Saturday, December 31, 2011

Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and the GOP Establishment: Why Should Ron Paul Not Run on a Third Party Ticket?

The GOP establishment, and the dishonest hypocritesof teh media, keep talking about how Ron Puaul is not really a member of teh Grand, Outdated Party, but is a DISLOYAL litertarian who may pick up his marbles and run AGAINST the GOP nominee. That is, the media is saying that when they are not talking aobut the GOP establishment TAKING OUT RON PAUL, because they cannot stand for him to be the GOP nominee. Have I told you that the GOP establishment is BONE-DEEP STUPID? I know I have. Ron Paul will not be the nominee. WHY would the GOPput out the message that they are going to SABOTABE Paul--make sure he is not the nominee-while at the same time saying that a thrid party would merely elect Barack Obama? The GOP estalbishment is doing its best to CREATE a thrid party--especially one led by Ron Paul. Why should Pual be "loyal" to them, when they are saying they will SABOTAGE him? BOE-DEEP STUPID. That is especailly true when it is unnecessary. to sabotage Paul. He has no eralistic chance for the nominatiioni, without this hystericala GOP reaction, but the GOP establishment is so stlupid that they cannot help themselves. And it is not just Pual. The GOP establishment cannot really bring itself to support ANY cnservative or libertarian (Paul being more libertarian than conservative), and the GOP tries to SABOTAGE all such people (or undermine them, if they try to push, say, a Tea Party agenda in Congress). This blog has told you that I will support the GOP, as an INSTITUTION, wkhen Hell freezes over. As Roma;d Reagam pmce saod: "The Democrat Paerty left me; I did not leave it." Well, the GOP left me, and is direclty telling people that it has left Ron Paul. WHY should Ron Paul, or any Ron Paul suppoerter (of whom I d ONOT count myuself, although I would vote for Paul against Obama), support the GOP nominee, when the GOP has definitely signalled that it will NOT support Ron Paul--in fact, will SABOTAGE Ron Paul.? The GOP, by the way, has already done the same thing to Herlman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and even Newt Gingrich . Rick Perry, who they probably would have SABOTAGED, and were beginning to (especially the Bush machine), did so much to himself that the full smear macine never had to go into operation. No, Herman Cain did NOT "do it to himsel". That was a racist SMEAR campaign, despiteCain's obviuos flaws as a candidate.

That brings us to Newt Gingrich. One of Newt's big problems is that he KNOWS what not to say. Yet, you can almost SEE him saying to himself: "I know I should not say this, but I am going to do it anyway." You may bet the same feeling reading this blog, but I am not running ofor the GOP nomination for President.........................................................................This puse was to let the creeping chills stop running up and down your spine at the last thought, or for you to get back up off of the floor after your laughing fit at the horrifying thought of me running for President. If I were running for President,I would not let my mouth shoot myself in the foot, the way Gingrich consistently does. Yep. I am talking about Gingrich saying that the would not even VOTE for Ron Paul if Ron Paul were nominated for President. You culd tel taht Gingrich KNEW this ws stupid, and said it anyway--because he could not stop himself.

We are talking aoub the interview with Wolf Blitzer. Newt was fine when he said that Ron Paul would NOT be the GOP nominee. But Gingrich then needed to say something like: "I understand peole who want to vote for Ron Paul. They are frstrated with both Barack Obama and the politicians in Washington. And Ron Paul has lots of good ideas, especially on domestic policy. But many of his ideas, especially on foreign policy, are so far out, and even dangerous, that he could never be electged President. He has been making vicious attacks on me in Iowa, and those do not make me happpy. But I understnd why voters like a lot of what he says. I just want them to take a good look at me, and consider whether I would ot be a better person to do what they want done. I am offering BOOD solutions, wihout being so far out there that I could not win either the nomination or the general election." And here is how it should have gone from there:

Woolf: "Since you believe many of Ron Paul's positioins are way out there, which I take to mean that thyou think that they are dangerous and maybe slightly nuts, would you suport Ron Paul if he is the GOP nominee."

Gingrich: "Ron Paul will not be the GOP nominee. That is an absurd hypothetical question. I will not even think about it unless some miracle occurs, and it happens. I am running for the GOP nomination, and I expect to support the GOP nominee.'

Wolf: "But would you support Ron Paul IF he is that nominee?"

Gingrich: "Wolf, is there some problem with our hearing, or are you so far in the tank for BarackObama that your only agenda is to ter apart the GOP? Don't answer that,Wolf,. I know the answer. But i just told you that I have no interest in thinking about hypothetical things that will not happen"

Wolf: "Look. I am jsut tlrying to get an answer to my quesiton. Don't voters have a right to know whehter you would suport Ron Paul ,if you think he is so dangerous."

Gingrich: "Wolf, you just won't give up on your agenda, will you. I have told lyou that I expect to support the GOP nominee. But let us take another hypothetical. Say that Mitt Romney says something unforgivable about me or my wife--especially my wife, as I can take anything thrown against me. Will I then support Romney? Possibly not. But that is entirely HYPOTHETICAL, and there is no way for me to say for sure NOW. I expet to support the GOP nominee. This country cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama. That nominee will not be Ron Paul. Those are the FACTS as I see them. What the facts will be when the nominee is chosen can only be considered then. Rno Paul has many good ideas, and has done the country a serivce by essentially proving that we should AUDIT the Federal Reserve, and bring uit under control. He also has some positons that are not defensible. That is why I believe that those considering voting for him should consider voiting for me instead. If you can't accept this answer, Wolf, then you should simply quitt CNN and go workdirectly for Barack Obama. Sorrry, Wolf, I forgot that you and CNN are alread doing that."

You can see that I threw in a few digs at Wolf Blitzer and CNN (correct digs). However, they are the kind of things--my "throw in" gigs--that caused Gingrich to SURGE in the race. He needed to get this HEADLINES that way, and not by the DESTRUCTIVE method of answering that ridiculous hypothetical lquestion on Ron Paul. You may or may not like MY method of handling the question, but you cannot have any doubt that GINGRICH was capable of both avoiding the question and atttacking Wolf Bliitzer at the same time as he did in the debate, where he said; "I know you ant us to fight among urselves, but the real problem here is Brarack Obama.").

No, Newt Gingrich did not help himself with this "Wath the Hell" moment--just like the GOP is not helping itself by SABOTAGING every person who does not fit their mold of a COWARDLY GOP politician.

Me? I have told you that Ron Paul is "nuts'--especailly on foreign policy, although he is the ONLY person I have ever seen who would dismantel MORE of the Federal Government that I would. Ron Paul's isolationist "conservatism" was DISCREDITED at Pearl Harbor--not to mention 9/11. He would be a risky choice for President. KHe even has basically said that it is none of our business whether Iran gets nuclear weapons. This would be a dangerous Preisdent. yet, I have said that Ron Paul is one of ony 3 GOP candidates who I could vote for as President, against Brack Obama (who I could nnever vote for, but who I could refuse to vote AGAINST if teh GOP "alternative" is one of these GOP estalbishment cowards and saboteurs: Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul. The reason Ron Paul is one of the three, despite his dangeous foreign policy, is that Ron Paul is NOT "politics as usual". He would shake things up, and actually TRY TO DISMANTLE THE FEDEAL GOVERNMENT. Further, he would do it NOW, and not ten years from now. To me, this is worht the risk of the rest of Rohn Paul. That means, obviusly, that I hink we are in MORE DANGER from "politics as usual" on domestic policy tahn we are from an foreign threat. Yep. I jsut said that Mitt Romney is MORE DSANGEROUS to this country that Ron Paul. I stand behind that statement. Thus, I can support Ron Paul, reluctantly, even though I cannot support Mitt Romney (somewhat reluctantly, although I am more comfortable with that decision everyday). My 89 year onld mother thinks Romney is "best of the lesser evilsl'. Romney BOUGHT her with his pandering on China, and his statements on ilegal immmigration that everyone knows he does not really mean. But I have gone downhill on Romney ever since 2008, when I supported him against the even worse Joh McCin (who I REFUSED to support for President, after momentarily wavering when he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate).

To get back to the main question: WHY should Ron Paul support the GOP, if the GOP makes it clear that they are SABOTAGING him? I see no reason, and the GOP has only itself to blame if Ron Paul goes the third party route. Even apart from Ron Paul, this blog has come out FOR the formation of a totally new third party, as the gOP has shown itself incapable of being a vehicle for "real change"in this country.

At my barber shop yesterday (see yesterday's article), by the way, one of the people said that he was "undecided" between Ron Paul and Romney. I regard that as a strange choice, but one that indicates how many people out there who are TORN between voting AGAINST THE POLITICS AS USUAL that they know is destroying this country, as they are betrayed by theGOP, and the desire to DEFEAT BARACK OBAMA. These peole are being tOLD that Romney is the best hope of defeating Obama. That is why they consider Ropmney, and not because they like or trust Romney. That is not a very comfortable way to vote.

IF yoiu have suddenly decided that you will vote againt Ron Paul because of those "newsletters" that someone dug up from the 1990s, then I am sorry for you. That is a typical establishment SMEAR. No, I am not defending what was said in those newsletters under Rno Paul's name. I am just sorry for you if yo consider a MAIN reason to vote against Paul that newsletters more than a decade ago carrried offensive and anti-Semitic material under his name. There are jsut so many BETTER reasons to vote against Ron Paul than thouse meaningless newsletters. If you don't understand that, then you are too open to these SMEARS that are ruining our politics. As stated, President Ron Paul would SHAKE THIS COUNTRY UP--for good or for bad. Obscure newsletters written by someone else under his name really have LITTLE or NOTHING to say about what kind of President Ron Paul would be, or even what kind of a man he is. Ignore theem. But don't ingore that Ron Paul thinks 9/11 was our own fault, or that he thinks Iran has a "right' to nuclear weapons. Ifl ou vote for RonnPau, you should do so with your eyes open, but not with our eyes clouded with meaningless SMEARS.

CNN has virtually come out and ENDORSED "negative campaigning" (as long as it is against members of the GOP). CNN remains a collection of the worst hlypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. The hypocrisy here is that CN will be back to CONDEMNING "negative ads" once Brack Obama and l;eftist Democrats are the targets. In a way, however, this new NN embrace of the "value' of negative ads is mroe honest than usual. CNN is nothing but continuous NEGATIVE ADS in its corage of politics; continuous negative ads against the GOP, conservatives, and groups like the Twa Party--not to mentin the Christian religion. CNN AGREES with negative ads on its targeted groups, and puts that same material on CNN everyday. The only negative ads CNN dilikes are those with which it DISAGREES. Otherwise, CNN itself is one continuous negative ad in favor of its leftist agenda.

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

Friday, December 30, 2011

Mitt Romney Reads This Blog

Sure, Mitt Romney reads this blog. This blog writes an article--repeatng what this blog said LAST SRING in connection with the digraceful GOP performance on the 2011 spending bill--saying that the GOP might as well hang it up if they can't make the case for eliminaing "funding' for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (nota to mention Planned Parenthood). Mitt Romne promptly lwent out and USED the example of funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as an example of how there are OBVIOUS spendng cuts that can be made, if only there is the WILL to make them.

Hacker Boy (hackng into this disgraceful blog in the interest of truth, justice and the American way, even though Skip keeps saying I am Piers Morgan or some other agent of Rupert Murdoch--an obvious SMEAR based on the Murdoch hacking scandal in the U.kK.)); "Skip, you are despicable (yes, I can qote Daffy Duck too). You know that Mitt Romney does noot read your disgraceful blog. My are the biggest egotist, for the least reason, around. At most, Romney got the idea from the same soure you did: that Wall Street Journal article about how the GOP has FAILED to 'cut' spending."

Skip: "Sorry, Hacker Boy, the Wall Street Journal may have got their idea from ME. It is indisputable that I did not tget this stuff from them. This blog has been saying for MONTHS that the gGOP has CUTA NOTHING, and has BETRAYED every voter who thought they were voting fro reduced spending and deficits in 2010., As stated, I said LAST SPRING that if the GOP cannot evenmake the case for cutting off funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and EMBARRASS Obama and the Democraqts that they were willing to SHUT DOEWN THE GOVERNMENT to fund teh Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Palnned Parenthood, then there is NO GOPP PRINCIPLE for which the GOP can make a case. Tjhhis is another CORRECT prediction, as the GOP has ABANDANED the case against spending since, and has really refused to make a CASE for ANY GOP principle out there (except the general "principle' that the GOP can MANAGFE Big Government better than Democrats). "

Look at Romney (back to the article). I agree with Hacker Boy to some extent. Romney probably did not get this idea about the Corporation for Pubic Broadcasing from this blog. But look at how much of a COWARD Romney is. Romney did NOT start making this an "issue' until the SPENDING bills for this year were already PASSED by Congress, including the GOP House. Those spending bills INCLUDED funding ro the Corporation for Pbulic Broadcasting, and Romney knows it. Romney did NOTHING (nada, zilch, zero) to STOP the GOP from doing this. In fact, Romney did NOTHING to stop the GOP from agreeing to 2012 spending with NO CUTS, along with INCEASES in the deficit by mabye 180 BILLION dollars with this fraudulent "payroll tax cut bill" (which also extended unemplyment benefits and other "stimulus" GIMMICKS). What Romney did, like th eWall Street Journal and the unfair and unbalanced network (from which Romney may have taken his cue), was to WAIT until Congress had already ACTED on spending for this year (through the electin, effectively, since Congress will PUT OFF the next spending bills until the LAME DUCK sessioni after the election). Did I just call Romney a COWRD. Yep. But I hae already done that.

Romney should be ashamed. Yes, he should be ashamed fo rWAITING until all spending bills have been passe dto start criticizng specific spending. But look at the LANGUAGE Romney is using. He should be ashamed. He could get arrested for STEALING. I still don't believe it, and it is this for which Romney should feel SHAME (except I am convinced he has no shame: Romney actually said that if he is elected President, he will go through the budget 'line by line" in order to cut spunnecessary spending. This should give you a feeling of deja vu, as does a whole lot of what Romney says. This is a direct quote from CANDIATE OBAMA--ur Liar-in-Chief. Did I jsut say that I DON'T BELIEVE ROMNEY, any more than I believed Obama? You are finaly getting it. If Romney MEANT it, he would hve gone through the 2012 SPENDING BILLS, "line by lne", BEFORE THEY WERE FINNALLY PASSED, and told the GOP where they should FIGHT to "cut". Romney did nothing close to that. The is the poster child for "politics as usual", and his THEFT of the Obama line (not th efirst such theft by Romney) is merely more evidence for that. Romney has NO credibility that he will actually CTU spending. He WANTED (100% certain) the GOP NOT to "fight" over spenidng this year, because Romney does nto WANT Obama to be out there running againt a GOP Congress wiling to fight for SPENDING CUTS. Did I say Romney was a COWARD? I know I did. Romney has waited for it to be SAFE to start talking about spending cuts. An dRomney has NEVER criticized the GOP failure in Congress (a Tea Party afilure as well--see previous blog article). I know that conventional wisdom would be that you dont' get electged by putting your own party on the spot in Congress. But that mans that Romney was perfectly willing to SELL OUT his country, and that is what he did. Furtehr, the evidecne (this recent sudden talkabout spending) shos Romney KNEW exactly the game he was playing.

No. I could never vote for Mitt Romney as President of the United States, even if he does read this blgo. For him, and really the whle GOP, it is all POLITICAL, and has nothing to do with "principle" at all.

You say I am extreme? Well, I went to my barber today, for my semi-annual haircut, and the CONSENSUS in the barber shop was amazing. There was UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT that the GOP POLITICIANS have BETRAYED us all. The only disagreement with me was on Barack Obama. The others in the barber shop simply could not face four more years of Obama, no matter WHO the GOP nominee is. That is the same attitude of my brothers, who also almost all agree that the GOP POLITICIANS are hopeless. The ONLY way I am "exteme" is that I would rather see Obama back in office than endorse this "politics as usal" being played by the GOP. In the end, I don't think this contry will be worse off under this kind of GOP politician tahn under Obama (espcecailly since at least the GOP has an INCENTIVE to GIGHT Obama, even if they are COWARDS). The GOP has NO incentive to "gight" a GOP President, which is how a GOP President can end up being WORSE than Obama (in terms of results).

Doesn't this mean that the GOP could actually WIN with this kind of "politics as usual", deliberately not "rocking the boat", depnding on the people to be DISGUSTED with Obama? Sure. Problem: If you WIN THAT WAY, then you probably can't GOVERN. First, lyou have the WRONG idea about why you were elected. Look at the GOP in 2010, who professed to KNOW why they were elected, but promptly showed that they DID NOT. The GOP estalbishment still believes in Big Government and no real spending cuts, along with this "paid for' FRAUD. They just think that they can MANAGE teh government better than Obama (which maybe they can, but NOT well enough to prevent this country from going down the tubes).

Sorry, Mitt. I appreciate you reading this blog. I jsut wish you wuould LEARN from it, as all of you GOP politicans SAID you had "learned" from the Tea Party movement. YHOu LIED. Now, unfortunately, the Tea Party "leaders" appear to be "learning" from YOU, . See George Orwell'S "Animal Farm".

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

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Tea Party Failure: Debt Ceiling Redux (Tea Party Insanity)

I saw a Tea Party "leader" interviewed on the unfair and unbalanced network--I think fromthe Tampa Bay area and a member of the "Tea Party Express". I almost threw the glass I was holding at th eTV screen, which would have been costly (since I doubt if either the Tea Party or the nfair and unbalanced network would have paid my bill for a new TV).

This guy was talking abut how out of control government now is, and, of course, he is right. But heseemed totally oblivious to the fact that the Tea Party has generally FAILED to do AnYTHHING aobut it. That is especailly true n Washington, as the Tea Party may have had ore success in some states. But Washington iw where the main problem lies. States are FORCED (even with Demorcrats in control) to do SOMETHING when their spending is out of control. Sure, what they do may be WRONG, and come too late, but in the end they have to do something. Taht is why it is MUCH better to have states handle their own problems, instead of looking to "free money" from Washington. States have a fighting chance to realzie that they can't go on the way they are, because they are unable to CONCEAL looming disasters.

But why was I so angry? This Tea Party guy used as his first example of out of onctrol government the fact that President Obama is going to have to go back to Congress for another 1.2 TRILIONI dollar increse in the DEBT CEILING (yes, that again). As this blog has ponted out, the GOP, and even the Tea Party, CANNOT argue that the debt ceiling should not be increased. Why does the debt ceiling have to be increased? Right. Because the GFOP, without MAJOR Tea Party oppositoin, PASSED the spending and deficit bills that rEEQUIRE the debt ceiling to be increased. See the earlier blog article this week, noting that what this blog has been telling you has been confirmed (by the Wall Streeet Juornal, teh Seante Budget Office, and others): TheGOP has managed to "cut" NOTHING--not one dime--in spending. Furtehr, since December of 2010, the GOP has ADDED over 300 BILLIION to the rEQUIRED additoins to the debt ceiling, merely by "cooperating" in those massively expensive "stimulus" GIMMICKS of the "payroll tax cut" and the extension of unemployment benefits. You Tea Party peole an argue all you want that it was jsut not POLITICALLYL possible to do anyting. It won't wash. You can't say you were too COWARDLY to take politcal risks, an dthen say that you are against raising the debt ceiling ON PRINCIPLE. What principle? I don't see any eople of PRINCIPLE here. The "debrt ceiling" is NOT the probllem. IT is the SYMPTON+M. The SPENDING (and gimick additons to the deficit) represents the PROBLEM, and the GOP and Tea Party combined to totally take the focus OFF of the SPENDING until ALL of the spending bills were safely lpassed. DEFEAT THESE PEOPLE, INCLUDING TEA PARTY POLITICIANS THAT WENT ALONG WITH THE GOOP. The Tea Party should have been jumping up and down and SCREAMING (like this bog) about the BETRAYAL of the GOP. Sure, I am sure there were "noises" out there, but they were MUTED "oises". As stated herein, even Michele Bachmann--who formed the "Tea Party Caucus" in the House--refused to make a case AGAKNST THE GOP LEADERSLHIP and take it to the peole. In the end, the Tea Party "movement" went along with the GOP BETRAYALS for the sake of POWER. I don't forgive them for that. I can't forgive thhem for that. Above all, I will NOT forgive them for "fvighting" abut the DEBT CELING again!!!!!!! Some acts of stupidity and DISHONESTY simply cannot be forgiven. This is one of them. I sort of regret not throwing my glass threw the TV screen, and BILLING the Tea Party.

The 2011 spending bill, where the GOP and the Tea Party claimed victeory? NO CU:TS. The 2012 spending bills, whre there were supposed to be that SAME f100 BILLIN dollars in "cuts"? NO CUTS (in fact, probably 50 to 100 billino in ADED SPENDNG). Fiscal restraint? Again, those BRIBES (sold as "middle class bribes", even though you may wonder a little how paying people not to work for 99 weeks rally "helps" the "middle class", but that is true of AL of thhese bribes, which HURT EVERYONE IN THE ENDA) of the "payroll tx cut" and furterh exttension of uneployment benefits aDDED 300 BILLIN to the next required debt ceiling since December of 2010 (assuming taht Congress will "extend" the ridiculous two month Senate bill extension to the full year that everyone assumes will happen, INCLUDING THE TEA PARTY).

Nope. As this blog has shwon, the Tea Party "movement" has been an ABJECT failure. The GOP said that it had "learned" frm the Tea Party, and proomptly showed it had not. Rather, the Tea Party seems to be "learning" "plitics as usual" from the GOP. "Power corrupts, and absolutwe power corrupts absolutely." The problemnowadays is that even a SNIFF of power seems to corrupt absolutely.

Again, the GOP House HAD to vote FOR every single DIME that the government is spendng for 2012. They did not "have" to vote fo rANY of that spending. In toehr words,every dime of additional raising of the debt ceiling can be BLAMED on the GOP and the Tea Party. Sure, the GOP acted RELUCTANT, and the Tea Party "tried" to give backbone to the GOP, but they ALL betrayed us in the end. The Tea Party needed to BREAK with the GOP, or at least make a CREDIBLE threat to do so unless the GOP stood by SPENIDN GUCTS and DEFICT REDUCTION. I agree that it was probably too much to expectd for the GOP to "balance the budget" for 2012, although they had the POWER to do so If the House refused to vote for anyt;hing but a blanced budget, there ws NOTHING Obama and the Democratrs could do (except shut down the government, which they could not possibly have done all of the way to the next electioin). It is DISHONEST for the GOP to say it was "forced" to spend al of this money . That is a LIE. What the GOP is really saing is that it was POLITICALLY AFRAID to really take on the SPONDING IFGHT, not to mentino tthe "fight" (rout) over the "payroll tax cut" bill.

Again, let us acknowledge that it was too much to expect for both the Tea Party and the GOP that they BALANCE THE BUDGET (even though they had the POWER--at least th eGOP did--to FORCE the government to do so). But the GOP "cut" NOTHING. The Tea Party ACCOMPISHED NOTHING. Not acceptable, and it justifies me wanting to throw things at my own TV.

The Tea Party gy, who evidently had SOME shame, did not even tgalk about current SPENDING (eveen though it is INSANE to DEMAGOGUE on the DEBT CEILINGwithout coupling it with spending, because the spending bills and budgetg bills RFEQUIRE the debt ceiling to be raised). Then the Tea Party guy went on to tak about STATE pensions--throwing in Federal pensions as an afterthought (although I am not sure how much he was talking about Federal BAILOUTS of state pensions--also a problem). This is actually one of my brother's (the one in Nashville) main issues. My brother believ es, with a lot of justice, that is it vritually CRIMINAL for Federal employees to have these masive pension plans. At least for non-military people, my borther would require that EVERY Federal employuee have only ONE "retirement plan": Social Security. Ye. My bortehr especially believes this should be true of CONGRESS. I, personally, do not understand why EVERY member of Congress is not DEFEATED who does not SCREAM about eliminating the ridiculously generous PESNION received by members of Congress, starting when they win ONE election. But, then, I ahve already called for you to DEFEAT THEM ALL, includng Tea Party politicans who are present incumbents.

When this Tea Party guy was takng about "success", he was talking about electing a Tea Party" governor. I am not sure, by the way, jsut how much success Tea AParty STATE politicinas have had on pensions, outside of Governor Christie of New Jersey. And I am not totally sure EXACTLY how much succes Christtie has had in SOLVING the problem, but I give Christie credit for actualy FIGHTING the battle. I don't give the GOP, or the Tea Party, ANY credit for "fightng the battle" in Wasington. After the 2010 election, the GOP had the ABILITY to at least make PROGRESS in the fight on spending and the deficit. They made NONE, and even made the prolbe m WORSE> The ony things thaey have done are SMLL, FICTIIOUS (likelY) "savings' over the next TEN YEARS (a Soviet-style TEN YEAR PLAN, the concept of which has been ENDORSED by both the GOP and the power brokers of the Tea Party).

N. The Tea Party has FAILED, and guys like this one I saw on the unfair and unbalanced network only make me ANGRY . Taht is because they don't seem to KNOW that they have FAILIED as misarably as any political movement has ever failed (almost as miserably as Ben Bernanke has fialed since being appointed Fed Chariman in relatively EARLY 2006).

Here is my reaction to the Tea Party politicains and "poer brokers' these days: "Tal to the hannd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" (Remember that one). I am no longer listeing, and I have no respect for most of you. I am sure there are a FEW Tea Party "leaders" out there who have not betrayed us. But, really, they have had NO effet. They have not even made ANY WAVES. Their big "achievement" was hthat FARCE of a supercommittee, wh;ich ended that FARCE of a "debt ceiling" debate (when the Tea Party should have been trying to COUPLE the debt ceiling with SPENDING, as even that idiout, Ben Bernanke, said was the problem with the debt ceiling not being CONNNECTED to SPENDING). Spending bills, and things like the "payroll tax cut",REQUIRE the debt ceiling to be raised, and that should be TRANSPARENT as part of every budget process. Congress should ANNOUNCE how much their budget/spending bills REQUIRE the debt ceiling to be raised, and RAISE the debt ceiling at the end of the BUDSGET/SPENDING process. The debt ceiling should be reached at the same time as SPENDING bills are due, or shortly thereafter--AFTER Congress has announced how much their votes have REQUIRED the debt ceiling to be raised.

"Skip, you don't like AnYONE. Whoi can you support, when even the 'extreme' Tea Party are not l'pure' enough for you."

Tehre is SOME justice in this charge, but not much. The problem is that this is NOT a matter of "purity". It is a matter of it being UNACCPETABALE to "cut" NOTHING from spending, after you have PROMISED to do so That kind of "policyy", and COWARDICE, means the COLLAPSE of this contry (eventually), and I refuse to support people who ENABLE that collpase. There are MANY Tea Part people who I could support. But the Tea Party has produced NO LEADERS I can support (that I knw about), and simply has FAILED to turn into a real force for what it professes to believe in. I think the rank and file Tea Party peole,like my friend Tony (an accountant), would SUPPORT a real leader who would INSIST on "shutting down the government" if no progress is being made, no matter what the POLITICAL consequences. It would realy, of course, be Obama and the Democrats how were "shutting down the government, as our SYSTEM is set up so that we are NOT SUPPOSED TO SPEND NY MONEY THAT THEHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REFUSES TO AUTHORIZE. In other words, our system is set up so that the House of Representatives can FORCE the Federal government to "live within the means" authorized by the House of Reppresentatives, no matter what the President and the other camber thnks. lYes, the Seante has a similar VETO power over spending, and that SHOULD have lmited spending--except for this ridiculous BALCKMAIL of "shutting down the government". We shoudl NOT be albe to SPEND any money upon whic BOTH the House and the Seante do not agree. Sure, you can see that there has to be a little "give and take " in this. But what we have done is the exact OPPOSITE of what our system envisions: We have gotten to a "system" where NO SPENDIN GIS CUT UNLESS EVERYONE AGRESS T THE CUTS.

Not acceptable. Tea Party as now working: Not acceptable. GOP (well, you know this one): DEFEAT THEM ALL (all incumbents of either party).

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

Rick Santorum: Blog Endorses Santorum for President of teh United States

This blog has said from the beginning that RickSantorum is probably the most solid conservative in the GOP field, but he has not previoiusly gained any traction.

Therefore, this blog has previously endorsed Michele Bachmann , and then Herman Cain. The reason, in both cases, was that this blog believes that we need not just a "conservative", but a person who will SHAKE UP an establishment (GOP and Democrat) which is fiddling while Rome--that is, America--burns (not to mention th eworld, for which we are no longer providing any kind of god example at all). This blog withdrew its endorsement of Michele Bachmann-NOT because of media SMEAR ATTACKS, but becaue she proved a disappointment at actually converying the conservative message and--more importantly--a disappointment at actually proposeing ACTIOIN in Congress that had an impact. Bachmann's failure to do anything about the gOP adopting the Senate two-month "payroll ttax cut" bill by 'unimous consent" (or whatever) showed that this blog was corrrect to withdraw its endorsement of her. This blog never withdrew its endrosement of Herman Cain, and never would have becaue of the RACIST attacks upon him. The only way Cain could have lost this blog's endorsement was the same way Bachmann did: by disappointing on his seeming ability to shake things up in Washington. Cain, however, left the race without ever having forfeited this blog's endorsement (for any otehr reason), despite some indications that Cain's inexperience and lack of having really thought a lot o fissues through was going to be a problem., Boldness makes up for a lot, and Cain was BOLD. Santourum is not, or at least does not come across that way . He comes across as something of a standard politician, although a solid conservative all of his political career (which cannot be said of Gingrich or Romney). You can argue that Santourm is a more THOOUGHTFUL, experienced conservative who might actually get things done. He would definitely have been considered for endorsement, instead of Bachmann or Cain, if Santorum had seemed able to get any traction for being more than a standard politician who has just decided he wants to be President (albeit a solidly conservative standard politician, which distinguishes Santourm from the rest).

The last pronouncement from this blog was that I would consider another endorsement ONLY of Rick Santourm or Michele Bachmann (again), but only if either showed signs of being able to actuallyl carry the conservative message to the people. Otherwise, the endorsement would be an exercise in futulity (even beyojnd the fact that my endorsement mayy not carry much weight with enough people). Well, Rick Santorum is now showing some SIGNS that he is gaining traction with his conservative message in Iowa. As you should know, this blog considers polls as EVIL things which should be elimintated from American life (which we all could do simply by refusing to cooperate). Thus, this blog discounts the CNN poll showing Santorum up to 16% in Iowa--a "gain" of 11%. Nevertheless, something is going on. It is enough for this blog to formally endorse Rick Santorum for President of the United States. He appears to be the ONLY chance to have a real conservative--if not one as bold as I would like him to beo--as the nominee of the GOP (Grand, Outdated Party). And I can happpily support Sntorum for President (now, anyway, remembering how many betrayals conservatives have suffered in the past). I do not delud myself--again, at least at this point--that Santorum is the second coming of Ronald Reagan. But he would be the second most conservative President (if he lives up to his past record) in my lifetime, and the third most consrevative NOMINEE of the GOP in my lifetime (behind Reagan and Goldwater, although it is underestimated just how conservative Eisenhower was because Eisenhower was a consummate politician who was not an effective ADVOCATE of conservatism, even if he practiced it, without, perhaps, being a "true believer").

Santorum opposed that fraudulent "payroll tax cut". Baachmann opposed it, as well, but Bachmannn had the misisfortune to be in Congress and BETRAY conservatives on the issue there (by not taking on the GOP "leadershi" in Congress, even to forcing a vote on that last betrayal). Santorum has been a solid, CONSISTENT "social issue" conservative, as well as a consistent economic conservative. As stated, his main"downside" is that he has difficuluty "exciting" people. At times,he has been good in the debattes. At times, he has been disappointing,--sounding too mcu like a standard politician. Part of this may be because he has often had sparse OPPORTUNITIES in the debates, as he has had to PSH to even be included in the questioning.

I don't see that Romney is more "electable" than Santorum. Be honest: Do you really see many people who are EXCITED byRomney? Romney is simply unable to CNNECAT to the common man. Santorum is challenged that way, as well, but hardly to the degree that Ropmney is. Santroum HAS won elections in Pennsylvania by CONNECTING with the kind of people the GOP needs to beat Obama. The only people Romney has ever "connected" with enough to WIN an election are the LEFTISTS of Massachusetts. Romney's only "advantage" is that he has business experience, and can "seem" more "Presidential" than Santorum. These just don't seem enough to give Romney an edge in being "electable".

Let us be frank here. WHY is it that the GOP establishment, and the media establishment, say that Romney is more "acceptable" to "independents"? It is becaues the political and media establishment BELIEVE that Romney is a LIAR on things like abortion. Romney SAYS he is just as pro-life as Santorm. Romney SAYS he is against homosexaul marriage. Romney SAYS things that are jsut about as conservative on "social issues" as Santorum. If anything, the Mormon Church is MORE CONSERVATIVE than the Cahotlic Church on things like premarital sex (which Romney and his wife DNEIED, in answer to that truly dsigraceful and EFIL "Sixty Minutes" question in 2008) . Santorum, owever, actually TALKS about "faith" and "family" as if he BLIEVES it, and has been CONSISTENT his whole life. The media does not BELIEVE that Romney is a "true conservative" on these issues, and the media thinks independents think that way too. That is because the media believes that "independents" are UNBELIEVERS just like the members of the media, and jsut like leftists like Nancy Pelosi and BarackObama. The media agrees with Bill Maher that many of these politicians are not really religous, but merely pretending for political conveninece. You do get the impression that Santorum REALLY BELIEVES, which is to his credit (even when I don't share the religious beliefs themselves).

The mistake Santourm maay make, if he listens to the GOP establishment AFTER he is nominated, will be to BACK OFF his positoins on "social issues"--to try to dowan play them. Sure, it would be an even bigger mistake for Santorum to put his EMPHASIS on "social issues', instead of the obviously dominant economic issues. But it is NOT TURE that the conservative position on "social issues' is a "loser". That is simpoly where the GOP and media establishment stand, because THEY don't believe in ANYTHING (except their own generally leftist agenda).

Thus, this blog is glad to endorse Rick Santorum for President, especially as it means that this blog sees a cHANCE that a conservative may yet emerge to take the nomination That conservative, at this point, can ONOLYY be RickSantorum (barring a deadlocked convention).

Note that this blog has been proven RIGHT yet again. Ever since 2008, this blog has told you that Newt Gingrich will never be President (and that this blog could never support Gingrich for President, even if he--by some miracle--got nominated). For a abiref while, it seemed that there was a CHANCE that this blog could be WRONG (not about Gingrich on sustance, but about whether Gingrich might actually WIN). That show you should NEVER doubt this blog . Gingrich will not be the nominee. Neither will Ron Paul (even though Ron Paul, nuts though he is, is one of the three GOP candidates who I could VOTGE FOR asPresident--along with Santorum and Bachmann). Romney still looks like the most likely nominee, and the establishment is "all in" as the "full court press' has begun for Romney. This blog, of courfse, has already stated that I could NOT support Romney for President, even against Obama. This istrue even though I supportred Romney in 2008. My opinion of Romney has gone DOWN almot every day since 2008 (along with my opinion of the GOP establishment and the unfair and unbalanced network). No, it is not even RomneyCare that bothers me. No, I would not do 'RomneyCaere", even on a state level, but I AGREE with Romney that states SHOULD make that decisions (and that states have the POWER to make that decision, without violating the Constitution). However, on so many things Romney sounds just like Obama--from teh 'payroll tax cut" to the Romney capital gains tax cut "for the iddle class" (using the same Obama cutoff of $200,000) to the way he sounds about "global warming". Romney just comes across as a Big Government guywho thinks he can MANAGE better than Obama. And I am sure he can. I jsut don't think "management" is what we now need. We need a NEW APPROACH. We will not get it from Romney, and we will not get an ADVOCATE for conservative principles.

Santorum is it. Absent new entrants, somehow, this will be the LAST endorsement this blog will make. As I did in 2008, when Limbaugh BETRAYED conservatives by failing to endorse Romney IN TIME to derailMcCain, I challenge Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the rest to PSH FOR SANTORUM. Just as my judgment told me in 208 that Romney was the only REASONABLE alternative to teh terrible McCain, my judgment tells me that Santorum is now the only REASONABLE alternative to Romney (not as terrible as McCain, but still the poster child for "politic as usual'). No, I will have NO sympathy with Ru;sh Limbaugh and the rest when they WHINE about Romney, if they do not even TRY to get behind an alternataive. Really, if they don't pickSantorum as the only reasonable alternative, they need to explain what OTHER alternative there NOW is. If they can't, then they neeed to go with Santorum, or SJHUT UP about theGOP not nominating a conservative. Limbaugh admittted I was RIGHT in 2008, but did so TOO LATE. Will he make the SAME MISTAKE again? Stay tuned.

Oh, by the way, Iowa is looking even more meaningless as far as CHJOOSING a nominee. It is more likely to MUDDLE the question. That CNN poll had FIVE peple within "strikig distance": Ron Paul (who will not get the nomination, but will retain support until the end), Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Perry. Bachmann could even do a little better than expected. Unless Romney gets a SUBSTANTIAL victory in Iowa, it will mean NOATHING as far as who the WINNER will ultimately be. As previously stated in this blog, the main effect will be as to someone like Santorum. IF Santorum can mark hiself as a SERIOUS contender to Romney, then Iowa will mean something (as it did for Huckabee). It will NOT mean that Santorum will WIN the nomination, even if he were to WIN Iowa. But Iowa could give him his SHOT. That is really all he can expect, and what he has been aiming ata all of these months. Maye his strategy will be vindicated, although he will then face the HUCKABEE challenge of winning the nomination without establishment support or MAJOR MONEY. Again, the establishment--including the unfair and unbalanced network---WANTS ROMNEY. They may not be as nervous about Santorum as they were about Bachmann and Cain (and are about Paul), but these peole are ANTI-CONSERVATIVE. Never doubt it.

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

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Bernanke, Europe and the ECB: Bailout Central, as America Tries to Bailout Europe and the Western World Teeters Toward theWeimar Republic

Ben Bernake, as this blog ws saing even as the GOP was looking to him as our SAVIOR in 2008 (as the GOP will AGAIN if they somehow win the next election with NO principles at alll, is the Worst Failure in the History of World Finance. "Bailout Ben", as he is affectionately (lol) known, is also one of trhe worst LIEARS who ever lived. He is in a class with Bill Clinton over parsing words. Thus, he denies "printing money" at the Federal Reserve--mainly, as far as I can tell no the bais that he and the Fed are not PHYUSICALLY down there operating printing presses. Ben, you arfe one of the worst LIARS ever to be Fed Chairman, along with being the Worst Failure in the History of World Finance. Lest you forget--I haven't-- Bernanke was appointed in early 2f006--at about the same time a Democratic Congress came to power--and has PRESIDED over the WORST economic downturn since the Great Depression, AND over the WORST RECOVERY since the Great Depressioin.

Doubt me (about "Bailout Ben" being a LIAR)? Never do that. Oh, today's news also proved that our Liar-in-Chief and his minioins--like tax cheat Tim Geitner--are liars as well. Bernanke went before Congress and DENIED taht the Fed would do anyth;ing" to help "bail out' Europe. Obama and Geitner have said, when they were not saying things indicating they WOYULD hepll bail out Europe, that Europe had to solve its own proobems. These have all been transparent LIES. The Fed is, in fact, helpiing to BAIL OUT Europe--helping the ECB to PRINT MONEY just like Bernanke did over here.

A Fed governor went on CNBC today and explained how "Bailout Ben' is doing it: BAILING OUT EURPOPEAN BANKS. You know those "credit-default swaps"? Well, the Fed has entered into some kind of fancy SWAP with the ECB (Europerean Central Bank) to LAUNDER MONEY. In other words, the Fed is--by deception--actually LOANING MONEY to the ECB to BAIL OUT European banks. Needless to say, "Bailout Ben" did not explain that to Congress, and the Obama Administratin is conceealing their involvement in the "bailout" of Europe as well.

The other "news" today is that the ECB now has an increased "balance sheet" of 3.3 TRILLION dollars. That means that teh ECB is right there PRINING MONEY, as the economic fascists on Wall Street have been beggng them to do. Wall Street is now BAILOUT CENTRAL. And the main GOP contenders for Resident have ALL indicated that they are fine with the kind of bailouts that Wall Steret wants when they say the "system is in danger (as they say NOW). Indeed, one of the economic fascists went on CNBC this morning an downplayed the idea that there is anyting "conerning" about the ECB looking like it is following the path of the Weimar Republic. As he said, this is what "Wall sTreet" has been DEMANDING for the ECB to do: to PRINT MONEY just like "Bailout Ben", inorder not jut to bail ouut EUROPER, but to AGAIN bailo out our BAnKS and Wall Street itself. It is another LIE to say that those bailouts ever ceased. The Fed has been on a continuing mission to bail out Wall STreet and the big banks, and this is just an extensin of that mission to EUROPE. The bailouts have never stopped. They have just been (badly, but the media is cooperating) CONCEALED. That is what th eFed is now doing with its BAILUT of Europe.

The Weimar (sp? not totally sure) was the German government whose collapse led to Hitler. It is fammoujs for tring to PRINT MONEY to "save" the economy, only to cause the COLLAPSE of both the economy and the country. Rick Santelli, the BEST of teh CNBC economic fascists (to the point that I probably would not call him an economic fasicit at all, unlike th erest of CNBC) said on CNBC today that we were not yet at the point of the Weimar Republic, but that we needed to "watch" that we don't go down that road. "Rick, I like you, an dI hate to break it to you (and myabe you know already), but by the time it is OBVIOUIS that we are headed down the road of teh Weimar Republic, it is TOO LATE." Thus, people say that there is no evidence of HYPERINFLATION (the thing that brought down the Weimar Republic). Uh-hyh. There IS a "stealth inflation" gong on out there, as oil is at about $100 a barrel in a WEAK ECONOMY (not to mention FOOD). But it is true that there is no current evidence of HYPERinflation. So what? When you see evidence of HYPERinflation, doom will be upon us. NOTHING then can be don (as,, maybe, noting can be done even now to avert the collapse that this house of cards is making inevitable).

This is not even the most disturbing thing. What Rick Santellie was saying (whether he actually believes it or not) is that our main "hope' now is that mere MEN wil be PERFECT in the way they manage this PRINTING OF MONEY , bailouts and all of the rest, so that we can avoid DISASTEWR. That is why the FREE MARKET system works best., It does not rely upon FALLIBLE MEN for it to work. Think of how bad off we are if we are relying upon Ben Bernanke, and the centeral bankers and governments of the world, to be PERFECT in the way they "mange" this crisis by CENTRAL PLANNING from the top. We are putting the very existence of western civilizaiton in the hands of FALIBLE men, even though history tells us that MERE MEN simly are not capable of RUNNING the eocnomy and/or financial system, by CENTRAL PLANINING. I have mentioned the Soviet Union "five-year plans", which never wokred. Now we have our "ten-year plans", AND Ben Bernanke (whose main "achievement" is presiding over the WORSST DOWNTURN and the WORST RECOVERY since the Great Depression). If you don't understand that we are in real trouble here, then you are not paying attention .

And the economic fascists on CNBC and Wall sTreet think that all Bernanke has to do is wave a magmic wand, print money (along with the ECB and all other central bankers following his "successful"--lol--example), and we will b e fine. ...............................................Sorry. I was CRYING agiaain, or was it laughing? I can't tell the difference anymore.

Wjhat I know for sure is that Bernake is a LIAR, and that Wall STreet is "all in" (appropriate for a gambling casino) on this idea that "bailouts" can always "save them". Economic fascism, in case you have forgotten, is that PRE-HITLER philosophy that Big Government and Big Business (read "Wall Street" as well as Big Business) should be PARNERS to RUN the economy and financial system from the top down. I feel like crying again, as I have ever since 2008 (really long before that-- aybe since Ronald Reeagan left office, with a brief respite during the real "GRIDLOCK" years of Gingrich and Clinton).

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Am I OUT of the stock market, by the way? Nope. I am plaing it like the casion it is: SELLING into rallies and BUYING into (large) declines. this is a DANGEROUS game, since I believe a final collapse is coming. But it is the game of "musical chairs' that you MUST play if you are gong to make any money in today's stock market (SICK, as this bog has shown you) ,.The market will bounce up and down before the final collapse. Furrther, what can ou do about the final collapse? Mainly hope you are DEAD before then, because things figure to be REALLY BAD (worse the more "bailouts" that "Bainlout Ben" and the rest do). So there is not any "winning" strategy here. Gold? Don't be silly. FOOD or OIL would make more sense.. Gold is just a YELLOW METAL. It's reputation as "money" is really an anachronism from times gone by . Sure, yu can make money onb the PSYCHOLOGY of gold, but if you think gold will be a "successful" investment if our economy COLLPASES, then you have another think coming. You are better off with a FARM. Am I toopessimistc? It is possible. I have told you I am naturally a SKEPTIC and a PESSIMIST. Why do you think I am a religious agnostic? But I don't see any GOOD signs out there. Even if there were things we can still do to stop a collapse, who do you see out there with the WILL to do them? I don't see anybody either, and definitely not anybody who can LEAD this country back to the "Promised Land". The best we can do is have sOME peole advocting PRINCIPLES with which to PICK UP THE PIECEDS (like Regan did after Jimmy Carter). Present GOP candidates do not fit that bill.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Tea Party Failure: Spending, Deficit and Debt Control Adbandoned, as Unfair and Unbalanced Nework Admits Incompetenced/Betrayal

This blog's audited accuracy rating has now gone up to 99.9% (can't really go any higher, as perfection is impossible), based in part on this blog's CORRECT statements, in foresight, about the Tea Party, GOP and the unfair and unbalanced network. You don't have to take my word for it. Take the word of teh unfair and unbalanced network, the Wall Street Journal (owned by News Corp--Rupert Murdoch--which also owns the unfair and unbalanced network), and theSenate budget office.

This was reported this morning on the unfair and unbalanced network, AFTER all of teh spending/dficit/debt battles in Congress were over. When reporting these FACTS could have made a DIFFERENCE, the unfair and unbalanced network (not to mention the Wall Street Journal, GOP and lately most oft he Tea Party "leaders"/politicians) were MIA (missing in action). This was not an accident :(see below for explanation). What did the Wall Street Journal article say (Tuesday, I believe)? It said what this blog has been telling you for MONTHS: The GOP and the Tea Party have failed to "cut" ONE DIME frrom the current years budget--even ADDING 50 to 1000 BILLION to this year's budget/spending. This is in additon to the fact that the GOP--assuming they do what they say they will do, and get the "payroll tax cut" bill passed for a full year--has ADDED more than 300 BILLON to the current deficit/debt (over the past two years--rally just ONE year of VOTES) with the "deal" at the end of 2010 creating the "payroll tax cut" gimmick, and the present decison that the GOP will cooperate to extend that mistake--both the 2010 bill and the current bill also including extensons of the extended unempoyment benefits to keep paying people NOT to work well beyond the point we have ever done in the past. No, the Wall Street Journaal and the rest did not concentrate on the "payroll taqx cut", but on spending, but the last statement is absolutely true, in any event, and makes a MOCKERY out of the GOP (not just Obama) assertion that all of these things are being "paid for".....................................................Sorry, on the floor luaghing again. The report even noted that the GOP could not even "cut" the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (and probably not funding for Planned Parenthood--I did not read the Wal Street Jurnal article itself, but only saw the AUTHOR on the unfair and unbalanced network). If the GOP and the Tea Party cannot even make the case for cutting funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (and Planned Parenthood), and the Tea Party lets them get away with that, what good are they? NO GOOD, is the answer this blog has given you. And that was exactly what the reprot said: all of this "drama" over the "debt ceiling", and "shutting down the government", and the GOP (with the tacit approval of Tea Party "leaders" and politicians) failed to cut "ONE DIME from spending. NOT ONE DIME. Even the "promises" of FUTURE "cuts' were hardly worth the "trouble" (theater).

Talk about promises!!!!! Remember what the GOP promised when they made that "deal" at the end of 20110 aDDING 150 BILLION to the deficit and debt? They said: Wait until we get in power in the House, in January, and we are going to cut 100 BILLION from the 2100 spendng bill (a short-erm extension of previious spending being part of that disgraceful "deal" at the end of 2010). What happened? The GOP THREATENED to let Obama and the Democrats "shut down the government" (the proper way to put it, since our system is really set up so that the govenment should HAVE to be raun on those spending items that the House AGREES to fund--the House hainvg a VETO power under the Constitution on all spending) if Obama and the Democrats refused to accept 1200 BILLION in spending cuts for the last half of 2010. Boehner and the GOP then made another one of those "deals' that CUT NOTHING (according to the Congressional Budgetg Office and CONFIRMED in this new report). The GOP SAID that they had made significant "cuts'> They made NONONE. NADA. ZILCH.

Then the GOP was gong to "use" the debt ceiling--despite this blog telling them that it was a MISTAKE, since what they needed to do was CONNECT the debt ceiling with spending, and not engage in a strange battle over the debt ceiling apart from spendin--apart, for example, from the GOP ADDING to the debt with this "payroll tax cut", whichis a "tax expenditure" reather than a true "tax cut"--as a supposed vehicle to FORCE "spending cuts". You will remember the result of that. Everything was left up to this "supercommittee"..................................................Sorry, roling on the floor laughing agian, or was I crying? Sometimes I can't tell. Did I "forget" those "atutomatic cuts" that conveniently don't even START until 2013, AFTER THE ELECTION, and supposedly will take place over ten years?.......................................................Sorry I just can't help these laughing/crying fits. Raise yur hand (media trick) if you believe that these "automatic cuts" will take place as scheduled? No one raised their hand. Good. I would hate to believe you wrere that STUPID, although you have jsut disqualified yourself as EITHER A GOP POLITICIAN OR A TEA PARTY (2011 style) POLITICIAN. Yes, I know. That "debt ceiling deal" was also supposed to "cut" a MINOR amount over ten years, apart from the "atutomatic spending cuts'. It was also supposed to cut 100 BILLIN (remember that 100 billi that NMEVER got "cut' for 2011) from the 2012 budget--the exact "cuts' to be determined by the APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEES in Congress...............................Sorrry. This time I was definiely CRYING.

We are back to this report in the Wall Street Journal, as featured this Tuesday (today in El Paso still) on the unfair and unbalanced network. What happened to that 100 BILLION? IT DID NOT HAPPEN. The GOP, AND THE TEAP PARTY, failed to cut AnYTHING from the 2012 budget. Any mall "cuts" they assert were outweighed by the ADDITIOINS elsewhere. If you can't cut the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, you can't really cut AnYTHING. And the GOP did not.

Let us be as clear on this as we can. The COP, and really Tea Party politicians (in the main), have LIED about CURRENT CUTS they were going to make/had made in BOTH the 2011 spending bill and the 2012 spending bills. Do you see the LIE when the GOP claims to have "cut" amounts in the FUTURE? They could not even make ANY "cuts" for 2011 and 2012 STICK (if they ever meant to). Why should AnYONE believe them on 2020. Or 2019. Or 2013? Do you see the ABSURDITY of saying that CURRENT ADDITONS TO THE DEFICIT will be "apid for" with FUTURE CUTS? Not only do we NEED the "future cuts" to pay for the deficit we already have, but tthe future "cuts' WLL NOT TAKE PLACE (at least because of these SAHM VOTES). If they do take place, it will be because this country COLLAPSES (like Grece), which this blog has unfortunately had to tell you now appears to be inevitable. We have not even had the WILl to CUT ONE DIME. How do we avoid becoming Greece? As the author of this article in the Wall sTreet Journal said, we are adding to the defict STILL at more than 1 TRILLIN dollars per year, and it would be MORE except taht the Federal Reserve is ARTIFICIALLY holding down interest rates (interest on that huge national debt)--which has its own COSTS, like in the cost of the FOOD you eat).

Why has the "unfair and unbalanced network"--not to mention the Wall Street Journl--not been reporting on these FACTS (obvious to this blog monts ago, and REPORTED here)? Easy. So long as there was a FIGHT going on about spending ("shutting the government down", or that debt ceiling farce), the AGENDA of teh unfair and unbalanced network, and the Wall Steet Journal was at stake. Thse are ESTABLISHMENT peole. They don't WANT to put out FACTS whhihc support those "radicals" (COWARDS though they have shown themselves to be) in the House, or--even worse--support real radicalslike that gugy Skip. The Wall Street Journal , adn the unfair and unbalanced network, did not want to ROCK THE BOAT as far as really taking these "fights" SERIOUSLY. Now came this "pyaroll tax cut". Again, the establishment desperately did not want to ROCK THE BOAT by "dioing the right thing" (to use Obama's words, which the GOP and the Tea Party can't even CHOKE out of their moughts). Thus, the GOP, ENABLED BY THE TEA PARTY (which took no effective action to stop it), kept saying that they could not POLITICALLY do anyting more than they did, even if they did LIE. It is as if John Paul Jones had said: "I surrender", and I won anyway." Isn't that a stirring battle cry to come down the centuries--NOT. And the GOP and the Tea Party are FAILING to ut out any battle cry that resonates, beyond this LOSER: "COWARDS lieve to fight another day." For the GOP, and the Tea Party "leaders", that is a day that NEVER comes. This is why the unfair and unbalanced network ushed the AGENDA of the estalbihsment that the GOP had to POLITAICALLY refuse to carry these spending and deficit "fights" out SERIOUSLY. And you should be abel to see why they are now WILLING to state the obvious: It is TOO LATE to do anyting. Even on the "payroll tax cut", the GOP is COMMITTED (unless the Democrats won't let them be). These FACTS on the fAILURE to "cut" spending should have been REPOTED as events were happening. That is the only time it MATTERED.

Once the next "crisis" occurs, the unfair and unbalanced network, and the Wall Streeet Journal, will be BACK to CONCEALING what is really going on. It is not too strong to say thatat these "journalists" have BETRAYED their country by simply refusing to report (extensively) the GAMES that were being played.

This is exactly why tihis blog has adopted the position: Defeat ALL members of Congress now in office, including the "Tea Party" politiciians and the GOP. That would logically include defeating Barack Obama, who should be defeated. And I would take that positon if there were a REAL MOVEMENT to DEFEAT THEM ALL (instad of just "polls") As it is, I can't support Mitt Romney, who is the poster child for "politics as usual'. Ys, this is also a good part of the reason I think LES of the unfair and unbalanced network every day--a netowrk that is all about AGENDA rather than about FACTS (when they matter). Plus, the "reporters" are bone-deep stupid, which I think can be said of GOP and Tea Party politicians.

The headline says that the Tea Party has FAILED. Can you dispute that. Look at this latest vote for a ridiculous two-month extension of this "payroll tax cut'. ONE (my understanding, and certainy any significant number) Tea Party plitican could have forced a VOTE on the matter, instead of the summary "unanimous consent" type of procedural device (or whateverfy similar procedural device was used). Michele Bachmann didn't even TRY. No. It is time to make a JUDGMENT. The FACTS show that the TEA PARTY HAS FAILED. It is time to discard its LEADERS, and start over with a rEAL thrid party. Tea Party politicians were ELECTED based on doing someting about the DEFICT, SPENDING and the DEBT They have done NOTHING aobut any of those things, except make them worse. It is one of the biggest BETRAYAYALS by both a political party and a "movement" in American history.

"But, Skip, with a Democrat President and a Democrat Seante, nothing could be done." This is the BIGGEST LIE of all. What has this blog told ou, and tells you again above: Not ONE DIME of taqxpayer money can be spent unless the House of Representatives votes FOR it. The House did not HAVE to approve a single dime of all of this spending. Instead of USING that power, however, they have not "cut" ONE DIME. Why is that nt one of the biggest BETRAYALS in American history? It is no wonder people like me LIKE Ron Paul, even though we know he is NUTS. We BELIEVE Ron Paul would CUT 1 TRILLON dollars from spending in the first year, or at least make a damn good try (like haiving to override a veto). We DON'T BELIEVE a word of what the rest of the GOP says, and this latest report PROVES us right. It proves this blog right yet again, which is why the accuracy rating has gone up again.

"But, Skip, it would have been POLKITICAL SUICIDE for the HOuse of Representtatives to have FORCED tthe Democrats to accept ONLY their spending authorizations, whihc would only have happened after a LONG "governemnt shutdown" for which the GOP would have been blamed."

I am not so sure that the GOP would be worse off politically if they had FORCED limits on government spendng. Again, the GOP had ABSOLUTE POWER to have limited spending to ANY LEVEL. Obama and the Democrats could NOT FORCE the GOP House to approve spending. All the GOP House hasd to do was INSIST, and REFUSE to authorize any spending of which they did not approve. Sure, Obama and the Democrats cold SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT. But all they would have to do to OPEN the government again would be to pass the spending that the House was willing to approve. What Obama and the democrats relied upon was PUBIC OPINION (media led) and COWARDICE (GOP and Tea Party). What could Obama and the Democrats hasve done if the House GOP had "just said no"? NOTHING. There was nothing the Democrats could have done. But what about the MILITASRY, and the essential parts of government? Well, the House could pass special bills on that. But even if Obama and the Democrats simply refused to accept keepng a LIMITED government going, the House could have INSISTED. If Obama were willing to SHUT DOWN THE MILITARY, and stop SOCIAL SECURITY, for MONTHS, then that would be on their head. They would HAVE to give way n the end. "But, Skip, that kind of 'extreme' hardball would DESTROY the GOP." That is the conventional wisdom. I doubt it, if the PRINCIPLE could be established that we should only SPEND what BOTH HOUSES agree shoudl be spent. That is what the Constituion says, and it is how it should be.

But look at what this POLITICAL argument really says.. It salys that the Tea Party LIED when it said that the SURVIVAL of this country dependinged on gtetting spending under contol. It says that the POLITICAL SURVIVLAL of the GOP is more important than the survival of this coutnry. Say the GOP lost BIG because it actually carried out a policy of spending restraint, and REFUSED to give in to the threat of "shutting down the government". That would be BAD, but would it be WORSE than what we have--NO "cuts", EVER? I don't think so. At least the Democrats would have to PRODUCE. Sure, the downfal of the country MIGHT come sooner, but it is effectively inevitable now anyway. Sooner may be bettert. And what if the SPENDING RESTRAINT--defict/debt restraint--of the GOP WORKED? What if the country did BETTER (as teh GOP and Tea Party supposedly believe it would)? Wold the people not SEE thatt--once they got over the shock of not getting their Social Security check for a month or two (if that happened)?

A coward dies a thousand times, but a brave man dies but once. The GOP, and the Tea Party politicians/"leadership", seem to be comp9osed of nothing but COWARDS who do not really believe what they say they believe. You CANNOT believe what you say you believe and CUT NOTHING--even if the alternative is to "shut down the government". If you accept this, you CANNOT WIN (not taliking aoub an ELECTION, but about the future of the COUNTRY),.

No. I have put the GOP in my rear view mirror FOREVER. I am now willling to make this sateement: I have also put the Tea Party (in terms of its politicians and "leaders') in my rear view mirror FOREVER. Yep, As I have said, I would votre AGAINST Michele Bachmann FOR CONGRESS, even though I wuld stil vote FOR her for Preisdnetn. That is because she should be DEFEATED for Congrfess, for her BETRAYALS and ineffectiveness, but would SHAKE UP the estalbishment enough t ojustify voting for her for Preisdent (even as we recognize that she has not shown the LEASDERFSHIP to conclude that she would be a GOOD President).

You may well think I am too 'extreme", and to willing to give up hope for this country (because it is too late to turn things around now, with no LEADRER in sight). However, that is OPINION,. The FACT is this: The GOP and the Tea Party politicians CANNOT run on cutting spending, cutting the deficit, and controlling the debt. They have ABANDONED that "issue". They have CUT NOTHING. Yet, that is the basis they WON in 2010. Whqat do they have left? Tax cuts for the "rich"............................................................................................................Sorry, on the floor laughing again. But explain to me how the GOP and the Tea Party EXPLAIN refusing to put a "surtax on billionaires and millionaires'", when they have ABANDONED PRINCIPLE? Isn't that a STRANGE "principle" to which to give your very highest priority? When you can't even make the case for CUTTING SPENDING and DEFICITS that you were ELECTED to make? It is actuallyl DISASTROUS to adopt this "class warfare" view predicted by Ayn Rand that the "rich" and talented should be the SLAVES of the rest of us, and that it is their DUTY to SUPPORT the rest of us. But the GOP is not even making that case. Romney is out there PANDERING to the "middle class', and this "payrlll tax cut' is a WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION BBIBE masquerading as a "tax cut".

I see no case for the GOP, or the Tea Party. They have forfeited the case upon which they have supposedly been elected. Of courfse the GOP can still win some electins--maybe even ifn 2012 IF the GOP does not provoke a third party, which I advocate be formed. But the ONLY way the GOP is going to win electins is because the DEMOCRATS get people so disgusted that they turn to the GOPP in desperation. The GOP has FORGEITED all claim to any "philosophy" of government. It has NONE, other than to get elected.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyessight)--especially bad in an article this long fairly late at night, as I get tired. Oh well, as usual the INSIGHTS are worth the effort and frustration of the typos and grabled sentences. Ad I am MODEST tooo. I really don't see, by the way, how the GOP now opposes the Democrat ultimate goal of eliminating the Soecial Security tax ("payroll tax")--tereby ending the FDR concept of Social Security as a self-financing system--and pushing the "burden" on to the "rich" (thereby making Social Seucirty just another government WELFARE system). I would be interested in knowing how you GOP establishment people even THINK you can make a case against that , once you have accepted teh principle of this "payroll tax cut". I couldn't do it, and I am SMART (albeit not so willing to dECEVE)., I don't know how you expect to do it If I were Democrats, I would now make the PUSH to replace the Social Security tax with a more "progressive' tax. The GOP has alreayd acceted the PRINCIPLE, Now it is just a matter of the DETAILS> I have quoted the George Bernard Shaw satiric joke before:

Shaw (to society woman playing up to him): "Madma, would you sleep with me for a millin dollars?"

Woman (simpering): "Oh, Mr. Shaw, of course I would."

Shaw: "Well, would you sleep with me for $10?"

Woman: "Mr. Shaw, what kind of woman do you think I am?"

Shaw: Madam, we have already established that. Now we are negotiating PRICE."

We have already established what these GOP and Tea Party politicans are. Now it is jsut a matter of how far their WHORING will go. I think they are going downhill fast, like a high priced call girl fast heading for the $10 a blow job street. Defat them all.

Monday, December 26, 2011

Politics, Honor and How the Unfair and Unbalanced Network Sells Out America (Sherlock Holmes Weigns In, Including on the Disgraceful Movie)

German aristocrat, explaining why Gritian will NOT fight to protectBelgium, even thoiugh it had a traty to support Belgium:

"In today's utilitarian age, no one cares about honor. Why should Britain fight for Belgium, when she can have peace, at least for awhile." (from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stry, "His Last Bow"--slightly paraphrased.

No, this is not an arti cle about wa r and peace, although the above--along with Pearl Harbor--illustrate why Ron Paul's foreign policy is such a dangeruos thing--not to mention the "America has no need to be first" philosophy of teh left. The left, of course, are the natural ancestors of Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our tme", and of the idea that the bet way to deal with the Soviet Union was to avoid antoganizing them (an idea conclusively proed false bly Ronald Reagan).

No, this is an arti le about SELLING OUT principle, and not directly about war and peace. Yep. We are back to the "payroll tax cut" and the way it was covered by the unfair and unbalanced network--along with the way the coeards of teh GOPP establishment approached it. Did I just say that both Fox News (waiver instantly granted to myself as to not mentioning the name in this blog) News and teh GOP (politicians-establishment) have NO HONOR? Yes, I did. And I mean it. If you have not gotten the messsage by now, I have no respect for these peopole--either of the unfair and unbalanced network or the political class of the GOP.

What was the thrust of the Fox News "coverage" of teh "payroll tax cut" bill? Was it whether the bill was right or wrong for the United States of America? Wa it even abut explaining the provisions of the bill, and the objective arguments for and against those provisions (including the differing provisions in the Democrat and GOP bills)? Not a chance. As you k ow, I only SURF Fox "Newqs" now, because it is a USELESS source of "news" (much less "conservatie" thought). But I did surf it a little more than my present limit of 2 minutes per day during the 'paryoll tax cut' battle, because--as readers of this blog know--I regard that battle as a defining moment for the country, and especailly for the doomed GOP. EVERY time I checked in on Fox, the approach was the same: POLITICS. Was the gOP the POLITICAL loser in any fight over teh "payroll tax cut", or even the mere two month POLITICAL bill produced by the Senate.

Say waht? Whatever happened to the idea that politicians are there to DO THE RIGHT THING, and not to worry exclusively about their own election. Fox, for one, has aboandoned that idea totally in faovr of the idea that politicians should SELL OUT AMERICA rather than do a politically unpopular thing. Charles Krauthammer, for example, said--to nods on the unfair and unbalanced network--that the Senate bill was an ABOMINATION, but that the GOP had to swallow it POLITICALLY. Say what, again? When I was growing up, "journalists" actually seemed to take the positioin--pubicly, anyway--that politicians were supposed to put their country ahead of POLITICS. I stil remember (funny what sticks in your mind) a episode of "the Farmer's Daughter", with the incredibly beautiful Swedish actress, Inger Stevens. The episode was all about how the Congressman male lead refused to advocate some sort of Federal project for his disgrcit, because he thought another place was better. And he said so. This was TV, and so it came out happily. But the point is that it was ACCEPTED WISDOM that the IDEAL was for politicians to put their country ahead of their political future. ("The Farmer's Daughter", the MOVIE, by the way, is teh best FEMINIST movie ever made, and wi was made in about 1947--with Loretta Young giving the performance of a lifetime as the Swedish farm girl who demanded HONOR among male, establishment politicians.)

Fox has turned this "accepted wisdom" on its head. For Fox, it is all about POLLS. That is true, of course, for all of the rest of teh media as wel, but Fox is at least as bad as the rest, and perhaps worse. For that alone, this blog wuold BOYCOTT Fox. This blog has shown you that polls are evil, meaningless things, sued mainly as an excuse for both politicalk COWARDICE and "journalistic" LAZINSS and incompetence. For Fox, this 'payroll tax cut" bill was all aobut the POLITICS, and Fox could not have cared less about the MERITS of the bill. Further, that is how Fox approaches EVERY political fight. President Obama, at least SAID that it waws time for politicians to "do the RIGHT THING, and "set aside politics". Obama, of course, is a LIEAR (Liar-in-Chief). He and teh Democrats were all about politics on this. But that is not the pint. I NEVER heard Fox, or anyone form the GOP, eve TALK about doing the "right thing". It wa all about POLITICS, and what would hurt the GOP politically. Oh, Hohn Boehner made a cople of statements about the GOOP House tring to do the right thing, but that is NOT what GOP people were doing BEFORE the Seante passed that "abomination" (quoting Fox's Chrles Krauthammer, before he recommended SELLING OUT AMERICA by accepting the abomination).

Look at this blog's articles over the past several weeks. Paul Gigot, of Fox and the Wall Street Journal (owned by Fox's parent company) said that the "payroll tax cut' was probably a BAD IDEA that should never have been passed int he first place, but that the GOP nw HAD to go along with it or face disastorus POLITICAL conswequ3ences. When Fox was not INGORING the case against any "payroll tax cut", arguments againt it were disissed for ONLY this reawon: teh GOP would LOSE POLITICALLY. As far as I can see, it is now the OFFICIAL policy of Fox tghat PLITICS is ALL that matters, and nto what is best for the country. Fox is certainly not interested in prsening Americans with te MERITS of anythign, but ONLY with the POLLS and POLITICS. This is a network with NO reason to exist, and it is getting worse by the hour.

Time after time, GOP and "conservative" estalbishment spokesmen would go on Fox and give nothing but POLITICAL reasons why the "payroll tax cut" should be extended. In so doing, they ACCEPTED teh Democrat prmise that "middle class" America wants to be BRIBED, and that teh GOP can't let the Democrats get ahead of them on the bribery game. Dubts were often expressed about the MERITS of the "payroll tax cut", but the GOP seemed unable to get past the POLITICS of it. But Fox was WORSE than the GOP. For Fors, spewing the estalbishment gOP line, it was ALL aoubt POLITICS. Whenever a GOP person,or conservative, TRIED to menton on Fox that the "payroll tax cut' was a bad idea, Fox DISMESSSED teh idea as political stupidity--raising the red herring of a "tax increase" for 160 millioin Americans.

"Wait, Skip, is there not SOME case for not withdrawing the STIMULLUS of money in the pockets of millions of Americans, even it it was never a "real" tax "cut"? Sure, there is SOME (not much, , but some) case for that, even though IT DID NOT WORK over the past year: the "payroll tax cut' being passsed in December of 2010 as a ONE TIME "stimulus" for the economy and 'price" teh GOP paid for extending the "Bush tax cuts' for only a short time. The point, however, is that Fox was NOT INTERESTED in presenting the MERITS of the bill Al Fox was interested in was the POLITICS of the bill. Is that what "journalism" is all about? The POLITICS of every issue? bEcaue that supposedly makes "exciting" televisoin? For Fox--"journalists" without honor--I am afraid that is the case. The mainstream media actually has more HONOR in this regard thatn Fox, since those LEFTISTS will dEFEND and PRESENT leftist ideas as "right", even when politically unpopular. Does that not mean that Fox is ore "balanced"? Sure, except they are INSANE (the "unbalanced" in my title). Fox is developing into a network that does not present EITHER decent advocacy or decent "journalism". As stated, it is a network WITHOUT HONOR, and with no reason to exist.

"But, Skip, isn't the ont here that defeating Obama is the important thing, and that theGOPcan't afford to give that up over a meaningless principle regarding the 'payroll tax cut;'. Is not Fox merely recognizing the reality, as are all of those GOP and 'conservative' types, that you can't beat Obama be depriving the American people of their BRIBE?"

That MIGHT be an "excuse" for the POLITICIANS. It is NO "excuse" for Fox, which has merely shown itself to be a network without either honor or courage. A "news" network should deal MAINLY with the MERITS of legistlation, and the "politics" shoudl be an AFTERTHOUGHT. Fox did not even go so far as to consider the MERITS an AFTERTHOUGHT,. For Fox, and the peole Fox put on, the merits meant NOTHING at all. Their new "accepted wisdom" " SELL OUT the country, if that is what it takes to defeat Obama.

Problem: You cn'at defeat Obama this way. Whiile Obama is out there talking aobut doing the "right t;hing" (albeit lying through his teeth), the GOP is acting like they have no idea what they think the RIGHT THING is. perhaps more accurately, the GOP is sending the message that it DOES NOT CARE what the "right thing" is, so long as the GOP does whatever it takes to "defeat Obama". Sure, Obama and the Democrats MIGHT "bail out" the GOP by being so bad that the GOP can get away with the people believing they have NO PRINCIPLES except beating Obama. However, that is NTO the way to both win an election and be able to govern.

But the key problem here is that the "payroll tax cut' is not important, since it just gives away money to the middle class (and almsot everyone else, except the elderly and the homeless). This blog has tried to explain to you why that is the single MOST IMPROTANT thing we now face. This idea that it is up to the government to BRIBE its way into the affections of the American people is the single most imprtant reason we are where we are. Just how is it an "advance" for the GOP to adopt the idea thaqqt BRIBERY is fine, so long as it is BRIBERY of the "middle class"? The dirty little secret is that the GOP politicians have basically adopted the "magic wand theory of government": the "theory" that all the Federlal Government has to do is wave the right "magic wand" and "solve" all of our problems. A corollary of this is exactly the idea behind the "payroll tax cut" GIMMICK: the idea that Federal money is FREE MONEY, that we can "pay for" with FUTURE PROMISES (while INCREASING teh debt and deficit now).

The GOP had beter PRAY for Ben Bernanke to pay no attention to them, and stay on the job IF the GOP somehow wins the next electino while abandoning all of their principles. Yes, I AGREE with the GOP mantra that Ben Bernanke should GO ( a mantra that Romney does not seem to have joined, except maybe belatedly). However, Bernanke has FINANCED the Obama spending spree by PRINING MONEY. In the end, that is DOOM. But it is the ONLY thing that has kept us "afloat" (if on life support) in the short run. The deficits and debt would have kiled us, except for the Federal Reserve PRINING MONEY. What Bernanke has done is SACRIFICE THE FUTURE of tghis country for heroin addicitn to "printed money". It is doom, but it CONCEALS the disaster of the deficit and debt for awhile-especially with the rest of the world doing so badly that our own currency--inflated as Bernanke ha made it--does not look so bad. IF the GOP somehow wins, they wil NEED Bernanke to try to keep the game of musical chairs going. The only quesion is going to be what party is going to be left wihout a chair when the music stops?

This blog? You know the position of this blog. BOTH PARTIES shold be left without chairs, because we should ull the chairs out from under both of them and STARTT OVER.

For now, however, consider the LACK OF NONOR of the Fox "News" network, and all of those GOP and "conservative" people who are putting POLITICS ahead of their country. I have no respect for them. Sure, you always have to "consider" politics in the battles you choose, and the comromises you make. But when you just blatantly announce that ALL that matters is politics, and not the MERITS of what is done, then you have gone completely over to the dark side. You can't be trusted, and NO ONE Should trust either the Fox "News" netowrk or the GOP/"conservative" establishment. The Tea Party problem is that tooo many people who "wannabbe" "Leaders" in that movement are becoming PART of the "establishment".

P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). Oh, Sherlock Holmes. I gave a rfeview of tghe first Sherlock Holmes ovie whcih correctly sated that it was a BETRAYAL ofwhat made Sherlock Holmes one of the ost enduring characters in all of literature. The Sherlock Holmes stories were all about the INTELLECT. Hollywood keeps trying to turn him inot an ACTiON HERO, complete with SPECIAL EFFECTS. I gave the first moveie a rating of 59 as an ACTOIN MOVEIE (not quite worth seeing, even as that), and only 5 (out of 100) as a SHERLOCK HOLMES movie. Well, my older daughter has seen the NEW Sherlock Holmes movie: what migaht be regarded as "Sherlock Holmes II". You can take this as my daughter's review, to which I have applied my ratings standard (as I, myself, willl not be seeing the movie). my older daughter convincingly says that the new movie is WORSE thatn the first Sherlock Holmes movie. Again, it is all about speical effects. Robert Downey, Jr. has the QUIRKS of Sherlock Holmes, but not the INTTELLECT (or his chareacter does not). Further, my daughter correctly points out that Downey is NOT a very convincing "action hero". In fact, Sherlock Holmes is not a very convincing acitn hereo. If you are supposed to be about the INTLLECTA, you cannot act like you are a combianationof Joh Wayne and Jackie Chan. Martial arts yet!!!! Holmes was suposed to be an "expert boxer", but thre are almost NO real ACTIOIN scenes in ALL of Sir Arthur's stories about Sherlock Holmes. The stories realy are almost totally about the INTELLECAT. Sure, that can be hard to put on the screen, but it has been done (including the first effort with Basil Rathbone). Rating for this Sherlock Holmes movie (with me in the role of Mycroft Holmes provinding the conclsuions from facts discovered by my older daughter): 41 as an ACTIOIN MOVIE; 9 (ZERO) as a Sherlock Holmes movie. The movie will probably make a mint. Too bad we have sunk so low as a society that POLLS are the only way we know how to "cover elections and "issues', and special effects are the only way we know how to make a movie--along with "quick cuts" and edits to keep our attention from wandering, even if no one can follow them (even those people who can SEE). As I ahve previously said, I watch almsot exclusively the movies on Turner Classic Movies, which are so much better than current movies it is not even close. To the extent there are new moviews who avoid "special efffects", they try so hard to be POLITICALLY CORRECT, andor edgy, that thaey are unwatchable. I just saw "You Agaij" (todayh's version of a "romantic comedy"). It wasnt real bad (66 out of 100,where 60 is worth seeing), but it is so far BELOW Wiliam Powell and Myrna Loy that there is no contest. It may beven be a "minnomer" to call "You Again" a "romantic comedy", since it is not really about 'romance'. It is about HIGH SCHOOL, and how that can ruin your life. Taht subject resonates with people, which is why I give the movie as high a rating as I do (along with relatively few funny moments). The EXECUTIN of the idea is NOT GOOD, and the characters do not sem close to real. It is as if today's movie makers do not WANT the characters to seem real. Or maybe it is todyay's PEOLE who are not real, and teh movies are being ture to life. Either way, themovies are not very good. The last REALLY GOOD American movie I saw was "The Lord of the Rings"--especially the thrid one. Even on dramas, the "technical" suff of the movie making seems to have taken the HEART and SOUL out of the movies--along with that desire to be "edgy" for today's video game, short attention span, generation. See 'The Lady Eve", if you want to see a really gOOD comedy. As stated, see "The Farmer's Daughter", if you want to see a really GOOD feminist movie. And see the John Wayne/John Ford moviews if you want to see a really gOOD action movie with the REAL JOHN WAYNE (and not Downey doing some sort of parody). Or see Hitchcock's "North by Northwest".

Sunday, December 25, 2011



Hacher Boy: (hacknig into this disgraceful blog in the interest of truth, justice and teh Aemerican way, and still vehemnetly denying Skip's alleations that I am Piers Morgan, or another agent of Ruper Murdoch's organization--accusations that Sk8p has ut out only after Skip has decided taht what he calls the unfiar and unbalanced network is a blot on the American landscape): "Skip, you hypocrite., You ae a professed agnoastic. You have no belusiness wishing people a "merry Christmas". That is a phrase that excludes people like you from American life, along with Mu;slims (who aree thereby justifided, under the standards of CNN, in regarding the USA as an"intolerant" nation, even though the MOST INTOLERANT peopple in the world right nwo are in Mulims natioins, and in the Mu;slim religion. Skip, you STOP that. You are not allowed to HACK into my hacking post. CNN is right. you have no business --especially as an agnostic yourself--in using an intolerant phrase like "Merry Christmans', that tells Muslims, aganostcis and the rest that they are not welcome in America."

Skip (returning to blog article, before being so RUDELY interrrupted by Hacker Boyl--or Piers, as he is otherwise known--rudeness being the primary characteristic of the peole ou;t there (includng CNN) conducting a war on teh Christian reiligion AND American tradition. Wh;t are you if you regard "Merry Christmas" as some sort of BIGOTED staatement? You are an INTOLERANT BOOB, with no claim to be an intelligent humnan being. whose brain has not been turned to mush by anti-Christiain bigotry, anti-Americanism, and/or political correctness. In shotrtm, you are a soulmate with the ACLU and CNN.

I am, indded, an agnostic. I have not been inside a church for the purpose of worship since the age of 12. Yes, I have been an agnostic at least that long. I don't remember EVER "praying" in my life, although maybe I was induced to do so when I was very young,. I was reaised Presbyterian, and even had Bible classes in grade school in Mt. Ida,Arkansas. I have, nevertheless, said "Merry Christmas to EVERYONE I have greeted that way in the Christamas season, since I was 12 (as well, of course, before I was 12l). Why? Why not? What is WRONG with wishing someone a "Merry Christamas", even if tthey are Jewish, or Muslim or whatever. Christmas is a national holiday. Thoase who are conducting WAR on Christamas because it is also a RELIGIOUS holiday are INTOLERANT, rude peole, I am sometimes asked: "Skip, what do you do when someone says a prayer--like at a wedding or graduation or any oterh event? Simle. I bow myu head and I DONT PRAY. To me, anyhing else is RUDE and INTOLERANT. It is absurd to suggest that those who say "Merry Christmas" are deliberately insulting you, or that oeioke wighio ORAT *ub scgiiksm ib a fiitbakk fuekdm ir abtwgere ekse( are dekuberatekt ubsyktubg tyiy,

As I have repeatedly said, the MAJORITY of Americans are CHRISTIANS of one kind or anotehr., No, that does not make us a "Christian" nation, in terms of "establlishing" a state religio (which so many Muslim nains d). As this is being written, the big news this Christams is a terrorist attack by MUSLIM EXTREMISTS trying to im pose strict Muslim law on Nigeria. As this blog has said again and again., AS PRACTICED in the world today, the Muslim religion is the most INTOLERANT religion on Earth. It is not that ALL Muslims are terrorists. It is that TOO MANY Muslims are INTOLERANT, and FOSTER terrorism (in addiino to Muslims being by far the most numberous RELIGIUS TERRRISTS in the world today). . The pnt is that Muslims do NOT have to "fear" this in the United States, and it is NOT equuivalent when ISOLATED Americans harass Muslims (NOT by saying "Merry Christmas" to them). In this country, it is AGAINST THE LAW to conduct violence against Muslims. In too many Muslim countries committing violence against Christians is an accepted part of their faith, because Chistiains shoulc not (in this view) even be allowed to openly practice their religion. No, I positively reject the idea that Mulims, agnostics (like me) or others should not have to ENCOUNTGER the Christian religion in this country . Chrstmas, for God's sake (pun intended) is a RELIGIOUS holiday,. It is merely a recognitioin that the MAJROTIY of Americans are Christians (allthough it is a little unclear how many are not REALLY Christians--as Presdient Obama is not, and almsot every leftist there is, such as Nancy Pelosi). If you are in a majority Christian country, you are going to be faced with references to the Christian religion, and you are gong to encounter evidence (like Christmas being a national holiday) that the Christian religin is the majority religion of the country. It is YOU who are intolerant if you do not accept that--NBOTA CRHISTIANS> The ACLLU fails to understand that, but then the ACLU is an INTOLERATN, LEFTIST ORGANIZATION. Nope. I refuse to "appologize" to Muslims, or myuself, for respecting the majority religion of this country--a religion, furthermore, which has been an integral part of the fabric of this nation AND of the rise of Western civilization.

Why don't I say "Happy Holidays"? It is because I am an intelligent, reasoning human being, and that is STUPID., Do I realy wan to wish someone "happy Arbor Day"? Even if you think that is ridiculous, do I really want to wish someone a "happy Labor Day" in December? "Happy Holidays' makes no sense at all, and I can say with confidence that I have NEAVAER used the phrase. It is absurd, and I have always knownnm that., Further, as I suggest above, it is really a sing of INTOLERANCE. The unstated asumption--the ONLY reason the stupid phrase exists--is that it is OFFENSIVE for people of other religions, or no religion (like me), to be faced with the fact that the USA is primarily made up of Christians, who have a RIGHT to PRACATIVE THEIR RELIGION wihout SABOTAGE by the ACLU and like minded INTOLERANT BIGOTS. Oh, did I mentin that my tow duaghters attended a Catolic school for a year or two, along with one of my nieces,. Didn't hurt them. Neither turned out to be "religious". In fact, you mnight say that they turned out to be LESS religious than their fater, without any indoctrinaion on my part (other than not pretending a religion I do not have). In other words, my daughters are more inclined to be INTOLERANT of Christians than I am. To the extent I read that correctly, my daughters are wrong.

How far has this War on Christmas, and the Christian religion, gone? I think that is indicated by the fact that CNN reported a POLL (polls, by the way, being instruments of teh Devil) on how many people preferred "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays". What purpose is served by such a POLL? None at all, excpet maybe BIGOTRY, Oh. 2/3 of the peole (a totally meaningless number, in a totally meaningless pll) said that they preferred "Merry Chritmas. Let us assume that pll is accurate (a false assumption). What does it mean? To me, it means that 1/3 of the country IS NOT CHRISTIANN (no matter what they say). As stated, I would include Barack Obama in that number. Oh, I would achknowledge taht a FEW peole might be so AFRAID of "offending" people that they would deny Christ--sort of like Peter (if I have got my Bible correct). But I think believing Christians that WIMPY are still fairly rare. I think this "poll questin" is almost a question of whether you actually BELIEVE in the Christian religion or not.

Flat statement: Christmass is a national holiday celebrating the BIRTH OF CHRIST. Doesn't that make me nervous when I wish someone a "Merry Christamas", even though I don't Believe" in Christ as our savior? Nope. Again, I see no harm at all in it. Do I have to BELIEVE in Christ, as the Son of God, to wish peolle a "Merry Christmas", when most Americans do celebrate Christmas (believing Christians or not)? That is absurd.

Further flat statement: Not only does Christmas, the national holiday, celebrate Christmas as teh birth of Christ, but it does so BECAUSE a majority of Aermicans believe in Christ as the Son of God., Again, wha difference does that make to ME.? It is not really my business what otehr people believe on religion, as long as they don't carry it into INTOLERANT legal systems and terrorism (sorry, "prayer in the schools", or "one nation, under God" do not qualify as making his a "theocracy"--notwithstanding the really sTUPID people who say so, such as the ACLU). In fact, I admit that when I recite the Pledge of Allegiance--rare these days, of course, I SAY "under God". Yep. I leave God in there. Why not/ This is NOT a POLITAICAL STATEMENT (the Pledge of Alleginace). IF there is a God, I have no problem with saying that our nation is 'under God'. IF there is no God, it is a harmless acceptance of tradition.

Oh. On "tolerance". What is the OFFICIAL osition of basically all Christiain churches as to ME? It is that I am going to HELL. A secretary in my office once even said that to me, when I let it be known (in my usual, non-cojfrontational way) that I was an agnostic, and did not really believe in God. She was a FRIEND o9f mine (at least from my point of view). Was I "insulted" taht this secretary suggested I wouuld go to HELL? No, she was NOT serious. But that is the OFFICIAL positin of BELIEVING Christians. And Christians are SUPPOSED to be "spreading the Word of God. That, as far as I am concerned,, means that Christians should be WILLING to say that you are going to Hell if you don't accept Christ. No, that can't be the position of the STATE, but it really should be the position of a BELIEVING Christian (wiht, maybe, the exception of some secs). What am I getting to? I am back to those "Christians" who say "Happy Holidays". I think they have been taking lessons from GOP members of Congress in how to DENY their religin (Peter again)--in the case of GOOP membesrs of Congrfess, how to DENY their princiiples as being as improtant as their reelectin (or electin).

Hacker Boy (hacking..o,h, you know): "Skip, now you hae made Christmas political. You are a despicabele human being.".

Skip: Ah, Hacker, Boy, getting it backwards as usual. It is not ME that is making Christmas plitical. It is the people conducting the WAR ON CHRISTMANS AND THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. I am simply saying that simple politteness and tolerance tell you that you should not try to make Christians FEEL BAD about celebrating THEIR RELIGIOUS HOLIDAY that the natin has felt important enough to most Amerians to recognize as a national holidya. . Nope. It is UNACCPOETABLE to suggest, as the ACLU seems to, that Christmas should be SEPARATED fromits religious meaning. That is absurd and intolerant. But the whole idea comes from absurd and intolerant peole. As this blog has often stated, the ACLU dearly WANATS to eliminate Christamas as a natinal holiday. They HAVE to want that. HOW can you opose government recognizing the MEANING of Chrstmas, as with Nativity scenes, if it is a national holiday. That is INSANE (gain, an accurate description of the people of the ACLU, an dsimilar leftists). Christmas should b e recongized for what it is, withotu attmepting to disguise its meaning (as seems to have been amsmost suddessfully done with Thanksgiving).

In, short, MERRY CHRISTMAS. Yes, I mean that even for you leftists out there, mentally challenged as you are. After all Christmas is a time to feel compassion for the afflicted, like you poor lefitists, as well as members of teh GOP establishment. Do I really include members of CONGRESS, and trhe President of the Untaied States, in this message? Gee. YOu are asking a lot of me to give that kind of greeting to the people who are destroying this country. Still, I guess it applies to them also, with the caveat that they don't deserve it. You may remember that early Christiands were thrown to the lions, and went VOLUNTARILY (even proudly) rather than renounce their religion and the SPREADING of that religion. You may wonder how many Christians have t hat spirit anymore. But I KNOW that the GOP WOARDS in Congress, and their cheerleaders in poll-dribven barbery outside of Congress, would NEVER face lions rather than give up their principles. Hell (un inteneded, again) they will not even face CNN, teh Nw Yrok Times, and the Aemrican people. Therefore, I do say 'Merry Christmas" to them, bu I understand if you dohn't believe me (jut like Bill Maher and I don't believe Barack Obama when he says he is a believing Christian).

Did I miss offending anyone? Maybe not. But, read correctly, the above is a defesne of REAL tolerance, along wiht a condemnaiton of cowardice.

P.S. No proofreaidng o spell checking (bad eyesight). Merry Christmas Marc and Charles (if you happen to read this, as I do not call eveyone on Christmas. Well, Merry Christmas John and James, my two other brothers, but I know they do not read this. I do call my daughtres directly, even though neither they nor I actually believe in the meaning of Christmas (the religous meaning), . Again, it is amatter of tradioin, and not of belief. I trust they will eventually come around to my point of view that thre is really no problem witht he "recognition" of the Christian religion as the majority religion of this country, so long as we say away fromn the MUSLIM approach to intolerant theocracy. No one, by the way, actually takes my calls on Christmas (or any other time). Do you think that means someting?