you already were inclined that way. "Push back" is necessary against EVIL, and that is what I do..


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). This is especially aproblem when I write an aricle in the white heat of anger. But I can only do what I can do. I refuse to wait on this. Geraldo Rivera did not wait. If the media reported only FACTS, then wI would wait for the FACTS. As long as they do what they do, I will do what I can do (witin the limits of my eyesight) I am not a Christian. I do NOT "turn the other cheek".

St. Louis Cardinals, Champions: This Blog Gets the Credit

I know. Somee benighted beople might give the credit for the Cardinals winning the World Series to David Frese, Caprpenter, Berkman, Craig, Molina, Pujols, and/or even Tony LaRussa.


Those in the know, howe er, KNOW werhere the credit really belongs: THIS BLOG.


What happened in late August, when the Cardinals started their run? No, the plaers did NOT change. The manager did not change from the manager who had done a LOUSY job up to late August--cumliimnation in loising 3 out of 4 to a mediocre Dodger team, AT JHOOME, afeter LOSING game after game AT HOME to inferior opponets.


What changed was THIS BLOG. I wrote an article in late August noting that Tony LaRussa was a FAILURE. He hhad done nothing since 20056, and had put the Cardinals in an impossible hole this year, against INFERIRO oppositoin.


From the time that article came out, the Cardinals weree (mainly, as they still seemed to lose to INFERIOR teams too much) a different temam. LaRussa gaets (too much?) credit for "motivating" players. The question is; WHO motivates LaRussa? Well, you now know the answer,. THIS BLOG motivated LaRussa. The ONLY thing that changed was this blog article, and you will probably find a copy oseted in LaRussa's ofice. There is just no doubt. This blog DESERVES the credit for what the St. Louis Cardinals have accomplished. I shouldl ahve received the trophy for "most valuable player", except I guess I donn't qualify, since I am not a player.


I will even admit that LarRussa managed peretty well in the post-season. Oh, he managed Game 5 ATROCIOUSLY, and there were a number of questionable lineup decisons throughout. Still, a pretty good job (which is praise I am sure LaRussa appreciates, from an EXEPERT like myself). Having Craing run in the nith inning of Game 5 was one of trhe WORST ddecisons a manager has ever made, but LaRussa, overall, had a pretty brilliant post-season.


As I have said, I have been a Cardinal fan since my childhood in the hill country of Arkansas (Mt. Ida), where I listened to Harry Carey describe the exploits of Stan Musial. One of the disappointments of my life was that I neverf saw Stan the Man in a World Series, since the last on e he was in was in 1948 (when I was 1 year old). Albert Pujols has probably been a bettter player (although not better than Musial was in 1948), but my heart still belongs to Musial. It is amazing for any franchise besides the Yankees to have had players like Pujols and Musial (I don't count Barry Bonds, for obvious reasons). It was ONLY the Cardinals, in the National League, who could stand toe to toe with the legendary Yankees, unntil they were unable to get backinto the World Series between 1948 and 1964 (and the era of Bob Bibson, Lou Brock, Ozzie Smith, et. al.).


I know that I am a prophet unapprecaited in my own time. So I don't expet to receive the credit I deerve for MOTIVATING the Cardinals, and especailly LaRussa.


What is funny is that LaRussa is STILL full of it. He specifically mentioned, in his post-game comments this Friday night, a game against Chicago (a bad team, AT HOME,, in September. I remember the game well, because I almost wrote an artifcle mentioning it at the time. The Cardinals had just blown a 4 run lead in the ninth inning against the Mets, in a game which could have DOOMED them . Then they LOST a game against the lowly Cubs. TGhey were lalmsot OUT. They could not afford losses like that, and LaRussa had to take some of the blame for those losses (yep, losses in the middle of the Cardinals' amazing run to the World Series). Then came an amazing game against the Cubs. Again, the Cubs were a LOUASY team. Yet, the Cardinals were SHUT OUT until two werer out in the ninth inning. The SEASON was on the line. The Cubs had their closer, Marvel, on the mound. What happened? LaRussa would have you believe that the Cardinals, inspired by their crowd, cAME BACK (like tin Game Six of this World Series). Hogwash. Marvel WALKED in (or Cub relievers did--I don't remember if Marvel was there at the end) TWO RUNS. The Cardinals got a GIFT. There was no "comeback" involved, unless you say that a meltdown by the other teams relievers is a "comeback". That game was, indeed, crucial. But it was TOTAL LUCK., and a gift frfom the Cubs. Sure, maybe this waws just "karma", since the Cardinals gave the Mets that gift a few days earlier, but it was still a gift (rather than a "comeback").


Yes. I congratulate the St. Louis Cardinals. They are still my team =, and they really did come back in the most amazing baseball game I have ever seen (Game Six). I congratulate the city of St. Louis, where I saw ONE baseball bgame in my life, and still remembr it as one of the highlights of my life (although one of my borthers found a hornet's nest in the middle of St. Louis, and almost got killed). It is the bets of all possible worlds. The St. Louis Cardinals wontghe World Series, and I APPARENTLY will have Tony LaRussa to "kick around" again, and "motivate", since the rumor is that he will be coming back. Will Albert Pujols be there? I don't know, but mayber Albert should consider whether he needs the Cardinals more than the Cardinals need him (although it may be a close thing).


No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight) . Feel free, you Cardinal fans, to comment, by THANKING me for being responsible for this latest triumph of your Cardinals. And consider poor Ben Bernanke. I said, in my previous article that turned around the Cardinal season, that Bernake had FAILED since 2006, just like Tony LaRussa. Now Bernanke stands alone: The Worst Failuer in the History of World Finance, and showng no hint of being properly motivated by this blog (mroe shame to him).

Wall Street Protesters and Dishonest Media Propagandists

Present featured headline on AT&T/Yahoo "Newss" (boycott AT&T and Yahoo), from the always despicable Associated Press:


"Injured vet spent days at work, and nights at protest"


Howe is that for "neutral" reporting? You are right, it might be "netural" for STALIN'S "Pravda" or HITLER'S Ministry of Propaganda. George Orewell's "1984" lives at the Associated Press. I could not even make this stuff up, if I were TRYING to discredit the truly despicable AP, and the rest of the mainstream media. These are the same pepoel who would CONVICT the Tea Party of racism (or having a "racsit element", in the words f the really despicable Piers Morgan, on CNN--ohne of the wordst human beings I have ever seen on television, except if compared to the rEST of teh peole on CNN), based on a SINGE isolated sign or example of ONE person. Yet this is the same media that will PRAISE the Wall Street protest movement baseed on ONE individual.


This is how to LIE--as shown to you by the dishoenst hyppocrites of the AP, who use "1984" as a TRAINING manual--while not technically telling a lie. I am relatively sure that this "injured vet" exists, although you could not possibly depend on the propagandists of the AP to "vet" the "story". (I kno: I deserve to DIE for this pun.) There HAVE to be SOME sincere people--even admirable people--in the "occupy Wall Street" "movement".


But is this injured vet REPRESENTATIVE of the "occupy Wall Street protesters? Don't be silly. You ha e to be an AP propppagandist to even consider that possibility. The vast majority of the Walls Street protesters--especially if you excude the professional union agitators, and other professional leftist agitators--HAVE NO JOB. The dishonest hypocrites of the AP--the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four--LOOKED for a SINGLE "admirable" Wall Street protester just as hard as they looked for ISOLATED members of the Tea Party who were NOT admmirable. Any objetive person would have to conclude that the Tea Party was, and is, composed of more "legitimate" solid ccitizens than is true of the "occupy Wall Street" groups. It is not even close. For one thing, the vastr majority of Tea Party people HAD JOBS, and almost NONE flouted laws and got, or have ever gotten, arrested.


Yes. The "occupy Oakland" crowd created a RIOT, and showed a lperfect willingness to egage i VIOLENCE. The vaious groups have TRASHED place after place. Rapes have been alleged. Laws are routinedly broken by the various occupy Wall STreet groups. The COMMUNIST PARTY was an "honored guest" at "cccupy Chicago". Drugs are everywhere. My older daughter, in Boston--who voted FOR Obama, to my shame--has described to me that "half' of the "occupy Boston" people appeared to be crazy, homeless people (surely an exaggeration, but it is NOT an "exaggeration" to say that homeless people are MORE representative of the people out there than is an "injured vet" who actually works during the day, as the people of the AP prove themselves world champion LIARS once again).


As I have said in this blog, if the occupy Wall Street people were really thoughtful, seriious people, they would VOTE CONSERVATIVE (and support this blog). WHO is it who really POOSED the Wall STreet bailouts? Righ. It was CONSERVATIVES, including this blog. In fact, I have a panned article for morrow titled: "China and the Europe Bailout: Wall Street, The Stupidest People on Earth". Yep. I have SOLD into this awesomely SICK Wall STreet rally, as I BOUGHT into the decline (gradually, in both cases). We are now in yet anoterh stock "bubble". It is CONSERVATIVES who wanted--for the most part--to LET WALL STREET AND THE BIG BANKS FAIL.


Nope. The Wall Street protesters, for the most lpart, are NOT legitimately "frstrated" with the way Wall Street got bailed out. These are merely the usual LEFTIST supects who can be produced as a crowd at almot any time (especailly in this internet age). Yu may remember similar people protesting outside the DEMOCRTTIC convention that nominated Obama. Such crowds have routinelly been produced at G-7, G-8, or G-20 events (or whatever "G" event you want to name, referring to those conferences on world economic policy held from time to time involving a certain number of nations). Unions, of course, have gotten behind these protests as well, and Wisconsin has shown how easily unions can produce a cROWD, even though union members now account for only something like 7% of our population. And these are mostly PUBLIC EMPLOYEE unions, which means that TAXPAYERS (unons dues on public employee salaries) are PAYING for some of these protests HURTING the economy of this country. This is not to mentin that TAXPAYERS are having to pay for the COSTS of dealing with these irresponsible protests (unlike Tea Party rallies), whihc includes DAMAGE that these people are doing (and clean up for the mess they are leaving).


Nope. I just can't get over how OBVIOIUS the propaganda, hypocrisy and dishonesty of teh hypocrites of the mainstream media has become.


It is still unreal to me that REPUBLICAN candidates, in the most recent debate, appeared unwiling to really lower the boom no Obama for supporting these obviously far left, and sometimes literaly deranged, people in such destructive and self-defeating protests. This may be matched by the absurdity of Obama, Democrats and the mainstream media in thinking that this "occupy Wal Street" "movement" is going to HELP them. If my older daughter is wiling to ridicule this "movement", then I think it is obvious that there is no future here for Democrats. Oh, my older daughter is SMART, but she is exposed to BOSTON propaganda day after day (part of the reson she voted for Obama). This is simply a "movement' impossible to "sell", no matter how hard the dishonest propagandists of the media try. And no, I don't care what any "poll" says. I, for example, am willing to say--as this blog routinely says--that I have NO respect for the economic fascists of Wall Street, but that does not mean that I ever even thought of supporting this obviusly destructive "movement" that merely appears to want government to bail EVERYONE out (rather than just the banksl and Wall Street). Who is ging to do the "bailing"? China? Evidenty so, if this latest bailout of the Wall Street types of the world means anything. I have this feeling that the ocupy Wall Street" people, for the most part, would be perfectly willing to turn this country over to CHINA to run.


It would almsot be worth seeing that last thing, to watch how CHINA would deal with these kinds of protests.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). No fooling. It is the one thing I AGREE with Jim Cramer on: the way to TRADE this market is to SELL into huge, sick rallies (as we have now had), and to BUY into the sharpm, sick declines ("sick' because they are over such short periods of time, and based on hype and momentum instead of any real change in the economy or economic prospects). Sure, you risk mistting huge, sustainted move in the stock market. That migth actually occur, without reason, as it did in the approach to 200 and in 2007 (right before the people of Wall Street were proved STUPID by the economic collape). But you will get another chance. There is NO chance that our economy is ow sound enough to trigger a real economic boom. That means that the stock market--even divorced from economic reality--will ALWAYS give you another chance to buy (so long as you don't buy at the TOP and sell at the BOTTOM). Oh. and I agree with Cramer on the WAY to do this. BuyGREADULLY (not assuming that a bottom has been reached), and sell GRADUABLLY (on the cahcnce that the market will keep going up, even if it has alreayd moved up--on momentum and hype--too far and too fast). Now I have told you, correctly, that Wall STreet is now totally a "computer gaiming casion", and that the sane thing to do is not to TRADE stocks at all (as distinguised from a simple investing strategy of investing in mutual funds on an AVERAGING basis, rather than trying to "time" the market at all). However, if you must be INSANE, like me, and TRADE, then rallies are the time to SELL (gradually), and rapid declines are the time to BUY (gradually). Yes, I know that strict momentum playes, including Cramer himself, sort of do the OPPOSITE of this (and can make money, because they play a game of musical chairs, whre YOU and I are left without a chair). This is one reason the peope on Wall Street are The Stupidest People on Earth. For example, my cash position went down to 20% as the market recently declined. It is now up to about 50%, even though my total inveted has gone up 9although still not over a million dollars--meaning I am not one of those hated "millioniaires"). If the market continuyues this up move, furhter inot a "bubble', then I wil continue to SELL. I will only buy again (basent some special situation) upon a SUBSTANTIAL DCLINE (which will come, even though I have no idea which way the market will go next week). This is the only sANE way for a smaller invester to invest in the present Wall Street. "Buy and hold" is insane, except in long-term "retirment" investing in MUTUAL FUNDS (not individual stocks). I am almost never, as you can tell, completely out of the stock market, but I wish I had folowed my own advice more consistently and intelligently. I would, then, be a millionaire. As a general principlle, however, I think Cramer and I are righ--although Cramer only upshes this "principle' when the market is DOWN. When it is UP, Cramer is the very biggest momentum player around--hardly ever considering that you should be raising cash because the market is too high.

Rick Perry and Taxes: Toast

NFL cornerbacks get called "toast" when they getg repeatedly "burned" by touchdown pass after touchdown pass. As politician, and he has only himself to blame, Rick Perry is getting "burned" more often than any NFL cornerback who ever lived.


Yes, I saw Perry being intervewed by Bill O'Reilly, He was hopeless. Perry, when asked about the reveue his new "tax plan" would raise: "Frankly, I am not concerned about revenue for the Federal Government. I am concerned about jobs, and getting the economy moving. I will have my advisors put together a pachage about those details."


Say what? If you thought, correctly, that Herman Cain did not do all that well in coherently explaining his 9-9-9 plan, he did amazingly ell in comparison with RickPerry. I know that most sane people (which leeaves out Obama and leftist Democrats) are not "concerned" about INCREASING the revenue of the Federal Governmetnt. But what about the deficit and the debt? No. You have to at least PAY ATTENTION to the effect that any change in the tax code would have as to INCREASING the defeict and our DEBT. Remember that debt ceiling fight? Is Perry really saying that debt doesnot matter. And he pulled a Michele Bachmachmann: saing our problem is SPENDING and not revenue. Problem: if you are going to say that, you have to say HOW you are going to CUT spending the 40% that is NECESSARY for us to be "living withn our means". Perry did not do that, and has no intention of doing it (as Michele Bachmann has blatantly failed and refused to do). Ron Paul and Gary Johnson may tell you HOW they would "balance the budget". Not so ith othr Repubicans, who are playing "politics as usual". REPPUBICANS in Congress are NOT proposing to CTU spending tis year, or nextg year. Their nominal "cut" for this coming year has been a mere 24 billion, and they have ADDED (in December of 2010) miuch MORE than that to spending and the deficit over the last year. Further they keep making noises to ADD MORE to the deficit: again, much more than the asham amount that they have supposedly "cut'. Any "cuts" they make, as part of the overal l budgetg "deal", are part of a Soviet Unioin style 10-year plan", whre the "cuts may never happen. I digress from Perry (not really, as my intent is to show you that Prry is NOT different from Boehner and those other Washington politicians, except in his Texas style and accent).


And Steve Forbes shoudld be rolling over in his grave on hearing the disgraceful Pery version of the "flat tax". Okay, Steve Forbes is not dead. But this may kill him, and then he will roll over in his grave. You simpky can't mess up an "issue" any worse than Perry has done. One of the major attractions of the "flat tax" is that you supposedly get rid of the IRS, and almost the whole Tax Code. Not Perry. He proposes to ADD the "flat tax" (lol) o ntop of the entire existing Tax Code. In other words, Perry proposes to make things MORE COMPICATED. He proposes a "flat tax" of 20% for corporations, but proposes to give individuals the "right to choose" what tax law they want to use. In other words (I think), you will get to figure your taxes TWICE uner Perry, and pay only the LESSER tax (betwen the "flat tax" and the old tTax Code, which is retaineed). Oh, and Perry proposes to KEEP the mortgage deduction, excpet for houses over $500,000 (a normal sized houe, in California, at least before the collapse of housing prices). In other words, Perry is joining the "tax the rich" rhetoric of Obama and the Democrats, as has Mitt Romney with regard to his COMPLICATING "tax breaks" for the "middle class". It is a stupid INCREASE in the tax rate (for certain lpeole) to take away the deduction for those people, while retaiing it for others. It is especially DISHONEST by Perry, because-presummabley--MOST of those people who don't get the full mortgage deduction will "choose" the "flat tax" Exceptm, Perry is seemingly proposing to let you have BOTH the "flat tax" and the mortgage deduction. It is not clear what is "flat" about Perry's tax proposal. As stated, he seems to simply propose ADDING another tax x method and rate ON TOP of our present tax systme. It is true that this will REDUCE TAXES for basically everyone, or at least not raise them for ANYONE, since Perry is going to let you have the OPTION (lol) of wich tax system to use. Prry, of course, would also eliminate the capital gains tax, as would Cain, since tis is a RELIGIOUS COMMANDMENTA for certain Republicans (who are WRONG to encourage GAMES with taxses by making it so advantageous to make sure that "income' is capital gainss, instead of ordinary income). 15% is actually abut right for the capital gainsts tax. If lyou get a 20% individual rate, you might reduce the long-term capital gainss rate to 10-12%. But making the rate "zero" merely encourages people to try to make sure that as much of their "income" as possible is in the form of capital gains. This is merely a quibble, however, in comparison with the MESS Perry has made of "simplifying" the Tax Code.


Nope. Perry is toast, as this blog has told you for more than a week, after telling you, IN ADVBANCE, that Perry was no "savior" for the Repubican Party. This blog told you that Perry has NEVEr been impressive, even while being an ADEQUATE governor of Texas (where he has had the help of us Teaxans--superior to the other "races" of men, and you can join our "race" without even changing your skin color). Even I--who predicted this for Perry, unlike Rush Limbaigh--did not expect Perry to be THIS BAD.


Flat statement: Rick Perry will NOT be the Republican nominee for President. Refer, again, to Agatha Christie's "And Then There Wre None." Romney is making it clear that his goal is to SAY NOTHING, as slickly as possilbe. Romney made NOBODY happy by PUTING on the qustion of what he thought about the Ohio governor's proposal to reign in the pubic employee unions. Chris Christie endorsed Romney. Romney should go to him for advice on "straight talk". Oh, it is correct that this kind of CNN quesion is a TRAP. Romney is correct that a PRESIDENTIAL candidate does not generally have any business tali=king about a specific STATE issue. Obama never gets this kind of qusstion, unless the media is FORCED into it (or Obama pushes himself in), a with the New York City mosque. So I hae some sympathy for Romeney's general position. There is no reason for him to be arging OHIO politics. However, Romney had a chance to take on the pubic employee unions, and stand up for principle. I did not see the whole interview, but my mpressin is that Romney did not do that (although CNN, The Liar Network, is fully capable of leaving that impression when it is a LIE). Note the clever PROPAGANDA behind this kind of quesiotioin about a sTATE issue which a Presidential candidate has no reason to "study" in preparation for being President of the United States,. If Romney answers the questin directly, he may then be asked DETAILS that he is not prepared to address (and should not be). However, if Romney dodges the questin, he looks like he is playing "politics as usual"--which everyone, including me, expects of Romney. This is really an unfair, "when did you stop beating your wife", type question.


Still, Romney SUFFERS in comparison to Chris Christie. Romney is the very opposite of "straight talk". Romney gives the impression that he has NO real principles, and that he PREPARES positions on the "issues' based on focus groups, polls, and what Romney things sounds good POLITICALLY. No. Romney is NOT 'far left'. like Obama, or even McCain. But Romney is no cosnervative, and everyone knows it. That is why the Republican PARTY is so important. If the PARTY can stand for principle, which is apppearing more and mroe doubtful, Romney is a competent "technocrat". He can MANAGEHis core principles--except aybe in his personal life--are in doubt (doubt whether he has many). That is why I keep saying that if the Republican PARTY betrays me in Congress, I will NOT support Romney iagainst Obama. Romney can't be relied upon (as Bachmann could, despite the disappointment of her campaign) to stand up against backsliding Repubicans. Romney will probably lead the backsliding, if he thinks it to his advantage, and he needs a PRINCIPLED Republican Party to give him backbone.


It is not that theese people (Republican candidates) are untalented. They all are VERY talented, ni their own way. Even Johnn Huntsman can sound really good, and had a good record as governor of Utah. But I would not vote for him for President. I would vote for Cai, Bachmann, Paul (yes, Paul) or Santorum, but I see the FLAWWS (as well as virtues) in all of them. Only Cain has a real chance to actually be President, and he has a long way to go. No, I still would not vote for Gingrich, although he is the person who has actually performed the BEST over the past three months. Maybe he could talk me around, but I flat out don't trust him. He is erratic, even though he is probalby the most intelligent of the candidates. And then there were none This is why Romney is setting up as the "default" candidate, even though he is clearly" politics as usual", at a time when people are ready to bget beyond that.


Rush Limbuah i WRONG, by the way, and his analysis is totally wrong, when he says (as he has over the past two days) that Obama wants to run against Romney rather than a "real" conservative. Limbuagh has this FALSE idea that the whle country is jumping at the bit to give a landslide to a "real" conservative. That is not true, and I don't think Obama thinks that way. I think Obama would be glad to run against Perry. Hell, I would be glad to run against Perry. But that is not even the point. The point is that that Obama and the media want to TEAR DOWN ALL of the serious Republican candidates. Rush uses the example of a Los Angles Times (purveryor of Obama propaganda) article reporting that RomneyCare (like ObamaCare) COVERS illegal immigrants in one of its "hidden" provisions, even though illegal immigrants are specifically excluded from the insurance coerage provisions. Rush wonders why the Los Angeles Times would do htis if they are trying to elect Romney. Rush-as he sometimes, does--misses the point entirely. When McCain got the nomination, the mainstream media had already started to attack McCain BEFORE he locked up the nomination, even though they obviusly favored McCain for the nomination. Thisis just a matter of TEARING down every Repubilcan, and Rush is only saying that about Rmney bbecause Rush has so many doubts about Romney (adn FALSELY rpresented Perry to be that "savior' of conservatives and the Repubican Party). This is not roket science. Sometimes Ruh has an agenda that cuase him to either misrepresent the truth , or ideliberatlly hide it for his own purposes. I don't think thatq Obama "wants" to rn against Romney. I think it is obvious that Obama has already developed the PLAN as to how he is going to run against Romney, which is different from the way he would run against Cain or Perry (never hapen). Obama expectes the media to TEAR THEM ALL DOWN. The media only prefers Romney--hainv g fialed to seel Huntsman, who Obama really would like to run against--becaues the media is SCAED that somehow an actual conservative might win. They could not stand that. Thus, they will prefr Romney, even if Romney has the best chance to defeat their rea choice (Obama).


The problem is that there is no Republican running who has the whole package, form a conservative point of view: communications skills adequate to SELL conservatism, political skills (without becoming "politics as usual" at a time when that aprach is in its death throes), and "idea' skills. And NONE of the candidates seems to have the ability to actually take the battle to Obaama. This was shown when ONLY Herman Cain (rather timidly) was willing to ATTACK Obama over his support of the ridiculous "occupy Wall Street" movement. And there is NO Repubican candidate who is actually criticizing the SPECIFICS of the Obama "jobs bill".


No. These people are actually talented. But none of them is the complete package. So we wil ahve to do without another Ronald Reagan for this eletion, as has been true of EVERY election since 1964 (that s, every electin in which Reagan did not participate). That would not be so bad if Repubican politicians generally could be trusted. They can't. That is why Romney cannot get more support, as this blog has told you People do NOT want "politics as usual", but they dO want to beat Obama. Every candidate has obvious flaws as far as beating Obama--even Romney. Someone other than Romney may yet break out of the pack., but the urge to beat Obama is a force that keeps pushing Romney toward a "default" nomination. I think Rush is right that a COMPLETE conservative candidate would be much better against Obama than Romney. Howevr,, that candidate does not yet exist. Where I (corretly) disagree with Rush s that ANY "conservative" candidate wil simply swamp Obama because the country so clearly agrees with Rush (lol). Perry would have trouble, and will not get the chance. Ditto Bachmann. Ditto Paul.. Ditto Johnson. Ditto Huntsman. Santorum has just not caught fire, and had a horrible last debate. That leaves ONLY Cain, who just BOTCHED the question on abortion that h KNEW he would eventually have to face. And then there were none? None but Romney, hwho is not a conservative? Oh, Gingrich. His FLAWS are so larger than life that he needs VIRTUES that big just to "offset" them. I just don't see it. But I am willing to let Gingrich try to convince me. He is about 1/3 of the way there, and running out of timme.


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

BPA and Kook Environmentalists: You Are a Kook If Series

Headline yesterday from the despicable Associated Press (featured, as usual, on AT&T/Yahoo "News"):


"BPA study finds high levels in pregnant women results in behavior lproblems in kids"


Now this is a erslumption of my "your are a kook if:" series. But I have already included the AP, and everyone who works for the AP, in the series. And I have done basically the same for radical environmentailists (who I guarantee you are responsbile for tthis ridiculous "study" (f some 24 women, if I understood the virtuallyl incoherent story correctly). No, the new "kookisms" will be much more specific than merely rehashing that radical environmentalists and AP reporters are kooks (as my futile Sodom and Gomorrah search for a competent, honet AP reporter continus to find that no such thing exists--a "study" on my part that covers THOUSANDS of AP stories over more than 8 years, and not just 24 examples).


You ARE a kook if:


170. You believe that the chemical BPA is one of the main problems facing people in the U.S, and the world.


171. You believe that it makes any sense to do a study ON BEHAVIOR, in order to try to "convict" a targeted cehmical of being "bad". As a one-time "scientist" (with a B.S. degree in physics, I find this OFFENSIVE. It should be OFFENSIVE to your intelligen ce, whether you have any scientific training or not.


172. You belivee that this "study" shows that BPA should be "banned", or has any meaning at all.


173. You pay any attention to these periodic PROPAGANDA stories from the despicable AP.


What is BPA? I am gald lyu asked me that. Ididn't know. Did you? I actually spent tooo much time (since I can't really read anymore--eyesight) in trying to read Wikipedia. That is actually instructive. No, it is NOT 'instructive" because Wikipedia rehashes every single environmental ATTACK made on BPA by environmentalists, over apparently decades. It is instructive becaluse reading Wikipedia explains WHY the AP wrote this incomprrehensible,story, as if EVERYOJNE knows exactly what BPA is. Yep The despicable AP regards itself as a conduit for envoronmentalist propaganda, and I am sure radical "environmentalist" propaganda, and I am sure radical encironmentalists believe that theeir previous PROPAGANDA has made everyone aware of this (onn) issue. Environmentalists have "blamed" BPA for everything from (apparently) obesidy to neurogical problems to birth defects. What the despicable AP did NTO tell you is that the FDA, which took up the problem ONLY becaluse of thewse attacks, has found BPA to be "safe" (that is, that there is NO evidence that it is NOT safe).


Yous ay I did not tell you wath BPA is? Well, the despicable AP definitely did not tell you. BPA (biopharma A, or some such thing--I forgot as soon as I read it on Wikipedia) is evidently a plycarbonate chemical (all the AP said was that it is "widespread") used in plastics and epoxy resins, as well as other products. It was evidently developed in the 1930s, and has been part of our industrial civilization ever since. Of course, radical environmentalists, as well as the "occupy Wall Street" peole, do not have any use for our industril civilization If they had there way, 1/3 (or maybe 2/3) of the world would STARVE. But more than one has said that we NED to reduce the number of human beings on this planet.


What is wrong with reporting a SMALL "study" (in alarmist terms) about a chemiclcal slupposedly "causing" behavorial lproblems in kids, if it is present in high levels in their preganant mothers? Everything is wrong with it. Even the despicable AP, despite the SCARE propaganda headline, noted that rel experts said that the "study" did not mean much, because there are so many OTHER factors that may be responsible for "behavior problems" in children. Unless you can trace BPA to an ORANIC BIRTH DEFECT, this is a ridiculous "study".


Why even do a "study" so small, on such a SUBJECTIVE thing as behavior suppposedly resulting from a chemical. That question answeres itself. The whole purose of doing a s"study" like this is to come up with SOMETHING that supports the AGENDA of the people doing the "study". No one without an ageanda would do a "study" like this. The more SUBJECTIVE everything is, the more likely it is that the "scientists" can make SOMETHING out of it.


What is really going on here? It is what is ALWAYS going on when "environmentalists" attack some part of our industril civilization (it even happened with DDT, where the environmentalst campaign against pesticides probably KILLED milllions of people and is still killing them--leading to that amazing story in the Bush years about how we were providing MOSQUITO NETTING to Tanzania to "sav" children, becaue PESTICIDES are a "no-no"). Did I jsut call radical environmentalists MURDERERS. Damn right I did, as I ahve done before in this blog. Why not? They call peole like ME "murderers" of the entire planet, and I ahve told lyou before lthat I do not turn the other cheek. Waht environmentalists, and leftists in general, do is try to turn SPECUALTION into fact, and then say: What if its is true? What if it is true that "global wwaring is a fraud", and you want to KILL people (not to mention destroying their livelihood) in the name of "global warming"? What environmentlaists do is argue that it is POSSIBLE that BPA could cause adverse effects, and then do "study" after "study" to raise as much SMOKE as possilbe. Pile speculation on speculation, and then demand that the product be banned. (or that we DESTROY our industril civilization and livelihood based on outrageous OVERHYPE of the dangers of "global warming"--overhype, even if there is such a man-made thing).


Thus, even the propagandists of the delspicable AP had to acknowledge that this "study" did not mean much. Waht, then, do you say? Well, first you use the SCAER headline, to try to build on previous propaganda (which has obviously failed, since I had only a vague recollection of environmentalists attacking BPA in thae past decade, and I could not have told you either what BA is, or wht its "dangers" are supposed to be). I digress not really) What the despicabgle AP said is what propagandists ALWAYS say: "Well, this study does not 'prove' anything, but it is enough to show that further study is needed." LIKE HELL IT IS. It is only enough to add to my "you are a kook if:" series. Sure, a chemmical like BPA COULD have some adverse effects. It is POSSIBLE. But there is NO evidencethat it has adverse effects on humans, in the concentration that it has in human beings. You say that "no chemical" is acceptable (spouting environmentalist propaganda). Hogwash. WE are MADE of cehmicals. We encounter massive number of NATURAL chemicals every day. Antibiotics, and those "mircacles" that have eliminated polio and smallpox, are due to CHEMICALS. There is nothign inherently dangerous about TRACE amounts of chemicals entering into our ecosystem. DDT, for example, SAVED LIVES from malaria. You can argue aobut DDT, but you have to put "saving human lives" on one side of the ledger. And you CANNOT condmen ALL pesticides. I just called environmentalists "murderers" again=, didn't I. Well, I will do so again, and so long as I live (assuming I don't get killed by a mosquito carried disease because all pesticides have been banned).


I jsut can't get over it, . BEHAVIIOR problems in kids, because pregannt women had high levels of BPA. This strikes me as a NEW excuse for BAD PARENTING (one of those possible "factors" that could explain the "rsults"). It is simply ABSURD to suggewt such a bizarre chemical effect from a SMALL study, where you cannot pont to an ORGANIC birth defect. I just can't get over it. "KOOK" is too kind a word for these people.


You say that you don't know what I mean when I say that the AP story was incoherent? Welll, I hthink I have partially explained it. So help me, the sotyr seemed to ASSUME that everyone knew about BPA (not bothering to explan anythng about its prior history, the prior FDA action, or ANYTHING). But it is worse than that. You have lthe SCARE headline, and then the story itself quotes a real expert debunking the study a pretty much meaningles.s. That does not stop the AP form tlrying to suggest that the study has "value", because it shows the need for "further study". But you should be able to see lthat this was an incoherent MESS (without even my kind of bad eyesight to explain why it was so incoherent, as the AP has proofreaders).


Still doubt me? Never do that. I am gong to (approximatrely)) quote the last sentence of the story: "Girls alrealdy have problems at that age, and this can only add to their academic and social problems." Say waht? That last sentence floored me. It made me DOUBT that the AP story was even as "coherent" as I thought it was, and I thought ti was virtuallyy incomprehensible in the first place. The headline said "kids", not "girls". WHAT "social problems and academic problems". Did the AP basicallyu change the subject? Was the story so incoherent that I could nto even understnad it at all? I admit that I don't read as well as I did when I had decent eyesight, but I really don't think I missed that much. Does that last sentence mean that the PREGNANT women were the ones with the behavior problems, or caused bhavior lproblems for their children? Seems ridiculous. I frankly had, and have, NO idea what that last wentence meant. But it was only slightly less comprehensible thatn the rest of the story.


I tell you. We ahve to be coming to the "last days" for the dspcicalbve AP. Surely He will not keep PUNISHING me for being an agnostic by keeping me on this futile search for an honset, competent AP reporter. Even Job did not suffer like this. Thus, I continue to warn you to stay awya from AP people and facilities. AT the very least, lyou risk turnig into a pillar of salt.

Gadhafi and Death Penalty Opponents: Hypocrisy Gone Nuclear

Remember that Republican debate where the khypocrites of the mainstream media jumped on a Repubican audience for cheering the Texas POLICY of actually executing murderers (appluading the statement in the question that Texas, under Rick Perrym, has executed 234 people)?


Well, there is video showing Hillary Clinton virtually dancing a jig over the rather sordid death of Gadhafi, where Libyans are still keeping his ROTTING body on display (I kid you not--that is a present Yahoo/A?T&T featured headline). The hypocrites of the media could barely contain their GLEE at the death of Gadhafi--appluading DEATH more directly than the Republican audience ever did (that audience, again, merely applauding the DEATH PENALTY, and not applauding at an execution). Russia (lol) has even weighed in by supporting "due process"--calling Gadhafi's death a "crime" (which maybe it wsa, in a technica, due process sense, although I would never worry overly much about it). Russia (still suspected of committing political murder, at times) has now lectured the world about "due process", AND lectured us about abandoning capitalism, even as Russia has abandoned Communism. It is this later criticism of us by Vladimir Putin that has a lot of merit. The Gadhafi "criticism" I would pretty much ignore.


You say our media, and the Obama Administration, were cheering the success of our POLICY illustrated by Gadhafi's death. It sure looked like they were cheering the DEATH. Clinton, for example, was shown laughing and joking about the DEATH. Where is all of this talk about how death is such a "somber" thing, hwere you should never be happy about it (criticism of that Republican audience reaction--oh, the HYPOCRISY of these peole knows no bounds). And how did the media try to "cover" Clinton? Well, I saw CNN make a pathetic attempt (The Hypocrite Network). "I don't think Clinton would have done that if she knew the cameras were on.". In other words, CNN is acknoledging that the LEFT is composed of the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. Why should CNN not acknowledge it? CNN is part ol that very same hypocrisy: a leader of it, in fact.


You say Gadhafi killed a LOT of people? You say it is okay to execute Nazis, and mass murderers like Gadhafi, but not to execute murderers? You really are a hypocrite, aren't you? If the death penalty is appropriate for Gadhafi, or that Yemeni al-Qaida cleric, why is it not appropriate for those home invasion murderers in Connecticut? Are you really saying that those guys are BETTER than Gadhafi? When evil goes to this level, it is absurd to talk about "better" and "worse".


You say this is "war", and not criminal justice? Well, I would agree with you, and so would President Bush. Howeve, you will remember that it is OBAMA and his attorney general who keep talking abut Constitutiional rights for foreign terrorists--including advocating civilian trials in New York City and the giving of "Miranda rights" on the gattlefield in Afhanistan. Nor have I heard Obama coming out against the death penalty as a criminal justice PUNISHMENT for terrorists. Even Obama--probably not as bad a hypocrite as CNN and the rest of the mainstream media--recognizes how hypocirrtical it would be to be killing terrorists all over the world--with no tril--while spouting hypocritical attacks on the death penalltly.


No. There is nothing wrong with the death penalty. Predator drone attacks kill SOME "innocent" peole. So does lthe death penatly (although probably not nearly as many, to the point of being ridiculously fewer). Some peoplle deserve to be exectuted. It is the only way we affirm the value of life. Every breath a vicioius murderer (like Gadhafi) takes is a breath that person has DNEIED to someone else. No, I am surprised media people do not just collapse into a catatonic state with cognitive dissonance. This schizophreniic attitude toward death is HYPOCRISY gone nuclear. If SOME people deserve to die, then we are merly talking a matter of DEGREE, and exactly WHO deserves to die. There is no real "principle" involved here, except the leftist "principle' of "feeliiing good" about themselves (no matter how stupid and illogical they are, and no matter how hypocritical).


To be fair, there are INSANE people on the left who are consistent. Those are the people, like the ACLU, who condemn the predator drone attacks, and even the killing of Osama bin Laden and the Obama policy in Afghanistan and Libya. Those people are a minority, but they do exist. For example, one of the main organizers of teh "Occupy Wall Street" protest (the original one) is knnown to have regretted the death of Osama bin Laden, since he was at least standing up to an evil, impealistic and capitalist America. That is really the Micheal Moore view (that icon of the far left, AND the mainstream media). In fact, it is sort of amazing that Michael Moore and Ron Paul AGREE. They both have blamed 9/11 on AMERICA, and our evil policies in the world. Paul, however, at least has the virtue of wanting to dismantle the Federal Government.


I actually thought therre was something unseemly about the sheer glee over the srodid death of Gadhafi--a death that may illustrate (in its manner) why Libya may stgill be headed for disaster (see previous article). I had a LOT less trouble with the audience reaction to the POLICY of the death penalty, than I hae for this unseemly glee over the way Gadhafi died. Remember those sanctimonious, LYING Obama statements that our policy in Libya wa NOT to "get" Gadhafi, but was merely humantiarian: those LYING statments that it would be SANCTIONS that would force out Gadhafi, while the military action merely protected civilians? No, I don't even have antything against lying in the interests of this nationi. But a LIE this OBVIOUS never made any sense, and it seems to have been quietly abandoned. Suddenly, both Obama and the media regard the death of Gadhafi as THE man goal of our Libya policy.


Nope. It is still a good thing that Gadhafi is gone. But these--mainstream media, leftists and Obama--are the worst hypocrites who hae ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four. The death penalty is the ONLY way of adequately punishing for some crimes. I just wish we had the COURFAGE to actually use the death penatly when it should be used. THAT is what those Republicans were really applauding, and correctly.


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

Libya and Radical Islamic Law

One sotry tonight (big, banner headline on drudgereport.com, although I don't know how much play it is getting in the maintream media) is about how the new "government" of Libya has unveiled "plans" to introduce a much more radical "system" of strict "Islamic law" than expected.


Does this mean that it is a bad thing that Gadhafi is gone? No. It was not a bad thing, unless you are Pat Buchanan, that we got rid of Hitler, even if it was at the cost of the rise of the Efil Empire of the Soviet Union. It was not a bad thing that we got rid of Saddam Hussein, no matter whether you believe the war in Iraq was worth the cost (men and money).


However, the EUPH(ORIA (Obama and his supporters in the mainstream media--basically all of the mainstream media) over the KILLING of Gadhafi (he was already gone) is totally misplaced. I even heard the dishonest propagandists at CNN ask wheter the killing of Gadhafi does not signal the REISE of Aermoican POWER in the world. Hogwash (keeping them honest). Gettin grid of these dictators is a good thing. But, just as the French Revolutin did nNOT signal the "rise" od America-style democracy in the world, it appears to be MUSLIM EXTREMISM and INTOLERANCE that is really on the "rise" in the world.


This is hardly cause for euphoria,. and wild overstatements aobut how "significant" the killing of Gadhafi was. In fact, the actual killing had almost no significance at all, except to remove a possible "bogeyman" from disrupting the fukture of Libya. The killin go fGadhafi, however, did not make it any more likely that Libya wold avoid a takeover by Islamic extremists. Did the BEHEADING of the king of France, and Marie Antoinette, mean that the French Revolutin was going to result in an effetive, free government? Not a chance, and it did not. Gadhaifi's.....well, murder....was the end of a man who deserved to die (see my next planned article on the hyocrisy of the death penalty opponents who also CVHEERED the death of Gadhafi), but it really signals NOTHING about the future of Libya (or of American power, which most of us think Obama has done his best to diminish in the world, as a matter of GUILT that we are as powerful as we are). Notice that the killing of Saddam Hussein had more "due process" than the killing of Gadhafi.--another one of those ironies for Obama and those other hypocrites of the left, including the mainstream media.

Hispanics and Racists of the Associated Press (and Yahoo/AT&T, CNN, MSNBC, and the Rest of the Racists of the Mainstream Media)

Okay. It is not technically "racism", because Hispanics are WHITE (Caucasian, with only a minority of "Native American" "blood". This is no minor point, as there has NEVER been a gneral "interracial" "taint' in a marriage between an Hispanic and a "whitee" person. Hollywood accepted it way back in the 1940s--rally from the beginning--as the Lupe Velez movies showed, along with many others. Then there were Desi and Lucy--the darling American couple of the 1950s. In fact, "high born" Mexican ladies, and even men, have long been accepted--except, maybe, in the most exclusive of the "Mayflower-type" snobbish groups. From Sam Houston to today, Texas has a long history of welcoming at least Hispanic WOMEN. The "discrimination" against Hispanics has primarily been one of CLASS rather than "ethnicity" or "race". There has been, in the past (not rally now) something of a dismissal of MEXICAN MEN (remembre Desi, who was Cuban) beraue...well....they were sorrt of associated with "wtbakcs, and "lower class" occupatons and status. In other words, they were not part of the Anglo "white male" power sturcture. But neither were WOMEN. Neither were, mainly, ITALIANS. The nation,long ago, was once really dominated by WASPS (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, of the male sex). That is no longer true, and has not been for a LONG time. Edna Ferber wrote "Giant" (Elizabeth Taylor movie in the 1950s) somewhere around 1930-1940, and even then the novel was primarily about CLASS distinctions between the Anglo power structure in Texas and the poorer Hispanics. What is ironic is that it is tody's LEFT, including the mainstream media, who want to identify Hipnaics with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. That brings me to the RACISTS of the despicable Associated Press, and the maintream media, as I will adopt their inaccurage way of adddressing this "issue" that ONLY they care about. (As I have said before, by the way, I did not regard it as an INTERRACIAL marriage when I married my 100% Mexican-American wife in 1980--mother of myu two daughters, although absolutely no one is surprised that she is now my ex-wife, whihc is not to say I have anything against a "real" interracial marriage, which I don't. Two of my law parners at the time married Hispanic women at approximately the same time--Hislpanic women being about all there are in El Paso. I am sure THEY did not consider themselves gong into interracaial marriages.)


Doubt me about tthe despcable AP, and the evil people of the maintream media (racists alll, and I am not exaggerating at all). Never doubt me. Here is one of tonight's featured AP headlines on AT&T/Yahoo "News":


Hispanic voters: Stick with Obama or go with the GOP?"


What can you say about a RACIST headline like that? EVERY voter who voted for Obama has to decide whether to "stick with" Obama? Why should "Hispanic voters" be different, or all be the same? One of my children's uncles, along with his wife, is a rabid Republican--which surpried my older daughter a little when she stayed with them during her last visit to El Pas. Nope. It is RACIST to assume that Hispanics vote as a BLOC, or all think the same. The issue for THEM is the same as llthe issue for anohone who voted for Obama: Has Obama realy been good for the COUNTRY, or even for their ultimate self-interst as American citizens. Does the AP know that only American citizens are supposed to vote? Often, I doubt it. Still doubt me? Never do that. I keep telling you.



The first paragraph of the AP story makes clear trhe PROPAGANDA AGENDA behind this RACISM, and how turly racist the evil people of the AP are. And I ham not engagng in hyhperbole here. These are evil people spreading evil, along with basically all of the mainstream media. The first paragraph of the despicable story repeats the headline, but adds this telling subordinate cluase: "......at a time when many GOP hoefuls are taking a hard line on immigration."


Notice, again, that the peole of the despicable AP (not to mention Yahoo/AT&T) are LIARS. I still have not found an honest, competent AP reproter in my futile Sodom and Gomorrah search, that has extended over more than 8 years. "Many" GOP "hopefuls" have NOPT taken a "hard line" on IMMIGRATION. Several have taken a "hard line" on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATON. Yet, the RACIST AP is asserting the positon that Hispanic CITIZENS in general IDENTIFY with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Oh, did you know that the despicable LIARS of the AP have a POLICY of referring to "immigration", rather than "ilegal immigratioin"? Well, they do.


Yep. The RACISTS of the AP actually suggeest that Hispanics in this country face a DILEMMA between their ECONOMIC INTEREST (having suffered under Obama more than "white people, according to the racist AP)and their.....their what? The RACISTS of the AP can only mean that Hispanic citizens and ilegal immigrants have the SAME interest: that illegal immigration (open borders) is such an ovreriding "issue" to Hipanics (which, of course, include people other than Mexican-Americans) that Hispanics should consider ECONOMIC DEMISE rather than accept an actual enforcement of our immigration laws. Now let us concede that a SMALL MINORITY of Hispanics have close relatives who are illegal immigrants (like a father or mother, etc.). That small MINORITY may face a little bit of a personal dilemma, although they may want to consider twhat happnends to EVERYONE if Obama brings down the economy of this country. Still, you can see that the AP is RACIST to its corel--each and every person in the AP (until I see an article saying what this one says).


No, It is the very ESSENCE of RACISM to DEFINE people based n the color of their skin. That is what the left, and the mainstream media in general, mostly do. Do most Hispanics "identify" with ILLEGAL immigration? Absurd. It is much more likely that Hispanics, as a group (as would be expected of people where so many of them have been recent immigrants) are generally POORER (on average) than citizens whose ancestors have been able to take adavtage of the economic system Obama is trying to destroy for a longer period of time. My ex-wife, by the way, is a well-off (atlhough not "rich") speech therapist (with a master's degree) in California (San Jose area). She hardly "identifies" with illegal imigrants, although I doubt if she is a "rabid" Republican like her brother. But I could be wrong on that. I am sure she is not a rabid supporter of Obama. My Hispanic older daughter--as "Hispanic as Obama is "black"--voted for Obama. She is rethinking that positon. I can assure you that ILEGAL IMMIGRATOION does not factor into that decsions in any significant way. I don't even know exactly what she thinks abut the "issue' of illegal immigration. I just know it is not very important t her, one wy or the other (which I would grarantee is true of MOST Hispnaics who are citizens of this country).


What is going on here? Come on. You know that. I almost left this as an obvious exercise for the reader. But I will tell you (since some of you may be brainwashed). What the LEFT, including the manstream media, is tryoing to do is convince Hispanics that Repubicans are out to "get" them (ALL hispanics). Thus, my borhter in Mesa, Arizona had to fight the PROPAGANDA that the Arizona law aimed at ILLEGAL immigrants would mean (as Obama said) that MY BROTHER'S WIF (and her relatives) would be "picked up" in Arizona every time they went out for ice cream. And my bother's wife does not even like Obama. But she (there is a history here, which I will describe again some day, having nothing to do with illegal immigration) can be SCARED by the RACIST LIARS of the mainstream media, led by our Lira0in-Chief.


Nope, aga There is NO "redeeming social value" (the old exuse for pornography, based on Supreme Court language at one time) to the REACIST LIARS of the desepicable AP, and the rest of the mainstream media. They are all headed for the dustbin of history. Good riddance.


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

Media: Now a Contest of Character, and Journalists Have None

No, the dishonest propagandists of the mainstream media have no character (the Associated Press, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, The Los Angeles Times, Yahoo, AOL, MSN, The New York Times, the Gost on Globe, The Wall Street Journal, etc. and etc.). Nor do the incompetent panderers of the unfair and unbalanced network have any character. Today's "journalists" are evil people (in their "professioinal" lives) spreading eveil. They are totally uninterested in actual "information". See Michale Crichton's dead on novel, "Airframe".


Today's ridiculous from the dishoenst incompetents at the AP (as featured by the evil peole at Yahoo "News"/AT&T):


"GOP primary contest now comes down to character"


"How do I lie to thee; let me count the ways." I like to misquote Elizateth Barrett Browning from time to time, since th emisquote so accurately reflects the present attitude of "journalists" in America.


First, the INCOMOPETENTS of the AP ASSUME ("ass of you and me") that the GOP race is between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. That is a lie. My Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest, competent AP reporter goes on, futilely, maknig it necessary to continuallyl warn you about being around any person or facility connected with the despicable AP (lest you be turned into a pillar of salt,if not worse). This blog has correctly told you that the "race" between Perry and Romney is over, in the sense that Perry can now not win the Repubican nomination outright. The only question now is whether Perry can stay in the race, ankd get 15-20% of the vote. I have my doubts, but if he can, then we may have a DEADLOCK after the first big round of primaries, with four or five candidates hanging in ther (Romney, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and Paul--with maybe a few others still trying to pick off a few delegates here and there).


No, contrary to the propaganda of the incompetents at the desicable AP, "character" has nothing to do with it. "Character" for WHAT? The AP does not know. It is entirely the WRONG word. I THINK the dihsonest peoplle of the AP know that, but I can't be sure. They are SO incompetent. Correct headline: "Perry and Romney test whether negative campaigning against each other can work". This is especailly true for Perry, who is now (disastrously) basing his whole campaign on tearing Romney down. But Romney is definitely throwing some negative jabs. This is doing nothing but make Cain and Gingrich look good. Perry cannot win this way, and will not win this way. Perry is coming out with a flat tax, apparently, and will apparently receive the endorsement of Steve Forbes (if Forbe s follows through on what he said over the weekend). That merely shows how WRONG the despicable, dishoenst people at the AP are. The VOTERS are not looking for negative attacks (for "character"). They are looking for a different kind of "character". The "character" the voters are looking for is SUBSTANCE, and showing that a candidate can beat Obama. They are NOT looking for one Repubican tearing down another with the same kind of tactics you can expect from the Democrats, AND the dishoenst propagandists of the mainstream media, next eyar. Yep. The MAIN source of "netative campaigning" in America today is from suposed "journalists" (especially of the mainstream media). That is because, as stated, present day "journalists" have no intrest at all in information.


No, it is simply FALSE (what else is new for the dishones incompetents of the AP) that Prry and Romney tearing down each other has anything to do with "character"--other than refleting BADLY on the "character" of both Perry and Romney (Perry more than Romney, as Perry's clumsy attacks cover for Romney's more smooth and clever counterpunches). Perry desperately needs to get away from these obvious, clumsy, obviouis personal attacks on Romney, and show that he has some substance to him as far as going against Obama (not to mention saving the country). The "flat tax" may help. But I think it is too late for Perry. People have learned not to like him, for good reason. Thta is the only "character" involved her. Peopele, in contrast, LIKE Cain, despite his obvious flaws (see previous article). If Perry is able to get away from his totally negative attacks on Romney, and actually get into the substance that voters want, he does have the chance to undermine Cain (NOT with direct attacks). It is my prsonal convction that people are more open--and really should be more open--to a FLAT TAXX than they are to a SALES TAX (which Cain ha made pretty complex in his 9-9-9 plan).


Thus, you can see just how incompetent and dishonest the AP headline is. TheAP wants to make the GOP entirely about the attacks between Pery and Romney. That is absurd. Even the attacks are based on the assummptoin that GOP VOTERS want HONEST SUBSTANCE on the issues they care about. But it is the ISSUES they care aobut. They just want a candidate who effetively addresses those issues, and shows an ability to take on Obama on those issues. Some of the "attacks" may convince some voters that they can't trust the candidate being torn down on an ISSUE, but the attacks will not affimatively advance the attacker. That was Perry's cardinal error. I believe it will be fatal, and that is the only "character" involved here.


No, I am not kidding. The AP article--totally agenda driven--was all about the attacks between Perry and Romney: trying to make the "race" all about those attacks. The AP could not be further from the truth, but that is to be expected. In my now at least eight years of paying more attention to AP articles than anyone in the WORLD (my Sodom and Gomorrah search), I have never seen the AP anywhere near the trugh (excpet by total accident).


Bottom lne: What is really happening here, evidently toally unobserved by the clueless AP, is that Perry and Romney are creating a HUGE opoening for the other candidates by trying to tear each other down. The only question is whether the other candidates can trake advantage of the oening they have been given. If not, the nominee will be ROMNEY. If so, the BEST that Romney and Perry can hope ofr is DEADLOCK.


P.S. No proofreading or spel checking (bad eyesight). By the way, did you notice that Rush Limbuagh gave a totally INCOMPETENT "review" of the last Republican debate, as distinguished from the brilliant analysis you got in this blog. The min reason for that is that Rush is so PARTISAN. Nope. I am NOT "partisan". By that I mean that I do not look at everytithing from the point of view of whether it helps "my side" win, or helps the other side. I have a sTRONG, coherent PHILOSOPHY on issues, which will always tilt me toward actual conservative politicians. But, within that idological frameowrk, I see REALITY as it is. Rush does not, or pretends to not, despite his protestations to the contaray. This means that Rush will RARELY say negative things about a specific Republican, UNLESS that Republican attacks Rush. Oh, Rush will talk abadly about the Repubican establishment, but Rush regards the Repubilcan Party as "his side". And Rush is PARTISAN (hates to lose). Thus, you don't get an honest appraisal of the last DISASTROUS debate of Republicans. Plus, Rush does not look ats badly upon negative attacks as I do, even though his program realy does argue ISSUES more than personal attakcks. Thus, Rush could say that he "laughed" at Perry's clumsy attack on Roney for 'hiring' illegal aliens, but that he (Rush) does not mean that in a negative way. Rather, Rush said he "understood" how the attack came to be made, and Rush wanted to show his own cleverness at explaining how Perry came to make the attack out of left field (apparently). Rush does not care that this is all besside the point--the point being how BADLY almost all of the Repubicans, especailly Perry, did in the last debate. Rush is too willing to look at this as a game, where he is thre to help "his" side win (while overlooking the obvous flaws of "his side"). Now Hannity is much worse than Rush on thiis, and Rush talks intelligently about ideas most of the time. But whne Rush goes into "partisan" mode, you cannot trust him to tell you the real situation. You can trust this blog to do so, withougt suger coating. That is why this blog has WITHDRAWN its endorsement of Michele Bachmann. That is not because I no longer "like" Michele Bachmann, or don't remember that she is a "heroine" of the movement that led to the conservative win in 2010. It just means that I can see reality. And "reality" is that Michele Bachmann failed to cut it as an effective Presidential cndidate, even though she had a huge opening. The same may yet be ture of Cain. Thus, we may end up with Romney by default. Then (lol) Rush wil lbe ALL FOR Romney. Did I tell you that Rush hates to lose!!!!! You will NOT see this blog as "all for" Romney, although I have told you that whether I suuport Romney at all (assuming Romney is the nominee) depends totally on the REPUBLICAN PARTY> If that party betrays me again, as I am confident they will, then I will not support a nominee like Romney If the Republican Party stands for something, then I may give Romney the benefit of the doubt (on the gounds that the rest of the party wil hold him in line). Don't hold your breath.