John Boehner and the GOP: Dishonest Politicians

Remember that "GOP", in this blog, means "Grand, Outdated Party". Every time I listen to Hohn Boehner, I eralize just how INCOMPATIBLE I have been with the GOP since at least 2006 (when this blog officially disowned Presdient Bush (to be followed by refusing to suppport John McCain in the 2008 election. Nope. I fully understood just how BAD Brack Obama was going to be. The problem is that I also fully understood just how BAD John McCain was going to be, in combination with other GOP politicians (who would have had NO incentive at all to OPPOSE McCain policies, which may well have resutled in a WORSE situation than we have now, even though McCai--if both Obama and McCain got everything they wanted---may THEORETICALLY have been a little better than Obama).


What prompted this nwew tirade against th eGOP? I listened to John Boehner explain WHY the GOP hass NOT CUT ONE THIN DIME OUT OF SPENDINGj(current spending) since the GOP took control of the House of Representatives. Boehner actaully WHINED about it. He said: "We kept asking the Seanate whehter there was ANYTING they were willing to cut, and they kepts saying no (unliess every dime in "cuts" was matched by a tax increase). Democrats contorl the Senate and the White House. We tried, but there awas nothing we could do." ..........................................................................................................................Sorry, I was CR:YING (no luaghing this time--too painful--on the floor again, in a fetal positioin." Boehner--I kid you not--actually admitted that the GOP managed to cut NOTHING, "because" the Democrats would not let them....NO, if I collapse and start crying again, I may nott ever get up.


My 89 year old mother, without any prompting from me, asked me some thime ago: "I thought the GOP contgrolled the House. Don't they have to approve al of this spending. That was severfal months ago. She said the same thing today, after I started my tirade to HER about how NOTHING is being cut from spending. My mother does not read this blog. She feels that she suffers enough from having to talk to me personally. She also has eyesightt problems, although not quite as bad as mine (even though she is 25 years older).


My mother is right. Boehner is DISHONEST. Jim Demint (Tea Party Senator) is DISHONEST. Yep, I think I have noted in this blog that I acttauly heard Jim Demint say the SAME thing--lamenting that the GOP could do NOTHING unless voters ave them control o fthe Senate and the Presidency. That is simply NOT TURE. Again, my mother is absolutely right. The GOP, with control of ONE HOUSE of Congress, has VETO POWER over ALL SPENDING. Not ONE DIME can be spent each year without the VOTE of teh GO House of Representatives. Our Constitutional system is set up so that BOTH HOUSES have to AGREE on spending, and these budget matters are supposed to START in the House of Representatives. If the House of Representatives simply REFUSED to approve excess spending, it coulld not happen.


"But, Skip, if the GOP House insisted on these "cuts" on the grounds that they simply refused to approve any more spending than their bill, Obama and the Dmoecrats would SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT, and "blame" the GOP because the GOOP insisted on it being their way or the highway." Read what Boehner said again, and I have quoted him accurately. Boehner, and Demint, said that DEMOCRATS have told the GOOP that it will be their (the Democrats) way or the highway. Yet, look at the CONSTITUTIONAL LEVERAGE the GOP has. TheGOP House can REFUSE to appprove spending, and the money CAN'T be spent. The Democrats can propose tax increases all they want, but tax increases require an AFFIRMATIVEW VOTE (so long as we are not talking about the stupid 'sprining tax increease" set up by the Bush tax cuts, and later GOP "compromises", meaning those tax rates will "expire" without affirmative vote).


This blog correctly told youu, during the farce of a "budget debate", that the GOP House could simply say that it would IMOSE ITS OWN SPENDING LIM MITS--its own "plan"--no matter wahtt he Democrats and Obama did What if the Democrats shut the government down? Fine, let it be shut down, unti lthe Democrats "cry uncle", as they ultimately would HAVE to do (or the government would be shut down for YEARS). What about the military and Social Security checks? If Obama and the Democrats want to refuse to send out Social Security checks, and und the military, let it be on their hed. The GOP would obviously be willing ot FUND those programs. That is the point. The GOP would be WILLING to fund the "government" taht the GOP is wiling to pay for--authorize spending for. The GOP woul d simply not approve funding for government in EXCESS of what the GOP is willing to fund. And the GOP has a perfect "right", induer our Constitution, to do this. Again, the Consittution provides taht BOTH HOUSES have to approve EVERY DIME of spending, and there is no "right' to keep spending at the same level it was at the previuos year (much less the "projected" level that is built into the present spenindg process).


No. It is 100% certain that the GOP has the POWER to actualy CUT spending. Yep. I just correclty called John Boehner, Senator Demint, and almost every totehr GOP politician a LIAR. Waht the GOP lacks is not POWER, but COURAGE. GOP politicians are perfectgly willing to SELL OUT the countgy based on what they perceive to be the "necessities" of their own reelection. I refuse to let them take this position, which is why I say: DEFEAT THEM ALL (every member of Congress, Democrat or GOP).


"But, Skip, you don't understand reality. The reality is thqat IF the GOP followed your "advice", then leftist Democrats would likely take over the government completely (because of the defeat of most GOP politicians). You don't understand that the MEDIA plays ever "shut down" of the government as caused by an unreasonable GOP."


I "understand" this argument all too well, and it simply won't do. In the end, it is a DISASTER for the gOP. Sure, say the GOP did what Ron Paul advocates, and really cut ONE TRILLION dollars from Federal Spending in ONE YER (and itt is really only "one year" that matters each year). Would it be "reasonable to "compromise" on that figure, if Democrats still contrl the Senate and the Presidency, because to insist on FORCING your "way" down everyone's throats reallly would be perceived as "unreasoanble"--no matter how much you taked about the Constitutional system where the House is supposed to aGREE to all spending. But look at what the GOP is doing. They are not "compromiseing" (like proposing 500 billion in cuts and accepting 250 billion, or propsing 250 billion and accepting 100 billions). Not a chance. What the GOP is doing is simply accepting the Democrat refusal to CUT ANYTHING. What the Democas are saying is that funding Planned Parenthood, the Corporation for Pbulic Broadcasing, and tehe National Endowment for the Arts are MORE IMPORTNAT than people receiving Social Seucirty checks and the military being funded. Yet, Boehner and Demint--every GOP member of Congress, really--are saying that they can't even make the case that teh DEMOCRATS are respsoinsible for shutting down the government if they refuse to accept rEASONABLE spenidng cuts. What do "taes" ahve to do with it. The GOP had to make this about SPENDING, and they FAILED (when they did not have to fail). The GOP PROMISED to "cut" 100 billion dollars from spending TWICE (for 2011 and 2012). They cut NOTING. 100 BILLION dollars is LESS than 10% of the defict, and LESS than 3% of the total budget. If the GOP cannot even make the POLITICAL case for doing this, and does not have to COURAGE to go to the mat for it (even if Social Secuirty checks do not go out), the GOP is WORTHLESS. Democrats are willing ot see Social Security checks not go out, if you believe them, to fund PLANNED PARENTHOOD with taxpayer money, as well as pubic broadcasting. In other wwrds, Democrats are telling us that they are willing ofr Social Security checks not to go out rather than CUT ANYTHING. That is what Boehner and Demint are telling you, and they say the GOP cannot do "anything" abou it. DEFEAT THEM. I beg you. DEFEAT THEM. Did I just say to DEFEAT Jim Demnint--about the BEST of teh GOP members of CongresS? Yes, I did say thta. I have had it with this self-defeating DISHONESTY. Democrats are willing to go to the mat--even to the point of having Social Seucrity checks not go uot--for what they believe in, but the GOP is NEVER willing to call their bluff. YouLOSE that way.


Nope. The GOP did not even fight the right battle at the right time, as this blog told you. How can you make this debate all about the 'debt ceiling", as the GOP did thi s cummer, and then "cut" NOTHING from spending. Does that not mean that the debt ceiling is REQUIRED to be raised, and that it was the GOP VOTGESD thaqt authorized that SPENDING? Sure it means that. The GOP, as this blog has told you, has ABANDONED the debt and deficts as a real "issue'. The GOP House has VOTED for ALL of this spending since the GOP toolk control of the House. How can the GOP complain aobut the rise in the debt when GOP VOTES authorized the SPENDING thaqt created it? This is a LOSER for the GOP. They have BLOWN the issue that WON for them in 2010. And no, they did NOT 'try". They FOLDED, wihout even ever calling the blufff. TheGOP had the POWER to FORCE any spending "cuts' they wanted to makke. They jsut did not have the COURAGE to USE this power to at least make SOME meaningful cuts. Instead, they are ADMITTING they made NO cuts, and trying to use taht as an "argument" for putting MORE of these COWARDS in Congress!!!!!!!!! Tis is absrud. I will NEVER go along with this kind of reasonabing, and I do not. It will ultimately destroy this country (may already have).


NOTHING. That is how much spending the GOP has "cut", while ADDING close to 300 BILLION to the debgt and defict, over the past two years, with the payroll "tax cut" and the extension of extended unemployment benefits (assuming, as the GOP is assuming, that theese things are going to be extended through 2012, afther that ridiculous two month extension that the GOP voted for at the end of 2011). Debt ceiling "issue". There is NONE. Deficit "issue". There is NONE. Spending "issue". There is NONE. The GOP is reduced to merely arguign around the edges. Thre is NO indication that the GOP will actually CUT government substantially--which Ron Paul has correctly told you. The GOP will certanly not do it if it requires ANY COURAGE (and it will). NOTHING. I still can't believe it. The GOP is out there ADMITTING that they accomplished NOTHING on the issue that owon them victory i 2010. That is a DEFEAT--something like the drubbing the Germans inflcited as they overran Europe at the beginning of World War II---UNLESS you ealize that the GOP never eally MEANT to "cut" antything real. Again, I cannot and will not forgive them for that.


No, I am not through. Let us assume that the GOP has been SO INEFFECITVE that they could not even avoid responsibiity for "shutting down the government" by insisting upon eliminating funding for pubic broadcasting (to pick one egregious example). That is bad enough. But the GOP politicians are not even out there trying to PREPARE THE GROUND for reveersing this defeat. Oh, sure, they still talk about Democrat "spending". But they do it in GENERALITIES. They are NOT talking aobut Democrats being willing to shut down tte government, and take away Social Seucirty checks, to protect ublic broadcasting, Palnned Parenthood and ALL other spending. Why not? Come on. YOu know this one. It is because if theGOP starts tryng to expalin their RIGHT to refuse to approve SPENDING that is KILLING this country, and that it is DEMOCRATS who are undermining the Constitution by insisting that THEY have to "approve" al "cuts' in spending, then people will ask the obvious: "Okay, you COWARDS, why are you telling us this instead of calling their bluff". What answer can the GOP make to this? There is NONE, except the obvious one: "Yes, we ARE COWARDS, because we know that the media and the public let Democrats get away with shutting down the government, while we get blamed." Obvious response: "So you admit that Democrats can take their case to the people better than you can. How, then, do you EVER expect to CONSISTENTLY wn elecctions?"


No, this is absurd. Boehener, Demint and every GOP politician are DISHONEST. They are not even making a real attempt to "sell" their supposed "principles' (which they don't have). They are siplly relying upon the MESS that the Democrats are makng of ths country. And that MAY work, if things are BAD this November (partly becaues the gOP had NO COURAGE to fight for the future of the country, even if it risked their election). But what happens if the GOP wins, and they are doing their best to take away every issue they might have had? They will not have SOLD the Amerian people on anything other than that Obama and the Democrats were BAD. Nor will the GOP show any more COURAGE when they are in power (as they did not last time). Thus, especailly if the eocnomy contnues to be BAD (as it figures to be for some time), theGOP wil lthen LOSE the next time :(as Democrats come in and again win by saying how BAD the GOP is).


No. I can't stand it. This DISHONESTY has to stop. Notice that the media jsut refuses to point this OBVIUS stuff out. No one asked Boehner: "What do you meaan, that you could not do anything about it. Did not the House of Representatives have to VOTE forf eVERY DIME of spending, or it could not happen.? Skips, 89 year old mother knows that. Why don't you? Does this not indicate a lack of courage on your part, and the part of the GOP?"


There really is no answer to this. The GOP has placed itself in a BOX, with no way out EXCEPT peole believing Obama is WORSE. I refuse to play that game any longer. Sure, leftist Democrats are "worse", but the PRACTICAL EFFECT of the GOP being 'in power" may be WORSE than if Obama were in power. Taht is because the gOP has at least the INCENTIVE to oppose Obama, even if not always the COURAGE.


P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight) . Oh, you may think I have beocme a "politican" (fighiting words) myself, but I still plan to post that article on: U.S. Marines and the American Media: Urination Fetish". I promised the article a week ago, but these daily political developments eat up the time I ahve. i will still get to it. For those of ou who are thinkng: I wishSkip's mother woud write this blog insttead of him. She even sees better"; I have two words: BITE ME. As I have noted fror years, and postedon this blog, my mother is a KOIOK. She still "believes" (purports to believe) that Obama was born in Kenya, and tghat he is a Msulim. I, at least, limict msyelf to the CORRECT statement that: "Obama is not a Chrisitan"--a statement made by both myself and Bill Maher. Watch for what you wish for. You may get it. I may turn this blo over to mey motgher (no appluase, please, as I miate the idiots of NBC). You say I would never say these things if my mother actually READ this blog? You are probably right. But that is because you know that I am DEATHLY AFRAID of all women. That includes my mother, and my daughters (not just my ex-wife). Feel sorry for Gignrich, and people like him. He has MULTIPLE ex-wives. Worse than that, it means he was MARRIED to more than one womnan. One is more than enough. That is why I look with awe on those MEN (not women) who commit adultery. They actualy think they can handle MORE THAN ONE WOMAN AT THE SAME TIME. I was never tghat much of a fool.

Karl Rove: Selling Out His Country

ead my previous article on Greta Van Susteren, and how she seems willing to believe that a whole lot of people (including, I think, herself) are willing to SELL OUT their country just to ensure that the "gay rights' "movement' succeeds in putting "gays" into a new "category" of "victimes' that has never previously existed in this country--not to mention that 'gay marriage" has not existed in ALL of human history up to the f21st Century, which you cannot say about incest and polygamy. Well, I saw Kal Rove--also on the unfair and unbalanced network, without challenge, and HE is willing to SELL OUT his country too, althouhg he ADMITS it.


I laugh, cry, or froth at the mouth--often all three--whenver I hear a GOP person talk about the "payroll tax cut". I can't even count the number of times that a GOP person, or enve a supposed "conservative", has said that the payroll "tax cut" is BAD POLICY. The Wall Street Journal has said it (on the unfari and unbalanced network) , Any number of other people have said it. But Karl Rove has now said it more directly than it is usually said. He directly said that the payroll "tax cut" is BAD POLICY that undermines funding for Social Seucirty. Say wht? Wel, Karl, I am happy for your support. I am sure you ewill be with me on this NEXT DEADLINE (end of February) on the extension of this fraudulent payroll "tax cut"?



Oh no. I went on listening, after I got what appeared to be SUPPORT for my positioni. It turns out that Rove DOES SUPPORT MY POLICY POSITION, but stil says that the GOP must extend this fruad (at thesex pense of ADDING at least 100 BILLLION to our debt) through 2012. Why? You know the answer to that: because we need to get past this ELECTION.


I just can't stand it. Karl Rove is willing ot SELL OUT his country for an ELECTION. I am sure Rove would say that there are more important issues at stake than this. Not really. The problem the GOP has is that NO ONE--especailly me--believes that GOP politicians have any real PRINCIPLES at all. How can the GOP taqlk about DEBT, when they are votnig to INCRFEASE THE DEBTG jsut to win an electin. and they did this on SPENDING, as well as on the payroll "tax cut" and extgension of unemployment benefits.


Nope. The GOP DESEVES TO LOSE. If they continue this way, they will lose. As to Rove, this willingness to SELL OUT his country is no suruprise., For YEARS-all of the way from when Rove as a power int he Bush Administrration--this bog has written aritcles about Karl Rove. He could be the POSTER CHILD for the GOP estalbishment, and antoher reason taht Hell will freeze over before I evere vote for another GOP establishment candidate. Is it possible to stand up for "principle', and VOTE jstu to get past an election? Yes, I know that Obama is doing it on the Keystone Pipeline, and other things. But does that make it RIGHt. And howdo you oppose Obama on DEBT, when you are willing ot vote for MORE DEBT as apolitical BRIBE? Is Obama doing much different? Well the SCALE of what Obama is dong is larger, but the PRINCIPLE is the same. This blog has previously given this message to Karl Rove: "Just Go Away." I hereby repreat the same message.

Greta Van Susteren: Fitting Right Into the Unfair and Unbalanced Network

As yo shold know, I am suggesting you BOYCOTT the unfair and unbalanced network. As partoof my own personal boycott, I am watcing NONE of the "prime time' lnieup, an=d only "surfing" the daytime 'news' a few minutes a day (if that) . Thus, I have not seen Greta Van Susteren in MONTHS. I have not missed anything. As I have previuosly stated, my respect for the unfair and unbalanced network goes DONW every single MINUTE I actualy "surf" the network. And this TRND has been in effect for YEARS.


What did Van Susteren do? Remember, this occurred in only about 30 seconds, which is all I coudl satnad (only doing that because I was cruious as to who the unfari and unbalanced network considered the "winner" of the debate). Well, I watched CNN for maybe 15 minutes (after the debate itself, and VanSutern managed to be WORRSE than ANYTHING said on CNN. That is what I jsut said. Tonight, except for the "defense" of Wolf Blitzer, the unfair and unbalanced network was WORSE than CNN. How LOW can they sink. I may not know, becuase I may not see them enough. But I am afraid thaey can sink REEALLY LOW.


What am I talking aobut/ Well, what do YOU think is RickSantorum's MAIN problem in becoming President? if yuo got this right, apply for a job at the unfair and unbalanced network. I have advised my two attorney daughters to apply, since they are BOTH at least doube the intteeligence of any of the presen twoemn there (even if they, unfortunately, are not conservatives). I am gong to have to warn my daughters aobut how to DUMB DOWN for any interview they might get. Van Susteren actually dismissed Santorum as probalby "unelectable" becaues of his positoins on GAY RIGHTS. In other words, Brit Humer was correctly saying that Santorum won the debate, and Van susteren ws dismessing Santourm because of the "gay" issue. My opinon o fHume is actualy gong DOWN because he HUMORED her-as he didtoo often before I pretty mch stoped watcing the unfair and unbalanced network (that is, Humer did it regularly with regard to Juan Willimans and others) .


Gay rights???????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is the OFFICIAL positon of teh "establishment" (of which Van Susteren is a card carrying member) on "gay rights? It is that the American people are all about JOBS, DEBT, DEFICTS and the EcONOMY. Who cares about "gay rights"? And who says that the American people are ready to discared theTHOUSANDS of years of human history oveer "gay marriage" (which our PRESIDENT still "officially" opposes)? You remember "Dishonest Jack" Cafferty? He is the CNN person who said that the GOP cannot win so long as they "talk" baout "social issues' after a debate where CNN insisted on ASKING questionas about "social issues'. What Cafferty really meant, of course, his that HE put "social issues' AHEAD of the SURVIVAL of this country. IN other word, Cafferty was willing to SELL OUT his country on the IMPORTANT issues of our survival, because HE thinkgs issues like' gay rights' and "abortin" are the MOST IMPORTANT issues in this country (unless you are RIGHT on them--agree with Cafferty).


What can I say VanSusteren is a SOUL MATE to "Disonest Jack" Cafferty. Van Susteren, like Cafferty, thinks the American peole (read HER, or at least the peole she talks to) are willng to SELL OUT their country, and electt a President who will DESTOROY that country, because Santorum has the "wrong' position on homosexual "rights'. Not only is Vansusteren a soul mate of "Dishonest Jack" Cafferty, but she is INCOMPETENT (a poistion I was already arriveing at when I finally began my boycott of the unfair and unbalanced network). It is WRrRONG--absurd--to suggest that the American people would DEFEAT Rick Santourm over "gay rights. What Van Sust4eren is really saying, and it is DISHONEST as well as incomopetent, is that people in the media--like VAN SUSTERNE--will NOT ALLOW Rick Snatorum to talk about he real issues because THEY will focus so mcuh on the "social issues' that Santorum will never have a chance to tell people about the issues upon which this country's survivla depedns. Again, Greta, this tells me that you are willing to SEELL OUT ouyr country rather than try to focus --as a media person--on the REAL ISSUES> Nope. Ms. Van Susteren, I no longer have ANY respect for you. Go awy. I will never hear a word lyou say agan, at least on your own program.


If lyu believe nothing else I have ever said, believe this: Rick Santorum will NOT lose lths election based on his position on "gay rights". "But, Skip, did you not say , yourself, that Santorum let himself be labeled as only a "social issues" candidate", and that may have kept him from suring early?" Yep. I said that, and stand behind it. But look how DIFFERENT that is from what Van susteren said. What I was saing is that people woh THINK LIKE VANSUSTGEREN (wrongly) BOXED Snatourm in as a "social issues' cncidate--a RELIGOUS right candidate. Now it is true lthat the MEDI--Bill Maher typoes ALL, including Van Susteren--thinks that being associated with the "religious right' is a DEATH KNELL for a candidate. Taht is why the ANTI-CHRISITAN media keeps makng those associations with the GOP candidates--even those not emphasizing religion in their campaign. If Van Susteren wanted to say that Santorum had been too 'pigeon-holed" into being exclusvively a "religius right', social issues candidate, I would not crucify her this way. She would have a pont--even if it would ingore the COMPLICITY of the unfari and unbalanced network in this EVIL. But what Van Susteren did is limit hereself to saying that Snatorum's positon on gay rights-specifically gay marriage, but hshe owould probably expand it to other 'gay rights' issues like gasy in the military--would DEFEAST Rick Snatourm. That is RIDICULOUS. Taht "issue' would NOT HURT Rick Santourm AT ALL. I might not actually HELP hi, but it would NOT HURT. That is as close to a FACT as ny "opinion" you are likely to hear, an dmuch close to a FACT than the vomit that Van Susteren is puttin gout.


P.S No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). Why does ANY "conservative", or conservative leanign person, bother to watch the unfair and unbalanced network.? Nope. I do NOT think they are "better " than CNN. Listen to Rush Limbuagh. SURF a LOT of sources (like I do). There is NO reason to watch the unfari and unbalanced network. You don't get real 'journalism", and you don't get 'fairness'. You get cable TV EVIL, with a slight slant toward the GOP estalbishment for RATINGS. Yep. The unfarir and unbalanced network gives more TOKEN acknowledgement to the Tea Party than MSNBC, but so does the GOP establishment. The unfair and unbalanced nework DOES NOT MEAN IT, and their "news' operation is fully as bad as CNN. I remind you that my FIRST cirticism of John Roberts came when he was workng for CNN, and he has tit right in the unfiar and unbalanced netowrk (as does Greta Van susteren). Not ehe real pon here. To even ASK Rick Snatourm whetehr "homoseuality is a isin", as the EVIL Piers Moragan did, or to aks hime aobut it in AnY interview as if it is the most importaqnt issue he faces, is to prove yourself INCOMPETENT as a "journalists'. What you PROVE is tghat you have an AGENDA. It is NOT a tgurlyl important issue. Snatorum has his position, and that should be reported (as a minor positoin). But the idea that this is one of the most imortant issues of our time, for which peole will SELL OUT their country on, say jobs and the economy, is STUPID. Yep. I jsut called Greta Van Susteren STUPID, and I stand by it.

GOP Debate: Rick Santorum, Clear Winer

In the immediate post-debate analysis, EVERYONE (and this means the lefitsts of CNN, as well as more conservatie commentators, agreed that Rick Santorum won tonight's debate on SUBSTANCE. The ONLY 'knowck" (aside from the terrible Greta van Susteren ont he unfair and unbalanced network--another article) abainst Rick Santourum is that people don't hink he can win, and therefore he has NO MMNEY ( to speak of).


Santorum handed Romney's head to him over RomneyCare tonight. Santorum actually got Romney to give the SAME "defense" of the individual mandate in RomneyCare that Obama gives for ObamaCare. In fact, Romney's "defense" was the SAME right down the line, INCLUDING Romney's assertion that it is NOT a "government", top-down program which encurages people to PAY A FINE rahter than be insured (since they basically have insurance ANYWAY). I agree with Romney that states have the RIGHT to adoopt RomneyCare, while the Federal Government has no Constitutional right to adoopt ObamaCare. However, I am the last ture federalist in America. I guarantee yu that ROMNEY....................................................................sorry, on the flooor laughing/crying.......is not a true "federalist". Does Romney faovr FEDERAL "tort reform" on the SATATE issue of medical malpractice? Of course he does, because Rmney no more turly believes in federaism than he trly believes in free markets (note Romney faovred the BAILUTS, as Santroum aslo ponted out, and has FLIRTED in the past with "Cap and Trade" and "global warming').


No. Rick Santorum won this deate. And I am sure, as I waas not totally sure on Monday night, that I am not letting myu own endorsement of Santorum influence my opinion As I said, EVERYONE seems to have recognized that Santroum WON on substance. Most simply don't bvelieve it matters. And I cant' honestly tell you that Santourm is suddenly going to chllenge for the nomination. It stil seems a longshot, because Snatorum is scoring iwith SUBSTANCE, and not FALSHY SOUND BITES lke Newt Gingrich. It may be an indictment of the public that FLASHY moments can overcome solid dconservatrtive substance, even as the terrible GOP ESTABLISHMENT controls the ultimate nominee with MONEY (and more than money, as the media either ignores someone like Santorum or cooperates to TEAR DONW any 'nonestalbishment" candidate). Santorum has never "cught fire", despite his winin Iowa. He is not entirely without fault here, as he needed to SHARPEN his message earlier away from the social issue "box" that the MEIDA has tried to paint him into (with to mcuh of his own cooperation). No, I hhave NO problem with Santorum's views on "social issues". I jsut think he desperately needed, EARLLY, to avid being "labeled" the "social issue candidate". It may hae won him Iowa, but cost him any chance at the nomination.


Ah. Romney and Gingrich. UNIMPRESSIVE. I actauly think the media, including the DISHONEST Wolf Blitzer (see previous article), have deliberately set out to "rein in" Gingrich's chance for "South carolina" momnents. Gingrich is not getting the kind of questions he can knockout of the park, for the most part, and ROMNEY is deliberately trying to defelct Gingrich's debate points with overbearing ATTACKS. This put s Gingrich on the defensive, when he desperately needs to be on the attack. Gingrich had good moments tonight. He actually gotoff a number of good "one-liners", and it was ROMNEY who SABOTAGED what was really a good Gingrich moment with Wolf Blitzer. Sure, this was GOOD tactics by Romney, to keep Gingrich from getting credit once again for knockng down the media (as they should be knocked down).


But Romney. Romney was obviusly, as a matter of TACTICS, much more "energized" tonigh--more "apssionate"--rather than his previous "steady", "calm", "above-the-fray" approach. He evidently even has a new debate coach. That probably explains why Romney was UP AND DOWN tonight. No, Romney was NOT "steady". He made GAFFES. He was really unble to handle Santorum on RomneyCare. He was not taht good on illegal immigration--feeding my suspicion that Romney is "squishy" on the issue--as Romney tirried to say (at the SAME TIME, just like Obama) that he was NOT proposing that we deport grandmothers, but tath he was insisting that the laws be enforced. Not convincnig. Then there was Romney basically lalying everything ooff on the trustee of the "blind trust". However, that was not the major GAFFE. Romney DENIED that he was running a VICIOUS ad in Florida saing that Gingrich had referred to Spanish speaking people as "in the ghetto" (or something like this). This is Romney as HYPCRITE, as Romney's positoin on ENGLISH is basically the SAME as Gingrich, and all Gingrich had done was say that Englush needs to be taubht to everyone in this country. Agian, that is ROMNEY'S position. Worse, Romney DENIED that he knew anything about the ad. Then Wol Blitzer said lthat the ad had been CHECKED, and that Romney was on the ad saing that he "approved this ad". That is bad eenough. But then Romney, when congronted, fell back on the OLD ROMNEY--demanding to kninow whether Newt Ginrich had "said' something like what the ad said he said, even if out of ocntgext. Nope. Won't wash. That was a TRuLYU BAD moment for Rmoney. It would have been even wrose if the media ddi not seem to be out to COVER for Romney, until he comes up against Obama (when this kind of bobbing and disonest weaving wil be CRUCIFIED, ven as Obama gaets the "pass" Romney is now partially receiving). I give Wolf Blitzer credit for at least calling Romney on the attempt to say he was nto even responsible for the ad. But how BAD does Romney look to not beven be aware--to listen to him--of what was in the add, and then to try to DEFEND the ad Romney says he has not even seen. Nope. Not defensible.. And a MAJOR GAFFE. Against Obama, it would be FATAL.


No, Romney was not impressive. The best you can say is that he seems to be LEARNING to be more "energized". But, again, he could nto handle Santorum, and--overall--he id no better than a DRAW with Gingrich (subject ot the 'spin" helng it appear better for Romney). As the real frontrunner, it is probably right that a DRAW for Romey, who has control of the ad wars, is really a "win". It may well win him Florida. Yet, Gingrich actually gave a good answer--more than one, actually--on KNOWING about isssues in Florida. Romney gave no such answer. No, I don't thinkRomney actually "beat" Gingrich, except that Gingrich did not deliber the kind of "win" that propelled him in South Carolina. Unless media in Florida hammer Romney over being out of touch with Florida, I do expect that the debate hurt the chacnes of Gignrich to win Florida. Gingrich does not have the MONEY (or overall estalbishment support) to DRAW debates. But his problem is probably more MONDAY--despite thaqt being a snnozer--than tonight. Gingrich gained NOTHING on Monday, and set himself up for needing too mcuh tonight. He was like a basketball player hwo cannot "et his own shot". Gingirhc seemed ot need OPENINGS to really deliver "xingers", and cold nto MAKE his own operings. That may be ultimately ftal to a man almost basing his campaign on his debaing ability.


I repeat this blog's endorsement of Rick Santourm, wihout bving honestly able to say that he has much of a chance for the nomination. Too bad. I will vote for him in Texas, if he is still in the race. Otherwise, Iwill voete for Ron Paul (who WILL still be in the race) .


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

Wolf Blitzer: Liar on The Liear Network

You have to follow this closely, because it is classic Wolf Blitzer: liar and alll-around despiocable, evil person. Here is the NONSENSE, trulyu STUPID, question Wolf Blitzer asked Newt Gingrich:

"Mitt Romney has now released his tax returns. You hae said you are satisfied wtih that. I want to get it clear: Are lyou now satisfied with Mitt Romney's disclosures on his persoanl finances." (Now Wolf may have left out the wrod "disclousures", but that would have been DISHONEST; what am I saying? Wolf Blitzer is a DIHHONEST person on a DISHONEST network.)


Gingrich's (correctr) answer:, looking at Rick Santourm, who had just complained aoubt talking aoubt these "side" personal issues instead of the real issues: "We worked together a long time (referring to Sntourm). You are ifghhht. Thisis a NONSENSE question."


Wolf Blitzer, LIar: "Well, Speaker Gignrich , you are th eone who said this week that Mitt Romney had Swiss bank accounts, and accounts int he Cayman Islands. If you are going to make a major, serious attack on another canddiate, you should be willing to aanswer questions about it.".


Do yoou see the LIE here? The DISPICABLE LIE on The Liear Network? You should. Wol f Blitzer did NOT ask Netw Gingrich about Mitt Romney's investments in the Cayman Islands or Swiss bank accounts. Thus, the real qeustion here is WHY Wolf Blitzer LIED so blatanntly here? Was it an example of CNN being IN THE TANK for Romney, and trying to derail Gingrich? Maybe. Maybe not. But Wolf Blitzer for some reason PROVED (through his own words) that he asked a deliberately DISHOENST question. His question purported to be about whether Gingrich was satisfied with Romney's disclosure of his tax returns, when Blitzer deliberately tried to MORPH the question into a HIDDEN attempt to get Gingrich to say he was"satisfied" with ALL of the Mitt Romney's "personal finances". I know that the question did not say "all". But that is the LIE. You cannot interpret wolf Blitzer said, when challenged abut a NONSENSE question, other than that Blizer was trying to set a SECRET TGRAP for Gingrich, by referring to release of tax returns when Blitgazer was LATER going to say the question was about something else (a more general endorsement of ALL of Romney's finances). YOU LIAR, WOLF BLITZER. This blog has shown many times that ou are one of the most DISHONEST "newsw" people who has ever lived. Doubtr me? Never do tha sse the earlier article today) I am not through.

Wolf Blitzer, as is usal on The Liar Network (and all of the media), was able to immediately get the support of ALL of CNN, as the media ALWAYS stands behind its ownl--even when it makes almost all people view them with total CONTEMPT (as I do). Anyway, in this friendly forum, Gold old LIAR Wol LIED yet again. He said: "You notice that when I did not back down, Gingrich eventrtually ansered the question>" There are TOW LIEWS here. First, Gingrich did NOT "answer" the ORIGINAL QUESITON. What happened was that Romney (not to his credit) intervened as Gingrich was trying to get support on state for limiting the debate to more substance. Romney said: "A canddiate who says someting outside these debates should be willing to deend what he says in the debate forum. That is a big problem here." (or wwrods to taht effectt).


Gingrich "answered" ROMNEY (as he had to do), and NOT Wolf Blitzer. And it was a DIFFERENT question (about those Swiss bank accounts and accounts in the Cayman Islands). Wolf, you just PROVED lyourself to be a LIAR, twice over.


Now remember this blog's CHALLENGE to the media: Are yo not interested in WHY Mitt Romney had accounts in the Cayman Islands? What was the PURPOSE of those accounts? What kind of accoutns? WHY in the Cayman Island? This is another case where Wolf Blitzer is a LIEAR on The Liar Network. MSNBC is already-as this blog said--makng a big deal about thos FOREIGN accounts, and the Cayman Islands are NOTORIOUS about operating as TQAX DODGES, or other legal, but somewhat shady, types of transactions. Against Barack Obama, what will CNN say about the Cayman Isalands? Maybe some on CNN are already saying it, but NOT when it could be of help to Newt Gingrich. suddenly, CNN is gong to think it is "funny" that Romney had foreing bank accounts, blind trust or no blind trust, includingin a lplace known for being used as a DODGE for taxes or other concealment. Again, however, note theat Wolf Blitzer and the mainstream media are NOT INTERESTED in WHY there were those accounts int he Cayman Islands. Thre must be a REASON. Invetments? That is a reason you might invest in, say, CHINA. The Cayman Islands are really known for one thing: FINACIAL SHENNIGANS. There is not really such a thing as "investment" in the Cayman Islands (at least, not without explanation) If any financial insitution is offering 'higher returns" int he Cayman Islands, you might well wonder whether it has something to do with what the Cayman Islands are FAMOUS for. No one simply "invests" in theCayman Islands, rather than, say, Wells Fargo 9r, yes, Swiss banks. This is NOT a matter of "diversification"--one of the most DISHONEST things Romney said tonight. As this blog has suggested, the Cayman Islands hardly even exist as a "real" contry. A Cayman Islands "address" is often about the equivalent of a post office box. Nope. I am NOT saying this is a reason to vote against Romney. I am saing that I am MILKDLY CUROUS as to WHY Romney would have "investments" in the Cayman Islands. "Diversification" is NOT an answer. It is an EVASIONI. I don't have any such curiosity about Siwss bank accounts.


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

Unemployment Claims: Not Improving (This Blog: Tomorroe's News Today)

Rea my previous article, posted LAST NIGHT on th is blog--with NO 'inside' information. It has to be one of the best exaamples of ORESIGHT ever put in print, even though it is fairly routine for this blog. The number for new unemployment claims was releaed, as usual, this Thursday, and her is the Bloomberg headline:


"Jobless claims rise, showing seasonal volatility"


Yep. I not only told you WHAT would happen. I told you WHY. And some of you people doubt me, like on whether women should have the vote. What did I tell you last night? First, I told you about the SEASONAL VOLATILITY. Second, I told you that the numbers releasd the past two weeks were URE FICTION, and that the best GUESs as to what the "real" number might be would be to AVERAGE the numbers the prviuos two weeks (which turned out to be 356,000 and 399,000o). I told lyou that the number released last wek would probably be REVISED by 3,000 or 4,000. It WAS--to 356,000 from 352,000. I told you that the BEST GUESS for the number to be released TODAY was that AVERAGE of teh past two weks, or about 380,000 (between 375,000 and 380,000). . The actual number (a LIE) released today was 377,000. How is it POSSIBLE to make a more accurate PREDICTION than this. Forget "surveying" perpetually "surpirised" economists. COME TO ME. Oh, why is the 377,000 number a LIE? Again, that number will be REVISED next eek--most likely UP the usual 3,00 or 4,000. On an apples-to-apples basis, joblesss claims rose 265,,000 this week (from 352,000 to 377,00) The headlines says that they rose 21,000, becaue the headlines ALWAYS LIEF--comparing this week's UNREVISED NUMBER with last week's REVISED NUMBER.


If you read last night's article, you will also get the correct information that these numbers are NOT EXACT, and have a LARGE marging of error. That makes it even more impresssive that I predicted today's number ALMOST EXACTLY, considering that these numbes are written on water and only have any significance at all over time. This should prove to you thatt he way the media REPORTS these weeky and monthly numbers is DISGRACEFUL--showing them to be INCOMPETENT and DISHONEST.


Okay, so today's number was aboutt he same as the average of the numbers for the previous two weeks. More than that, the number has been basically UNCHANGED for at least 6 weeks. Yet, you may see the media tell you that there is some kind of 'trend" established. Hogwash. The weekly number is NOT "steadily dropping", een after you filter out the fictional noise. All you can say is that there was somewhat of a ONE-TIME "drop" in the jobless claims number in the holiday season (from right around 400,0000 to 381,000--confirmed in subsequent weeks, but with NO IMOPROVEMENT SINCE THEN). Even this could be simply a combiantion of the new seasonal pattern that the U.S .economy may have fallen into, along with the mild WEATHER. Still, NO "steady trend", or any TREND AT ALL. The only "trnd" is taht we seem to be repeating the pattern of last year, when the weeky number fell l under 400,000 for a number of weeks, only to rebound in the spring and summer.


What about next week? Obviously, the "bst guess' would be around that same 375,000-380,000 number that seems to have been about the AVERAGE for more than two months now--without significant change, after filtering out that noise. But, obviously, the number could either JUMP back to 400,000, or DROP back down. some. And YOU--if not the mmedia---KNOW (becxause this blog has told you) that any such ISOLATED, one-week "move" in the number is MEANGINGLESS, until confirmed in subsequent weekyy numbes. We now have NO TREND (up or down), and not really any trend from LAST YEAR (no real improvement), other than this new seasonal pattern that the jobless claims number--and other numbers on teh economy--see to get better in the second half of the year, with the jobless claims number looking good at the end of the year and first twomonths of the next year (in comaprions with the previus summer), only to have the jobless claims number SPIKE as we approach summer.


Will history reporeat, or is the economy doomed to "falter" again? And what do GASOLINE prices and "Bailout Ben" Bernanke have to do with this "buming along the bottom". Stay tuned. We will all find out. Contrary to the media, I will even give yu SOME guidance anlng the way, even though I can't possibly predict the future, in the future, quite as well as I did last night (not consistently, anway).


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

Jobless Claims: Fiction and Media Lies

Look at this blog's article two weeks ago, when new unemployment claims were reported just under 400,000 (really a meaningless number, in terms of whehter the number is a few thousand above or below that number, but a number thant the media has been focusing on), at 299,000. As this blog told lyou, the media LIED 9as they do every single week) when they said that the number was "under" 400,000. That is not only because there is NO difference between 399,000 and 400,000, as te marging of error is much greater than 1000 in all events. But, specifically, the weekly number of new unemplyment calims is ALWAYS revised the next week-usually UP by 3,000 or 4,000. This blog told you that the likelihood was that the number reported two weeks ago would be rEVISED to above 400,000. It WAS. That made the overall score: This blog 10,934 Media 0. This reporting of the weekly unemlplyment claims number as an EXACT number is a weekly LIE from our incompetent, dishonest media. By the way, that 399,000 number ORIGINALLY reported i sSUSPICIOUS. If you are not cyncial enough to know why, I cannnot help you.


What else did I tell you two weeks ago? I told you that the number of waeekly unempployment calims is SEASONALLY ADJUSTED (not mere counting), and that the WEEKLY seasonsal adjustment is UNRELIABLE. I told lyou that this atually producing a margin of error in the WEEKLY number of as much as 50,000. You may have doubted me on that, but last week's number PROVED me right. The actual COUNTED number varies WILDY week-to-week, and if the seasonal adjustment (as much as 150,0000 or more) is not correct because the seasonal pattern has not operated exactly as the formula assumes, then the REORTED number (the media NEVER reporting the actual number, before the seasonal adjustment) is gong to be WRONG by tens of thousands. Thus, that 402,000 number for two weeks ago was UPO almost 30,000, but I told you that such rise did NOT mean much unless and until the DETERIROATION was confirmed OVER TIME. Indeed, Isuggested that the jury is stil out on whether the whle economy has entered into a PATTERN where it looks like it is improving in the second half of a ywar (as it has since 2009), and then looks like it is deteriorating in teh first half of the next year--while all it is really doing is BuMPING ALONG TH EBOTTOM without either getting much worse or getting much better. Well, the jury is still out on that theory, but last week's reported number shwoed what I meant about each week's number being pretty meaningless (in terms of meaning anything as an isolated number).


The number of new unemplyment claims reported last week dropped a WHOPPING 50,000 from the REVISED 402,000 the week before. That was FICTION. No, there is NO doubt about that. Indded, what that number proved is that the 402,000 number was also FICTION. The seasonal adjustmentssimply failed to work right for those two weeks. Wat is the CORRECT number--"seasonally adjusted" corrrectly? Oh, it is impossible to really know. TIME will tell, and thiss week's rport of new unmpllyment calaims will come out tomorrow. it wil give us SOME idea, although MORE TIME, and numbers, are necessary to estalbish a "trend". As it is, the numbers have been soerratic, involving holiday and post-holiday weeks, thatNO TREND can be discerned (despite media LIES to the contrary). The best GUESS would probably be to AVERAGE out the previous two weeks, whch would average around 380,00 (especially after tehe expected REVISON of last week's 352,000 number UP 3,000 or so). That AVERAGE of 375,000 to 380,000 is actualy UP from the average for the previous four weeks--although fairly close (wee within the LARGE marging for error). Thus, despite the wide swings, the previous two weeks MAY have just meant an UNCHANGED layoff situation. I would also mention that the WEATHER has been very good this winterm compared with the last two winterw, and that could DISTORT the seasonal pattern. In all events, you should be able to see how my "estimate" of a "marging of error" of 50,000 was PROVEN right. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the actual labor marktet to have CHANGED from deteriorating almost 30,000 in one week, and then improving 50,000 in the next week. Q.E.D. These numbers are FICTIN (as to the isolated weeks), and there is a marging of error of at least 50,000 possible in each week's reported number.


Does that mean that the 352,000 number was not "good" news? Not exactly. The main sense in which it was "good" news is that the RISE to above 400,000 th eprevius week was shown to probably be FICTIno (as was the 352,000 number). The LIE of the media is reporting these weekly numbers as if they actually mean anytnhing for AN INDIVIDUAL WEEK. As state, the last two weeks--best guess, until we get more numbers---0woul dseem to indicate an UNCHANGED labor market over the past several months. Under, 400,000, but WIHOUT a "trnd" of steadily improving numbers. And the question still remains whether this is a real improvement (the drop below 400,00, which happened at the beginning of last year as well--although this year has done SLIGHTLY better), or thether we are just dealing with a new pattern of seasonality in the U.S. economy. The WEATHER alone might account for the SLIGHT improvement in this December and January over December and Januarya year ago.


Well, the weekly number of new unemploymenbt callaims will be reorted tomorrow (today on the East Coast, as it is after midnight there). What will it mean? In isolation, it will mean VERY LITTLE, even though the media will again LIE about the significance of whatever number is reported. You wuld EXPECT the nuber to go up substantially, toward the AVERAGE of tgeh previous two weeks. IF the number stays around 350,000, that MIGHT (if continued to be confiremed in the weeks aghead) mean that the 402,000 number awas an ABERRATION, and that the weekly number is actual IMPROVING. IF we go back to 390,000 to 400,000, then we just know that we are still dealing with FICTION, and that the weekly swing is too violent to be real. The 'real" numbe might be alomst anyting, because there would be NO consistent pattern--meaning the formula has broken down. The four-week average might be the bestiindicatior of which diretn we are moving, but when the sings are this wild even the four-week average is DISTORTED. Onllyl TIME can tell us (approximately) where we are. I continue to assert that REAL "journalists' would report the RAW number every week, along with the revised nubmer. Sure, you can find it out from teh Labor Deaprtment site. But the job of the media is to INFORM the people--not to LIE to them and trust them to figure it out themselves. This reufsal to examine the REAL significance of ALL of the weekly numbes, in context over the entire prevouis year, is not only bad "journalism". It MAY make it easier to MANIPULATE the numbers, as nobody really examines whether this "ADJUSTED" weekly number is being reported correctly. Since presumbably SOME people are looking at the raw numbers, and comparing them with previous years--along with comparing the adjustments for previous years--you would HOPE that no real manipulation is taking place. But I stand behind the assertino that failing to investigate and report what thewse weekly numbers really mean, and how they compare with the raw and adjusted numbers in previous years, makes it EASIER for manipulation to occur> I doubt if any real serious manipulation is occurring, because I don't believe in conspiracy theories (they fall apart--too many people know hat its going on). Att he very least, however, the media owe it to the PUBLIC to actually look into these nubers week by week, and not act like the weekly number has a meaning it DOES NOT HAVE--or an EXACTNESS that it DOES NOT HAVE>


What has thiis article done? Well, if lyou can follow it, and my lack of proofreading and spell checking has not ggarbled it too much (bad eyesight makng it effetgively impossible fore me to do those things), this article has informed you HOW to look at the weekly unemployment number to be reported Thursday, and lkook THROUGH THE MEDIA LIES to have some underfstanding of what the number actually means, and how fallible it is (espeically in isolation). You could even, if you wanted., look at the Labro Department site and do waht the media SHOULD do: "investigatgte" the raw number, tghe "seasonally adjusted" number, and how this compares with what happened with those numbers LAST YEAR (and even the year befroe that). No, it really is too difficult (eyesight again) for me to do this FOR YOU. So I leave it as an exercise for the reader. I don't even expect it to be any kind of "exercise" of the "journalists" supposedly reporting this stupff, because those peole are INCOMPETENT FOOLS who LIE to you every single week on the "meaning" of the weekly number (not to mention the exactness of it--which affects the meaning).

Eric Cantor: Defeat Him (Defeat the GOP Series)

I saw an Erick Cantor interview this morning. It confirmed my previous opinioin: DEFEAT H:M, or any office and for every office.


This is part of my "Defeat the GOP" series, although the official position of this blog is to DEFEAT THEM ALL (all incumbents, Democrat or members of tghe Grand, Outdated Party, who are incumbents).


But I am highlighting GOP politicians wo are especailly worthy of defeat. Eric Cantor is on e of those politicians. What has the GOP House, in which Cantorin in the leadership, ACCOMPLISHED? Not a ting. As this blog has reported before, the GOP did not "cut" ONE THIN DIME in net spending, and actgualy ADDED to teh defict and erquired increase in the debt ceiling (includng with this fraudulent payroll "tax cut" and exenions of extended unemployment benefits paying people not to work). Well, Cantor was aske d basicaly what the GOP had DONE to control spending.


You know what Cantor said, if you thoought about it at all He BLAMED Obama and the Democrats, talking about how theGOP "tried" (totally inefectually). Hogwash. Dishonest hogwash, and teh reason I am down n even supposed Tea Party oikutucuabs kuje Hun /Denubt abd Narci rybui,. The GOP House had to voe for EVERY DIME of spending, or the money could not be spent. "But, Skip, it would have been political suicide for the gOP to let Obama and teh Demcrats shut down the government, and blame gthe GOP." Read that last sentence, and understand how COWRDLY GOP politicians are includng those supposed Tea Party politicians. The GOP House has the POWER to FORCE the government to "cut" ONE TRILLION dollars from the budget IN ONE YEAR, as Ron Pauuls says he wil do. Nope. It does nto matter that the Dmeocrats control the Senate, and the Presidency. The House GOP has a VETO over any spending. They CHOSE never to use that "veto". In otehr words, the House could simply say that it will only approve so much spending. There is NOTHING Democrats and Obama could do about it, except "shut down the government".


Okay Let us concede that the GOP was not going to realistically cut one trillion dollars out of a one-year budget, even though Ron paul is right that something like that needs to be done (at least $5000 BILLIN in one year, and not this STUPIDITY about a "ten-year plan"--Soviet Union styple). Seill, look at how much more PRINCIPLED--not to metinon politicall effective--the Democratws were. They have a WEAK--nonexistent, really--LEAL hand. The House MUST approve EVERY DIME of spending,or the money does nto get spent. Yet, even though they had NO legal power to STOP the House from"cutting" whatever tghe House wanted to "cut" (simply not authorize), the Dmoecrats rpevevented the GOP from c"cutting" ANYTHING. This is not "trying". This is SURRENDER, and that is what the COWARDSD of the GOP did You can tgry to sugar coat it, Eric Cantor, you you can't dispute that this is exactly what happened. Let us assume that the GOP would have been "curucified" for taknig this correct position: "You can spend ONLY the money that we approve, and we are not going to approve much." Still , the GOP had the LEVERAGE to FORCE at least some REAL "cuts", like th 100 bilion the GOP promised TWICE. Instead, the GO P RAN like the COWARDS they are, and now Eric Cantor is WHINING that it is all the fault of those Democrats--even though Eric Cantor had to APPROVE every dime the Democrats spent. It doesn't wash.


Nope. Eric Cantor. You need to be DEFEATED, along with every other GOP member of the House and Senate. But you, especially, have distinguished yourself as a man to be DEFEATED.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Stay tuned. Next in the "Defeat the GOP" seies will probably be Senator Corker and Congresswoman Blackburn of Tennessee.

Obama: No Bailouts, Unless I Want There to Be (Liar-in-Chief)

President Obama again, last night, gave an outstanding performance as Liar-in-Chief. He may have set a new record, although statisticians are still evaluating that. It is close. It is hard to top those speeches where Obama said, in one pargraph, that govenment has to "live withoin ints means, like ordinary failites"--only in about the next paragraph to propose expanding spending and/or opposing spending/deficit cuts. Still, last night Obama MAY have managed to contradict himself in CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES. That is what is being checked: whehter he has done ti before, with present indications being that he HAS done it before--meaning that he FAILED to set a new record last night.


The section of the speech I am talkng about is the section where President Obama was talking aobut how POURD he is of his bailout of General Motors. Then, immediately, Obama had an "applause" line saing "No bailouts, ..., no copouts." Say what? Did I not hear Obaama jsut say tthat he would not let jobs be lost at GM if he could do anything aobut it (bailiout)? this proves again that our Liar-in-Chief will say ANYTHING that he thins SOUNDS GOOD, knowng he can count on the mainstream media not to call him on it. Obama still says taht one of the way he kept us out of a "dpressioin" was to BAIL OUT our financial system, as well as GM. Then you have "Bailout Ben" Bernanke, who is STILL bailing out bands, Wall Street and even Europe, with the entire cooperation of teh Obama Administrration. Can you get any MORE dishonest than this? Well, you would not think so, but I have confidence in our Liar-in-Chief. YS HE CAN. Our statisticians--working as this was being typed--THINK they have found previus instances where our Liar-in=Chief has contradicted himslef within the same sentence.


No, I did NOT waste my tie listenting to the class warfare speech, which evidenty had a number of contradictions as Obama just went for what SUNDS GOOD--whether it contradicts something he just said or not. However, as I mentionned in my P.S. last night, I reserved the right to comment on CLIPS. And I did see a rather extensive clip about how Obama talked about "sving GM" and "ou auto industry", and then turned around as said "No bailouts". Now the clip i saw implied this ws in consecutive sentences, but obviusly there is a possibility that editing compressed the sentences together. Doesn't matter. The DIRECT CONTRADICTIN is there, and it is an OBVIOUS contradictioin. That, again, raises the question of why Obama thiks he can GET AWY WITH this kind of obvioius contradiction. What does he ven MEAN when he says "no bailouts"? Somebody should ASK him. "Mr. President, did you mean that-if the same kind of situation arises in the future,-that you will NOT favor bailouts of financial institutions and imortant companies like GM? Does that meean you now think that the gailousts that you did, and supoported, were a MISTAKE? " Somehow, President Obama just never gets asked those questions. For example, is it not an OBVIOUS question: "President Obama, you have often said that the Federal Government has to live withnin its means,like ordinary families. What did you MEAN by that, considering that you are continuing to run tirllion dollar deficits every year, and seem to OPOSE almsot all efforts to REDUCE current deficits? Do you raealize that ordinary families cannot simply say that they will "solve" the problem ten years from now,while coninuing to live beyond their means in the present?"


Nope. We have a Liar-in-Chief, and he does not even CARE. He EXPECTS to "get aay wiht it", becaue he counts on a sycophantic media not to call him on it.


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

Obama and Evolution: Does Obama, as a Christian, Believe That theTheory of Evolutoni Full Explains the Development of Human Beings?

You hear GOP candidates continually asked, by today's EVIL "journalists", whether they believe in evolution. What you don't hear is Barack Obama being asked whether he, as a Christian, believes in that the existence of thinkng human beings is fully explained by the Theory of Evoluton. That is because today's "journalists" are the worst, most dishonest hypocrites to ever walk the Earth. It is also becasue "journalists" do not believe, any mroe than I do, that Obama is really a BELIEVING Christian. As readers of this blog know, my position is that if the mainstream media is going to make RELIGONI a n issue in political campaigns--although only for GOP candidates--then this blog is going to ARGUE eligion as a political issue--specifically from the--correctr--point of view that Obama is NOT a Christian (exposing his HYPOCRISY, as well as the HYPOCRISY of "journalists"). No, I don't do this as a Chrisitan, since I am an agnostic :(skeptic). However, that makes me NEUTRAL on religion, as religion. I know someone who is NOT a Christian, and Obama is not one.


Sample queston that Obama SHOULD be asked, if "journalists" are going to ask GOP candidatges about eviolutoni:


Present scientific theory, in cluding the Theory of Evolutoin, is that life on Earh develope, BY CHANCE, from non-living chemiclas; and that then human beings devlopoed, BY CHANCE MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION, beginning with one-celled organisms and ending with thinking human beings. Do you, Mr. Presdient, agre--as a Christian--that human beings developed, by chance alone, sarting with non-living chemicals and then one-celled life?


Now here is an ANSWER I wish I would hear a GOP "religious" canddiate give who is asked this truely evil and insulting question about evilutoin:


This question is not an appropriate question, because it is really a question about my religion. But I will give you my personal opinioni--which has no bearing on any public policy issue as to the office for which I am running. First, there is the issue of practical biology and genetgics. It was LEFTIST ideology--not Chritian theology, that killed MILLIONS of peoople in the Soviet Union because Joseph Stalin imosed the ideas of Lysenko on Soviet agriculture. That KILLED millions of people through starvation. This was because central planning imosed the WRONG theory of biology on a whole country, because Stalin thought it fit better the Communist, leftist politcal ideology. Mendel was a MONK who first started teh modern theory of genes and genetics, which has helped us deveop the greatest agriculture in the wrold, while the Soviet Union was held back by a Godless central planning philosophy which tryied to impose things from above. Taht, in my opinion, i swhat Barack Obama is tryihng to do with global warming--more of a religion of leftist ideology than true science. That does all of this have to do with whether HUMAN BEINGS came into existence as a mateter of pure chance, starting with non-lving chemicals? That is the ponit. The PRACTICAL aspects of genetic theory and natural selection are not at issue. Christians are certainly not trying to tell scientists lthat they cannot work on the sicence to make our life better. Now, there may sometimes be a chance that scientists wil make our life worse, as with human cloning. But, again, thowse are issues that have nothing to do with whether human beings arose on this Earth solely as a matter of CHANCE--starting with non-living chemicals. As a Christian, I don't believe anything in this universe is solely the result of chance. Scientists have a lot of trouble explaining how thinking human beings arose, in the end, from chance combinations of non-living chemicals and molecules, and how chance, randum mutations just happened to lead to the evolution of thinking human beings. I believe in GOD as a Guiding Force in our universe, and I don't think anything in science shows that is not so. In fact, I would argue that there is a lot in science that pints toward GOD, a Gudiding Force that made us what we are. The fact that genetics and evolutoin can explain some things does not indicate that they can adequately explain everything. I don't think they do. Einstein once said, in criticizing quantum mechanics, that: God does not play dice with the universe." I prefer to blieve taht God didnot rely on longshot chances to create human beings. I believe that there was divine direction invoolved. Now why don't you go ask Barack Obama this fquestion, or are you just a partidan trying to use religion againt GOP candidates when it is not appropriate to do so? You "journalists" who ask this question of GOP candidates jsut don't seem very honest to me. Why don't you ask Barack Obama whether he believes, as a Chisrtian, wheter human beings came into existence by chance alone, as contemplated by theTehory of Evloution in its modern form? "


No, I know that no GOP candidate would dare give lthe above anser. Among other things, it is taoo complicated. Nevertheless, I would vote for any GOP candidate who DID give essentailly that answer. And I have no doubt at all that these candidates need to aTTACK on questins like this--whehter they give an opinion on how human beings cae to be on this Earth or not. That is why Newt Gingrich has "surged". He has shwon that he is unwiling--at least at times--to let evil "journalists" get away with these ridiculously unfair questions. The fact is that the mainstream media wants to push the idea that the GOP is "too religious", while giving Democrats a "pass" on the whole subject. This is EVIL stuff, and I will continue to say so untile November, and beyond--as I have for a decade on the inteernet.


Me? Does tthe above 'answer" represent my views? NOt entirely. Most if it is entirely accurate. However, you know I am a SKEPTIC on religion, even though I acknowledge I may be wrong. Do I really believe that living organisms were "created" in the non-living "soup" of the original atmosphere on Earth? Do I thien believe that CAHNCE MUTATIN (when mutations are more likely to be bad than good) led to thinking human beings, even over the LONG periord of time involved? Well,, I would say I RELUCTANTLY believe that, in a mild way, but taht I don't believe that we know the whole story. I don't think the Theory of Evolution--valuable and mostly correct as it is--explains everything It woul d be strange if it did, when the DETAILS of how all of this happened over so many years are so OBSCUFRE. Is there a NATURAL "force" "diredting" mutations so that there is a better than pure chance likelihood that the right mutation will occur at the right time? Is "intellligence" merely a matte r of evolutin? I am willing ot admit I DON'T KNOW on these questins, and I really don't see how I can condment a CHRISTIAN for seeing the hand of God in these matters, or even believing that human intelligence is outside of evilution altogether.


Again, you will see this blog take on the mainsteam media in BOTH religion and science. I have a degree in physics from New Mexico State University, and I took both biology and genetics (getting an "A" in both). Science has been a lifelong interest of mine, including an early interest in the scientific specullation of science fiction. This is true even though my career ended up being as a lawyer (graduating from the University of Texas at Austin School of Law). I would also say that the philosophy of religion--not religioous doctrine--has been a lifelong interestr of mine. I did not become an agnostic at approximately the age of 12, after being raised Presbyterian, BY ACCIDENT. Thus, I am perfectly willing to take on the media on thsese subjects, and definitely not AFRAID to discuss them. Since the media clearly WANTWS to--evil as it is--make THEIR view of religion amajor discussion in politics, you can expet this blog to CALL THEM on it all of this election


Oh. Beill Maher and I continue to believe that Barack Obama is NOT a Christian, but a secular humanist (meaning his real religion is leftist ideology). Well, I may not be entirely accurate about Bill Maher, since I don't folow him or what he labughably calls his "thinking". I heard hims say that Brack Obama is not a Christian. Does Maher STILL say that, or has he said he did not really meant it? I don't know. I suspect he has backed off of that direct statemetn, or said something like "you can be a secular humanist and still profess to be a Christian" (dishoenst as that would be). But I may be unfair to Bill Maher. Maybe he has stuck to his guns, and still does say that Obama is nto a Christian. He is RIGHT, after all, as am I.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Oh, yo will NOT see an "analysis" of Obama's State of the Union speech in this blog. I have absolutely NO desire to hear another CAMPAIGN SPEECH from Barack Obama, and thiat is ALL this speech is going to be. It is barely possible that I will comment on a "clip" or two of the speech I may hear later. But I have no intentino of wasing my time listening to the speech. Obama and the Democrats are becoming more and more about "class warfare". Yep, I DO wish that both Romney and Gingrich had not bought into the class warfare rhetoric--each in his own way. And then there are the BRIBES of the GOP in Congress, includng that "payroll tax cut". Don't get me started, or this article will never end.

Mitt Romney and the Cayman Islands: WHY?

This is an example of how our media is NOT INTERESTED in INFORMATIONI. I am not intreseted in Mitt Romney's taxes, so long as he did not fail to pay the tases he legally owed (like Obama's Secretary of the Treasury). I am not intrested in how much money Mitt Romney earned, or how much money he has. I don't hink Mitt Romney's specific example, as an individucal, has anything to do with what tax POLICY should be, although if you favor a dramaticaly lower capital gains tax raate, you have to acknowledge that people in Romney's situation will be able to earn a LOT of money on CPITAL without paying much (relatively) in taxes. But that is a "problem" for ou (if, say, you are Gingrich) fully as much if you, yourself, pay 35% in taxes--o earn a small amount of income--as if yu earned the same investment income as Mitt Romney. I actually thnik peole in general "get" this, even though our media people do not. The issue here is overall POLICY, and not whether certain individuals "benefit" from a partticlar policy and others do not. As blog articles have explained, I thik the 15% capital gains rate is totally appropriate, while I think a zero percent capitalgainss rate is a mistake-because it encourages GAMES by people manipulating the form in which they earn money in order to save money on taxes. Yes, you can often CHOOSE whk;ether you earn ordinary income or capital gains, and I don't think the tax system should push you into ckoices based on taxes (or overly reward FORM in the tax system). But that is a problem for you, as a politician faovring a really low capital gains tax rate, whether you eearn money to the extent Romney does or ear $50,000 a year You still have to defend the POLICY you ddvocate. This PERSONAL poitcs is truly an evil thing. I digress (a little).


As stated, I am NOT INTERESTED in Romney's personal taxes, income or money However, I am MILDLY INTERESTED in his alleged account in the Cayman Islands. Now Romney, and Romney people, have said that money Romney sent to the Cayman Islands (or to a Cayman Island based entity, which may often by the equivalent of a post office box in terms of actual connectin to the Cayman Islands, was not for "tax avoidance. I am MILDLY interested in this; What WAS the purpose of "investing" money in the Cayman Islands? In otgher words, I am interested in INFORMATION (distinguishing me from the incompetent POLITICAL HACKS of the mediaj). I can make my own decision as to what to think of th information. Todya's media is only interested in teling you WHAT TO THINK about their "spin" on information, rather than reporting the neutral facts themselves.


Thus, hre is the question I would like to hear answered by Romney: "Mri. Romney, it has been reported that you have invested money in one or more Cayman Island based entities. Is that tre? Have you had acconts or investments nt he Cayman Islands? If so, how much and with what entities,. And why did you ut money in Cayman Island based entities, rahter than in United States entities and/or financial institutions? Yes, it might take more than one question to get the INFORMATION, but a real "journalists" could do it IF he were INTESTED. At the very least, such a real "journalist" could get Romney to explain why he thninks the detailed FACTS and REASONS are irrelevant.


This article was prompted by a 15 second "surf" of MSNBC this morning, where the reference to a Mitt Romney account in the Cayman Islands was used basically as an all-pupose set of CURSE WORDS. You know Something like: "You goddamned Cayman Island f------ rich guy have no business running for President of the 99%!!!!" I only exaggerate slightly.


Again, I would be MILDLY interested in the FACTS as to the connecton between Mitt Romney and the Cayman Islands. No, as with MSNBC, this will have NOTHING to do with why I oppose Mitt Romney for President. I already opose him for other reasons, as does MSNBC. Does the fact that Newt Gingrich got "consulting" money from Freddie Mac have anything to do with why MOST people who OPPOSE him do so? Not a chance. It is the other way around, as it is too often with the media. Still, the FACTGS regarding Gingrich and Freddie Mac have the potential to be a relevant consideration to weigh with ALL OF THE OTHER FACTS. That is someting that can't be said about Gingrich's personal, sexual life, which is not relevant at all. Similarly, the FACTS of Romney's "connection" to the Cayman Islands seem to me to have POTENTIAL relevance, even if they are hardly likely to be the mani factor in why you vote for or against Mitt Romey. I would be mildly interested in knowing those FACTS, without needing to know the business details of every transactin, so I could make up my own mind as to their impact (at least enough facts to make up my mind whether the whole subject has any relevance). I hae NO interest in peole merely using the Romney Cayman Island acccount as an alll-purpose SLUR onRomney.


P.S. No proofreading or spel checkng (bad eyesight). A political partisan, by the way, is perfectly free to "spin" the facts to suport his or her candidate. A "journlist", however, has a DUTY to develop the FACTS first, and present them, putting aside his own politcal partisanship to do so. Such a "journalist" no lnoger exists, although this blog DOES actually approach things the way a real "journalist" should, interested in the facts first. "Skip, how can you say that when you use such derogatory terms in describing people and when you have such an obviusly extreme political point of view?" I did not say that I do not have a strong (wich is the word I prefer instead of "extreme") political point of view, and I generally make clear what that point of view is. However, I do NOT deliberately distort facts to push my point of view. I may interpret facts through the prism of my own ideology (less htan most, I think), but I do NOT ditort facts because I am suporting a particular party or person. Nope. That is NOT true of the odern "journalist", who not only distorts facts for those reasons, but distorts them additoinally because his "profession" (now more and more like The Oldest Profession, except much worse) is al about 'storyline" and AMBITION for the "journalist". See Michael Crichton's "Airframe" for what I mean.--a novel that sketches out odern "journalism" with such devastating effet that I don't know how any "journalist" could read it and not feel a dagger has been inserted into his or her heart.

GOP Debate: Dull (Rcik Santorum Winner--Gringrich-Romney Race Not Much Affected)

I saw the whole NBC debate tonigh, and I don't know why. The questions were dull and not calculated ot get real INFORMATINO 9as no media queston is). Ther ewas no energy in the room. The answers were mainly dull. The reason I give the debate to Santorum i sbecaue of his LAST answer as to why he is the "real" conservative. Santorum actually had an edge, for a changed, in his answer, and he was CORRECT in everytnhing he said.


But did not Romney launch ATTACKS on Gingrich is a DESPERATE , negative attempt to tear newt down? Yes, Romney rried to actuallyl VIOLATE debate "rules", and simply "overwhlem" Newt with attacks as Romney jsut KEPT TALKING. Not effective, in my view. It certainly does not make me want to support ROMNEY. But wan't it "exciting"? Actuall, no. It ws like a TOOTHLESS, DCLAWED TIGER attacking a rubber doll. Gingrich chose not to "engage" with counterpunches, teh way he did with John King and Juan Williams. Newt just let the attacks bounce off. MAYBE that was "smart". I am not sure. I think Newt makes a mistake to suddenly start acting like a FRONTRUNNER. He needs to keep doing what brought him to this point, even though Brian WEilliams have him little chance (probably deliberately). I jsut wasnot impressed by either Romney or gingrich tonight. No, Gingrich did NOT "hurt" himself. But neither did he much help himself. Romney's OBVIOUS attempt to ATTACK at all cost, in a negative way, seemed DESPERATE and CALCULATED reather than effective.


I would give the Romney-Gingrich battle to Gingrich, except taht Gingrich had NO "Gingrich moment" where Gingrich gave an insight that no one esle on state gave, oris even capable of giving. When Gingrich is reduced to merely "shrugging off" attacks, and "explaining" the substance of his positions, he is NOT that good. As I think this blog has made clear, I am generally NOT impressed with Gingrich when he satrts talking aobu tPOLICY . I don't think Romney gets anywhere accusing Gingrich of "influence peddling", or callling him similar names. But Gingrich doesn't get too far when he talks about his "routine" ideas. No, I don't think Ginrich is especailly good talking abut his tax plan,--where the zero percent cap;ital gains rate can be criticized, as I have, as encouraging tax GAMES. Gingrich did get a softball questioin on the "Dream Act", and knocked it out of the park (getting to say that he likes the MILITARY SERVICE section of that act, which EVERYONE does, including me). In general, however, when Gingrich is reduced to being a regular politician, talking about the standard things, Gingirch comes across as the regular politican he CAN BE--not as someone who will easlily defeat Barack Obama in debatees. Gingrich id NOT easily defeat Mittt Romney tonight, and that is really a little bit of a SETBACK for Gingrich. Yes, it does showjust how strong that Gingrich has been in debates that I can say it is a "setback" for him not to clearly win--even though he did reasonably well and made no obvioius mistakes.


My advice to Gingrich: Do NOT assume that you can suddently start acting "Presidential" like Romney acted so long. Gingrich has to do better than that. My advice to Romney: you BETTER make a BETTER case for YOU, and not rely on TEARING DOWN Gingich with negative attacks.


Again, a DULL debate which really did not help ANYONE decide for whom to vote. Rick Santorum still comes across as teh consistent conservative in the race, but still can't seem to catch fire. Dull. That may slow Gingrich's momentum a LITTLE, but it hardly helped Romney. Did it help Santourm? I don't know. It should have helped him a little, but he has so LITTLE money, and franklyu so little 'charisma", that it probalby won't matter--UNLESS the other tw simply tear each otehr apart (possible).


Ron Paul was Ron Paul, altough he and Gingrich sort of "flirted wth each otehr" on stage. But Paul will do that sort of thing when invited, as Gingrich did try to appeal to Paul supporters. Doesn't mean much--other than that Romney just won't take ANY risks (even to the extent of taking abut Ron Paul being right on the Federal Reerve).


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

Newt Gingrich and Religion: Is Barack Obama a Muslim?

The headline is a trick question, because this blog has already labeled you a KIOK if you believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim (art of this blog's "your are a kook if:" series). Yep. My 89 yar old mother is a KOOK. What can I say? She is a woman and a lifelong Democrat (from th Great Depression, and FDR, her hero). I digress. The hedline arises because of this continuing agenda of the ANTI-CHRISTIAN mainstream media to both DEFEND Obama on religion and ATTACK the GOP andd conservatives ON RELIGION.


The particular "inspiraton" for this article was--a CNN report this time, I am pretty sure--TheAnti-Christian Network)--on an interview queston to Rick Santorum. The question was a direct attempt to SUYPPORT Barakc Obama on religoin, worded someting lik ethis: "Waht are you doing to make sure that the American peple do not believe this propaganda lie that Barack Obama is a Muslim.". You may think I am exaggerating the question, but the fact is that I am hardly exaggerating it at all. I have seen this done multiple times. The mainstream media seems to think it is a GOP RESPONSIBITIY to convince people that Barack Obama is a Christian. What is funny, of course, is that Barakc Obama is NOT a Christian, although he is not a Muslim either .Bill Maher (CNN/mainstream media favorite atheist) and I agree that Barack Obama is a "secular humanist"--in other words a LEFTIST who does not believe in ANY religion other than leftist ideology. But the mainstream media believe that they can "help" Barack Obama by putting GOP politicians "on the spot' by"making them" VALIDATE Obama's relgioin. Thi, of course, is desicable stuff (the media), but GOP poiticians have a problem because they will not act like Newt Ginrcih and ATTACK the qestioin< OR ATTACK Obama's record on religion (easily attacked). GOP politicians know that the mainstream meida is going to try to ATTACK them on attackng the President's religoin, and they are COWARDS.


Santourm, who this blog stil endorses, said that he has stated that BarackObama is not a Muslim, but feels no responsibility to go out every day and make it a missoni to convince people of that. Santorum is right about that, but the answer is nOT up to Gingrich standards.


I am often asked whether there is ANYTHING Newt Ginrich could do to get me to support him agaisnt Barack Obama (much les for the nomination). Okay. I am NEVER asked this, but I am going to anser it anyway. Actually, there is. Yes,, jumping on questions from Juan Williams and Joh King is a stepin the right direction, but not nearly enough. THIS would probably be enough:


Question to Gingrich from media person trying to support Obama on religion: "Don't yo feel an obligation to convince people that the President of the United Sates is not a Muslim, which you know he isn't/" Or: "You believe that Barack Obama is a Christian, don't yoou?" Yes, there could be any number of variations on this questiong. But this should be the Gingrich answer if he wants MY supoport:


"I see no evidence that President Obama is a Muslim, although I think he as undermined the secrity of Israel fully as effectively as if he were a radical Muslim. Do yoou really want me to give my personal opnion on his religion? I think his POLICIES are attacknig religion, but I thin it is not right to make a political issue out of a person's personal religious beliefs. I don't want to be thought to be evading a question, however, Do ou really want me to give my personal opinon on President Obama's religion?"


Questioner: "Yes, Mr. Speaker, President Obam ais being attacked on his religino. Dont yo feel an obligatin to defend or Preisdent against those attacks?"


Ginrch: "No. (followed by a puase). I agree with Bill Maher--at least what he has said in the past--that Barack Obama is not a believing Christian, but a secular humanist who reallly believes only in leftist ideology. Could I be wrong? Sure. I can't look withoin President Obama to see his soul. The balanceof the evidence, though , is that he is a hypocrite. He say he is a Christian when he thinks it is politically advantageous for him to do so. He then misquotes the Declaration of Indppendence to leave out "by their Creator'--to leave out GOD in what I think ws a deliberate attempt to avoid offending the ACLUL. He tallks about peole "clinging to their religin". And his POLITICES attck Christian religious groups, without any sensitivity to their sincere religious beliefs. I don't think that Preisident Obama' sperosanl religious beliefs should be a political issue, altough I think his ATTACKS on reltion should be. Bt, since you ask MY OPINIOIN, my opinin is that President Obama does not truly believe in any religion--including the Christian religion. "


Now if Newt Gingrich said something like THAT, I would be FORCED to support hm, despite the many reasons I have for not supporting him (not, by the way, having anything to do with his adultery or marriages or the like). ANY GOP politician with THAT kind of courage is a politican I would HAVE to support, despite my qualms, jsut as I will suport Ron Pual if no one else is left besides Romney and/or Obama.



The mainstream media is perfectly willihng to talk about the Moron religion being a cult, or to talk negatively abuot "evangelicals" or the "religious right'. They are even willing to talk about the religoius beliefes of GOP opoliticians, such as wehether they "believe" in evollution, or wheher homosexuaity is a sin. Someone HAS to CALL THIEM on this EVIL HYPOCRISY. If Newt Ginrich were to do that effectivel, I would have to FORGIVE ALL.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). For the record, once again (see previous articles), I an an AGNOSTIC (the same thing that Bill Maher callls himself). To me, that means I see things as they ARE, rather than through an agenda, as far as religion is concerned. The media, in contrast, is all about AGENDA, and they LIE when they try to make religion an "issue" for GOP candidates, but condemn it as an "issue" for Barack Obama. I repeat what is 95% certain to be the truth: Barack Obama is NOT a believing Christian, but a hypocrite.

Evangelicals and Or Anti-Christian Media

For the anti-Chrristian mainstream media, a GOP nomination campaign is all abut RELIGION, because the mainstream media blieves that they an successfullly DEMONIZE (pujn intended) the "religious right". Bhe mainsteam media believe that people in general do not really 'believe" in their religion, because the mainmsteam media people do not. Is the mainsteam medaia RIGHT on this? I am not totally sure,. I believe a LOT of people don't let their religion "interfere" with their LIFE, the way-for example--fundamentalist Christians do. In other words, religioin has no moe ffect on their THINKING and ACTIONS tghan it does on Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama. But it is easy to overplay this, and I believe the mainsteream media has long since gone overoboad on bein ANTI-CHRISTIAN (the real explanation of why so much of the mainstrream media comes across as PRO-MUSLIM). Doubt me? Never do that. It just makes you look foolish.


Here is what I heard on the LEFTIST MSNBC today (I think it was on MSNBC, althouth CNN is officially The Anti-Christian Network)--as the commentator was commenting on the mainstream media theme that relision "dominates" the GOP: ";You can see this operating in South Caroina, where Gingrich got more than 40% of the evangelical vote."


Say what/ You can't say someting like this, stating that Gingrich can thank kthe religious voter dominating the GOP for his victory. Welll, you CAN say it. I heard the MSNBC person say it. But all you do is expose yourself for the antiChristian, DISHONEST, political hack that your are. Gingrich got 40% of the vote of almsot EVERY GROUP in South Carolna That is the ONLY way you get a landslide. "Evangelicals voted JUST LIKE EVERYOHNE ELSE. Gingrich won among men Gingrich won among married women (among all women, as well). Gingrich won among conservatives. Gingrich won amon "independents" (a FICTITIOUS GROUP, of which I am a 'membe--just as all of this "grouping" is divisive, meaninglesss and somewhat fictitious). Gingrich AMOST won among "moderates". That is the only way you administer this kind of BUUTT KICKING. You have to win EVERHNOE. But for the anti-Christian BIOGTS of the mainstreammedia, it is all aobut "religious" GOP voters.


Just look at how BAD that statement I heard ws. The person was trying to make the pont that "evangelicals" (this "religious right" the mdia loves to HATE) gave Gingrich the victory in South Carolina by VOTING LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. Just how can you be any more DISHONEST than that? You can't.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Just for the record: I continue to be an AGNOSTIC myself (since the age of about 12-never hainvg been an "evangelical" in my life, althogh having been raised--to age 12--as a Presbyterian). I also OPPOSE Gingrich for President, although he is getting this ANTI-CHRISITAN attitude of our "elites" exactly right. My older daughter was aan intern for a justice on a United States Court of Apppeals while she was in Cornell Law School, My daughter told me that the judge for whom she worked (for college credit)--an obviously ESTABLISHMENT, ELITE guy seemed more concerend about this country becoming a THEOCRACY...........................................................................................Sorry, laughing/crying on the floor again, tthan any other "issue". My daughter, by the way, is like her father (if not nearly as smart) in not believing in any religion. As I said, Gingrich is getting this EXACTLY RIGHTHT. Our "elites" rally aer AFRAID OF peole hwho actually BELIEVE in their religion. As readers of this blog know, I am not (afraid of tose peple---nor do I look down upon them). It is too bad that my daughter is not nearly as smart as I am, although smarter than EVERY woman on the unfair and unbalanced network. I attribbute that to both our modern educatin systemn and teh fact that she is a WOMNA (even though i was forced to make that blog applogy to the women of South Carolina--especially the married women).

Haley Barbour and the GOP Establishment: Blog 5475, GOP Establishment 0 (Tomorrow's News Today)

Haley Barbour ws governor of Mississippi. Yet, he was NOT a consrvative. He was a GOP estalbishment guy, and is a depsicable human being (to quote Newt Gingrich on John King). This blog wrote at least one,, and probably more than one , article saing this about Halye Barbour BEFORE he made it clear by pardoning murderers with whom he happened to have personal contact--in complet3e disregard for the VICITMS, and the fact that the murderers had PREVENTED the VICTIMS from ever having the chance to make something better of their life. Some of you may wonder why I doggedly support the death penalty, even though we had shown that we are too COWARDLY to implement it without extreme cost and "Bleak House" kind of delay. This is the reason. IF we execute a murderer, at least yu won't have a LEFTIST (in his soul, like most of the GOP estaablishment politicians) come along and PARDON THEM. Even if they just stay on death row forever, it is HARD to do something really stupid like these pardons.


Yep. This is yet another example of this blgo being RIGHT IN FORESIGHT. This blog told you that Haley Bararour was a typical, despccable GOP estrabishment guy IN ADVANCE, and while peole like Rush Limbaugh and the peopole of the unfair and unbalanced netowrk, would still have been wiling to call Barbour a "conservative'. At the time I wrote the article(s) I am thinking of, Barbour ws onte of CNN's favorite "conservatives". This blog blew the whistle on him, as I think this blog had done even beffore than (I certainly knew it years ago). A CNN conservative (not limited to just those who apppear on CNN) bears the same relationship to a real conservative that a Cooper Indian (Mark Twian's satiric view of the Indian characters of James Fenimore Cooper) bears to a real Indian.


As this blog proves right time and time again about the GOP establishment, and GOP establishment politicians, you should be getting an idea of why I make this statement: Hell will freeze over and the sun will go out befoore I will EVER vote for another member of the GOP establishment (as it now exists), even if that person is running against Satan himself. Haley Barbour, as this blogo told you in advance, is a TYPICAL member of the GOP establishment. NO principles at all. NO honor at all. NO intelligence at all. The policians of the GOP estalbishment are clueless, as Mitt Romney is proving.


"But, Skip, who determines who is a member of the GOP estalbishment? If we can't even trust a Mississippi governor to be a real conservative, who can we turst?" Well, you can't TRUST any politician. Look at this blog's resent exposure of Marco Rubio as pretty much another GOP estalbishment politician. But you have no prolem--so long as I am around--determining who is part of this despicable GOP estalbishment.


That's right. It is I who determine who is part of t the GOP estalbishmennt mindset, and there is NO APPEAL from my decision. And there are NO PARDONS, short of maybe a posthumous pardon for (politically) throwing yourself on a grenade in the interest of a conservative cause you have somehonw embraced after your career as a no-principled GOP estalbishment person.


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

Obama Is Not a Christian, as Bill Maher and tThis Blog Agree

"Skip, I thought you said that it was EVIL to argue direct religious beliefs in a political campaign.'


I did. But I have also told you that I am NOT a Christian, and do not turn the other cheek. Read the previous article, and numerous others this blog has posted ove the past decade or so. CNN, and the entire mainstream media-including the unfair and unbalanced netwokr--are DETERMINED to make RELIGION a MAJOR topic in political campaings, so long as it is ut out THEIR WAY. That they want to do is HANG conservatives iwth THEIR view of religion in politics. I refuse to allow that.


If there is one thing you should realize, it is that I am perfectly willing to ARGUE RELIGION, and o note when the mainstream media are being RELIGIOUS BIOTS and ANTI-CHRISIIAN distorters of our Constitution.


Thus, you can expect me to use this headline about every onther day between now and November. First, it is TRUE. It is 95% certain that Barakc Obama is NOT a believing Christian. If he acted like the were, CNN and the rest of the mainsream media and the left would not support him. Nor would he, Obama, say th things he does, or do the things he does (like misquoting the Delcaration of Independece).


But Obama continues to CLAIM to be a Christian for POLITICAL CONVENIENCE 9votes). That makes our Presdient a HYPOCRITE. No, that does not ]man I think it is appropirate to make his "religious beliefs" (as distinguished from policies) adirect political issue. We just should nto be in the business of EVLUATING a person's connection with God, as part of public political campaigns (even if our beliefs influence us idividually). And it is only tthe DISONEST peole of CNN (and other media entities and people) who use "hypocrisy" as an EXCUSE to do EVIL Ype This ies exaclty true of these SMEARS like those of Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain. A person's personal life should nNOT be part of poli tical campaings (within reason), because it is SORDID and UNFAIR. We can't possibly, without massive infasiosn of privacy, KNOW that a person' real religious beliefs are, OR what a person's sexual "morality" is really like. The media wants us to discard the distinction between "public issues' and "privateissues' that used to prevail in American politics. That is what makes the media, among otehr things, so EVIL. Waht they "advocate" to be the basis of political campaigns is BACK FENCE GOSSIP and negative ad attaqcks (prfesented by TME, masquerading as "news").


Nope. This stuuff is really bad, but I refuse to levae the field of battele to these EVIL media peole. That means you will continue to see this headline. You will also see me continue to say this: I don't understnad how AnY Christian can voee for Barack Obama. No, it is not really that Obama is NOT a Christian, altough that is true. Obama is ANTI-CHRISTIAN, just like Bill Maher and CNN> I am NOT a Christian, and so I cannot fully udnerstand the Christian mind. But I am not sure WHY you would want to vote for a person who is YOUR ENEMY. Again, I am putting it in these terms because that is the field of batle upon which the media is fighting. It is, of coure, perfectly valied to say--correctly--that Obama is conducting a war on rligon (as Rick Perry did). That is NOT a "religious" issue. tat is a POLICY issue. But I dont likmit myself to that plicy argument, for reasons I have stated. I will continue to ARGUE the "religious" issues, because that is what the media is trying to do. I would advise GOP candidates to stick to OICY, as Newt Gingirch is doing. I am not running for anything, however, and I will take on CNN and the rest of the media on their own ground.


So you can expect me to ARGUE RELIGION, and Obama's lack of it, untiil at least November, ponitin gout the RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY of the media the whole time. CNN is The Anti-Christian Network, and you can expect this blog to say THAT all of the way to November (and beyond) ,.

John King, Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer: Evil, Evil Religioius Bigots on the Anti-Christian Network

Exit polls are EVIL things theselves. They are incaccurate and serve NO peruporse other than to attempt to DIVIDE us into groups. For John King, however, joined by Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer, however, exit pollss are even more EVIL than that. They repesent a tool for RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY (notto mention outright stupidity).


Now it turned out that almost ALL grooups voted for New Gingrich in a bbout the sam epercentage: "evangeliclas", "conservatives", "married women": They ALL gave a little more than 40% of their votes to Newt Gignrich. The onlyl groupo that did not was "moderatges", and Gingrich was pretty close to EVEN there. Plus, after the New Hampshire primary, polls were showng Mitt Romney with AT LEAST a 17 percentage point lead in South Carolina--polls at least as accurate (although just as eveil and meaningless) as the notriously inaccurate exit polls. Th eonly logical conclusion from this is that RELIGIION played NO part in the Gingrich landslide victory in South Carolina. This did not stop CNN from another attempt--part of their "storyline" on the GOP vote--to make RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE an Issue" in GOP politcis (but NOT Democrat poitics) . Thus, CNN attempted to USE the ONE evague exit poll question on religiojhn to advance the CNN EVIL AGENDA to make RELIGION a mjor part of the olitcal debate in the GOP nominiation. This was after Johking--world calas dishonest HPOCRITE---had said it was an EVI thinkg to make Oba'a's religion an "issue", because a eprson's religion (or lack therefo, in the case of Obama) should NOT be an "issue" in poolitics.


The vague exit poll question was: "Was your religion "veryimprotant" in your decisoin on how to vote; "somewhat importatn", and so on. Look how STUPID this question is. What does it even MEAN? If you REALLY believe in your religion, do you not believe that your religion is IMPORTANT in EVERY major decision that you make? Now the questin may have been worded someting like whether it was "imprtant" that a candidate SHARE your religious views, although again the quesint was MEANINGLESS (religious BIGOTRY, really, in the every question itself). But how did the DESPIBCABLE John King (shown to be that by THIS BLOG long before Newt Gingrich showed him to be despicable John King charcterize these voters, and this question, to NODS fraom the BIGOTED Anderson Coop[er and Wolf Blitzer? Here is how:


These people who vote for a cnadidate "BASED ON HOW HE PRAYS" voted like thi....." The hihgighted wores are an EXACT QUOTE!!!!!!!! I promise you,: I could never ake this up. I could not even imagine, even knowing CNN, that ONE MAN and ONE NETWORK could be this EVIL and BIGOTED. This truly is The Anti-Christian Network, and John King, Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper are anti-Chrisitan bigots on teh anti-Christian network This is also,needless to say, The Liar Network.


Did the exit poll questin say anything about peole voting based on "how candidates pray". Of course not, and the very idea is ABSURD. IT is EViL BIGOTRY rying desperately to USE religion--a religion against which CNNN is BIGOTED-as a SMEAR against the GOP. Newt ir ight on this one: "Our 'elites' are ANI-CHRRISTIIAN." That is certainly true of CNN in general, and John King, Anderson Cooper and Wolf Bitzer in particular. "based on how they pray" indeed. How can any person say something like that? Just how bad can Jon King be? I don't think we have even reached the depths of hwow bad he can be. If he will say something THIS BIOTED, there is no BIGOTED thing he would not think or say. As I said, this entire media "focus' on religion and the GOP is a deliberate SMEAR desinged to make religion---as religion--an"issue" on politcs? You doubt me on this? Never do that. Exlain, then why CNN eatured an article, and promoted it on ari, entitled "The Gospel according to Herman Cain." For CNN, the GOP i sall about "religion", the "Tea Party,", and all of those hother things agaisnt which CNN is PREJUDICED. CNN fully agrees with Obama about smal town voters (GOP voters) "clinging to their religion".


No. This is EVIL stuff,. In fact, it does nto really get any more evil than this kind of bigotry. John King, wo asserted on air that there was "no evidence" of "wrondoing" on Solyndra (a LIE), had NO EVIDENCE that people who said religion was "important" in the way they voted really voted "based on the way candidates pray". That just shows how ANTI-CHRISTIAN CNN really is. That is what John King and CNN think of religiion: it is just about the "way people pray". A peson who will say that, of course, cannot really believe in a religion. To people who really believe, eligion is FUNDAMENTAL TO YOUR LIFE. No, it is NOT fundamental to mine, because I am an AGNOSTIC. But iI am not BIOGED, and cluesless, like John King and CNN.


Let me come at this another way. Is a cnadidate's religion "improtant' to Joh King, Anderson Cooper and Wolf Bitzer when they vote? Is it important to Bll Maher (professed agnostic, like me, although really an anti-religous fanatic)? I am sure that these people would say "no", but they would be LYING. I am lplanning a foolow up article on the front page article of one of the main Tennessee newspapers, which my brother living in Nashville did not believe, talking about how the RELIGON of GOP CANDIDATES affects their "thinking" too much (really the very same BIGOTED pont that CNN is trying to push, and certanly believes).


Would John King votte AGAINST Rick Perry, for example, because of the "way he prays"? I guarantee that John King, Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper would vote AGAINST any person whose religioous beliefs are like Rick Perry's, or Rick Santorum's, because they think those religious beliefs lead to a state of mind that si comletely contrary to what CNN people think is proper. U understand that John Kin gwould DENY (dihonest lliar that he is) that he would vote against Rick Perry becaues of the 'way he prays'. He would be, of course, right, but only in the snesne I ham right that john kng has shown himself to be a dishonest, evil person. NO ONE--absoutely no one--would ever say that they vote agasint someone, or for someone, based on the "way he prarys. It is absurd to even say it, and John King is absurd. John King and Bill Maher are likely to vote for someone who is NOT a "undamentalist" Christian--because they think "fundamentalist" Christians don't share their 'values". They don't TURST them. And they know that they are likely to oppose their policy positions. Yet, that is ALL religious people are saying twhen they say that they want to vote for people who "share their religious valutes". They believe that their religous values are RIGHT, jsut as much as Billl Maher and CNN believe that their values are right. Piers Morgan, on The Gay Network, has said epeatedly that he thinks it is EVIL (in effect) to believe, and especailly to say, that homosexual conduct is a "sin". Do yuo believe that Peris Morgan would vote for people based on the "way they praY" (in the sense thae exit poll can be TWISTED in that EviL manner)? How can you not believe that. Peris Mragan would NEVER vote for a "fundamentalist" Christian, amd that is obviisly true of almost all of the peole at CNN. But we dont' have POLSS on that.


We don have pols on whether peole think Barack Obama is a Christian, which he is NOT (as Bill Maher and I agree). But those polls are then ATTACKED, as John King did, on the basis that EVIL people are tying to make "religon" an "issue" in politcs. Did I just ssay that John King, and CNN, have called John King and CNN EVIL. Damn right that is what I just said. It is CNN, and others in the media, that are trying to make the details of a person's religion into something to be exhaustively discussed as a POLITICAL ISSUE. Yep, It is CNN, and NOT either GOP politicans or evangelicals, who are trying to bring discusson of rellition directly into POLITCS. CNN ihas called that an evil thing (in essence) and CNN is right. John King, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer and CNN are EVIL people for trying to make religion into such a big "issue" in political discusson.


This blog tells you the truth. Three is NOTHING WRONG with a person wanting to vote for a candidate who shares that person's fundamental beliefs. This has NOTHING to do--notwistanding the despicable John King--with "the way a person prays'. It has to to with voing for a person who you are pretty confident SHARES YOUR VALIUES> What is WRFONG is to make RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE, or the DETAILS of religioous belief (such as wheth3er Mormonism is a "cult') in to a POLITICAL issue to be PUBLICCLY ARGUED> That is exaclty what CNN is trying to do, and what even most "fundamentalist" Christians are NOT tryihng to do. Are evangelical PASOTORS out therei CAMPAIGNING against Mitt Romney because a Mormon should never be President? No, except when CNN goes out and LOOKS for one--the BIOTS (referring to CNN). Evnagelical leaders may throw their support behind someone other than Romney because they think such candidate shares their values mroe (as CNNN believes that Brack Obama shares their values more than ANY fundamentalist Christian--especially one who is a member of the GOP)> But these evangelical leaders are NOT out there saying that there is no way you should ever vote for Romney because he is a Mromon. It may have SOMETHING to do with who they coose to support, just as the fact taht a candidate is a fundamentalist Christian may have someting to do with for whom John King votes, but they are not making it an ISSUE to be "argued' in the public arena. That is amost entirely CNN.


That is the difference between right and wrong--between good and evil--as to which CNN has no clue. There is NOTHING wrong with a person believing his or her religion is "important", , even in deciding for whom to vote. There is EVERYTHING wrong with trying to ARGUE RELIGION as part of our POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS (which is exactly what CNN is trying to do, in as dishonest a way as possible) .


As stated in previous articles, evangelical VOTERS have shown themselves to have more TOLERANCE than CNN and the media even come close to having. "Evangelicals' were READY to give Romney a BIG win in South Carolina, until Romney showed he had feet of clay (as a candidate). Evangelicals have shown that they are willng to vote for Gingrich--despite his "sins", and despite the fact that he is a CAHOLIC. Evangelicals have REFUSED to vote for the most OBVIOUS "fundamentalist Christians' in the race: Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. Reaons: Evanglecials are clearly willing to put their COUNTRY ahead of stict religious doctrine and religoius "judgment' on conduct. Even Rick Santorum is a CATHOLIC. I don't know how you were raised. But I was raised Presbyterina in a small Arkanssas town (Mt. Ida). I was basically "tuaght" that that the CATHJOLIC religion is WRONG--bringing all kinds of idol worshiop and other heresies into the original Chirstian faith ("saints", for examle). What, exactly do you think that the Protestant Reformation was all about? It was about the Catholic Chruch h=having CORRUPTED the Christain relgiion, with a lot of justice. You will remember that history tells us that the Caholic Chruch started SELLING CHURCH BENEFITS, and oterwis becoing obviously corrupt (see Will Duran'ts "Story of Civilization). Popes became POLITICAL, and even had mistresses and children. No, I am not intending to ATTACK the Caholic Churhc, although I was certainly not raised to admire it. The idea that GOP voteres are "voting their religion" is a CNN LIE>


GOP votes may--unlike Obama---tend to BELIEVE in their relgion more than leftist Demorats and CNN "journalists". Would I vote, by the way, for a RADICAL ISLAMIST who endorsed the INTOLERANT form of the Muslim relgion which is taught in Saudi Arabia (from which the Taliban and al-Qaida arose)?? Not a chance. In that sense, religion is important to ME. I actually have no problem with fjudamentalist Christian religions, as an agnostic, even if the thinking is alen to mine (even as we end up in the SAME political place) . Indded, I have NEVER had a "fundamentalist Christian" be UNKIND to me, even though I never misrepresent my religion (although I regard it as RUDE to act like the ACULU and try to TRASH another' preson's religion) I have my l Have my limits, however, and I refuse to support the intolerant religon of RADICAL ISLAM. I could NEVER vote for a person who believed in that version of Islam, and it has NOTHING to do with how "they praray". I still can't believe John King said that, but I heard him. I think I COULD, by the way, support a Msulim who made it clear that he did NOT support the intolerance of extreme IslamistsBut that is one case where I wuold expect the canddiate to make clear exactly what KIND of Muslim he was. The same would apply to the POLYGAMIST Mormon sects who are no lnger part of the Mormon relgion (even thought the BIGOTS at the AP--EVIL BIGOTS--had the nerve to run a "serious" news' story in 2008 taht Mitt Romney's grat-grandafter ahd been a polygamist). But I had no problem, unlike CNN, with regarding it as a SMEAR to assert taht Sarah Palin had belonged to a Christian church belonging to that Christian movement known for "speaking in tonges". That was CNN BIGOTRY, pure an dsmple. Religious doctrine does not concern me, unless it is doctrine of INTOLERANCE of other religos IN THIS WORLD (should be left to GOD) .


Now, when I use the word "intolerance", that is what I mean: intolerance of RELIGOUS BELIEFS that do not lead to human sacrifice, terrorism or the life. What CNN means when ththey talk about "tolerance' is "tolerance" of CONDUCT that is not part of the "way eple pray", at all. If you don't believe in abortion BECAUSE of your relligon, there is nothing wrong with that. Technically, if you reALLLY believe in teh Christian, you should believe that ALL morality comes from GOD,, includin gyour opposition to MURDER of an adult. Abortion is a SECULAR issue, no matter why you believe it should be illegal. That is ture of homsexual conduct, polygamy, incest, pedophilia, beastility, or any number of other things. It is a person's RELIGION that should no be a DEBATED political issue (like whether Catholics go to Hell, or whether Mromonism is a cult). Those thinhgs can be debated THEOLOGICALLY, and you may prefer to vote individually for someone who shares your IMPORTANT beliefs in this area, but it is an EVIL thinng to start debating these things as part of our political campaigns.


Nope. It is NOT okay to try to figure out whether religion has an "influence' in how people vote. In ther first palce, as with CNN, there is ALWAYS a hiddne political agenda. IN the second, palce, as stated, it DIVIDES us . Yep I DO think that it is REACIST tot try to separate racisl and ethnic groupos in terms of how they vote. So What? What are wesupposed to DO if Hispancis vote more for Democrats than the GOP? It is IRRELEVANT to any public policy issue, just as it is IRRELEVANT who evangelicals vote, as distinguished fomr FAT PEOPLE. It is just an invitatin to BIGOTRY, and that is how CNN uses it: to advance anti-Christian bigotry. No, even if 100% of Hispanics vote Democratic, it should NOT cause GOP politicians to change what they think is right for ALL of the peple If you don't underastand this, then you shuld appply to work in the mainstream media. We should, for example, do the RIGHT policy on illegal immigraitni, NOT the policy that "appeals" to Hispanic VOTERS. Sure, we should EXPLAIN to Hispanic voters why our olicy is RIGHT, , but his PANDERING to GROUPS is an evil thing encouraged by "exit polls" (and other polls).


Say 2/3 of evangelicals, or 3/3 of Hispanics, vote a certain way thinking they are advacing their "group interst". Is there ANY reason to assume that the 2/3 is right, and the 1/3 wrong? Nope. In fact,g read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", on whihc I did a term paper in my college philosophy class. Joun Stuart Mill's CORRECT idea of "liberty" can be summed up in this one sentence (foreign to leftist, including CNN): 'All of the people of the world but one are no more justified shutting up that one person, than that one person would be in shutting up the entire rest of the population of the world." Evangelicals have a right to ACT upon their religious beliefes, just like Bill Maher hass a RIGHT to actu upon his belief in "secular humanism" (which he corretly says Barak Obama shares). What evnagelicals, Bill Maher and CNN do NOT have a right to do is SHUT UP their opposition. CNN and leftists make much more effort to do tha than evalngelical Christians. You should see why I like Ron Paul, even though hI think he is (politically) NUTS. I am more conservative than I am libertarian, but I do have strong libertarian leanings. And you already know I am a SKEPTIC, becase I am a religouis agnostic (a real one, who is not even sure I am right, rather than a FALSE, intolerant one like Bill Maher and the anti-Christian bigots of CNN).


Jesus (pun intended). Voting "basedon the way they pray". I still don't believe that John King said that. He, and CNN, are WORSE than I thought, and my opinion of them was already as low as I thought it could get.


P.S ; No proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesight).