NBC has a story out today taht the stock market is doing well because Wall Strett expects (and wants) Obama to get re-elected. Rush Limaubh, today, rightly called that a CROCK. Problem: Rush has always been FULL OF IT on the stock market--having no clue--and this blog has told you so for years. When the stock market goes down, Rush says it is al because of Obama. When the stock market goes up, Rush says it is because of OTHER THINGS 9unless Bush is nin office, in which case it is and endorsement of Bush). This blog does ot palay those PARTISAN games, with no regard for the turth (which I don't even think Limbuagh knows about the stock market--it being merely convenient form him to blame Obama wehn things are going wrong ANYWHERE, and not credit Obama when some things are going right).
Thus, in (around) March of 2009, when the stock market was WAY DOWN, Rush Limbaugh was telling yoiu taht this was CONCLUSVVIE proof taht the "smartest people on the prospects of the economy (Wall Street) were telling you that Obama's policies were BAD for the econmoy. This, blog, IN FORESIGHT (even as people were saying this blog was anti-Obama all of the time), told Rush he was ful of ot, and did not lunderstand the stock market. For a long time now, the stock market has had LITTLE to do with the prospects fro the economy, because it has turned into a COMPUTER GAMING operation based totally on OOMENTUM and HYPE (to the extent it was ever anything else, and I do think there was a time when it was not qu;ite THIS bad). Therefore, I told Rush not to place such emphasis on Wall Streeet (The Stupidest People on Earth), because he would probably have to eat his words (no matter how bad Obama's polices were for the econmy, and tI agree with Rush that they have been bad).
Who was right, Rush? Maybe yoiu shoiuld apologize to Obama and the American peopele. I was right. You were wrong. And it had little to do with the econmy. From that low pont in 2009, the stock market went STRAIGHT UP for basically all of teh rest of 2009, before settling into a pattern of doing reasonably well in the fall/winter, and really badly in the summer (lthe old, computer driven, pattern since about 1994). Now this blog has told lyou that the ECONOMIC FASCISTS on Wall Street really are not "conservatives" (as Rush himself will tell you when he is not being PARTISAN), but that mainly means that they expect "Bailout Ben" Bernanke to take care of them . They expect to be the DOMINANT partners in economic policy, and they think Bernnke has given them that. I told yo uthee people are fools. No, they have not been especially against Obama, but look how absurd it is to say that the people Obama has called EVIL are al for HIM. No, this is a matter of HYPE and MOMENTUM--computer gaming. We are probably being set up for a wrenching DROOP in the summer, when Rush will tell you that is because Wall Street is afaraid Obama will get re-elected. It is really because there is almsot ALWAYS a wrenching drop by late summer. It is built into the computers. 2009, when wee were supposedly coming out of the recession and bouncing back from the computer-driven PANIC, was the main exception. NBC and Rush are the SMAME on this, and I was PROVEN right when I told Rush so in 2009. They are all DISHONEST, PARTISAN HYPOCRITES on this mater.
lDoubt me? Loook at 2997, when the stock market set RECORDS. Was NBC saying that meant Bush and the GOP had the right economic policies, and that Wall Street was encouraged by the prospects of a GOP victory int he next election? Dont be sily.. Like Limbaugh, these are PARTISAN people. Oh, did those RECORDS in 2006 predict the future? You must be crazy. At the very time the Dow was setting an ALL-TIME record, the ecoomy was poised to fall into the worst recessin since the Great Depression.
This blog has ong told lyo the truth. "Wall Street" is all about computers and hype now. There is very little connectin to the economy, or to reality. It is all fantasy. The only connectino with relity is that sometimes reality intrudes as a TRIGGER for the computers and hype. I have dexcribed it this way: There is no bottom, and there is no top (when the computer/momentum trading takes over).
More and more people, tired of the computer games and SMARTER than either Wall Street people or Rush Limbuagh, are recognizing the computer gaming CASINO that the stock mmarket has become. that iw why trading volue is WAY DOWN. The game is jsut too dangerous, unlesss you think you know how to play it. Does Wall street realy know how to play it? Of course not. YOU had to BAIL THEM OUT, or Wall Strett was going under. Now you may have been, and were, DUMB to bial them out, but that was more our leaders than you. Taht is economic fascism at work (the definition of which is a "partnership between bBig Business/Wall Strett to contorl the econm). If you want to call Wall Street peole "smart" for getting you to bail them out when they had DESTOPRYED THEMSELVES, then be my guest. I will continue the call them The Stupidest People on Earht (as I did BEFORE the econmic collapse in 2008). On this matter, as on most, you need to pay mroe attention to this blog than to Rush Limbuagh (often as it is that I agree with him).
"But Skip, you have contnued to 'play' the stock market." So I have. Have I said I am smart?" Okay, maybe I have. And I am. But I this is an area I let my ego get the better of me. I keep thinking I can outguess tlhese people on Wall Street. And generally I can. But where I was DUMB, and peole getting out of the stock market are SMART, is to think that I can ALWAYS outguess these wild sigzags in a computer trading casino. It is the same mistake Wall Strett lpeple made, and are still making (too STUPID to ever "learn" a single thing). It is the same tmistake that central planners make; the mistake that they can ALWAYS be right in "controlling" the economy from the top down. When they are wrong, and when I was wrong, it is DISASTE. That is what hapened to the economy, and it si what is continually happening to these computer/momentum traders on Wall Strett (even more to the people who might have once tried to "invest" rationally). Mistakes are ftal, and mistakes WILL occur (as they WILL occur in all central planning attempts to "control" the econmy).
So, be comforted. You may not really be as smart as I am,, but you have proven yourself much smarter if you have left these ocomputer gamers on Wall Street to play with themselves. Now if you are only smart enough to get rid of the politicans who keep BAILING OUT people deemed to be essential to the "system". No, this was NOT a "one-time" thing. The Feeral Reserve (Bernanke) is STiL bailing out banks and Wall Street (part of the reason the Fed has been up to its neck in the baiout of EUROPE). That is part of the reason why oil and gasoline prices are so high, not to mention food prices.
Well , I don't want to go too far afield The main pont here is that Rush Limbuahg keeps contrdicting himself on the stockmarket, as I TOLD you he would have to do in about March of 2009. NBC, of curse, is totally hopess, and I hope you never pay any attentin to them. I do listen to Rush fairly regularly, and (so lnog as you have a radar for when he is just being partisan) I actually think you SHOULD listen to Rush from time to time. If nothing else, it helps you read between the lines of the really terrible "journalists" out there, and be in a position to make up your own mind on what is really going on.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Oh, I do think the stock market is now in another BUBBLE (not that far from that all-time Dow high, desite the enormous risks out there). Thus, I am as much OUT of the stock market as I ever am, with most of my money (still not as much as a million sollars) in cash. Is the stock market expecting Obama to sell out the country (see previous article) and somehow stop gasoline prices from derailing this fragile ecoomy yet again.? You might think so, looking at the sotck market, but you would probably be wrong. You need to get it into your head, as Rush has not, that stock market actin is all babout COMPUTER GAMING. They don't think they have anythng to lose. Have they not been constantly BAILED OUT. So they will push the stock market up util that trade seems to be failing, and then the computers willush the stock market down. If any of this has anything to do with the real economy, it iwill be mostly an ACCIDENT.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
President Obama and the Strategic Oil Reserve: Politics and Policy
Last summer, for POLITICAL reasons, President Obama released oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve at a truly strange pont. Suyre, gasoline had spiked upwardin price, but the price of oil never even reached as high as it is NOW (as we are not even clsoe to Memorial Day). President Obama ended up releasing oil from the Reserve at a time when the price of oil was only abvout $95 a barrle--an incredibly stupid decision.
It didn't work. You may not remember last summer, but Obama's release of oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve had NO effect on the price of oil or gasolien. The price did eventually go down, but it ALWAYS does at the end of summer (absent things like massive cold spells in teh fall or diisruptons in suppply). The price of both oil and gasoline is now well ABOVE the same time last year. As this blog has told you, the ONLY relevant comparison is this year with the same time last year, and that news has been consistently BAD.
Thus, President Obama FAILED last summer to do anything about the price of gasoline, except make it worse (iwth things like htat moratorium on drilling). Gingrich is absolutely right on this; Obama has a dilemma. His POLICY on energy DEMANDS that the price of oil and gasoline GO UP . No matter what Obama says, as Liar-in-Chief, everyone knows that he is AGAINST actually making an effort to produce MORE OIL. I know that Obama "claims cerdit" for increased oil productin, but that is absurd. Obama himself has OPPOSED oil drilling on ththe gorounds that new oil sources cannot be brought "on line' for 5 or 7 years, or whatever number he feels like using. Any "increased" oil productin is the result of twon thnings;
1. When the price goes lup, wells and fields that were no longer economic to produce become economic again, and more oil gets produced from EXISTING wells (nothing to do with Obama).
2. Oil goes into productin from well projects started years ago. Thus, Obama's INTERFERECNCE with efforts to increase oil productinon, and things like blocking the Keystone pipeline, will hurt U.S. production for YEARS to come. And it will get worse, if Obama gets re-elected, as he really does not--as an idological matter--WANT more oil production.
That leaves Obama with a problem There is nothing he WANTS to do to realy increase American oil production. Even if this were not true, nothign he could do would be effective this summer (althogh the psychological effect on the price is underestimated). If peole KNOW that mroe oil will be producted in the future, they are more willing to sell as much as they can NOW because they feel the price will be lower later. Obama has had exactly the opposite effect. This is true even of OPEC, which would beging to worry if the U.S were makng a major push to add to oil production.
Since, however, there is nothing Obama is willig to do, and not that much he can do for this summer (which was nOT true at the time he was electted, and over the previus 3 years), I PREDICT that President Obama will again release oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve this summer FOR POLITICAL REASONS. That, of course, is a perversion of the purpose of the Strategic Oil REserve, as it was last summer. The Strategic Oil Reserve is stehre to deal with an EMERGENCY disruption of supply--not to manipulate th eprice (which last summer showed is not that easy to do). I have confidence in our Presdient. I think it is certain he will be willing to seell out our country this ummer for his own political gain.
"Wait a second, Skip< I remember that you criticized President Bush for continuing to BUY oil for the Strategic OIl Resrve as oil was siking in price to $120 a barrel and above.' Right you are, and I faovr a consistent POLICY on the Strategic Oil Reserve: BUY LOW AND SELL HIGH.
What is the difference between me and Obama? I am not propsing a "knee jerK POOLITICAL reactin, but a consistent policy to try to reduce the COST of the Strategic Oil Reserve, and build it up. And I don't propose doing this to manipulate/control the price. That is a loser's game. What I would do is simple. I would USE 10% of the Strategic Oil REserve as a FLOAT to IMPROVWE the positin of the REserve, and reuce our cost. Thus, I would actually pass a law that the Presdient MUST start selling oil out of the Reserve when the price of a barrel of oil (that tyope of oil quoted on the NYMEX) goes above $110 a barrel (which it never did last summer), and with NO authority to sell oil below $105 dollars a barrlel from the Reserve. Then REQUIRE the Preisdent to REPURCHASE the oil if and when the pice goes below $70 a barrel. That would include authority to ADD to the Reserve as the pirce goes lower. IF we had done that, in 20009, we could have BOUGHT oil for the Reerve (expanding the Reserve) at as low as $35 a barrel, and now SOLD some of that oil at $110 a barrel (it loooks like). By low and sell high. The idea is NOT to manipulate price although yo can see this POLICY would have a possible benefit of reducing speculation. The idea is simply to keep expanding the Reserve, using only f10% of the Reerve, by essentially HEDGING against both rises and falls in the price of oil. You could adjust the details, but you should get the idea. It is insane, especailly when a military acitn ispossible in Iran, or BY IRAN, to takeacitn with regard to the Reserve for POLITICAL reasons. Teh eletin of Barack Obama is just not that important, except to him. But if we set down a definite policy to ADD to the REserve over time, but not at additonal cost (instead, actually MAKING money), that would have the potential of major benefits. It is only a mnor "benefit" that SOME of the speculation would be diriven out of the oil market as these top and btoom "limits" were about to be reached. AGain, this would NOT "contgrol" teh price. It would jsut be a mnor aid in stabilizing the market, with the main purpose of HLEPNG expand the Reserve without cost.
It would have workedd (in 2008 and 2009, and now). Would it always "wrok"? Of coure not. IF we follow Obama's policies and don't expand our production of oil, we will eventually face a SUPPLY/DMAND imbalance that will cause the price of oil to go up PERMANENTLY. However, in that case all we will have "lsot" is 10% of the Reserve, and we are in big trouble anyway. Or maybe some REAL "alternative" fuel will be developed which can COMPETE in price with oil (does not now exist). In taht case, the price of oil might permanently DROP. In the meantime, I see no reason not to PLAY with the flucctuations with a MINOR part of the Reerve to try to STREENGTHEN the Reserve.
You don't like the idea of ' "specualting" with the Strategic Oil REserve? Well, I don't regard this as "speculation", but--as stated---as a kind of hhedge attmepting to expand the Reeerve without cost to the taxpayers (over time) . However, I agre with you that thisis a DNGEROUS toy to give POLITICIANS. Would hthey have the discipline to only do this kind of thing with 10% of the Reserve, and to follow the DISCIPLINE of buyig low and selling high? I undrstand your skepticis here, and I am not sure myself that I trust the politicians to follow through on thsi good idea.
But look how BAD Obama and the politicians actually are. To them, the Strategic Oil Reserve is a an irresistible TOY to play with for POLITICAL resons (not some ratinal, consistent policy of enhancing the Reserve). The inevitabel result of this is that somone like Preisdent Obama is almost SURE to "use" the Reerve for POLITICAL GAIN (at risk to the country). What is the only "saving grace" here? Right. If the Middle East/Iran blow up BEFORE Obama can tap into the Reserve for his re-elecitn, then we may be "saved" (lol). In other words, we seem to be in a race as to whether we will SQUANDEWR the Reserve for political reasons before we NEED it for national security/total disruptin of supply reasons.
Oh, did you now that there is ENOUGH oil in the world? There is. It is POLICY that is killing us, including the inflationary policy of "Bailout Ben" Bernanke at the Federal REserve. We should have dreilled in ANWR a decade ago If we had takne this problem seriously, without complicating it with the RELIGION of "gloabl warmign", we would be in pretty good shape now. And Bernanke's attempt to INFLATE our way out of trouble may yet DESTROY us on that fromnt (the pirce of oil being only one conseauence of that particular idiocy) .
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
It didn't work. You may not remember last summer, but Obama's release of oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve had NO effect on the price of oil or gasolien. The price did eventually go down, but it ALWAYS does at the end of summer (absent things like massive cold spells in teh fall or diisruptons in suppply). The price of both oil and gasoline is now well ABOVE the same time last year. As this blog has told you, the ONLY relevant comparison is this year with the same time last year, and that news has been consistently BAD.
Thus, President Obama FAILED last summer to do anything about the price of gasoline, except make it worse (iwth things like htat moratorium on drilling). Gingrich is absolutely right on this; Obama has a dilemma. His POLICY on energy DEMANDS that the price of oil and gasoline GO UP . No matter what Obama says, as Liar-in-Chief, everyone knows that he is AGAINST actually making an effort to produce MORE OIL. I know that Obama "claims cerdit" for increased oil productin, but that is absurd. Obama himself has OPPOSED oil drilling on ththe gorounds that new oil sources cannot be brought "on line' for 5 or 7 years, or whatever number he feels like using. Any "increased" oil productin is the result of twon thnings;
1. When the price goes lup, wells and fields that were no longer economic to produce become economic again, and more oil gets produced from EXISTING wells (nothing to do with Obama).
2. Oil goes into productin from well projects started years ago. Thus, Obama's INTERFERECNCE with efforts to increase oil productinon, and things like blocking the Keystone pipeline, will hurt U.S. production for YEARS to come. And it will get worse, if Obama gets re-elected, as he really does not--as an idological matter--WANT more oil production.
That leaves Obama with a problem There is nothing he WANTS to do to realy increase American oil production. Even if this were not true, nothign he could do would be effective this summer (althogh the psychological effect on the price is underestimated). If peole KNOW that mroe oil will be producted in the future, they are more willing to sell as much as they can NOW because they feel the price will be lower later. Obama has had exactly the opposite effect. This is true even of OPEC, which would beging to worry if the U.S were makng a major push to add to oil production.
Since, however, there is nothing Obama is willig to do, and not that much he can do for this summer (which was nOT true at the time he was electted, and over the previus 3 years), I PREDICT that President Obama will again release oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve this summer FOR POLITICAL REASONS. That, of course, is a perversion of the purpose of the Strategic Oil REserve, as it was last summer. The Strategic Oil Reserve is stehre to deal with an EMERGENCY disruption of supply--not to manipulate th eprice (which last summer showed is not that easy to do). I have confidence in our Presdient. I think it is certain he will be willing to seell out our country this ummer for his own political gain.
"Wait a second, Skip< I remember that you criticized President Bush for continuing to BUY oil for the Strategic OIl Resrve as oil was siking in price to $120 a barrel and above.' Right you are, and I faovr a consistent POLICY on the Strategic Oil Reserve: BUY LOW AND SELL HIGH.
What is the difference between me and Obama? I am not propsing a "knee jerK POOLITICAL reactin, but a consistent policy to try to reduce the COST of the Strategic Oil Reserve, and build it up. And I don't propose doing this to manipulate/control the price. That is a loser's game. What I would do is simple. I would USE 10% of the Strategic Oil REserve as a FLOAT to IMPROVWE the positin of the REserve, and reuce our cost. Thus, I would actually pass a law that the Presdient MUST start selling oil out of the Reserve when the price of a barrel of oil (that tyope of oil quoted on the NYMEX) goes above $110 a barrel (which it never did last summer), and with NO authority to sell oil below $105 dollars a barrlel from the Reserve. Then REQUIRE the Preisdent to REPURCHASE the oil if and when the pice goes below $70 a barrel. That would include authority to ADD to the Reserve as the pirce goes lower. IF we had done that, in 20009, we could have BOUGHT oil for the Reerve (expanding the Reserve) at as low as $35 a barrel, and now SOLD some of that oil at $110 a barrel (it loooks like). By low and sell high. The idea is NOT to manipulate price although yo can see this POLICY would have a possible benefit of reducing speculation. The idea is simply to keep expanding the Reserve, using only f10% of the Reerve, by essentially HEDGING against both rises and falls in the price of oil. You could adjust the details, but you should get the idea. It is insane, especailly when a military acitn ispossible in Iran, or BY IRAN, to takeacitn with regard to the Reserve for POLITICAL reasons. Teh eletin of Barack Obama is just not that important, except to him. But if we set down a definite policy to ADD to the REserve over time, but not at additonal cost (instead, actually MAKING money), that would have the potential of major benefits. It is only a mnor "benefit" that SOME of the speculation would be diriven out of the oil market as these top and btoom "limits" were about to be reached. AGain, this would NOT "contgrol" teh price. It would jsut be a mnor aid in stabilizing the market, with the main purpose of HLEPNG expand the Reserve without cost.
It would have workedd (in 2008 and 2009, and now). Would it always "wrok"? Of coure not. IF we follow Obama's policies and don't expand our production of oil, we will eventually face a SUPPLY/DMAND imbalance that will cause the price of oil to go up PERMANENTLY. However, in that case all we will have "lsot" is 10% of the Reserve, and we are in big trouble anyway. Or maybe some REAL "alternative" fuel will be developed which can COMPETE in price with oil (does not now exist). In taht case, the price of oil might permanently DROP. In the meantime, I see no reason not to PLAY with the flucctuations with a MINOR part of the Reerve to try to STREENGTHEN the Reserve.
You don't like the idea of ' "specualting" with the Strategic Oil REserve? Well, I don't regard this as "speculation", but--as stated---as a kind of hhedge attmepting to expand the Reeerve without cost to the taxpayers (over time) . However, I agre with you that thisis a DNGEROUS toy to give POLITICIANS. Would hthey have the discipline to only do this kind of thing with 10% of the Reserve, and to follow the DISCIPLINE of buyig low and selling high? I undrstand your skepticis here, and I am not sure myself that I trust the politicians to follow through on thsi good idea.
But look how BAD Obama and the politicians actually are. To them, the Strategic Oil Reserve is a an irresistible TOY to play with for POLITICAL resons (not some ratinal, consistent policy of enhancing the Reserve). The inevitabel result of this is that somone like Preisdent Obama is almost SURE to "use" the Reerve for POLITICAL GAIN (at risk to the country). What is the only "saving grace" here? Right. If the Middle East/Iran blow up BEFORE Obama can tap into the Reserve for his re-elecitn, then we may be "saved" (lol). In other words, we seem to be in a race as to whether we will SQUANDEWR the Reserve for political reasons before we NEED it for national security/total disruptin of supply reasons.
Oh, did you now that there is ENOUGH oil in the world? There is. It is POLICY that is killing us, including the inflationary policy of "Bailout Ben" Bernanke at the Federal REserve. We should have dreilled in ANWR a decade ago If we had takne this problem seriously, without complicating it with the RELIGION of "gloabl warmign", we would be in pretty good shape now. And Bernanke's attempt to INFLATE our way out of trouble may yet DESTROY us on that fromnt (the pirce of oil being only one conseauence of that particular idiocy) .
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Rick Santorum's Problem: Delegates
No, Rick Santoum's problem now is not fundamentally "social issues". It is not Romney's money. It is not even the GgOP establishment. All of those things, and others, arfe now details.
The race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama showed a fundamental truth: At some pont, the DELEGATE COUNT becomes virtuallyl impossible. Rick Santourm may be approaching that pont.
The problem is that Michigan may have been about the LAST individual sae where a Santorum victory would have made enogh of a difference to shift the delegate count. Remember, Romney is on the ballot in Virginia, while Santorum is not . No, again, Santourm is appproaching the pont where this MATTERS, because romney is going to PILE UP delegates, even if Santourm goes into individual states and icks them off. Taht is what happened to Hillary Clinton. She wsa winning states, but had no way to close the DELEGATE COUNT. Say Santouarm CONCENTATES on Ohio, and WINS Ohio on Super Tuesday. So what? Unless Santourm starts acually winning delegates, Roney's delegate lead is gong to simply grow. Romney has the oney to compete EVERYWHERE, and to simply use his organization to get some delegates here and delegates there. Santourm is not going to be able to match the money, which was why Michigan was impoortant. Romney's main advantage ha always been that he is loooked at as the "inevitable" candidate. That pr9oved to be WRONG, but the estalibshment still managed to pull it out for Romney, evenas the rank-and-fle gave every indicatin they did not want Romney. No, it is NOT even a matter of Romney being the "best" candidate to beat Barack Obama. Even the estab\lishment, I think, is realizing that may not be true, But Romney remains the SAFE candidate (in termsof simply getting "blown out', which was the advantage McCain had agaisnt Romney in 2008). The estalibshment ALWAYS looks at the most conservative candidates as "unsafe".
Again, however, this business of who can defeat Barack Obama is close to becoming irrelevant. At this pont, Santourm MUST HAVE A DLEGATE STRATEGY. I don't think "knocking out" Romney is even a possibliity, after Arizona and Michigan. Santourm is gong to have to sart winning ULTIPLE states, and fast. It is not going to do any good to claim "moral" victories,or even real victories in isolated staets. Hillary Clinton found that out, once the arithmetic is definitifely against you. Santourm can calaim a "mral" victory in Michigan. And it was NEVER real that Santourm had a "10 pont lead" in Michigan. Thos kind of polls have always been absurd. Sahtourm was always facing a major hurdle in Michigan.,m once Romney put all of his resources to bear. Santorum actually did wel, but it doeshim almost NO god. Santourm ahad his opportunity, but he just did not come across as enoguh of a charismatic politican to pull it off. The odds are now severly against Santourm, because Santourm is going to face ARITHMETIC. That will grind him down, and NO one or two victories will matter. yep I am saying Santourm now needs a "game changer", and that some unexpected vicotry is an individual state can no longfer provide that. Tonight, it looks more than it ever has that Rmney will be the GOP nominee. No, it will not matter to this blog. Tehre is still no way I will support RomneyA miracle could happen, and Snatourm someow pull it out. If not, I will be where I thought I would be: Looking at the November electin basically fromt he outside, without endorsing any candiatge in the general electin.
Note how this blog was RIGHT, as usual, on Newt Gingrich. Gingrich's only chance to even have an impact in this race was for Romney to LOSE in Michigan. Gingrich support is fading away, and his only cahnce was to derail Romney and hope for a miracle. Instead, the clueless Gingrich made attacks on Santourm right before Micihinga. That still is inexplicable to me, although it may be that the media entirely exaggerated just how hard Gingrich was attackng Santourm in Michigan. Gingrich, however, should not have been attackng Santourm at all. He needed to be doing everything he could against Romney (and Obama), hoping that Ropmhnney would lose Micigan, giving Gingrich a chance to back into the delegate race later. Nowe, I don't see a way froward for Gingrich. Of course, Gingrich may already have privately conceded defeat, and is just trying to "mend fences" with Romney and Romney supporters. Good luck, Newt.
In short, we are notw almsot at the "tippping ponit" on delegates, where it will be almsot imossible for Romney to lsoe the nomination simply because he will be able to accumulate enough delegates no matter what the results in individual states.
I call them as I see them. It is not quite over, but the fat lady may be about to sing.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). My brother tels me my typing is getting WORSE. What can I say. If I were getting paid for this, I would try to figure out a way to have someone else proofread this blog. As it is, I am afraid things will remain pretty much the same. If I had not used lup all of the sympathy I was born with at age 10, I would symlpathize with people who try to wade throught he word puzzles I provide for you. As I have no sympathy left for anybody, all I can say is my usual: Let it be a challenge to you. I make it worse for myself by being so wordy, but (like Romney--lol) I can only be who I am. I have never been able to keep within a Twitter character limit in my life.
The race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama showed a fundamental truth: At some pont, the DELEGATE COUNT becomes virtuallyl impossible. Rick Santourm may be approaching that pont.
The problem is that Michigan may have been about the LAST individual sae where a Santorum victory would have made enogh of a difference to shift the delegate count. Remember, Romney is on the ballot in Virginia, while Santorum is not . No, again, Santourm is appproaching the pont where this MATTERS, because romney is going to PILE UP delegates, even if Santourm goes into individual states and icks them off. Taht is what happened to Hillary Clinton. She wsa winning states, but had no way to close the DELEGATE COUNT. Say Santouarm CONCENTATES on Ohio, and WINS Ohio on Super Tuesday. So what? Unless Santourm starts acually winning delegates, Roney's delegate lead is gong to simply grow. Romney has the oney to compete EVERYWHERE, and to simply use his organization to get some delegates here and delegates there. Santourm is not going to be able to match the money, which was why Michigan was impoortant. Romney's main advantage ha always been that he is loooked at as the "inevitable" candidate. That pr9oved to be WRONG, but the estalibshment still managed to pull it out for Romney, evenas the rank-and-fle gave every indicatin they did not want Romney. No, it is NOT even a matter of Romney being the "best" candidate to beat Barack Obama. Even the estab\lishment, I think, is realizing that may not be true, But Romney remains the SAFE candidate (in termsof simply getting "blown out', which was the advantage McCain had agaisnt Romney in 2008). The estalibshment ALWAYS looks at the most conservative candidates as "unsafe".
Again, however, this business of who can defeat Barack Obama is close to becoming irrelevant. At this pont, Santourm MUST HAVE A DLEGATE STRATEGY. I don't think "knocking out" Romney is even a possibliity, after Arizona and Michigan. Santourm is gong to have to sart winning ULTIPLE states, and fast. It is not going to do any good to claim "moral" victories,or even real victories in isolated staets. Hillary Clinton found that out, once the arithmetic is definitifely against you. Santourm can calaim a "mral" victory in Michigan. And it was NEVER real that Santourm had a "10 pont lead" in Michigan. Thos kind of polls have always been absurd. Sahtourm was always facing a major hurdle in Michigan.,m once Romney put all of his resources to bear. Santorum actually did wel, but it doeshim almost NO god. Santourm ahad his opportunity, but he just did not come across as enoguh of a charismatic politican to pull it off. The odds are now severly against Santourm, because Santourm is going to face ARITHMETIC. That will grind him down, and NO one or two victories will matter. yep I am saying Santourm now needs a "game changer", and that some unexpected vicotry is an individual state can no longfer provide that. Tonight, it looks more than it ever has that Rmney will be the GOP nominee. No, it will not matter to this blog. Tehre is still no way I will support RomneyA miracle could happen, and Snatourm someow pull it out. If not, I will be where I thought I would be: Looking at the November electin basically fromt he outside, without endorsing any candiatge in the general electin.
Note how this blog was RIGHT, as usual, on Newt Gingrich. Gingrich's only chance to even have an impact in this race was for Romney to LOSE in Michigan. Gingrich support is fading away, and his only cahnce was to derail Romney and hope for a miracle. Instead, the clueless Gingrich made attacks on Santourm right before Micihinga. That still is inexplicable to me, although it may be that the media entirely exaggerated just how hard Gingrich was attackng Santourm in Michigan. Gingrich, however, should not have been attackng Santourm at all. He needed to be doing everything he could against Romney (and Obama), hoping that Ropmhnney would lose Micigan, giving Gingrich a chance to back into the delegate race later. Nowe, I don't see a way froward for Gingrich. Of course, Gingrich may already have privately conceded defeat, and is just trying to "mend fences" with Romney and Romney supporters. Good luck, Newt.
In short, we are notw almsot at the "tippping ponit" on delegates, where it will be almsot imossible for Romney to lsoe the nomination simply because he will be able to accumulate enough delegates no matter what the results in individual states.
I call them as I see them. It is not quite over, but the fat lady may be about to sing.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). My brother tels me my typing is getting WORSE. What can I say. If I were getting paid for this, I would try to figure out a way to have someone else proofread this blog. As it is, I am afraid things will remain pretty much the same. If I had not used lup all of the sympathy I was born with at age 10, I would symlpathize with people who try to wade throught he word puzzles I provide for you. As I have no sympathy left for anybody, all I can say is my usual: Let it be a challenge to you. I make it worse for myself by being so wordy, but (like Romney--lol) I can only be who I am. I have never been able to keep within a Twitter character limit in my life.
Rick Santorum and Strage Media Attacks (Matt Drudge, Guest Villain)
This blog is simply never wrong. I told lyou that Drudge (drudgereport.com--a quck source for a larger variety of "new" stories than you will get from, say, Yahoo "News")is "all in" for Mitt Romney. That was again PROVEN today, as the Drudge baner headline is the NON-STORY: "SANTORUM BEGS DEMS FOR SUPPORT".
It should be no wurprise to you that this is ROMNEY'S latest attemt to SMEAR Santorum. Facts? Santorum used "robocalls" (used, of course, by Romney as well) to ask DEMOCRATS for their support in Michigan's primary. Romney called this the "low point" of the camaing. It may be, FOR ROMNEY.
Democrats can vote in the Michigan primary, as I voted for Hillary Clinton in the GOP primary in Texas in 2008 (there being no such thing as a 'registered Republican" or "registered Democrat" in Texas, except as you declare yourelf on electin day). The question is: What is WRONG with Rick Santorum "reaching out" to Democrats? Santorum's favoritism for "manufacturers" is NOT one of the things I lie about him, but he has CONSISTENTLY made this pitch for Reagan Democrats part of his campaign.
Yep, the media-including especially the unfair and unbalanced network) are HYPOCRITES on this. Mitt Romney, as John McCain before him, is CAMPAIGNING almost entirelyl on his ability to go beyond conservatives to get votes to defeat Barack Obama. Ype. I jsut called Romney a HYPOCRITE too. Romney can't simultaneouslly say he is unwilling to 'pander" to the raw meat loving GOP "bawse" by attacking Obama harshy, and then criticize Santourm for "reaching out" to Democrats. NO. There is NOTHING WRONG with inviting members of the opposing party to vote in our primary when that is part of the state system. If there ws something WRONG with it, then palaces like Michigan and Texas would LIMIT the voters to party "members". The REASON that the voters are no so limited is that political parties generally WANT more voters, and it really is persuasive that voters should not be "straightjacketed" into choosing a political party in order to vote in a primary. This laves it open to members of the oterh party to "sabotage" the nomination selection of the otehr party, but that reallyl has not been shown to be a real factor in results. Again, what is WRONG with Santourm reaching out to the SAME voters to which he has been trying to appel the whole lectin? Romney has al of this MONEY that Santourm cannot match. And Romney is constantly trying to appeal to "moderates", evn as he keeps saying HE is the "real conservative".
No, for Romney to WHINE aobut this is indeed, a low poknt in this campaign: FOR ROMNEY.
Is there anythgn wrong, by the way, in a cnadidate saying that the MEDIA is tryng to pick the nominee, and suggesting that a person like Joh McCain is using the "oopen primary" to attract peole who will not help him in the general electin? No, there is nothing wrong with using that as a POLITICAL point. Romney's problem is that the media is FOR HIM. If Romney were able to show that there was some sort of campaign against him, AS A COPNSERVATIVE, then that would be a legitimate political pont. Romney's problem is that he is hypocritically trying to do the impossible: calim he is the CONSERVATIVE in the race, while the GOP estalbishment, the media,, and "moderates" are trying to DESTROY Santorum as the "extreme conservative" in the race. Romney cannot hav eit both ways, athough he is cretainly trying.
Yep. I did tell you, as I did as earlly as a few months ago, that the unfair and unbalanced network is "all in" for Romney, alng with Drudge and so many "estalbishment" GOP types. The unfari and unbalanced netwrok, INCLUDING SEAN HANNITY (who I have never much liked because he has a corporate cable TV mind, desite the fact I agree with him on almost all individual issues), is pickng up on EVERY "charge" against Santourm that Romney or the mainstream media makes. Thus, Hannity asked Santourm aobut these robcallss asking for Demo suport., as Hannnity and his network have done as to EVERY "charge" aainst Santorum by either Romney or the mainstream medi. NO. This is NOT "fair" or "balanced". If ALL you do is ask a candidate about CHARGES (no matter how ridiculous, as Romney's ridiculous idea that there is somwthing "wrong" with asking from Democrats to vote for you), that PREVVENTS a candidate like Santorum from getting otu his "message". This is the same tactic used against Santourm n "social issues", where Santourm is made to appear ALL aobut "social issues", because ttaht is ALL he is asked about.
But I have already told you to boycott the unfair and unablancednetwork. It has nO redeeming sociial vlaue, and I now surf CNN MORE (a better source for matreial, and why watch "CNN light" when you can go right to the hard stuff).
I did think it was time for another "told lyou so" on Drudge. I am disapponted in Drudge, even though I well knew that his banner headlines (sometimes clever, although not here) are the one area on Drudge were you can count on Drudge's own agenda being expressed. This is a MINOR story--where Santourm did not even do anything arguably wrong--where the attempt is to blow it up into a major "scandal. Sorry, Romney, Drudge, Haniity, unfair and unbalanced network, et. al. All llyou have done is make me lose erespect FOR YOU ALL.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). By the way, it is becoming ever more clear to me that Ropmney CANNOT WIN if he he is the nominee. Oh, I still think Obama can LOSE (and may lose, even against Romney and without Romney having my suport), but Romney is incapble of running a winning campaign. And Romney CANNOT "win" based on a NEGATIVE campaingn agasint Obama, becaue Romney will NOT (as Santorum has said) ahve the advantages he has now. The main advantage is MEDIA SUPPORT for any "charge" he wishes to make. That will NOT be the case agasint Obama, and Romney wil be on the other end. Since all Romney has shown is that he MAy be able to get the GOP nomination with a NEGATIVE camaign, why do I even say Obma can LOSE to Romney? Easy. It does nto matter what Romney, or AnY GOP candidate does, if Obama manages to virtualllly DESTROY the U.S. ecomy by election day (or if nay one of a number of things break rongg for Obama in the owrold). Against Romney, Obama CAN LOSE. Romney cannot "win" (affirmatively). That is why it is a total myth--a myth that has been exposed--that Rmney is "more electible". That is not the cae. We may not really know whether Santourm can do any better than Romney, but I hink Romney has already provent that he is not a candidate who can really "win" this election.
It should be no wurprise to you that this is ROMNEY'S latest attemt to SMEAR Santorum. Facts? Santorum used "robocalls" (used, of course, by Romney as well) to ask DEMOCRATS for their support in Michigan's primary. Romney called this the "low point" of the camaing. It may be, FOR ROMNEY.
Democrats can vote in the Michigan primary, as I voted for Hillary Clinton in the GOP primary in Texas in 2008 (there being no such thing as a 'registered Republican" or "registered Democrat" in Texas, except as you declare yourelf on electin day). The question is: What is WRONG with Rick Santorum "reaching out" to Democrats? Santorum's favoritism for "manufacturers" is NOT one of the things I lie about him, but he has CONSISTENTLY made this pitch for Reagan Democrats part of his campaign.
Yep, the media-including especially the unfair and unbalanced network) are HYPOCRITES on this. Mitt Romney, as John McCain before him, is CAMPAIGNING almost entirelyl on his ability to go beyond conservatives to get votes to defeat Barack Obama. Ype. I jsut called Romney a HYPOCRITE too. Romney can't simultaneouslly say he is unwilling to 'pander" to the raw meat loving GOP "bawse" by attacking Obama harshy, and then criticize Santourm for "reaching out" to Democrats. NO. There is NOTHING WRONG with inviting members of the opposing party to vote in our primary when that is part of the state system. If there ws something WRONG with it, then palaces like Michigan and Texas would LIMIT the voters to party "members". The REASON that the voters are no so limited is that political parties generally WANT more voters, and it really is persuasive that voters should not be "straightjacketed" into choosing a political party in order to vote in a primary. This laves it open to members of the oterh party to "sabotage" the nomination selection of the otehr party, but that reallyl has not been shown to be a real factor in results. Again, what is WRONG with Santourm reaching out to the SAME voters to which he has been trying to appel the whole lectin? Romney has al of this MONEY that Santourm cannot match. And Romney is constantly trying to appeal to "moderates", evn as he keeps saying HE is the "real conservative".
No, for Romney to WHINE aobut this is indeed, a low poknt in this campaign: FOR ROMNEY.
Is there anythgn wrong, by the way, in a cnadidate saying that the MEDIA is tryng to pick the nominee, and suggesting that a person like Joh McCain is using the "oopen primary" to attract peole who will not help him in the general electin? No, there is nothing wrong with using that as a POLITICAL point. Romney's problem is that the media is FOR HIM. If Romney were able to show that there was some sort of campaign against him, AS A COPNSERVATIVE, then that would be a legitimate political pont. Romney's problem is that he is hypocritically trying to do the impossible: calim he is the CONSERVATIVE in the race, while the GOP estalbishment, the media,, and "moderates" are trying to DESTROY Santorum as the "extreme conservative" in the race. Romney cannot hav eit both ways, athough he is cretainly trying.
Yep. I did tell you, as I did as earlly as a few months ago, that the unfair and unbalanced network is "all in" for Romney, alng with Drudge and so many "estalbishment" GOP types. The unfari and unbalanced netwrok, INCLUDING SEAN HANNITY (who I have never much liked because he has a corporate cable TV mind, desite the fact I agree with him on almost all individual issues), is pickng up on EVERY "charge" against Santourm that Romney or the mainstream media makes. Thus, Hannity asked Santourm aobut these robcallss asking for Demo suport., as Hannnity and his network have done as to EVERY "charge" aainst Santorum by either Romney or the mainstream medi. NO. This is NOT "fair" or "balanced". If ALL you do is ask a candidate about CHARGES (no matter how ridiculous, as Romney's ridiculous idea that there is somwthing "wrong" with asking from Democrats to vote for you), that PREVVENTS a candidate like Santorum from getting otu his "message". This is the same tactic used against Santourm n "social issues", where Santourm is made to appear ALL aobut "social issues", because ttaht is ALL he is asked about.
But I have already told you to boycott the unfair and unablancednetwork. It has nO redeeming sociial vlaue, and I now surf CNN MORE (a better source for matreial, and why watch "CNN light" when you can go right to the hard stuff).
I did think it was time for another "told lyou so" on Drudge. I am disapponted in Drudge, even though I well knew that his banner headlines (sometimes clever, although not here) are the one area on Drudge were you can count on Drudge's own agenda being expressed. This is a MINOR story--where Santourm did not even do anything arguably wrong--where the attempt is to blow it up into a major "scandal. Sorry, Romney, Drudge, Haniity, unfair and unbalanced network, et. al. All llyou have done is make me lose erespect FOR YOU ALL.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). By the way, it is becoming ever more clear to me that Ropmney CANNOT WIN if he he is the nominee. Oh, I still think Obama can LOSE (and may lose, even against Romney and without Romney having my suport), but Romney is incapble of running a winning campaign. And Romney CANNOT "win" based on a NEGATIVE campaingn agasint Obama, becaue Romney will NOT (as Santorum has said) ahve the advantages he has now. The main advantage is MEDIA SUPPORT for any "charge" he wishes to make. That will NOT be the case agasint Obama, and Romney wil be on the other end. Since all Romney has shown is that he MAy be able to get the GOP nomination with a NEGATIVE camaign, why do I even say Obma can LOSE to Romney? Easy. It does nto matter what Romney, or AnY GOP candidate does, if Obama manages to virtualllly DESTROY the U.S. ecomy by election day (or if nay one of a number of things break rongg for Obama in the owrold). Against Romney, Obama CAN LOSE. Romney cannot "win" (affirmatively). That is why it is a total myth--a myth that has been exposed--that Rmney is "more electible". That is not the cae. We may not really know whether Santourm can do any better than Romney, but I hink Romney has already provent that he is not a candidate who can really "win" this election.
Mitt Romney Is Unethical: ABC "News" and Yahoo "News"
See the previous article. Yes, the (digital) ink was not even dry before this blog was accused of BIAS (lol). I consider President Obama to be "rich", and he will certainly get much RICHER after he lieaves office (see Bill Clinton, who is ow probably almsot as unethical as Mitt Romney). However, there is o doubt that Mitt Romney is RICHER thann President Obama, meaning that ABC "News" and Yahoo "News" must believe that Mitt Romney is MORE unethical than President Obama (who, himmself, is MUCH more unethical than I am on this ABC/Yahooo scale on which the richer you are the more unethical you are).
Since I did ignore Romney i my previouis article, you can take this as a "correction", although I am disputing the claim that it affects my 99.9% accuracy rating.
Oh, i am perfectly aware that ABC/Yaho put a QUESION MARK (the refuge of "journalistic scoundrels--of unethical people) at the end of their headline: "Are rich people unethical?" However, the very first sentence of the ABC article made clear the ABC/Yahoo ANSEWER to the question.
No, by the way, I would NOT call Mitt Roney "unethical" myself. I do think he has this "leftist Wall Street" mindset which I have called "economic fascism" (theory of "partnership" between Big Government and Big Business/Wall Street to run your life), explaining why Romney was for the Wall Street bailout. In this attitude, Romney and Obama are very similar, atlthoug Obama puts more emphasis on the GOVERNMENT side of this parnership, than Romney.
Since I did ignore Romney i my previouis article, you can take this as a "correction", although I am disputing the claim that it affects my 99.9% accuracy rating.
Oh, i am perfectly aware that ABC/Yaho put a QUESION MARK (the refuge of "journalistic scoundrels--of unethical people) at the end of their headline: "Are rich people unethical?" However, the very first sentence of the ABC article made clear the ABC/Yahoo ANSEWER to the question.
No, by the way, I would NOT call Mitt Roney "unethical" myself. I do think he has this "leftist Wall Street" mindset which I have called "economic fascism" (theory of "partnership" between Big Government and Big Business/Wall Street to run your life), explaining why Romney was for the Wall Street bailout. In this attitude, Romney and Obama are very similar, atlthoug Obama puts more emphasis on the GOVERNMENT side of this parnership, than Romney.
Is President Obama Unethical? ABC "News" and Yahoo "News" Say He Is!!!!!!
It is time for a logical syllogism:
1. Ric=h people are unethical.
2. President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are rich (a fact), along with Warren Buffett and so many other leftist Democrats.
3. Therefore, President Obama (along with the other rich leftist Democrats) are unethical.
This is straight logical deductoni, and cannot be challenged. What? You say that the PREMISE is wrng: that (all) rich people are not unethical. Don't talk to me. Talk to ABC "News" and Yaho "News": some of the most unethical and dishonest hypocrites to ever walk this Earth. Here is one of those infamous "featured" headlines on my Yahoo "News" default page provided by AT&T, with the story provided by ABC:
Are rich people unehtical?
The very first paragraph makes clear what the ABC/Yaho answer to this Obama CLASS WARVARE "question" is, as the story starts out: "At last an explanation for the Wall Street disgrace, Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, and the other high society crimes and misdeameanors......." The story then goes on to describe a study from the "National Academy of Science" (telling you ALL you need to know about THAT organization, and the peole in it), about how "ewaltheir" people are omore "uneticcal" (using, I guarantee you, standrds that DETERMINE the answer) than people without as much money. No, this is an EVIL statement (the ABC "News"/Yahoo "News" headline.). That is not surprising, because these are EVIL people (mainstream media "journalists")
Doubt me? Never do that. Examine these statements? "Poor people are unethical." Or: "Black people are criminals." Think of the firestorm that would erupt if any 'study" said any such thing--not matter whether the "evidence" supported the idea that more poor people are unethical, or the idea that a higher percentage of African-Americans are criminals (the left makng the pint that so many black men are in prison). For once, the firestorm would be justified, because this kind of generalization is an EVIL thing. But it is just as evil to lump 'rich people' together as a HATED CLASS as it would be to lump poor peple together, or African-Americans. If you can't see that, I am sorry for you. The silver lining is that yhou can apply to work for ABC or Yahoo. You are their kind of peson.
"Rich people" are PEOPLE. Many of them, of course, did not start out as "rich peple". Some started out as "rich peple", and are now "poor peple". Did this give them VIRTUE? Is being poor a VIRTUE? This isall, of course, not new. Class warfare caused the downfall of the Roman Republic. And ist it really true: "It is easier for a camel to pass throught the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven?"
Enough. This is bad stuff. An upcomig article will go into how MSNBC, Juan Williams and the left in general are CALLLING THEMSELVES racists when they attack Pat Buchanan as a racist: accurately as to them all, for really the very same reason this quoted ABC hedline is so bad. Just a tease for a future planned article.
"But, Skip, you generalize about 'journalists', and call Wall Street people 'The Stupidest People on Earht.'"
That is corret. I do. Hoever, in the case of "journalists", I--which sitll rankles me, since I am an agnostic and still beliieve He was punisthing me for that--conducted that 8 year Sodom and Gomorrrah search for an honest, comeptent AP reporter. It was a totally futile saarch. The pont is that some generalizations are necessary, even though we know that they do not apply to all people in a category. It is still true that I have yet to find ANY modern "journalist" who I respect, but I acknowledge there may be one or two out there. It is STATUS to which it is truly evil to apply a label. "Journalists", and Wal Street peple, I would argue, are TAUGHT fo be the way they are, and the generalization goes to that rather than to the idea that the "category" of "journalist" or "Wall Street analyst" automatically makes lyou stupid. The only example I am aware of where I could be regarded as a hypocrite is on WOMEN. I am willing to generalize about women (the vicious creatures). Taht is the exceptiont taht proves the rule. You know, in your heart, that i am RIGHT abutwomen. There is something about being a woman that makes that category of human beings totally irrational. No, I am NOT that way about, say, homosexuals. I do not believe that society should APPROVE of homosexual conduct or homosexaul marriage. However, as I have said often, I am perfetly willing to accept that most homosseuxals are BETTER PEOPLE than I am. This is not a "status" thing. It is realy no different from the question of whether premarital sex or things like polygamy are "right" or "wrong". No, I plead "not guilty" as to my belief that we have no byusiness pushing the idea that homoseuxal conduct is a GOOD thing, to be endorsed by us all (and maybe experimented with by us all--see the movie, "Kinsey"). I pleade "guilty" with regard to WOMEN, and my only excuse lthere is that I just can't help myself.
Whehter I am "guilty" or not, there is no question that ABC and Yahoo are GUILTY as charged.
Oh, Presdient Obama is unethical", or at lest totally dishonet. Hoever, i truly don't think that is because he is rich. The same applies to Nancy Pelosi and so many others.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Some of you may wonder whether this blog has any women readers. My two daughters don't read it. My mother does nto read it. My only female friedn, Sylvia, does not read it. I am, of course, notorious, among peopel who know me as well as among any people wo have ever read this blgo for any length of time, as to my attitude toward women. I would have to saly that it would be a RATOIONAL act (for an IRRATONAL sex) for women not to read this blog. Hey. Women not only think tis way about ME. I jsut reciprocate. They think this way aobut YOU (if you are a man). "Men are scum" pretty much describes the attitude of almost all women toward men (obviously to a greter or lesser degree, depending on the woman). Oh, I am perfectly comfortable with women reading this blog. It will do them god. I jsut udnerstand when they choose not to do so.
1. Ric=h people are unethical.
2. President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are rich (a fact), along with Warren Buffett and so many other leftist Democrats.
3. Therefore, President Obama (along with the other rich leftist Democrats) are unethical.
This is straight logical deductoni, and cannot be challenged. What? You say that the PREMISE is wrng: that (all) rich people are not unethical. Don't talk to me. Talk to ABC "News" and Yaho "News": some of the most unethical and dishonest hypocrites to ever walk this Earth. Here is one of those infamous "featured" headlines on my Yahoo "News" default page provided by AT&T, with the story provided by ABC:
Are rich people unehtical?
The very first paragraph makes clear what the ABC/Yaho answer to this Obama CLASS WARVARE "question" is, as the story starts out: "At last an explanation for the Wall Street disgrace, Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, and the other high society crimes and misdeameanors......." The story then goes on to describe a study from the "National Academy of Science" (telling you ALL you need to know about THAT organization, and the peole in it), about how "ewaltheir" people are omore "uneticcal" (using, I guarantee you, standrds that DETERMINE the answer) than people without as much money. No, this is an EVIL statement (the ABC "News"/Yahoo "News" headline.). That is not surprising, because these are EVIL people (mainstream media "journalists")
Doubt me? Never do that. Examine these statements? "Poor people are unethical." Or: "Black people are criminals." Think of the firestorm that would erupt if any 'study" said any such thing--not matter whether the "evidence" supported the idea that more poor people are unethical, or the idea that a higher percentage of African-Americans are criminals (the left makng the pint that so many black men are in prison). For once, the firestorm would be justified, because this kind of generalization is an EVIL thing. But it is just as evil to lump 'rich people' together as a HATED CLASS as it would be to lump poor peple together, or African-Americans. If you can't see that, I am sorry for you. The silver lining is that yhou can apply to work for ABC or Yahoo. You are their kind of peson.
"Rich people" are PEOPLE. Many of them, of course, did not start out as "rich peple". Some started out as "rich peple", and are now "poor peple". Did this give them VIRTUE? Is being poor a VIRTUE? This isall, of course, not new. Class warfare caused the downfall of the Roman Republic. And ist it really true: "It is easier for a camel to pass throught the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven?"
Enough. This is bad stuff. An upcomig article will go into how MSNBC, Juan Williams and the left in general are CALLLING THEMSELVES racists when they attack Pat Buchanan as a racist: accurately as to them all, for really the very same reason this quoted ABC hedline is so bad. Just a tease for a future planned article.
"But, Skip, you generalize about 'journalists', and call Wall Street people 'The Stupidest People on Earht.'"
That is corret. I do. Hoever, in the case of "journalists", I--which sitll rankles me, since I am an agnostic and still beliieve He was punisthing me for that--conducted that 8 year Sodom and Gomorrrah search for an honest, comeptent AP reporter. It was a totally futile saarch. The pont is that some generalizations are necessary, even though we know that they do not apply to all people in a category. It is still true that I have yet to find ANY modern "journalist" who I respect, but I acknowledge there may be one or two out there. It is STATUS to which it is truly evil to apply a label. "Journalists", and Wal Street peple, I would argue, are TAUGHT fo be the way they are, and the generalization goes to that rather than to the idea that the "category" of "journalist" or "Wall Street analyst" automatically makes lyou stupid. The only example I am aware of where I could be regarded as a hypocrite is on WOMEN. I am willing to generalize about women (the vicious creatures). Taht is the exceptiont taht proves the rule. You know, in your heart, that i am RIGHT abutwomen. There is something about being a woman that makes that category of human beings totally irrational. No, I am NOT that way about, say, homosexuals. I do not believe that society should APPROVE of homosexual conduct or homosexaul marriage. However, as I have said often, I am perfetly willing to accept that most homosseuxals are BETTER PEOPLE than I am. This is not a "status" thing. It is realy no different from the question of whether premarital sex or things like polygamy are "right" or "wrong". No, I plead "not guilty" as to my belief that we have no byusiness pushing the idea that homoseuxal conduct is a GOOD thing, to be endorsed by us all (and maybe experimented with by us all--see the movie, "Kinsey"). I pleade "guilty" with regard to WOMEN, and my only excuse lthere is that I just can't help myself.
Whehter I am "guilty" or not, there is no question that ABC and Yahoo are GUILTY as charged.
Oh, Presdient Obama is unethical", or at lest totally dishonet. Hoever, i truly don't think that is because he is rich. The same applies to Nancy Pelosi and so many others.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Some of you may wonder whether this blog has any women readers. My two daughters don't read it. My mother does nto read it. My only female friedn, Sylvia, does not read it. I am, of course, notorious, among peopel who know me as well as among any people wo have ever read this blgo for any length of time, as to my attitude toward women. I would have to saly that it would be a RATOIONAL act (for an IRRATONAL sex) for women not to read this blog. Hey. Women not only think tis way about ME. I jsut reciprocate. They think this way aobut YOU (if you are a man). "Men are scum" pretty much describes the attitude of almost all women toward men (obviously to a greter or lesser degree, depending on the woman). Oh, I am perfectly comfortable with women reading this blog. It will do them god. I jsut udnerstand when they choose not to do so.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Newt Gingrich: Clueless
What is Newt Gingrich's ONLY chance of winning the GOP nomination? Right. It is for RickSantourm to BEAT Mitt Romney in Michigan. Gingrich is NOT going to come close in either Michiganor Arizona, and Gingrich's only hope (slim and none) is to see Romney derailed in michigan, in the hope that no one (meaning Romney) will wrap up the GOP nomination before Gingrich has a chance at yt another "comeback". Indeed, Ginrich's best hope (again slim and none) is for ROMNEY to fade, and forit to come down to a fight between Gingrich and Santorum.
Why do I bring this up? it is because one of those present featured stories on Yahoo "News" (from some mainstream media source--they are all the same) that "Gingrich slams Santorum as Big Labor guy." Now you have to realize here, as Gingrich surely does, that it does notmatter that Gingrich spent twohours (or whatever) "slamming" President Obama, or even Roney. Thisheadline is all about the AGENDA of the mainstream media, who otherwise pay no attention to wha Ingrich says. This is an intended "hit' on Santorum.
But that does not change the fact that Gingrich is clueless and erratic (as I have observed him ever since he started out as a hero of mine as a guerilla fighter agasint the seemingly permanent leftist Democrat control of the House of Representatives. Then came the Gingrich led "Congract with Americaa", and the GOP takeover of the House. From that point on--his high water mark--Gingrich has made it increasingly clear he really has no principles, but rather an amoral, brilliant mind with no guiding principles at all. Gingrich will say anything, at any time. Gingrich will argue ANY position, at any time (and argue both sides rather brilliantly). His picture is probably in Wikipedia as the illustration of the meaning of the term "loose cannon".
Gingrich could attack Santorum all he wanted after Michigan. No, this particular attack is not really a valid one. But that is not the pioint. Gingrich desperately needed to be ATTACKNIG ROMNEY through the Michigan and Arizona primaires. Any votes Gingrich manages to take away from Santourm in Michigan (not many, I think, as Romney has the MONEY to bring infinitely more negative attacks against Santorum than Gingirch, makng Gingrich irrrelevant) will GO TO ROMNEY. No, Gingrich does not have TIME to "take out" Santroum, and become the "anti-Romney". Gingrich desperately needs to take out ROMNEY, or at least prevent him from continuing to seem the inevitablle nominee, and then hope for a miracle in takng on Santorum.
You often wonder what goes tthough Gingrich's head. Has the concentratin on Santrum simply made gingrich irritable? Did the media radically overplay how hard Gingrich was going after Santorum, even though Gingrich should have known better? I don't know. I just know it makes no sense. Not only is it NEGATIVE (as Gingrich goes back and forth on that), but it cannot help Gingrich. If Romney can be stopped, THEN it might make sense for Gingrich to really go after Santorum (although still taknig on Romney, trying to help take out Romney's THIN support outside of the equally clueless GOP estalblishment). On the eve of the Michigan primary is a STRANGE time for Gingrich to be makng headlines "slamming' Santorum (although a perfectly logical and expected time for the MEDIA to be USING Gingrich to "slam" Santorum).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). As the ONLY remaining GOP candidate who correctly opposed that ridiculous payroll "tax cut" fraud, Santorum is hardly in "Big Labor's pocket". Sure Santorum, as a Senator forom Pennsylvania, made some gestures to keep Big Labor from being his total ienemy. But Santorum has been much more consistent than either Gingrich or Romney in his positions over the years, even tghough he has this obvious falw of having a record as a pretty much standard "conservative" Washington politican. Romney has the flaw of being an opportunist Wall Street economic fascist, and standard representative of teh GOP estalbishment. Gingrich has that flaw of no principles, and being a loose cannon. Ultimately, I decided that I WOULD vote for Santorum, because his flaws were not enough to be unforgivable. I decided I would NOT vote for either Gingrich or Romney, even agaisnt President Obama, because their falws are too mcuh for me. I simply don't trust them at all, even though I could never actually vote for Obama (and understand why people like my brothers and mother believe that ANYONE has to be bettter than Obama). In all events, lyou shold NEVER pay any attetin to this MEDIA USE of GOP candidates agaisnt each other, or the way the medai onlyl pays attention to a conservative when he or she supports the medai against anotehr conservative (or a conservativbve position). What am I saying? You should NOT pay any attentino to the media, period. Their "news" is all about AGENDA (theirs, and that of the peole they support). You need to always look between the lines, and try to sift FACTS from multiple sources. I fyou have trouble reading between the lines, that is what this blog is primarily for.
Why do I bring this up? it is because one of those present featured stories on Yahoo "News" (from some mainstream media source--they are all the same) that "Gingrich slams Santorum as Big Labor guy." Now you have to realize here, as Gingrich surely does, that it does notmatter that Gingrich spent twohours (or whatever) "slamming" President Obama, or even Roney. Thisheadline is all about the AGENDA of the mainstream media, who otherwise pay no attention to wha Ingrich says. This is an intended "hit' on Santorum.
But that does not change the fact that Gingrich is clueless and erratic (as I have observed him ever since he started out as a hero of mine as a guerilla fighter agasint the seemingly permanent leftist Democrat control of the House of Representatives. Then came the Gingrich led "Congract with Americaa", and the GOP takeover of the House. From that point on--his high water mark--Gingrich has made it increasingly clear he really has no principles, but rather an amoral, brilliant mind with no guiding principles at all. Gingrich will say anything, at any time. Gingrich will argue ANY position, at any time (and argue both sides rather brilliantly). His picture is probably in Wikipedia as the illustration of the meaning of the term "loose cannon".
Gingrich could attack Santorum all he wanted after Michigan. No, this particular attack is not really a valid one. But that is not the pioint. Gingrich desperately needed to be ATTACKNIG ROMNEY through the Michigan and Arizona primaires. Any votes Gingrich manages to take away from Santourm in Michigan (not many, I think, as Romney has the MONEY to bring infinitely more negative attacks against Santorum than Gingirch, makng Gingrich irrrelevant) will GO TO ROMNEY. No, Gingrich does not have TIME to "take out" Santroum, and become the "anti-Romney". Gingrich desperately needs to take out ROMNEY, or at least prevent him from continuing to seem the inevitablle nominee, and then hope for a miracle in takng on Santorum.
You often wonder what goes tthough Gingrich's head. Has the concentratin on Santrum simply made gingrich irritable? Did the media radically overplay how hard Gingrich was going after Santorum, even though Gingrich should have known better? I don't know. I just know it makes no sense. Not only is it NEGATIVE (as Gingrich goes back and forth on that), but it cannot help Gingrich. If Romney can be stopped, THEN it might make sense for Gingrich to really go after Santorum (although still taknig on Romney, trying to help take out Romney's THIN support outside of the equally clueless GOP estalblishment). On the eve of the Michigan primary is a STRANGE time for Gingrich to be makng headlines "slamming' Santorum (although a perfectly logical and expected time for the MEDIA to be USING Gingrich to "slam" Santorum).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). As the ONLY remaining GOP candidate who correctly opposed that ridiculous payroll "tax cut" fraud, Santorum is hardly in "Big Labor's pocket". Sure Santorum, as a Senator forom Pennsylvania, made some gestures to keep Big Labor from being his total ienemy. But Santorum has been much more consistent than either Gingrich or Romney in his positions over the years, even tghough he has this obvious falw of having a record as a pretty much standard "conservative" Washington politican. Romney has the flaw of being an opportunist Wall Street economic fascist, and standard representative of teh GOP estalbishment. Gingrich has that flaw of no principles, and being a loose cannon. Ultimately, I decided that I WOULD vote for Santorum, because his flaws were not enough to be unforgivable. I decided I would NOT vote for either Gingrich or Romney, even agaisnt President Obama, because their falws are too mcuh for me. I simply don't trust them at all, even though I could never actually vote for Obama (and understand why people like my brothers and mother believe that ANYONE has to be bettter than Obama). In all events, lyou shold NEVER pay any attetin to this MEDIA USE of GOP candidates agaisnt each other, or the way the medai onlyl pays attention to a conservative when he or she supports the medai against anotehr conservative (or a conservativbve position). What am I saying? You should NOT pay any attentino to the media, period. Their "news" is all about AGENDA (theirs, and that of the peole they support). You need to always look between the lines, and try to sift FACTS from multiple sources. I fyou have trouble reading between the lines, that is what this blog is primarily for.
Obama's Campaign Trips
"Who do you think is paying for Obama's campaign fundraising trips? You are!"
The above quoted headline is NOT one of my headlines, altthough I was lperfectly aware of the facgts. It was what Rush Limbaugh calls a "randome act of journalism" by a mainstream medaia surce. It was one of those "featrued" headlines on my Yahoo "News" default page. I don't know how it slipped through.
Yes, it is perfectly true that ALL recent Presdients have done the same thing. But, as usual, Obama has taken it to a new level, becaause the JOB of being President is not what he likes to do. Campaigning is what he likes to do. So you, the taxpayer, are paying for MORE trips taht are really fund raising and campaign trips than ever before.
And Obama was supposed to be "different"!!!!!!!!
The above quoted headline is NOT one of my headlines, altthough I was lperfectly aware of the facgts. It was what Rush Limbaugh calls a "randome act of journalism" by a mainstream medaia surce. It was one of those "featrued" headlines on my Yahoo "News" default page. I don't know how it slipped through.
Yes, it is perfectly true that ALL recent Presdients have done the same thing. But, as usual, Obama has taken it to a new level, becaause the JOB of being President is not what he likes to do. Campaigning is what he likes to do. So you, the taxpayer, are paying for MORE trips taht are really fund raising and campaign trips than ever before.
And Obama was supposed to be "different"!!!!!!!!
Sunday, February 26, 2012
CNN and Wolf Blitzer: Anti-Mormon and Anti-Christian Bigots (The Evil Network Spreads Evil)
See the previous article, to which this is a companion article. I still don''t believe Wolf Blitzer and CNN could be this clueless about good and evil (much less religion and its proper role in politics--not to mention CHILDREN and the difference between the "beliefs" of a child and the beiefs of an adult, as it is ONLY th eevil people of CNN who want to confuse the two in a sitaution where there is not even anything wrong witht the beliefs in question). You should have no doubt that, in this story of good and evil, CNN and Wolf Blitzer have ut themselves firmly on the side of evil. I still can't believe they did it, but I personally HEARD it live, on Blitze's CNN show on Thursday.
Blitzerf and CNN treated it as a major story that Marco Rubio was once an atheist. Sorry. I got that wrong. CNN treated it as a major story that Rubio's father was a Muslim, with polygamists in his family, and that Rubio was himself once a Muslim as a child (or at least went to a Muslim school) Hurh? I got it wrong again? Sorry, I keep getting mixed up with Obama, who definitely did not have a Christian background. This CNN story (Ill gt it right this time) was about how Senator Marco Rubio had been a MMormon (because his family joined that church after going to live in Las Vegas) from about the age of 8 to about the age of 12. I could never make this up. WHY is this "news?" I will tell you why at the end, but it should NOT be "news" (unless you are doing some sort of family biography of Mraco Rubion, which was NOT the case here, as the GIGOTED CNN and Blitzer were deliberatgtely suggesting taht this was major POLITICAL "news"). Just how CLUELESS is CNN (not to mention evil), and how al abut AGENDA, to actualy make a CURRENT EVENTS story about Marco Ruibo's religious beliefs at the AGE OF TEN. President Obama, and the early religous beliefs of Obama--not to mentino the religoius beliefs of his family, including his father--are much moreinteresting than teh BRIEF flirtation of the Rubio family with the Moormon religion In fact, Obama's PRESENT religous beliefs are much more interesting than those of Rubion (see, again, the previous article). For CNN, however, it is ONLY the religoiouis bliefs (not matter how far they have to reach) of GOP politicians that matter, and CNN is willing to make the GOP ALL about religion. Nope The GOP--stupid a they may be--do NOT do that. It is CNN that does that, because CNN thinks it is a WEAPON against the GOP. And thethink--evil as they are-that they can get away with it. What is WRONG, or even RELEVANT, abut Marco Rubioo being a Mormon (as if yu can eve say someting like that about a ten year old) at the age of f10? It gets wore.
"Say what?" you ask. How can it be WORSE? You would not think so,but for Wol Blitzer and CNN it can always be wrose. CNN itself, including Blitzer, had an eplanation of why it is 'important" taht Marco Rubio was a Mormon AS A CHHILD (beyond the obvious implication that the "tiant' of Mormonism is a lifelong thing). Again, I still don'g believe this "explanation"--as evil a thing as I have ever heard on televison. yep. I am calling Wolf Blitzer an EVIL peron on an EVIL network. The "explanation? Well, Blitzer and the other CNN buy brought up that Marco Rubio is a leading candidatge to be the Vic Presidential candidate on a GOP ticket (probably especailly if Mitt Romney is the nominee, although it is entirely ossible Rick Santourm would also find him a good choice). CNN actualy had the nerve to say that this "news" on Rubio being a Mormon wouldsrmon might be a "problem", because there is usualy an attemp;t to "balance" the ticket in terms of religion (meaning Obama should probably have not chosen another atheist, although I thik he did with Joe Biden).
This is obviously INSANE. Even for CN it is INSANE and EVIL. How can it possibly matter at all to anyone, that Marco Rubio's familyy was briefly Mormon when Rubio was a yong child In factr, why does it even matter to cNN? Well, I already gave you the clues on this one. CNN is composed of anti-Mormon BIGOTS (as this blog has informed you in the past). That partly explains why CNN thinks it is a HIT on Marco Rubio to connect him with the Mormon religion, as CNN has made clear int he pat is its attitude toward Mitt Romney Rick Santorum CNN simply labels as "tto Christian", as befits The Anti-Christian network. Here, though, there is someting else at work. The ridiculous Vice Presidential reference of CNN tells you al you need to know. This was a PREEMPTIVE strike lby the desicable Blitzer and CNN on Marco Rubion as a Vice Presidential candidate. CNNN and the Democrats are, I believe, actauly afraid of Marco Rubio (an Hispanic, and popular in Florida) as a Vice Presidential candidate. Hispancis, as you probably know, are mostly Catholic (as I think is true of Rubion in his ADULT life, although I am not either sure or interested). This was a crude, obviuos, and evil attempt to "taint" Rubiio as a "Mormon". Hey. That is exactly what CNN and Blitzer SAID.
"Once a Moromn, always a Mormon>" What else can it possibly meant to say that it matters on religious 'balance" whether Rubioo was a Mormon AS AY YOUNG CHILD? I am not even "reaching" with this conclusion. There is no other conclusioon you can make. CNN directly said that Rubio will be regrded as a "Mormon" by a GOP candidate chosing a Vice President. "Absurd" is a kind word for this. Nope. Tis is al about ASSASSSINATING Mrco Rubio as a Vice President. This was a HIT PIECE against Marco Rubio intended to hurt his chances to be Vice President. Yes, there were probably anti-Rubioo people behind this (probably Democrat, although it is always possible that another GOP politician "planted" the story as an attempt to undercut Rubio). CNN, of courrse, has people with an AGENDA. Those people are capable of this kind of evil on their own, but it is probable they were "nudged" by anti-Rubio people. Needless to say, they are sbject to such "nuding" in a direction which fits their own agenda.
"Skip, you keep using the word 'evil'. You don't even believe in Good and Evil. Ah, that is where you misunderstand. It is true that I dont' believe in "pure' Good and Evil forces in the universe, although I don't discount the possibility I am wrong. If I am wrong not to "feel" the existence of those "pure" fors of Good and Evil (with a capital "G" and a capital "E"), then I will meet Wolf Blitzer in Hell (along with most of the rest of CNN and the mainstream media). I do, however, believe in "good" and "evil" (with a small "g" and a small "e"). I believe in good actions and evil actions. When I say that Wolf Blitzer has proven himself an evil person, and CNN an evil network, I am NOT speaking figuratively, or intending to exaggerate. I MEANT IT (literall). This Rubio absurdity is one of the clearest examples yet of what I mean.
What about Marco Rubio? Thsi blog has recently expressed my disappointment with Marco Rubio, along with Tea Party politicians in general. In my view, Rubio has recently shown himself to be much more of a standard politician than a man of principle. You can look the articles up . I am hardly a PARTISAN of Marco Rubio. I have basically caleed for his DEFEAT as a member of Congress (along with the defeat of basically every GOP member of Congress). However, that does nto meant hat i would not vote for Marco Rubi for Vice President, or even for President (if he were facing someone like Barack Obama). No, I would not vote for Romney because he cose Rubio. But Rubio is like Santourm: mainy a standard politician who has shown himself conservative ENOUGH that I could stand to vote for him (desite my disappointment). No, Rubio is NOT as good as Santorum, if ony becuase Santorum saw the FRAUD in this ridiculous "payroll tax cut", but Rubio (subjet to further BETRAYALS) is not someone who has YET caused me to permanently DISOWN (no matter who he is running against). You can see, from that very lukewarm "endorsement", that I have no reason to CAMPAIGN for Marco Rubio to be the Viec Presidential nominee. But I know an EVIL HIT PIECE when I see one, and I am always going to call CNN on this kind of agenda evil.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). It is enirely possible that I have mixed up "Mormon" and "Muslim" (for real, rather than deliberate sarcasm) in some places in this article and/or the previous one. You can see how that would be easy to do. CNN has RIDICULED peopole who call Obama a Muslim, or who question Obama's "Christianity" (which I think is obivosly subject to questin, if it were relevant). Well, the only possible response to this CNNN "news" ittem about Marco Rubion being a "mormon" is RIDICULE. I have done my best to do that. If lyou don't think ridicule is appropriate here, as well as the word 'evil", then maybe you should take a look inside yourself. The HYPOCRITES of CNN obviusly never do that or they would have to RIDICLUE THEMSLEVES> You can't say that preisentObama is "obvisuly" a Christian, and that his relggion should not be "questioned", and then go out and try to make an issue about Mrarco Rubio's CHILDHOOD religon (not nearly so long lasting as Obama's ADMITTED atehism, which Bill Maher and I believe continues).
Blitzerf and CNN treated it as a major story that Marco Rubio was once an atheist. Sorry. I got that wrong. CNN treated it as a major story that Rubio's father was a Muslim, with polygamists in his family, and that Rubio was himself once a Muslim as a child (or at least went to a Muslim school) Hurh? I got it wrong again? Sorry, I keep getting mixed up with Obama, who definitely did not have a Christian background. This CNN story (Ill gt it right this time) was about how Senator Marco Rubio had been a MMormon (because his family joined that church after going to live in Las Vegas) from about the age of 8 to about the age of 12. I could never make this up. WHY is this "news?" I will tell you why at the end, but it should NOT be "news" (unless you are doing some sort of family biography of Mraco Rubion, which was NOT the case here, as the GIGOTED CNN and Blitzer were deliberatgtely suggesting taht this was major POLITICAL "news"). Just how CLUELESS is CNN (not to mention evil), and how al abut AGENDA, to actualy make a CURRENT EVENTS story about Marco Ruibo's religious beliefs at the AGE OF TEN. President Obama, and the early religous beliefs of Obama--not to mentino the religoius beliefs of his family, including his father--are much moreinteresting than teh BRIEF flirtation of the Rubio family with the Moormon religion In fact, Obama's PRESENT religous beliefs are much more interesting than those of Rubion (see, again, the previous article). For CNN, however, it is ONLY the religoiouis bliefs (not matter how far they have to reach) of GOP politicians that matter, and CNN is willing to make the GOP ALL about religion. Nope The GOP--stupid a they may be--do NOT do that. It is CNN that does that, because CNN thinks it is a WEAPON against the GOP. And thethink--evil as they are-that they can get away with it. What is WRONG, or even RELEVANT, abut Marco Rubioo being a Mormon (as if yu can eve say someting like that about a ten year old) at the age of f10? It gets wore.
"Say what?" you ask. How can it be WORSE? You would not think so,but for Wol Blitzer and CNN it can always be wrose. CNN itself, including Blitzer, had an eplanation of why it is 'important" taht Marco Rubio was a Mormon AS A CHHILD (beyond the obvious implication that the "tiant' of Mormonism is a lifelong thing). Again, I still don'g believe this "explanation"--as evil a thing as I have ever heard on televison. yep. I am calling Wolf Blitzer an EVIL peron on an EVIL network. The "explanation? Well, Blitzer and the other CNN buy brought up that Marco Rubio is a leading candidatge to be the Vic Presidential candidate on a GOP ticket (probably especailly if Mitt Romney is the nominee, although it is entirely ossible Rick Santourm would also find him a good choice). CNN actualy had the nerve to say that this "news" on Rubio being a Mormon wouldsrmon might be a "problem", because there is usualy an attemp;t to "balance" the ticket in terms of religion (meaning Obama should probably have not chosen another atheist, although I thik he did with Joe Biden).
This is obviously INSANE. Even for CN it is INSANE and EVIL. How can it possibly matter at all to anyone, that Marco Rubio's familyy was briefly Mormon when Rubio was a yong child In factr, why does it even matter to cNN? Well, I already gave you the clues on this one. CNN is composed of anti-Mormon BIGOTS (as this blog has informed you in the past). That partly explains why CNN thinks it is a HIT on Marco Rubio to connect him with the Mormon religion, as CNN has made clear int he pat is its attitude toward Mitt Romney Rick Santorum CNN simply labels as "tto Christian", as befits The Anti-Christian network. Here, though, there is someting else at work. The ridiculous Vice Presidential reference of CNN tells you al you need to know. This was a PREEMPTIVE strike lby the desicable Blitzer and CNN on Marco Rubion as a Vice Presidential candidate. CNNN and the Democrats are, I believe, actauly afraid of Marco Rubio (an Hispanic, and popular in Florida) as a Vice Presidential candidate. Hispancis, as you probably know, are mostly Catholic (as I think is true of Rubion in his ADULT life, although I am not either sure or interested). This was a crude, obviuos, and evil attempt to "taint" Rubiio as a "Mormon". Hey. That is exactly what CNN and Blitzer SAID.
"Once a Moromn, always a Mormon>" What else can it possibly meant to say that it matters on religious 'balance" whether Rubioo was a Mormon AS AY YOUNG CHILD? I am not even "reaching" with this conclusion. There is no other conclusioon you can make. CNN directly said that Rubio will be regrded as a "Mormon" by a GOP candidate chosing a Vice President. "Absurd" is a kind word for this. Nope. Tis is al about ASSASSSINATING Mrco Rubio as a Vice President. This was a HIT PIECE against Marco Rubio intended to hurt his chances to be Vice President. Yes, there were probably anti-Rubioo people behind this (probably Democrat, although it is always possible that another GOP politician "planted" the story as an attempt to undercut Rubio). CNN, of courrse, has people with an AGENDA. Those people are capable of this kind of evil on their own, but it is probable they were "nudged" by anti-Rubio people. Needless to say, they are sbject to such "nuding" in a direction which fits their own agenda.
"Skip, you keep using the word 'evil'. You don't even believe in Good and Evil. Ah, that is where you misunderstand. It is true that I dont' believe in "pure' Good and Evil forces in the universe, although I don't discount the possibility I am wrong. If I am wrong not to "feel" the existence of those "pure" fors of Good and Evil (with a capital "G" and a capital "E"), then I will meet Wolf Blitzer in Hell (along with most of the rest of CNN and the mainstream media). I do, however, believe in "good" and "evil" (with a small "g" and a small "e"). I believe in good actions and evil actions. When I say that Wolf Blitzer has proven himself an evil person, and CNN an evil network, I am NOT speaking figuratively, or intending to exaggerate. I MEANT IT (literall). This Rubio absurdity is one of the clearest examples yet of what I mean.
What about Marco Rubio? Thsi blog has recently expressed my disappointment with Marco Rubio, along with Tea Party politicians in general. In my view, Rubio has recently shown himself to be much more of a standard politician than a man of principle. You can look the articles up . I am hardly a PARTISAN of Marco Rubio. I have basically caleed for his DEFEAT as a member of Congress (along with the defeat of basically every GOP member of Congress). However, that does nto meant hat i would not vote for Marco Rubi for Vice President, or even for President (if he were facing someone like Barack Obama). No, I would not vote for Romney because he cose Rubio. But Rubio is like Santourm: mainy a standard politician who has shown himself conservative ENOUGH that I could stand to vote for him (desite my disappointment). No, Rubio is NOT as good as Santorum, if ony becuase Santorum saw the FRAUD in this ridiculous "payroll tax cut", but Rubio (subjet to further BETRAYALS) is not someone who has YET caused me to permanently DISOWN (no matter who he is running against). You can see, from that very lukewarm "endorsement", that I have no reason to CAMPAIGN for Marco Rubio to be the Viec Presidential nominee. But I know an EVIL HIT PIECE when I see one, and I am always going to call CNN on this kind of agenda evil.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). It is enirely possible that I have mixed up "Mormon" and "Muslim" (for real, rather than deliberate sarcasm) in some places in this article and/or the previous one. You can see how that would be easy to do. CNN has RIDICULED peopole who call Obama a Muslim, or who question Obama's "Christianity" (which I think is obivosly subject to questin, if it were relevant). Well, the only possible response to this CNNN "news" ittem about Marco Rubion being a "mormon" is RIDICULE. I have done my best to do that. If lyou don't think ridicule is appropriate here, as well as the word 'evil", then maybe you should take a look inside yourself. The HYPOCRITES of CNN obviusly never do that or they would have to RIDICLUE THEMSLEVES> You can't say that preisentObama is "obvisuly" a Christian, and that his relggion should not be "questioned", and then go out and try to make an issue about Mrarco Rubio's CHILDHOOD religon (not nearly so long lasting as Obama's ADMITTED atehism, which Bill Maher and I believe continues).
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Barack Obama: Muslim and Atheist (CNN Rports)
Obama admits that he was raised an atheist. Or at least Obama admits that he had NO rligiouis beliefs, becakuse that was the way he was raised, unitl he "converted " to Reverend Wright's Christianity at 18, or 20 or whatever. His is the opposite of myself, who was raised Presbyterian (although not in a really religioius family, although in a reliious TOWN (Mt. Ida, Arkansas). I "converted" to agnosticims" oN MY OWN (no mentor or person or group even tried to convince me) at about the age of 12.
Chris Matthews, of MSNBC said, jsut this last week, that Obama is a "secular" person" who does not "wear his religion on his sleeve". Translation: Chris Matthews agrees with Bill Maher and myself taht President Obama has no religion, other than a religion of convenience. The entire mainstream media, even as they ridicule the idea lthat Obama is not a Christian, believe exactly what Chris Matthews, Bil Maeher and I believe. Now most "converts" do so as a matter of DEEEP CONVICTIN. I certainly "converted" to agnoticism, without ever having teh negative attitude toward Christian PEOPLE that Bill Maher and Barack Obama had, becakuse I THOUGHT deeply about these things, even as a 12 or 13 year old. Where is the EVIDENCE taht President Obama hads deep religious convictions? Chris Matthews and I agree, along with Bill Maher, that no such evicence exiss. Thus, is the preponderance of theg evidence, which this blog has ofeten itemized, that President Obama has NEVER DISCAREDED the NON-BELIEF that he maintained unitil at least the age of 18? To me, this is obviously so. As an agnostic myself, and one who has thought about these things deeply for 50 years, I am more than qualified to give you this opinion. There are actually MANY people out there who sAY they are Christians, even while they have no real religius beliefs, because it is the easiest andmost conveninet thingfor them to do. It is useful in politics AND business. No, I am not saying most people are quite that cynical, but MANY are. Obama is definitely one of them.
Hacker Boy (hacking into this disgraceful blog and still dentying I am Piers Morgan, or any other person who learned hacking in Rupert Murdoch's organizatino--a SMEAR about me from the despicable Skip): "Skip, you just keep doing tese tings. You know that CNN did NOT report that Presdient Obama is BOTH a Muslim and an atheist. That is absurd. And what difference does it make that he was raised an atehist 30 years and more ago, for tghe first 18 or 20 years of his life? Most people-unlike YOU, Skip, because you are so ARROGANT to think you know it all (using your won habit of using all caps for emphasis, bad a habit as that is). MOST people do not make a final decision on their spiritual beliefs until they are adults."
Skip: Ah, you can always depend on Hacker Boy to get it wrong. First, most people porbably do not sit down,, like I have often done, and THINK about hwhat they believe. They just live their lives, assuming that (often) their parents's beliefs are the ones they should have. Or they have a MENTOR that "converts" them. I can see that Hacker boy would think that it "arrogant" to believe that Im, as a 12 or 13 year old, could decide what I believe all on my onw (altough I was always a voracious reader, and what I mean is that there is no SPECIFIC person who brough me to SKEPTICISM as the only course that made sense to me. Note that this is the very opposite of thinking that I "know everythihg". My whole philosohy of both government and religon is that NO ONE--much less myself, smarter as I am than most people--can "know everything". By the way, I "converted" to "conversatism" AFTER my "conversion" to agnosticism, at maybe 15 years of age (in high school) It is not that I had ever been a libera. I jsut had not started really thinking about politics until then, and my opinions were crystalized by Barry Goldwater (and Ronald Reagan) in 1964. Is it that easy to be brought up a "skeptic", and then make the big decisino to "convert" to a religion, and yet not SHOW your deep convictions (often, in the case of Obama, indicating he has no clue on how people of conscience think, as on this "contraception" issue). I, myslef, of course, am even a skkeptic on whether skepticism is the right approach to life (agreeing with the Roman philosopher, Lucian). Maybe that partly explains why, skeptic though I am, I agree more with TRADITIONAL views on abortin, homosexual marriage, and premarital sex than most people who profess to believe in the Christian religion. I digress, but I thought you should know where I am coming from.
I will not back off on CNN. On Thursday, CNN and Wolf Blitzer, in one of the most disgraceful and EVIL "news" reports I ahve ever seen, actaully made a big point of Marco Rubio (because hsi family moved to Las Vegas for awhile, and evidently BRIEFLY bought into the Mormon culture and beliefs) having been a Mormon between the ages of 8 and 12 (or whatver). What can you say about EVIL on this level? Weill, I will try to say it in thenext article specifically on CNN and Wolf Blitzer (one evil human being, and bone-deep stupid). However, the whole pont of the CNN article seemed to be: "Once a Mormon, always a Mormon, or at least that is how voters are entitled to look at you" I could never make this up.
As far as I am concerned, CNN did report that it is RELEVANT (for a poliltical campaign) taht Obama was an ATHEIST. If you have once been an atheist, is it not just as reasonable, or more reasonable (as Obama was an atheist much longer) that you would be TAINTED by taht in your later life. But wait. Hacker Boy aside, is there not an ISSUE on whether Obama, AS A CHILD (ging to a Muslim school in Indonesia) was briefly a Mormon-uh, I mean MUSLIM. Once a Muslim, always a Muslim? Why is it not RELEVANT what Obama's NON-CHRISITAN religious beliefs were between the ages of 8 and 12? CNN says it is, and I will not back off of that assertion. The only way CNN is not saying that is if yhou assume that CNN peole are the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four. Huh? You menan that CNN peole aRE the worst hypocrites who ever walked the Earth? Well, I admit that may weaken this argument a little., althogu it is still turue that Obama is not a Crhistian.
CNN has a lot to answer fror. I have called my own 89 year old MOTHER a KOOK, because she professes to believe that Obama is a Muslim. What she really believes, of course, even though she was once--and still is==a strong supporter of FDR, is that Obarack Obama is undermining everyithing she remembers as good about this country. She is right, but that did not stop me from calling her a KOOK (altong with others out there with the same assertin). This caused me GRIEF with my mother (who ismuch too smart to read this blog, but who I TOLD what I had said). Now CNN has basically said that my mother is RIGHT. What CNN basically said is that if BarackObama was a MU:SLIM at age 10 (or whatever), and had a Muslim father (which maybe he did), that is enough to allude to Obama as a MUSLIM in a polical campaign. There is certainly an ISSUE as to whether Obama wa ONCE a Muslim, as a child. Maybe he wasn't, but there is a legitimate ISSUE. Waht I don't think there is an isssue about is whether Obama is NOW a Muslim, desite Obama's obvious hostility to many Christians (and apparent bias toward Muslims). o, the evidence is that Obama has NO religioni except leftist ideology. But CNN has UNDERMINED my assertin that my mother is a kook, now that AT&T has taken the unfair and unbalanced network away from my motehr (leaving her basicaly with only CNN), I have o hope in convincing my mother that you are a KOOK if oyou actually beieve that Obama is a Muslim. Once a Muslim, always a Muslim": that is the CNN clear psotion (just substitute "Mormon").
For CNN, this election has been, and will be, ALL abut religion--or the balttle between the "secular humanism" of Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, the rest of the mainstream media, and Barack Obama AGAINST religin. That leaves me in the interesting osition of being on NEITHER side of this battle, other than DESISING LEFTIST IDEOLOGY (which I regard as a religion in itsef, much more odious than traditional religions).
P.S No proofreading or spell checiking (bad eyesight). Unless I change my mind, the next article will be a diret exposure of CNN and Wolf Blitzer as the EVIL peole that they are.
Chris Matthews, of MSNBC said, jsut this last week, that Obama is a "secular" person" who does not "wear his religion on his sleeve". Translation: Chris Matthews agrees with Bill Maher and myself taht President Obama has no religion, other than a religion of convenience. The entire mainstream media, even as they ridicule the idea lthat Obama is not a Christian, believe exactly what Chris Matthews, Bil Maeher and I believe. Now most "converts" do so as a matter of DEEEP CONVICTIN. I certainly "converted" to agnoticism, without ever having teh negative attitude toward Christian PEOPLE that Bill Maher and Barack Obama had, becakuse I THOUGHT deeply about these things, even as a 12 or 13 year old. Where is the EVIDENCE taht President Obama hads deep religious convictions? Chris Matthews and I agree, along with Bill Maher, that no such evicence exiss. Thus, is the preponderance of theg evidence, which this blog has ofeten itemized, that President Obama has NEVER DISCAREDED the NON-BELIEF that he maintained unitil at least the age of 18? To me, this is obviously so. As an agnostic myself, and one who has thought about these things deeply for 50 years, I am more than qualified to give you this opinion. There are actually MANY people out there who sAY they are Christians, even while they have no real religius beliefs, because it is the easiest andmost conveninet thingfor them to do. It is useful in politics AND business. No, I am not saying most people are quite that cynical, but MANY are. Obama is definitely one of them.
Hacker Boy (hacking into this disgraceful blog and still dentying I am Piers Morgan, or any other person who learned hacking in Rupert Murdoch's organizatino--a SMEAR about me from the despicable Skip): "Skip, you just keep doing tese tings. You know that CNN did NOT report that Presdient Obama is BOTH a Muslim and an atheist. That is absurd. And what difference does it make that he was raised an atehist 30 years and more ago, for tghe first 18 or 20 years of his life? Most people-unlike YOU, Skip, because you are so ARROGANT to think you know it all (using your won habit of using all caps for emphasis, bad a habit as that is). MOST people do not make a final decision on their spiritual beliefs until they are adults."
Skip: Ah, you can always depend on Hacker Boy to get it wrong. First, most people porbably do not sit down,, like I have often done, and THINK about hwhat they believe. They just live their lives, assuming that (often) their parents's beliefs are the ones they should have. Or they have a MENTOR that "converts" them. I can see that Hacker boy would think that it "arrogant" to believe that Im, as a 12 or 13 year old, could decide what I believe all on my onw (altough I was always a voracious reader, and what I mean is that there is no SPECIFIC person who brough me to SKEPTICISM as the only course that made sense to me. Note that this is the very opposite of thinking that I "know everythihg". My whole philosohy of both government and religon is that NO ONE--much less myself, smarter as I am than most people--can "know everything". By the way, I "converted" to "conversatism" AFTER my "conversion" to agnosticism, at maybe 15 years of age (in high school) It is not that I had ever been a libera. I jsut had not started really thinking about politics until then, and my opinions were crystalized by Barry Goldwater (and Ronald Reagan) in 1964. Is it that easy to be brought up a "skeptic", and then make the big decisino to "convert" to a religion, and yet not SHOW your deep convictions (often, in the case of Obama, indicating he has no clue on how people of conscience think, as on this "contraception" issue). I, myslef, of course, am even a skkeptic on whether skepticism is the right approach to life (agreeing with the Roman philosopher, Lucian). Maybe that partly explains why, skeptic though I am, I agree more with TRADITIONAL views on abortin, homosexual marriage, and premarital sex than most people who profess to believe in the Christian religion. I digress, but I thought you should know where I am coming from.
I will not back off on CNN. On Thursday, CNN and Wolf Blitzer, in one of the most disgraceful and EVIL "news" reports I ahve ever seen, actaully made a big point of Marco Rubio (because hsi family moved to Las Vegas for awhile, and evidently BRIEFLY bought into the Mormon culture and beliefs) having been a Mormon between the ages of 8 and 12 (or whatver). What can you say about EVIL on this level? Weill, I will try to say it in thenext article specifically on CNN and Wolf Blitzer (one evil human being, and bone-deep stupid). However, the whole pont of the CNN article seemed to be: "Once a Mormon, always a Mormon, or at least that is how voters are entitled to look at you" I could never make this up.
As far as I am concerned, CNN did report that it is RELEVANT (for a poliltical campaign) taht Obama was an ATHEIST. If you have once been an atheist, is it not just as reasonable, or more reasonable (as Obama was an atheist much longer) that you would be TAINTED by taht in your later life. But wait. Hacker Boy aside, is there not an ISSUE on whether Obama, AS A CHILD (ging to a Muslim school in Indonesia) was briefly a Mormon-uh, I mean MUSLIM. Once a Muslim, always a Muslim? Why is it not RELEVANT what Obama's NON-CHRISITAN religious beliefs were between the ages of 8 and 12? CNN says it is, and I will not back off of that assertion. The only way CNN is not saying that is if yhou assume that CNN peole are the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four. Huh? You menan that CNN peole aRE the worst hypocrites who ever walked the Earth? Well, I admit that may weaken this argument a little., althogu it is still turue that Obama is not a Crhistian.
CNN has a lot to answer fror. I have called my own 89 year old MOTHER a KOOK, because she professes to believe that Obama is a Muslim. What she really believes, of course, even though she was once--and still is==a strong supporter of FDR, is that Obarack Obama is undermining everyithing she remembers as good about this country. She is right, but that did not stop me from calling her a KOOK (altong with others out there with the same assertin). This caused me GRIEF with my mother (who ismuch too smart to read this blog, but who I TOLD what I had said). Now CNN has basically said that my mother is RIGHT. What CNN basically said is that if BarackObama was a MU:SLIM at age 10 (or whatever), and had a Muslim father (which maybe he did), that is enough to allude to Obama as a MUSLIM in a polical campaign. There is certainly an ISSUE as to whether Obama wa ONCE a Muslim, as a child. Maybe he wasn't, but there is a legitimate ISSUE. Waht I don't think there is an isssue about is whether Obama is NOW a Muslim, desite Obama's obvious hostility to many Christians (and apparent bias toward Muslims). o, the evidence is that Obama has NO religioni except leftist ideology. But CNN has UNDERMINED my assertin that my mother is a kook, now that AT&T has taken the unfair and unbalanced network away from my motehr (leaving her basicaly with only CNN), I have o hope in convincing my mother that you are a KOOK if oyou actually beieve that Obama is a Muslim. Once a Muslim, always a Muslim": that is the CNN clear psotion (just substitute "Mormon").
For CNN, this election has been, and will be, ALL abut religion--or the balttle between the "secular humanism" of Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, the rest of the mainstream media, and Barack Obama AGAINST religin. That leaves me in the interesting osition of being on NEITHER side of this battle, other than DESISING LEFTIST IDEOLOGY (which I regard as a religion in itsef, much more odious than traditional religions).
P.S No proofreading or spell checiking (bad eyesight). Unless I change my mind, the next article will be a diret exposure of CNN and Wolf Blitzer as the EVIL peole that they are.
Mexico and El Paso: Danterous Border (Stray Bullets Endanger California Travellers?)
I am not sure whether it is because Mexican violence has subsided, or because it is just not being reported--probably elements of both--but there have not been so many stories about the out-of-control violence in El Paso's (where I live) sister city of Juarez, Mexico in the past several mnths. That is why there have been not so many blog updates in my "Mexico: A Failed Country" series.
However, there was a news report in El Paso this past week which indicates that the the area of teh Mexican border is still a DANGEROUS place (albeit, and amazingly, El Paso remains a very SAFEcity, except for these occasional STRAY BULLTETS from Mexico). That wsa the news story this past week: That a woman, who had moved from Juarez to El Paso to escape the violence, was SHO:T with what was reported to be a stray bullet from one of those drug cartel batles in Juarez. The woman was apparently hit in th eleg with athise stray bullet, although you always have to be a little skeptical as to whether initial reports were an accurate repreesentation of the actual facts.
That is another POSSIBLE explanation for the apparent sbusiding of the extreme violvence that had made Juarez about the most dangerous city in the WORLD (including the Middle East): Maybe everyone is DEAD, or moved to somewhere else (like the United States). I assume that is a slight exaggeration. People still do go back and forth beteween Juarez and El Paso, although not nearly as often--and with as little concern--as was the case when I first began livnig in El Paso (or even little more than a decade ago, when my daughters wer in an El Paso high school and gong across the border to Juarez night clubs , over my objectins).
In case yoiu have never drivent to Southern California using the southern route, you may not realize the DANGER that motorists reavelling to California, on Interstate 10, are in. Interstate 10 diips down toward teh Mexico border at El Paso, and you can actually SEE Mexico (across the Rio Grande) from interstate 10 as you go through El Paso. In fact, it is at the pont that interstate 10 is travelling in sight of Mexico, paralle to the Rio Grande, that there has been a previuos reort of STRAY BULLETS hittng buildings at UTEP (the local university). The ONLY way that could happen, as to stray bulltets from Juareez 9the official explanation at the time) , was for the bullets to pas OVER I-10. I am not aware of any reports of a California-bound car being hit by such a stray bullet, although there was a report of a care being hit near downtown El Paso, as a protino oft the downtown area was "peppered" with bullets form a fire fight in Juarez. The El Paso City Hall has been previously hit with such stray bullets.
You know those sings about watch out ofr falling rocks", or "deer crossing". I keep wondering whether we should put up a WARNING sign along I-10: "Watch out for stray bullets".
So far, this is like lightning strikes; not much of a daily concern for teh residents of El Paso. Residents of places like Chicgo are in MUCH more danger from LOCAL violence. The main effet in El Paso, as stated, is that there just is not as much interaction between Juarez and El Paso as once was the case, althugh many people still travel back and forth between the two cities (if only because tkhey have relatives in both cities, or, for exmple, work in El paso but ive in Juarez.
Still, this story ws still a reminder that the Mexican border still remains a DANGEROUS place, where ou can ever be sure when viiolence will breakout.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
However, there was a news report in El Paso this past week which indicates that the the area of teh Mexican border is still a DANGEROUS place (albeit, and amazingly, El Paso remains a very SAFEcity, except for these occasional STRAY BULLTETS from Mexico). That wsa the news story this past week: That a woman, who had moved from Juarez to El Paso to escape the violence, was SHO:T with what was reported to be a stray bullet from one of those drug cartel batles in Juarez. The woman was apparently hit in th eleg with athise stray bullet, although you always have to be a little skeptical as to whether initial reports were an accurate repreesentation of the actual facts.
That is another POSSIBLE explanation for the apparent sbusiding of the extreme violvence that had made Juarez about the most dangerous city in the WORLD (including the Middle East): Maybe everyone is DEAD, or moved to somewhere else (like the United States). I assume that is a slight exaggeration. People still do go back and forth beteween Juarez and El Paso, although not nearly as often--and with as little concern--as was the case when I first began livnig in El Paso (or even little more than a decade ago, when my daughters wer in an El Paso high school and gong across the border to Juarez night clubs , over my objectins).
In case yoiu have never drivent to Southern California using the southern route, you may not realize the DANGER that motorists reavelling to California, on Interstate 10, are in. Interstate 10 diips down toward teh Mexico border at El Paso, and you can actually SEE Mexico (across the Rio Grande) from interstate 10 as you go through El Paso. In fact, it is at the pont that interstate 10 is travelling in sight of Mexico, paralle to the Rio Grande, that there has been a previuos reort of STRAY BULLETS hittng buildings at UTEP (the local university). The ONLY way that could happen, as to stray bulltets from Juareez 9the official explanation at the time) , was for the bullets to pas OVER I-10. I am not aware of any reports of a California-bound car being hit by such a stray bullet, although there was a report of a care being hit near downtown El Paso, as a protino oft the downtown area was "peppered" with bullets form a fire fight in Juarez. The El Paso City Hall has been previously hit with such stray bullets.
You know those sings about watch out ofr falling rocks", or "deer crossing". I keep wondering whether we should put up a WARNING sign along I-10: "Watch out for stray bullets".
So far, this is like lightning strikes; not much of a daily concern for teh residents of El Paso. Residents of places like Chicgo are in MUCH more danger from LOCAL violence. The main effet in El Paso, as stated, is that there just is not as much interaction between Juarez and El Paso as once was the case, althugh many people still travel back and forth between the two cities (if only because tkhey have relatives in both cities, or, for exmple, work in El paso but ive in Juarez.
Still, this story ws still a reminder that the Mexican border still remains a DANGEROUS place, where ou can ever be sure when viiolence will breakout.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Friday, February 24, 2012
Obama: President Apology
Every time I, or anybody else, turns around, President Obama is apologizing for the United States of America. Long ago, his went beyond annoying.. I am willing to state it bluntly: A man with this kind of attitude toward this country--not to mention toward the majority religion (Christian, although Obama is one of the FEW people in this country to claim to be a GENERIC Christian instead of a member of a specific Christian religoin)--should NOT be President of the United States.
Yes, I am talking about the amazing performance of the President of the Untited States, and his whole administration, ABASING themselves with ergard to this "Koran burning'" in Afghanistn. Our President will NOT stand up for Christians peersecuted in majority Muslim countries, or just people like the peole of Iran who got no support from us when they protested their dictator's rigged election, but who will virtually CRAWL (and have hiswhole administration CRAWL on their bellies, apologizing to the CORRUPT head (Karzai) of teh Afghanistan government (where two Americans were just KILLED---not as part of the war--with no "apology".
There is something absurd and pathetic about this knee jerk reactin from a Preisent so willing to abase his country--whethre we like it or not--before other countries (:and the world). The reaction of the "hate America" left is also revealing. I saw a "defense" of this absurd overreation--and appeaement of the anti-American Mislim MOBS, and it tells you everything you need to know about Obama and teh left. The "defense" is that, yes, we ARE better than these Muslim countries who persecute Christians, and these Muslim mobs who will KILL over mere cartoons or the burning of a BOOK mere paper and ink--as distinguished from the IDAS in the book, which cannot be burned). However, it is because we aREBETTER THAN THEY ARE that Obama is right to "apologize" so profusely. Hogwas. Evil hogwash.
These are mere BOOKS. They were "burned" ACCIDENTALLY, and not the result of ANY high leve policy or encouragement from officials of teh United States (not true of Muslim countries in their persectution of Christians). The person from the left who I heard make this ridiculous "argumetn" about being "better" than these peole (which Obama NEVER says, by the way)was based on an implied ASSUMPTION that is FALSE. The word "better" implies a MORAL fault. What is the MOREAL FAULT here? Noope. It is NOT IMMORAL to ACCIDENTALLY (in terms of not being a deliberate insult to the Muslim religion, although whoever fedt the books to the flames, or put the books in the trash to be burned, might have had some idea of them being treated as trash). How do you disose of Koran BOOKS when they are worn out, or you have some that you just don't have any use for (like there are too many of them)? Is throwing them out witht he trash (or burying them) somehow better than b"rurnign" them? That is abssurd. But Obama and the left are all about absurd. How are you supposed to dispose of a Koran BOOK that you don't want anymroe? If the Muslim religion realy considers the BOOKS (as books--not the concepts in them) as SACRED, then the Muslim religion truly is insane. What if oo yuo print out the Koran from a comuter? Or just down load it on to a computer? When you hit the "delete' button, or burn the computer printout, are lyou "insulting" the Muslim religion?
For Obama and the left, the idea here is bobviously that we MUST "respect" the OVERSENSITIVE "sensibiliteies" of MUSLIM EXTREMISTS. I can't tell y=you how vehemently I reject this ridiculous idea. Eve if, somehow, EVERY Koran BOOK is supposedly SACRED, and only to be disposed of in a particluar way (like destroying an Aermican flag), it is absurd to expect people who do NOT believe in the RELIGION (of whch the Koran is only the tanible record, when in book from) to even KNOW about eververyting that "oofends" Mu;slims. I will go further: As with the Danish cartoons, which I would actually hae liked to post of this blog (or have my cartoonist--hobby--daughterr make me some NEW ones, and post them for me, which she refused to do), I REJCT the idea that it is one of my goals in life to avvoid "offending" Muslims. There are values I have that are MUCH more important that any worry about "offending" Muslims. I HOPE Muslims wil be offendied by this article--not because I am dlieberately trlying to insult the Muslim religin but because too many people in the Muslim religion are STUCK at the pont where the so mcch of the Christian Chruch was at tlhe time of the Spanish Inquision. Burning people at the stake, or killing them in ANY way, becasue the have "offended" your religion is NOT DEFESNIBLE. And I will oppose it to bmy last breath. Too bad we don't have a President with that attitude.
Charles Krauthammer is right on what SHOULD have been done , and he is right only about half the time. (well, maybe a little better than that, but not anywhere near this blog's 99.9% accurccuracy percentage). There was no need for us to ABASE ourselves, and PRETEND (I hope, without being sure) that ACCIDENTALLY, and not part of policy, destroyong Korans in a way "offensive" to Muslms was some sort of major SIN. The left seems to think it was a SIN, even though they don't believ ve in sin, but it was not. It was a MISTAKE. We are "guests" (sort of) in Afhansistan,. That does nto mean ABASING ourselves at every unintended slight. But there is no reason to go out of our way to "offend", even if it is basically accidental. Therefore, as Krauthammer suggests, the thing to do was for the MILITARY COMMANDER in Afghanistan (whose troops were supposedly "negligent") to issue a statement sayng this was an accident, not intended to insult Muslims, and apologizing for not being more careful about Muslim feelings in the matter (however you want to word it, WIOHOUT all of this ABASEMENT). No reason for the PRESIDENT to "apologize, or the officals in the Defense Department. Taht jsut blows it up out of all proporton, and leaves the impression that the Muslim MOB has extorted these excessive "apologies" out of the "great Satan".
This blog told you essentially the same thing about the media insane overreatction to that NUT down in Florida, wiht a nothing congregation,, who was going to "brun" the Koran as part of a PUBLLICITY TUNT (which publicity he gt). Again, there was NO reason for ME, or our media, or for ANBODY else in the U.S. to "apologize" for that preacher in Florida proposing to "burn" the Koran. He was merely a person proposing to exercise his FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, and--again--I would NEVER apologize to Mulsims for having a country where FREDDOM is more important than claims of "offending" religious fanatics. My reaction would be the same if an atheist decided to burn the BIBLE, as hhas surely happened. Not, as an agnostic, you may think that it is obvius I would nto care. But CHRISTIANS have not "rioted" or KILLED PEOPLE, because of "insults" to their religion. As I say, too much of the Muslim religni is STUCK back at the time of the Spanish Inqusition, in terms of ow the Muslims treat "heresy". . You could even go to the Salem witch trials as another example of this kind of thing--the unwillingness to let GOD decide the "punishment' for religious "crimes". Again, we are talking about merely a TANGIBLE BOOK, which cannot possibly be regarded (bay a sane person) as "sacred" in and of itself. It is what the book REPRESENTS that can be called sacred, and burning the tangible BOOK has no effect on the IDEAS involved.
Buit isn't it INSULTING? Not as insulting as PANDERING to the worst elements of a religion: those elements those elements STUCK in the kind of religious insanity once adoopted by Christians at the time of the Spanish Inquistion (and other times and other places). But this is why the Florida preacher WAS committing a "sin" (morally wrong actin), even though other people in the FREE United States are not resojnsible for it. The Florida preacer was INTENDING to INSULT the Muslim religion. He was INTENDING to "burn the Koran as a SYBOLIC way of "burning" the whole religion. That was, and is, POINTLESS. Rather, its only pont ist o INSULT, and that knd of HATE is not erally defensible (as it is not defensible to burn the American flag as a way of showing your HATE for this country). We have the FREEDOM to do this kind of ting, and I would never apologize for people exercising that freedom. But I would NOT give them publicity, or try to suggest (as our media did) that it is an example of general "intolerance" toward Muslims in this coutnry.
Deliberate insult, just to be insulting, is not defensible. That was NOT true of the "koran burning" in Afhanistan, which was not a matter of deliberate American policy (the reason that a LOCAL "apology" was appropriate). There ws no MORAL FAULT in Afghanistan. There is a MORAL FAULT in deliberate insult jsut to be "mean". However, to PANDER to the UNREASONABLE FEELINGS of Mulims, sunc as in the matter of the Danish cartoons or other books and images, is an VEIL thing. It is like an historian ENDORSING the Spanish INquistinon, because the peole standing for more freedom were insulting the FEELINGS of the fnatics burning people at the stake (like Joan of Arc--in France).
Nope. There is NO defense for Obama having this compulsion to effusively apoogy for his COUNTRY in a continuing overreaction for our "sins" (which arfe often not "sins" at all).
The man is a piece of work. Obama, I mean, and I mean it in the WORST possible way.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Now some of you may have noticed that the first "post" on this article cut off in MID-WORD. That had nothing to do with my eyesight, although it probably had a lot to do with my lack of computer composition skills. My keyboard simply STOPPED WORKING in the middle of a word. Who knows what I did. From experience, the only way to be (somewhat) sure of not losing what I had typed wsa to psot what I had typed (which DID work, as the whole computer was not frozen). Then I had to turn off the computer and "reboot". Then the keyboard actually worked on the Googel form. No, it would not even work in"edit" mode until I "rebooted". These things absolutely amaze me. Oh, and I am SERIOUS abut a quesitn raised it he above aarticle. How are you SUPPOSED to dispose of EXTRA Korans you have, or WRON OUT Korans that you have? I know you could give them away, but surely it is not expected taht Koran BOOKS will last FOREVER. For that matter, is there any way you are supposed to dispose of BIBLES, if--for example, you are a bookstore that simpy ahas to many that you don't know what to do with? Or they are worn out? I am not aware of any such "standard" for disposing of a printed Bible, but that does not menan therat there is not one (in at least some specific c Christian creeds). To me, it is just a BOOK. I would never owrry about throwing any Koran or Bible into an incinerator--not as a stunt but just because I want to dispose of them--especially not to avoid "wounidng" the "feelings" of people who don't like ti. I see no reason for deliberate insult, but I also see no reason to pay any attention to the oversensitve "feelings" of fanatics. And no, I REJECT the idea that I am engaging in deliberate insult if I am not "sensitive" to the "feelignS' of Muslims, to the point of teying to aovid EVERY acitn that might "offend" them. There wyou are back to my exmale of not "offending" the "Inquisitors" of the Spanish INquisitin. I would regard it as a badge of hono to "offend" peole like that. No, I am not saying that ALL Muslimms are stuck int he Muslim wquivlanet of the Spanish Inquisition. I am just saying that TOO MAANy Muslims are in that state, not to mentin those who are AFRAID to stand up t the fanatices. Nowyou might understand SOME of these pople who have a REAL FER of hhat might happen to them (as people like Glileo had when faced with an intolerant ChristainChurch) . What I don't understnad is peole like Obama, and our MEDIA, who give in to both fear and PAADERING. Those peole are people for whom I have NO respect at all.
Yes, I am talking about the amazing performance of the President of the Untited States, and his whole administration, ABASING themselves with ergard to this "Koran burning'" in Afghanistn. Our President will NOT stand up for Christians peersecuted in majority Muslim countries, or just people like the peole of Iran who got no support from us when they protested their dictator's rigged election, but who will virtually CRAWL (and have hiswhole administration CRAWL on their bellies, apologizing to the CORRUPT head (Karzai) of teh Afghanistan government (where two Americans were just KILLED---not as part of the war--with no "apology".
There is something absurd and pathetic about this knee jerk reactin from a Preisent so willing to abase his country--whethre we like it or not--before other countries (:and the world). The reaction of the "hate America" left is also revealing. I saw a "defense" of this absurd overreation--and appeaement of the anti-American Mislim MOBS, and it tells you everything you need to know about Obama and teh left. The "defense" is that, yes, we ARE better than these Muslim countries who persecute Christians, and these Muslim mobs who will KILL over mere cartoons or the burning of a BOOK mere paper and ink--as distinguished from the IDAS in the book, which cannot be burned). However, it is because we aREBETTER THAN THEY ARE that Obama is right to "apologize" so profusely. Hogwas. Evil hogwash.
These are mere BOOKS. They were "burned" ACCIDENTALLY, and not the result of ANY high leve policy or encouragement from officials of teh United States (not true of Muslim countries in their persectution of Christians). The person from the left who I heard make this ridiculous "argumetn" about being "better" than these peole (which Obama NEVER says, by the way)was based on an implied ASSUMPTION that is FALSE. The word "better" implies a MORAL fault. What is the MOREAL FAULT here? Noope. It is NOT IMMORAL to ACCIDENTALLY (in terms of not being a deliberate insult to the Muslim religion, although whoever fedt the books to the flames, or put the books in the trash to be burned, might have had some idea of them being treated as trash). How do you disose of Koran BOOKS when they are worn out, or you have some that you just don't have any use for (like there are too many of them)? Is throwing them out witht he trash (or burying them) somehow better than b"rurnign" them? That is abssurd. But Obama and the left are all about absurd. How are you supposed to dispose of a Koran BOOK that you don't want anymroe? If the Muslim religion realy considers the BOOKS (as books--not the concepts in them) as SACRED, then the Muslim religion truly is insane. What if oo yuo print out the Koran from a comuter? Or just down load it on to a computer? When you hit the "delete' button, or burn the computer printout, are lyou "insulting" the Muslim religion?
For Obama and the left, the idea here is bobviously that we MUST "respect" the OVERSENSITIVE "sensibiliteies" of MUSLIM EXTREMISTS. I can't tell y=you how vehemently I reject this ridiculous idea. Eve if, somehow, EVERY Koran BOOK is supposedly SACRED, and only to be disposed of in a particluar way (like destroying an Aermican flag), it is absurd to expect people who do NOT believe in the RELIGION (of whch the Koran is only the tanible record, when in book from) to even KNOW about eververyting that "oofends" Mu;slims. I will go further: As with the Danish cartoons, which I would actually hae liked to post of this blog (or have my cartoonist--hobby--daughterr make me some NEW ones, and post them for me, which she refused to do), I REJCT the idea that it is one of my goals in life to avvoid "offending" Muslims. There are values I have that are MUCH more important that any worry about "offending" Muslims. I HOPE Muslims wil be offendied by this article--not because I am dlieberately trlying to insult the Muslim religin but because too many people in the Muslim religion are STUCK at the pont where the so mcch of the Christian Chruch was at tlhe time of the Spanish Inquision. Burning people at the stake, or killing them in ANY way, becasue the have "offended" your religion is NOT DEFESNIBLE. And I will oppose it to bmy last breath. Too bad we don't have a President with that attitude.
Charles Krauthammer is right on what SHOULD have been done , and he is right only about half the time. (well, maybe a little better than that, but not anywhere near this blog's 99.9% accurccuracy percentage). There was no need for us to ABASE ourselves, and PRETEND (I hope, without being sure) that ACCIDENTALLY, and not part of policy, destroyong Korans in a way "offensive" to Muslms was some sort of major SIN. The left seems to think it was a SIN, even though they don't believ ve in sin, but it was not. It was a MISTAKE. We are "guests" (sort of) in Afhansistan,. That does nto mean ABASING ourselves at every unintended slight. But there is no reason to go out of our way to "offend", even if it is basically accidental. Therefore, as Krauthammer suggests, the thing to do was for the MILITARY COMMANDER in Afghanistan (whose troops were supposedly "negligent") to issue a statement sayng this was an accident, not intended to insult Muslims, and apologizing for not being more careful about Muslim feelings in the matter (however you want to word it, WIOHOUT all of this ABASEMENT). No reason for the PRESIDENT to "apologize, or the officals in the Defense Department. Taht jsut blows it up out of all proporton, and leaves the impression that the Muslim MOB has extorted these excessive "apologies" out of the "great Satan".
This blog told you essentially the same thing about the media insane overreatction to that NUT down in Florida, wiht a nothing congregation,, who was going to "brun" the Koran as part of a PUBLLICITY TUNT (which publicity he gt). Again, there was NO reason for ME, or our media, or for ANBODY else in the U.S. to "apologize" for that preacher in Florida proposing to "burn" the Koran. He was merely a person proposing to exercise his FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, and--again--I would NEVER apologize to Mulsims for having a country where FREDDOM is more important than claims of "offending" religious fanatics. My reaction would be the same if an atheist decided to burn the BIBLE, as hhas surely happened. Not, as an agnostic, you may think that it is obvius I would nto care. But CHRISTIANS have not "rioted" or KILLED PEOPLE, because of "insults" to their religion. As I say, too much of the Muslim religni is STUCK back at the time of the Spanish Inqusition, in terms of ow the Muslims treat "heresy". . You could even go to the Salem witch trials as another example of this kind of thing--the unwillingness to let GOD decide the "punishment' for religious "crimes". Again, we are talking about merely a TANGIBLE BOOK, which cannot possibly be regarded (bay a sane person) as "sacred" in and of itself. It is what the book REPRESENTS that can be called sacred, and burning the tangible BOOK has no effect on the IDEAS involved.
Buit isn't it INSULTING? Not as insulting as PANDERING to the worst elements of a religion: those elements those elements STUCK in the kind of religious insanity once adoopted by Christians at the time of the Spanish Inquistion (and other times and other places). But this is why the Florida preacher WAS committing a "sin" (morally wrong actin), even though other people in the FREE United States are not resojnsible for it. The Florida preacer was INTENDING to INSULT the Muslim religion. He was INTENDING to "burn the Koran as a SYBOLIC way of "burning" the whole religion. That was, and is, POINTLESS. Rather, its only pont ist o INSULT, and that knd of HATE is not erally defensible (as it is not defensible to burn the American flag as a way of showing your HATE for this country). We have the FREEDOM to do this kind of ting, and I would never apologize for people exercising that freedom. But I would NOT give them publicity, or try to suggest (as our media did) that it is an example of general "intolerance" toward Muslims in this coutnry.
Deliberate insult, just to be insulting, is not defensible. That was NOT true of the "koran burning" in Afhanistan, which was not a matter of deliberate American policy (the reason that a LOCAL "apology" was appropriate). There ws no MORAL FAULT in Afghanistan. There is a MORAL FAULT in deliberate insult jsut to be "mean". However, to PANDER to the UNREASONABLE FEELINGS of Mulims, sunc as in the matter of the Danish cartoons or other books and images, is an VEIL thing. It is like an historian ENDORSING the Spanish INquistinon, because the peole standing for more freedom were insulting the FEELINGS of the fnatics burning people at the stake (like Joan of Arc--in France).
Nope. There is NO defense for Obama having this compulsion to effusively apoogy for his COUNTRY in a continuing overreaction for our "sins" (which arfe often not "sins" at all).
The man is a piece of work. Obama, I mean, and I mean it in the WORST possible way.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Now some of you may have noticed that the first "post" on this article cut off in MID-WORD. That had nothing to do with my eyesight, although it probably had a lot to do with my lack of computer composition skills. My keyboard simply STOPPED WORKING in the middle of a word. Who knows what I did. From experience, the only way to be (somewhat) sure of not losing what I had typed wsa to psot what I had typed (which DID work, as the whole computer was not frozen). Then I had to turn off the computer and "reboot". Then the keyboard actually worked on the Googel form. No, it would not even work in"edit" mode until I "rebooted". These things absolutely amaze me. Oh, and I am SERIOUS abut a quesitn raised it he above aarticle. How are you SUPPOSED to dispose of EXTRA Korans you have, or WRON OUT Korans that you have? I know you could give them away, but surely it is not expected taht Koran BOOKS will last FOREVER. For that matter, is there any way you are supposed to dispose of BIBLES, if--for example, you are a bookstore that simpy ahas to many that you don't know what to do with? Or they are worn out? I am not aware of any such "standard" for disposing of a printed Bible, but that does not menan therat there is not one (in at least some specific c Christian creeds). To me, it is just a BOOK. I would never owrry about throwing any Koran or Bible into an incinerator--not as a stunt but just because I want to dispose of them--especially not to avoid "wounidng" the "feelings" of people who don't like ti. I see no reason for deliberate insult, but I also see no reason to pay any attention to the oversensitve "feelings" of fanatics. And no, I REJECT the idea that I am engaging in deliberate insult if I am not "sensitive" to the "feelignS' of Muslims, to the point of teying to aovid EVERY acitn that might "offend" them. There wyou are back to my exmale of not "offending" the "Inquisitors" of the Spanish INquisitin. I would regard it as a badge of hono to "offend" peole like that. No, I am not saying that ALL Muslimms are stuck int he Muslim wquivlanet of the Spanish Inquisition. I am just saying that TOO MAANy Muslims are in that state, not to mentin those who are AFRAID to stand up t the fanatices. Nowyou might understand SOME of these pople who have a REAL FER of hhat might happen to them (as people like Glileo had when faced with an intolerant ChristainChurch) . What I don't understnad is peole like Obama, and our MEDIA, who give in to both fear and PAADERING. Those peole are people for whom I have NO respect at all.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Jobless Claims (New Unemployment Claims): Media Lies Just Never End
"Jobless laims unchanged last week at 351,000"
That is the media headline this morning, as the weekly rreport on new unemployment claims was released (as usual on Thursday morning). As readers of this blog know, that headline is an OUTRIGHT LIE, repeated every single week.
On an apple-to-apples basis, new unemplyment claims likely ROSE 3,000 last week. Oh, statistically, that is really "unchanged", but hahat is the other LIE in the way these ESTIMATES (not exact numbers) arae reported. They are, in fact, rreported as exact numbers, when they are really SEASONALY ADJUSTED estimates. The reason that the headline quoted is an obvious, outright lie is that even the seasonally adjusted ESTIMATE is REVISED next week. Thus, the number REPORTED last week was 348,000, and this blog has informed you 9long ago) that the initially reported number is usually revised UPWARD by 3,000 or 4,000. As usual, this blog's PREDICTION was EXACTLY right, as the 348,000 initially reported last week as the number of new unemplyment claims for the previous week, was REVISED to the 351,000. The only PROPER statistical comparison is to compare the INITIALLY REPORTED numbers, since the pattern of REVISINO is so consistent. Thus, you MUST compare tis week's initially reported 351,000 with last week's initially reported 348,000: a RISE of 3,000 (subject to revision next week, but that is the only proper statistical way to do it (again, when the upward revision is so consistent from week to week).
You thik this is bad!!!! What the Bureau of Labor Statistics does with the MONTHLY emplyment numbers (unemplyment numbers as weell) is a CRIME. This January, and every recent January, the Labor Department has revised (substantially) the MEHODOLOGY of calculating the monthly emplyment numbers. This means that yyou CANNOTA compare December's numbers with January's numbers, and can't even compare LAST YEAR'S numbers with this year's numbers (compariang last jJanuary, for example, with this Januray). Those monthly numbers have become basically a joke.
Now this 351,000 number broke the "trnd" of several recent weeks of an improving number. Still, as this blog has told lyou, the WEEKLY number is fairly meaningless. It is only OVER TIME that these weekly numbers on new unemplyment claims have any meaning. Now in context, OVER TIME--realizing that this weekly number is a FALLIBLE ESTIMATE--teh 351,000 number, even with the expected REVCSIIN next week to 354,000, ias actually a fairly good numbe.r It is good enough to keept he four-week avergage going down. No, it is not an OUTSTANDING number, and really only SLIGHTLY better than numbers last February. But it is not a bad number.
But see the previous article. What we don't know is whether last year's PATTERN will REPEAT itself again, especailly in view of what is happening with gasoline prices. (and oil, importatn for more than gasoline, as fuel prices are important for more than gasoline and diesel prices,. They end up as TRANSPORTATION cost, and therefore increase the cost of things like FOOD, as well as utility costs. Remember, essentially these SAME articles about an "improvving" economy were written LAST YER (through Fevruary), and even at the end of 2009. Have we entered on a new seasonal pattern, where things look better in the winter and worse in the summer? Maybbe This is a VERY fragile "recovery", and thsese statistics are not nearly as good as the media would have you believe. We will see. As the previous blog article stated, the price of oil is on the VERGE of creating major damage to the economy of the United States (and of the world).
Again, this blog cutrs through the media lies, and gives ou the trugth. There is SOME reson for SOME optimism. Notice how Barack Obama MIGHT be VICTIMIZED by media lies. If there IS a new seasonal pattern, where things look wrose in the sumer, Obama could be faced with statistics that make things look WORSE than they really are (as arguably happpened last summer). Now I am sure the media will do its best to RESCUE Obama, no matter what the actual facts are. And if things really are looking "too rosy" right now, then the supposed "improving" economy is mostly a MYTH.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
That is the media headline this morning, as the weekly rreport on new unemployment claims was released (as usual on Thursday morning). As readers of this blog know, that headline is an OUTRIGHT LIE, repeated every single week.
On an apple-to-apples basis, new unemplyment claims likely ROSE 3,000 last week. Oh, statistically, that is really "unchanged", but hahat is the other LIE in the way these ESTIMATES (not exact numbers) arae reported. They are, in fact, rreported as exact numbers, when they are really SEASONALY ADJUSTED estimates. The reason that the headline quoted is an obvious, outright lie is that even the seasonally adjusted ESTIMATE is REVISED next week. Thus, the number REPORTED last week was 348,000, and this blog has informed you 9long ago) that the initially reported number is usually revised UPWARD by 3,000 or 4,000. As usual, this blog's PREDICTION was EXACTLY right, as the 348,000 initially reported last week as the number of new unemplyment claims for the previous week, was REVISED to the 351,000. The only PROPER statistical comparison is to compare the INITIALLY REPORTED numbers, since the pattern of REVISINO is so consistent. Thus, you MUST compare tis week's initially reported 351,000 with last week's initially reported 348,000: a RISE of 3,000 (subject to revision next week, but that is the only proper statistical way to do it (again, when the upward revision is so consistent from week to week).
You thik this is bad!!!! What the Bureau of Labor Statistics does with the MONTHLY emplyment numbers (unemplyment numbers as weell) is a CRIME. This January, and every recent January, the Labor Department has revised (substantially) the MEHODOLOGY of calculating the monthly emplyment numbers. This means that yyou CANNOTA compare December's numbers with January's numbers, and can't even compare LAST YEAR'S numbers with this year's numbers (compariang last jJanuary, for example, with this Januray). Those monthly numbers have become basically a joke.
Now this 351,000 number broke the "trnd" of several recent weeks of an improving number. Still, as this blog has told lyou, the WEEKLY number is fairly meaningless. It is only OVER TIME that these weekly numbers on new unemplyment claims have any meaning. Now in context, OVER TIME--realizing that this weekly number is a FALLIBLE ESTIMATE--teh 351,000 number, even with the expected REVCSIIN next week to 354,000, ias actually a fairly good numbe.r It is good enough to keept he four-week avergage going down. No, it is not an OUTSTANDING number, and really only SLIGHTLY better than numbers last February. But it is not a bad number.
But see the previous article. What we don't know is whether last year's PATTERN will REPEAT itself again, especailly in view of what is happening with gasoline prices. (and oil, importatn for more than gasoline, as fuel prices are important for more than gasoline and diesel prices,. They end up as TRANSPORTATION cost, and therefore increase the cost of things like FOOD, as well as utility costs. Remember, essentially these SAME articles about an "improvving" economy were written LAST YER (through Fevruary), and even at the end of 2009. Have we entered on a new seasonal pattern, where things look better in the winter and worse in the summer? Maybbe This is a VERY fragile "recovery", and thsese statistics are not nearly as good as the media would have you believe. We will see. As the previous blog article stated, the price of oil is on the VERGE of creating major damage to the economy of the United States (and of the world).
Again, this blog cutrs through the media lies, and gives ou the trugth. There is SOME reson for SOME optimism. Notice how Barack Obama MIGHT be VICTIMIZED by media lies. If there IS a new seasonal pattern, where things look wrose in the sumer, Obama could be faced with statistics that make things look WORSE than they really are (as arguably happpened last summer). Now I am sure the media will do its best to RESCUE Obama, no matter what the actual facts are. And if things really are looking "too rosy" right now, then the supposed "improving" economy is mostly a MYTH.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
"Bailout Ben" Bernanke and Energy (Oil and Gasoline) Prices: The Worst Failure in the History of World Finance
I would again remind you that Bailout Ben (Federal REserve Chairman) has PRESIDED over the Great Recesson: the wort recession since the Great Depression . Not resting on hi laurels, he then presided over the WORST "recovery" since the Great Depression. It is a FACT thata Bernanke was appointed in relatively early 2006and that the recession did not begin until January 1, 2008--not getting truly BAD until the late summer of 2008. Bernanke has STILL not rested on his laurels as The Worst Failure in the History of World Finance. His "unprecedented" (Obama's favorite word, which explains the quotation marks) Fed BAILOUTS and PRINTNIG of MONEY have created a STEALTH INFLATION concentrated in ENERGY (inculding gasoline and oil), other commodities, and FOOD. Biw ebergt abd fiid gaooeb ti be EXCLUDED from figures on the "core" inflation rate, but they also hapen to be about the LARGEST items in the ordinary family budget (outside of housing).
I actually heard Bailout Ben, before Congress a mere two weeks or so ago, explain why the APPARETN rise in infaltion wsa not worrisome, and why the Fed expects the economy to improve over the coming year (although slowly). ONe of Bernanke's key poihnts was that our problems last sumer were--at least to the degree of being a MAJOR factor--caused by a SPIKE in enegy prices, whihc Bailout Ben said HAS NOT RECURRED.
The man is hopeless. He should not be a PTA treasurer, much less the head of our "central bank". Even when Bernanke said that, it wsa FALSE. Even as Bernanke said that, the price of a barrel of oil was hanging around $100 a barrel, and gasoline prices were AVERAGING above 3.50 a gallon. Bernanke, and The Stupidest People on Earth on Wall Street, were takng "comfort" that oilk prices had gone DOWN from the summer. But, oil and gasoline prices almost ALWAYS go down as the summer driving season winds down, and then go UP in the run-up to Memorial Day. In fact, the GOVERNMENT makes sure gasoline prices will go UP in the summer by "blend" regulations that RAISE the price of gasoline 8 cents a gallon or so. Bailout Ben is CLUELESS. It was obvious a new energy spike was RECURRING, even as he said the opposite. What you have to do is COMPARE oil and gasoline prices NOW with oil and gasoline prices THE SAME TIME LAST YEAR. By that comparison, gasoine prices were up about 28 cents from last year (a BAD YER) when Bernanke made his FALSE statement. That false statement made bernanke's PREDICTINS WORTHLESS. Note that this was BEFORE Iran, and the possiblity of a military strike in Iran, began to rise to crisis status. But--you wuld not know it from clueless Bailout Ben or President Obama--there was ALWAYS a possibility that Iran and teh Middle East would again cause oil and gasoline prices to rise (on top of the commodity INFLATION created by Bailout Ben and the Federal Reserve).
This blog haas stated that Presidetn Obama PANKICKED, and sold oil from our "strategic reserve" (which you can expect again this summer, although it accomplised NOTHING last summer) wahen oil was UNDER $100 a barrel (although it had spiked to $105 a little before that decision was announced. This winter, oilk STARTED at about $100 a barrel. We STILL have not really started the "run-up" to Memorial Day (the traditional start of teh driving season), and oil is now ABOVE $105 dollars a barrel. Meanwhile, the stock market is again in a price BUBBLE, as The Stupidest Peole on Earth ignore the TERRIBLE economic news on oil and gasoline prices. Gasoline prices now are AVERAGING $3.58 a gallon.
What are the business media, and "experts" on Wall Street, tellng you (not all of them, but probably a majority)? They are tellng you--being as clueless as Bailout Ben--NOT TO WORRY. After all, did not oil spike to a high of $145 a barrel in the dark days of 2008? Until we again aproach $145 dollars a barrel, what is there to worry about?....................................................................sorry again, as I was on the foor again in that fetal lpositon, laughing/crying..................
First, $145 a barrel was FICTION. That was a speculative spike that lasted a FEW DAYS. The REAL high was about $120 dollars a barrel (and that not for very long). The sheer stupidity does not end there. In 2008m the economy COLLAPSED. And oil prices spiked in a MATTER OF DSAYS. If THAT happens NOW, we are in for Armageddon (and it COULD happen, if only because of Iran, on top of the INFLATIOUNARY politices of Bailout Ben and the energy policies of President Obama).
It gets wrose. Look again at the beginning of this article, where I mentioned that Bernanke had testified before Congress taht the spike in energy prices last spring/summmer was a large contributor to the DOWNTURN i the economy (not to mentin the spke in even the official inflatoin rate). The"Arab spring" even had something to do with that--indicatging that events int eh Middlese East are NOT a "surpristre". We NEED to be AGGRESSIVELYL pusing our own OIL producitn, and things like the Keystone Pipeline. Instead, Obama is doing as much as he canto SOLW teh productin of oil in this country., and even getting oil from Canada. The point here is that last spring and summer the economy BEGAN HURTING at about a price of oil of $100 a barrel. At $105 dollars a barrel, the economy THREATED to slide into another recessioin. Nottwithstanding the IDIOTS on Wall Street, the EVIDENCE is that the econmy HURTS at an oil price, and a gasoline price, of EXACTLY where we are now. Furtehr, the EVIDENCE is that the economy BEGINS TO SDSHUT DOWN at about $110 dollars a barrel for the price of oil (and a gasoline price above $4 a gallong. At $120 dollars abarrel (well below the "record" high), the EVIDENCE is that rthe economy SHUTS DOWN, for all intents and purposes. These lprices, of coure, need to hold for more than a day or two, but if they do the economy is in DEEP TROUBALE. A mere WEEK or TWO is probably enough to do major damage to the economy, and a MONTH is positively fatal (at $110 dollars and above, and maybe at $105). If we spike to $1120 for even a week, it is hard to see how we avoid another recession. The EFFECT of thiat kind of SHOCK lasts long after the price spike subsides. If gasoline goes to an AVERAGE of as much as $4.25 or $4.50 a gallon, it is most likely fatal to the eocnomy (in terms of avoiding another recession). $4 dollar gasoline is skating on the edge (as an AVERAGE, meaning much higher regional spikes).
No. We are in real DANGER here, and both Bernanke and Obama are responsbile for not recognizing the EXTREME DANGER, and treating it as a CRISIS (years ago, and not jsut now). Obama, as Liar-in-Chief, likes to BRAG about "increased oil productin" in the U.S, but EVERYONE knows that is the result of decsions made BEFORE OBAMA. Obama is the one that put in that disastrous MORATORIUM on drillg in the Gulf of mexcio, and has FOUGHT the productin of more U.S. oil and gasolien at almost every turn. When the fight over drillng in ANWR was HOT, in the late 1990s,Democratic/leftist oppponents liked to arugue that the oil would not even get produced for TEN YERS. Tath wa an outrageous exaggeratin, but it is true that there is a LAG time between increased producitnn (due to MORE DRILING, as distinguished fromopening old wells) and the decisons necessary to BEGIN deveoloping new wells and fields. It is interestng to note that we would NOW have oil from ANWR, even under the most PESSIMISTIC time schedule, if we had made the decisin to DRILL in ANWR when we should have. The same is true of other drilling decisions. Notice how our Liar-in-Chief acts like "increased production" in the past few years is the IMMEDIATE consequence of his own decsions, when that is an obvious LIE (as the ANWR debate shows). the decisoins that increased productin (besides the opening of old wells) were made ni the BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
Nope. Decision makers simply do not get any worse thanBaillut Ben Bernanke. The only questin with him is whether hie is really this DUMB, or whether he is also dishoenst (trying to juftify himself, espite his OBVIUS failures). I go for the "allof the above" apporach to Bailut Ben. I think he is bouth dishoenst (even denying the Fed has been "rprinting money") and bone-deep stupid.
P.S No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
I actually heard Bailout Ben, before Congress a mere two weeks or so ago, explain why the APPARETN rise in infaltion wsa not worrisome, and why the Fed expects the economy to improve over the coming year (although slowly). ONe of Bernanke's key poihnts was that our problems last sumer were--at least to the degree of being a MAJOR factor--caused by a SPIKE in enegy prices, whihc Bailout Ben said HAS NOT RECURRED.
The man is hopeless. He should not be a PTA treasurer, much less the head of our "central bank". Even when Bernanke said that, it wsa FALSE. Even as Bernanke said that, the price of a barrel of oil was hanging around $100 a barrel, and gasoline prices were AVERAGING above 3.50 a gallon. Bernanke, and The Stupidest People on Earth on Wall Street, were takng "comfort" that oilk prices had gone DOWN from the summer. But, oil and gasoline prices almost ALWAYS go down as the summer driving season winds down, and then go UP in the run-up to Memorial Day. In fact, the GOVERNMENT makes sure gasoline prices will go UP in the summer by "blend" regulations that RAISE the price of gasoline 8 cents a gallon or so. Bailout Ben is CLUELESS. It was obvious a new energy spike was RECURRING, even as he said the opposite. What you have to do is COMPARE oil and gasoline prices NOW with oil and gasoline prices THE SAME TIME LAST YEAR. By that comparison, gasoine prices were up about 28 cents from last year (a BAD YER) when Bernanke made his FALSE statement. That false statement made bernanke's PREDICTINS WORTHLESS. Note that this was BEFORE Iran, and the possiblity of a military strike in Iran, began to rise to crisis status. But--you wuld not know it from clueless Bailout Ben or President Obama--there was ALWAYS a possibility that Iran and teh Middle East would again cause oil and gasoline prices to rise (on top of the commodity INFLATION created by Bailout Ben and the Federal Reserve).
This blog haas stated that Presidetn Obama PANKICKED, and sold oil from our "strategic reserve" (which you can expect again this summer, although it accomplised NOTHING last summer) wahen oil was UNDER $100 a barrel (although it had spiked to $105 a little before that decision was announced. This winter, oilk STARTED at about $100 a barrel. We STILL have not really started the "run-up" to Memorial Day (the traditional start of teh driving season), and oil is now ABOVE $105 dollars a barrel. Meanwhile, the stock market is again in a price BUBBLE, as The Stupidest Peole on Earth ignore the TERRIBLE economic news on oil and gasoline prices. Gasoline prices now are AVERAGING $3.58 a gallon.
What are the business media, and "experts" on Wall Street, tellng you (not all of them, but probably a majority)? They are tellng you--being as clueless as Bailout Ben--NOT TO WORRY. After all, did not oil spike to a high of $145 a barrel in the dark days of 2008? Until we again aproach $145 dollars a barrel, what is there to worry about?....................................................................sorry again, as I was on the foor again in that fetal lpositon, laughing/crying..................
First, $145 a barrel was FICTION. That was a speculative spike that lasted a FEW DAYS. The REAL high was about $120 dollars a barrel (and that not for very long). The sheer stupidity does not end there. In 2008m the economy COLLAPSED. And oil prices spiked in a MATTER OF DSAYS. If THAT happens NOW, we are in for Armageddon (and it COULD happen, if only because of Iran, on top of the INFLATIOUNARY politices of Bailout Ben and the energy policies of President Obama).
It gets wrose. Look again at the beginning of this article, where I mentioned that Bernanke had testified before Congress taht the spike in energy prices last spring/summmer was a large contributor to the DOWNTURN i the economy (not to mentin the spke in even the official inflatoin rate). The"Arab spring" even had something to do with that--indicatging that events int eh Middlese East are NOT a "surpristre". We NEED to be AGGRESSIVELYL pusing our own OIL producitn, and things like the Keystone Pipeline. Instead, Obama is doing as much as he canto SOLW teh productin of oil in this country., and even getting oil from Canada. The point here is that last spring and summer the economy BEGAN HURTING at about a price of oil of $100 a barrel. At $105 dollars a barrel, the economy THREATED to slide into another recessioin. Nottwithstanding the IDIOTS on Wall Street, the EVIDENCE is that the econmy HURTS at an oil price, and a gasoline price, of EXACTLY where we are now. Furtehr, the EVIDENCE is that the economy BEGINS TO SDSHUT DOWN at about $110 dollars a barrel for the price of oil (and a gasoline price above $4 a gallong. At $120 dollars abarrel (well below the "record" high), the EVIDENCE is that rthe economy SHUTS DOWN, for all intents and purposes. These lprices, of coure, need to hold for more than a day or two, but if they do the economy is in DEEP TROUBALE. A mere WEEK or TWO is probably enough to do major damage to the economy, and a MONTH is positively fatal (at $110 dollars and above, and maybe at $105). If we spike to $1120 for even a week, it is hard to see how we avoid another recession. The EFFECT of thiat kind of SHOCK lasts long after the price spike subsides. If gasoline goes to an AVERAGE of as much as $4.25 or $4.50 a gallon, it is most likely fatal to the eocnomy (in terms of avoiding another recession). $4 dollar gasoline is skating on the edge (as an AVERAGE, meaning much higher regional spikes).
No. We are in real DANGER here, and both Bernanke and Obama are responsbile for not recognizing the EXTREME DANGER, and treating it as a CRISIS (years ago, and not jsut now). Obama, as Liar-in-Chief, likes to BRAG about "increased oil productin" in the U.S, but EVERYONE knows that is the result of decsions made BEFORE OBAMA. Obama is the one that put in that disastrous MORATORIUM on drillg in the Gulf of mexcio, and has FOUGHT the productin of more U.S. oil and gasolien at almost every turn. When the fight over drillng in ANWR was HOT, in the late 1990s,Democratic/leftist oppponents liked to arugue that the oil would not even get produced for TEN YERS. Tath wa an outrageous exaggeratin, but it is true that there is a LAG time between increased producitnn (due to MORE DRILING, as distinguished fromopening old wells) and the decisons necessary to BEGIN deveoloping new wells and fields. It is interestng to note that we would NOW have oil from ANWR, even under the most PESSIMISTIC time schedule, if we had made the decisin to DRILL in ANWR when we should have. The same is true of other drilling decisions. Notice how our Liar-in-Chief acts like "increased production" in the past few years is the IMMEDIATE consequence of his own decsions, when that is an obvious LIE (as the ANWR debate shows). the decisoins that increased productin (besides the opening of old wells) were made ni the BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
Nope. Decision makers simply do not get any worse thanBaillut Ben Bernanke. The only questin with him is whether hie is really this DUMB, or whether he is also dishoenst (trying to juftify himself, espite his OBVIUS failures). I go for the "allof the above" apporach to Bailut Ben. I think he is bouth dishoenst (even denying the Fed has been "rprinting money") and bone-deep stupid.
P.S No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Mitt Romney and the GOP Debate: Packing the Audience
What is the most obvious thing about tonight's GOP debate?
No, the answers-whille often good for all of the candidates--are now predictable. If you have followed the debates, and the race, you will NOT find anything in tonight's debatge to change yoyour mind. Mitt Romney, at this point is not gong to convince me--and should not be able to convince anyone--that he is as conservative as Rick Santourm. And his ansewrs tonight have NOT been that "convincing"--although hardly bad. This is why I don't think, absent some dramatic moment, I will be able to declare a 'wineer" in tonight's debate. It is all to familiar. All of the candidates have learned how they want to do these debats, and they are unlikely to make major mistakes.
Yet, and I assure you I am right on this, the audience APPLAUSE tonight was obviusly ORCHESTRATED. By that, I mean that, from question 1, there was WILD applause for Mitt Romney asnswers, out of all proprotion to the merit of the answer. In other words, there was not ev vven any distinction between good Romney answers and not so good Romney answers. Therefore, my "analysis" of this debeat is that you MUST ignore the audience reacitn It ws SET UP.
Is that because the debate was in John McCain's Arizona, where llMcCain supports Romney (one of the BEST reasons to oppose Romney)? I don't know. I jsut know it is a fact. Now there is nothing "wrong" with getting your supporters in a debate audience to try to HELP you by cheering wildy. I jsut hinnk that this particular debate was filled with more INAPPROPRIATE appluase--even what I would call uninformed applause.
John King, by the way, was the other OBVIOUS flaw in toonight's debate (to be expectred, of course, ffom the despicable John King and CNN). Whenever there was ANY opportunity at all, King phrased each question in a way to SUPPORET the positin of President Obama. It was the MOST biased of all of the CCNN debates. King's other agenda was to go after Santourm at every opportunity. It was almsot EXCLUSIVELY Santourm who was fquoted uunfaborabliyy by King as a "introdcduction" to a question (that is,m qutoing a CRITICISM of Santourm as the introduction to questioins) This was a clear CNNAGENDA.
Otherwise, the candidates did well. CNN should be unhappy. I have beenn honest is assessing these debates. I have told you when Gingrich won (most of the early deabates) and when he LOST (in Florida) . I told you that Santourm won those debates in Florida (as he did),. lSantourm ddi wll in this Arizona debate, but so did Dignrich, Romeny and Paul I would call a winner if there was one. I don't think there was.
At this point you need to vote based on the REAL (where you NOW these candidatges stand). Romney has ALWAYS bewenn the choice of the GOP establuishment, AND of the left. RickSantourm is OBVIUSLY the onldy credible CONSERVATIVE candidate left (as this blog tolld you BEFPRE the Iowa caucus vote). Gingrich will not win. Paul will not win. Between Romney and Santorum, Santourm is the ONLY choice for a conservati ve.. Yes, Santourm has "Washington baggage"--what Romney WOULD have, except Romney LOST his bid to be in the United States Seante. Still, Romney KEEPS talknin g in the LANGUAGE of Obama and the left, and I can't stand it.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
No, the answers-whille often good for all of the candidates--are now predictable. If you have followed the debates, and the race, you will NOT find anything in tonight's debatge to change yoyour mind. Mitt Romney, at this point is not gong to convince me--and should not be able to convince anyone--that he is as conservative as Rick Santourm. And his ansewrs tonight have NOT been that "convincing"--although hardly bad. This is why I don't think, absent some dramatic moment, I will be able to declare a 'wineer" in tonight's debate. It is all to familiar. All of the candidates have learned how they want to do these debats, and they are unlikely to make major mistakes.
Yet, and I assure you I am right on this, the audience APPLAUSE tonight was obviusly ORCHESTRATED. By that, I mean that, from question 1, there was WILD applause for Mitt Romney asnswers, out of all proprotion to the merit of the answer. In other words, there was not ev vven any distinction between good Romney answers and not so good Romney answers. Therefore, my "analysis" of this debeat is that you MUST ignore the audience reacitn It ws SET UP.
Is that because the debate was in John McCain's Arizona, where llMcCain supports Romney (one of the BEST reasons to oppose Romney)? I don't know. I jsut know it is a fact. Now there is nothing "wrong" with getting your supporters in a debate audience to try to HELP you by cheering wildy. I jsut hinnk that this particular debate was filled with more INAPPROPRIATE appluase--even what I would call uninformed applause.
John King, by the way, was the other OBVIOUS flaw in toonight's debate (to be expectred, of course, ffom the despicable John King and CNN). Whenever there was ANY opportunity at all, King phrased each question in a way to SUPPORET the positin of President Obama. It was the MOST biased of all of the CCNN debates. King's other agenda was to go after Santourm at every opportunity. It was almsot EXCLUSIVELY Santourm who was fquoted uunfaborabliyy by King as a "introdcduction" to a question (that is,m qutoing a CRITICISM of Santourm as the introduction to questioins) This was a clear CNNAGENDA.
Otherwise, the candidates did well. CNN should be unhappy. I have beenn honest is assessing these debates. I have told you when Gingrich won (most of the early deabates) and when he LOST (in Florida) . I told you that Santourm won those debates in Florida (as he did),. lSantourm ddi wll in this Arizona debate, but so did Dignrich, Romeny and Paul I would call a winner if there was one. I don't think there was.
At this point you need to vote based on the REAL (where you NOW these candidatges stand). Romney has ALWAYS bewenn the choice of the GOP establuishment, AND of the left. RickSantourm is OBVIUSLY the onldy credible CONSERVATIVE candidate left (as this blog tolld you BEFPRE the Iowa caucus vote). Gingrich will not win. Paul will not win. Between Romney and Santorum, Santourm is the ONLY choice for a conservati ve.. Yes, Santourm has "Washington baggage"--what Romney WOULD have, except Romney LOST his bid to be in the United States Seante. Still, Romney KEEPS talknin g in the LANGUAGE of Obama and the left, and I can't stand it.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Romney Says Obama Has "Fought Agasint Religin"
I know. I promised that the last article was the alst on religion tonight. Obama has shown me that promises are made to be broken. Besides,t his is more abut IRONY than about religion.
Yuo should have gotten ththe message from my prior articles that Romney supporters, and the mainstream media, are tringt o make Santourm all about RELIGOIN and "social issues'. Uh-huh. So much for that attempted SMEAR.
Yep. The aboe headline is NOT mine. It is the present headline foro mthe desicable Associated Press now "featured" on my Yahoo "news"/AT&T "default" page. I guarantee youy that the mainstream mdiea wiill NOT like Romney CORREECTLY, if belatedly, attacking President Obama as a President who has "fought religon". The questin, of curse (wich has to occur to even the mainstream media) is whether you can "fight religoin" and still be a "Christian". In other wrods, Romney can probably expet to be asked by CNN whether he believes Obama is a Christian. Even if he is not asked, CNN and the mainstream media can hardly attack Santourm as being so mcuh diffferent from Romney, when ROMNEY is out there saying the same things Santorum and gingirch have beeni saying about Obama (correct things, by the way).
This shows how DANGEROUS these attacks on Santrum ON RELIGION are. That is the other message I triied to give today. Can Romney really afford to atttack Santorum on religon, or even have his supporters do it? Does it not just make Romney look ridiculous, as Romney attacks Obama from the Santourm pont of view? Romney really HAS to get out his ONW affirmative message. The game of "attack politicas", along with an "adjusting" message to polls, is NOT gong to work for Romney. Does Romney HAVE a CORE? That is his haleenge right now: to show that he does, as his claim to be the "only" GOP candidate who can defeat Obama fades into memoray. The polls (ridiculous polls at this date) today had Romney and Santourm doing the SaME against Obama (both a TIE).
Then there was this OTHER story on yahoo "news": "Protestant colleges show contraceptive issue not just about Caholics, as they threaten to drop student health coverage"
Now the questin is WHY. Are Protestant religionsgenerally the same as teh Catholic religoin on pre-conceopcion contraceptives? I don't think so. BUT, many Protestant religions are jsut as frim as the Caholic religon on ABORTION. Agani, I repeat that this is NOT about religion at all. It is aobut CONCNSCIENCE and FREEDOM. Why should the FEderal Government have the power to ORDER what will be covered in health insurance policies? Why should "contraceptive" care get more lPREFERENCE than even cancer caere? This is a matter of FREEDOM and unconstitutional usurpation of power, and really has little ot do with religon (except as a subset of the bigger issue). And why should I, who am jstu as much agaisnt the "morning After" pill as any Catholic, be FORCED to viiolate MY conscience if I am an emplyer.
Then there is the issue of COST. Insurance prremiums HAVE to go up. Taht, of ocurse, is true of all of ObamaCare, but this is an OBVIOUS case. SOME "Protestatn" colleges may even object to making contraceptives "free", for fear of ENCOURAGING promiscuous sex. Whatever you think of this argumetn, it is another element of religious conscience and FREEDOM.
In anty event, it is more proof that both Romney and Santou;rm are irght about Obama's "fight" against religion. Our President, as theis blog has said, has no diea of what a real "religious conscience" is all about.
Just how far can Obama and his media supporters go in this STRATEGY of making this electoin AbOUT Obam'as "war on relgion", in oder to both deflect from tghe economy and get--ast hey believe--tghe "women's vote"? At what pnt does this BACKFIRE on both Obama and the anti-Christian medai? Are not MOST PEOPLE gong to get TIRD of his WAR ON RELGION?--not to mention this OBSESSION with religon? Can the media keep getting away with being the ones who belive these things are so important, and yet balming the GOP for theri own obsession?
Yuo should have gotten ththe message from my prior articles that Romney supporters, and the mainstream media, are tringt o make Santourm all about RELIGOIN and "social issues'. Uh-huh. So much for that attempted SMEAR.
Yep. The aboe headline is NOT mine. It is the present headline foro mthe desicable Associated Press now "featured" on my Yahoo "news"/AT&T "default" page. I guarantee youy that the mainstream mdiea wiill NOT like Romney CORREECTLY, if belatedly, attacking President Obama as a President who has "fought religon". The questin, of curse (wich has to occur to even the mainstream media) is whether you can "fight religoin" and still be a "Christian". In other wrods, Romney can probably expet to be asked by CNN whether he believes Obama is a Christian. Even if he is not asked, CNN and the mainstream media can hardly attack Santourm as being so mcuh diffferent from Romney, when ROMNEY is out there saying the same things Santorum and gingirch have beeni saying about Obama (correct things, by the way).
This shows how DANGEROUS these attacks on Santrum ON RELIGION are. That is the other message I triied to give today. Can Romney really afford to atttack Santorum on religon, or even have his supporters do it? Does it not just make Romney look ridiculous, as Romney attacks Obama from the Santourm pont of view? Romney really HAS to get out his ONW affirmative message. The game of "attack politicas", along with an "adjusting" message to polls, is NOT gong to work for Romney. Does Romney HAVE a CORE? That is his haleenge right now: to show that he does, as his claim to be the "only" GOP candidate who can defeat Obama fades into memoray. The polls (ridiculous polls at this date) today had Romney and Santourm doing the SaME against Obama (both a TIE).
Then there was this OTHER story on yahoo "news": "Protestant colleges show contraceptive issue not just about Caholics, as they threaten to drop student health coverage"
Now the questin is WHY. Are Protestant religionsgenerally the same as teh Catholic religoin on pre-conceopcion contraceptives? I don't think so. BUT, many Protestant religions are jsut as frim as the Caholic religon on ABORTION. Agani, I repeat that this is NOT about religion at all. It is aobut CONCNSCIENCE and FREEDOM. Why should the FEderal Government have the power to ORDER what will be covered in health insurance policies? Why should "contraceptive" care get more lPREFERENCE than even cancer caere? This is a matter of FREEDOM and unconstitutional usurpation of power, and really has little ot do with religon (except as a subset of the bigger issue). And why should I, who am jstu as much agaisnt the "morning After" pill as any Catholic, be FORCED to viiolate MY conscience if I am an emplyer.
Then there is the issue of COST. Insurance prremiums HAVE to go up. Taht, of ocurse, is true of all of ObamaCare, but this is an OBVIOUS case. SOME "Protestatn" colleges may even object to making contraceptives "free", for fear of ENCOURAGING promiscuous sex. Whatever you think of this argumetn, it is another element of religious conscience and FREEDOM.
In anty event, it is more proof that both Romney and Santou;rm are irght about Obama's "fight" against religion. Our President, as theis blog has said, has no diea of what a real "religious conscience" is all about.
Just how far can Obama and his media supporters go in this STRATEGY of making this electoin AbOUT Obam'as "war on relgion", in oder to both deflect from tghe economy and get--ast hey believe--tghe "women's vote"? At what pnt does this BACKFIRE on both Obama and the anti-Christian medai? Are not MOST PEOPLE gong to get TIRD of his WAR ON RELGION?--not to mention this OBSESSION with religon? Can the media keep getting away with being the ones who belive these things are so important, and yet balming the GOP for theri own obsession?
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney Are Goth Not Christians: Bill Maher and I Agree
This is the last, for now, of my series of articles on the evils of trying to make religous DOCTRNE, and statements, part of political campaigns (as the mainstream media, including CNN, have become OBSESSED with dong). Thus, you had CNN actually posting, and promoting on air, an article entitled: "The Gospel according to Herman Cain" (back when Cain was the conservative favorite). Waht CNN and the rest of the media, alng with the GOP estalbihsment, are ttrying to do to Rick Santourm is turly criminal. See my prevous articles today where I again todld you that I do not turn the other cheek (not gbein g Christian). Thus, while I recognize this stuff is truly evil, I am willng to fight fire with fire.
Bill Maher is a noted atheist (calling himself an "agnostic" like me, but really virulently opoosed to religion, and espeically the Christian religion). A while back, Maher said that President Obama is not a Chrisitan but rather a "secular humanist" (meaning Obama's real religon is leftist ideology, which is also ture of Bil Maher). I, as an agnostic, have agreed with Maher ever since. Barack Obama is NOT a Christian. there is really hardly any doubt about it. Now I a not sure if Bill Maher has given into leftist pressure and taken back his correct assertin that Obama is not a Christian, or said he was jsut joking. Doesn't matter. Bill Maher was correct. Barack Obama is clearly not a Christian, and the media does not really believe he is a BELIEIVING Christina (despite their attempt to ridicule he idea).
Okay, I KNOW Obama is not a Christian (to a moral certainty). This is not really because of Bill Maher, but because I, myself, know a person who is not a Christian when I see one. Barack Obama clearly does not believe in any relgion (no, not the Muslim one either). But did Bill Maher really say that Mitt Romney is not a Christian? No. I mad ethat up. At leat, I have no informatino that Bill Maher has said that. Romney is a Mromon. I have no real doubt about that, although I would not hazard an opinin as to whether Romney really "buys into" the entire Mromon religoin. Romney's LIFE, however, wuold seem to indicate that he pretty much LIVES the Mormon religion, in his personal life, which means he has lived a more "Chrisitan" life than most Christians seem to live. But is a Mromon really a Christian?
My barber is an evangelical Christian who has actually StUDIED tehe Bible, and the Christian religion, for many years. He assures me athat Mitt Romney is NOT a Christian, because the Mormon religin is not a true Christian religin. I admit I don't know. As an 11 year old child, I took Bible classes. I was raised Presbyterian. But I do not know enough about either th eChristian religion or the Mormon religon to say whether Romney is a really a Christian. However, I am willng to take my barber's word on it. Now even my barber admits that Romney appears to have led a "Christian" peronal life,a s far as conduct is concerned. As far as CONDUCT is concerned, my impression is that the Mormon religin is closer to fundamentalist Christian religions than it is to "liberal" mainline religions. Taht sort of makes the Mormon religin a direct competitor of fundamentalist Christian religions, which may explain the sorrt of aniosity between them. One also has o recognize that fundamentalist Christians probably have very good reasons for believeing that the Mormon religoni does nto fit intot there totally Bible-based religion.
CNN, of course, has made a pont of putting on Christian "theologians" who label the Mormon religon a "cult", and CNN made mucyh too mcuh of that pasotr suporting Rick Perry asnwering a RELIGIOUS question about whether the Mormon religon is a Christian religin. Tis blog called that EVIL, and it was (on the part of CNN--ot the pastor, who had a perfect right to his RELIGIOUS opinion, which was not relevant to the POLITICS CNN was supposedly reporting on). No, in the overal scheme of things, it does not matter whether, THEOLOGICALLY, the Mormon religion is really a Christian religin.
But people in glass houses shoudl really not throw stones. Romney has no business raising RELIGION as a political issue. Maybe he is not. But his MINIONS cllearly are, including the GOP estalbishment. A lot of what Romney and his supoorters are ding--nto jsut on religion--is makng me DESPISE ropmney. Again, I acutally suported Romney in 2008. My opinion of him has gone DOWN almost every sday since McCain was nominated. It has really PLUNGED this electin campaign. And it is now getting lower BY THE HOUR.
As I said, I don't turn the other cheek. And I do generally turst my barber's views on the Christian religion. He has StUDIED the subject, to my own personal knowledge, for DECADES. Oh, my barber agrees that Obama is nto a Chrhristina, but then so do alost all of the peole of the mainstream media (though they would never say it). If Rick Santourm is gong to be attacked on his religon, then I am perfectly willnig to "attack" Mitt Romney for not being a Christian. You will note that the media simply staqtes that the "large" (not that large, I think) Mormon population of Arizona will vote for Romney, as th eMromons in Nevada apparently did. The media seems to think this is a NATURAL thing, but to sstil assert it is UNNATURAL for evangelical Christians, and othe Christian conservatives, to tend to back someone who they think is raily close to them on religon. In fact, as th is blog ha sponted out, evangelical Chrisitans seem REMARKABLY TOLERANT of other religons--being perfectly willing t vote for the Caholic Rick Santorum and the Caholic Newt Ginrich over theier fellow evangelical Rick Perry. They even seem fariy willing to votre for Mitt Romney.
There yo have it. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are NOT Christians. It is more certain as to Barack Obama, since I cannot be sure exaclty what to call the Mormon religin. It is a rather wild offshoot of Christianity. Still, there is much to supotrt my barber's view taht Romney is not a Crhistian (as to which my barber has NO doubt) . Should yo vote against either man for this reasn> No. But neitehr should the SUPORTERS of either man atatack the RELIGIOIUS statements and views of other candidates. If they, and CNN, MAKE religni an issue, then all bets are off. Then you SHOULD soncider whether Obama and Ropmney are Christians when you vote, ivf only to counteract the eivl attacks on religon by the SUPPORTERS of those men.
P.S. No proofreading or spell chedkng (bad eyesight). As stated (no applause. please), this will be the last article on relign in THIS series, but--also as promised--the HEADLINE will often be repeated between now and Novvember: Obama is not a Christian. Wil I aosl REPEAT the headlie: Mitt Romney is not a Christian? Stay tuned. You can be assured that if Romney gerts the nomination, the media will suddengly discover the same attacks against Romneyh's Moromnism that they made in 2008, and really made ein this elecitn (under the guise of talkng about evnagelicals, who proved to be MOREW tolerant than our media (not great feat). Have I convinced yo to IGNORE the media on religion, and the media view of "social issues' as religgious issues that are more important than thte future of this coutnry? I hpe so. The media is not going to quit, which means I am not gong to quit either.
Bill Maher is a noted atheist (calling himself an "agnostic" like me, but really virulently opoosed to religion, and espeically the Christian religion). A while back, Maher said that President Obama is not a Chrisitan but rather a "secular humanist" (meaning Obama's real religon is leftist ideology, which is also ture of Bil Maher). I, as an agnostic, have agreed with Maher ever since. Barack Obama is NOT a Christian. there is really hardly any doubt about it. Now I a not sure if Bill Maher has given into leftist pressure and taken back his correct assertin that Obama is not a Christian, or said he was jsut joking. Doesn't matter. Bill Maher was correct. Barack Obama is clearly not a Christian, and the media does not really believe he is a BELIEIVING Christina (despite their attempt to ridicule he idea).
Okay, I KNOW Obama is not a Christian (to a moral certainty). This is not really because of Bill Maher, but because I, myself, know a person who is not a Christian when I see one. Barack Obama clearly does not believe in any relgion (no, not the Muslim one either). But did Bill Maher really say that Mitt Romney is not a Christian? No. I mad ethat up. At leat, I have no informatino that Bill Maher has said that. Romney is a Mromon. I have no real doubt about that, although I would not hazard an opinin as to whether Romney really "buys into" the entire Mromon religoin. Romney's LIFE, however, wuold seem to indicate that he pretty much LIVES the Mormon religion, in his personal life, which means he has lived a more "Chrisitan" life than most Christians seem to live. But is a Mromon really a Christian?
My barber is an evangelical Christian who has actually StUDIED tehe Bible, and the Christian religion, for many years. He assures me athat Mitt Romney is NOT a Christian, because the Mormon religin is not a true Christian religin. I admit I don't know. As an 11 year old child, I took Bible classes. I was raised Presbyterian. But I do not know enough about either th eChristian religion or the Mormon religon to say whether Romney is a really a Christian. However, I am willng to take my barber's word on it. Now even my barber admits that Romney appears to have led a "Christian" peronal life,a s far as conduct is concerned. As far as CONDUCT is concerned, my impression is that the Mormon religin is closer to fundamentalist Christian religions than it is to "liberal" mainline religions. Taht sort of makes the Mormon religin a direct competitor of fundamentalist Christian religions, which may explain the sorrt of aniosity between them. One also has o recognize that fundamentalist Christians probably have very good reasons for believeing that the Mormon religoni does nto fit intot there totally Bible-based religion.
CNN, of course, has made a pont of putting on Christian "theologians" who label the Mormon religon a "cult", and CNN made mucyh too mcuh of that pasotr suporting Rick Perry asnwering a RELIGIOUS question about whether the Mormon religon is a Christian religin. Tis blog called that EVIL, and it was (on the part of CNN--ot the pastor, who had a perfect right to his RELIGIOUS opinion, which was not relevant to the POLITICS CNN was supposedly reporting on). No, in the overal scheme of things, it does not matter whether, THEOLOGICALLY, the Mormon religion is really a Christian religin.
But people in glass houses shoudl really not throw stones. Romney has no business raising RELIGION as a political issue. Maybe he is not. But his MINIONS cllearly are, including the GOP estalbishment. A lot of what Romney and his supoorters are ding--nto jsut on religion--is makng me DESPISE ropmney. Again, I acutally suported Romney in 2008. My opinion of him has gone DOWN almost every sday since McCain was nominated. It has really PLUNGED this electin campaign. And it is now getting lower BY THE HOUR.
As I said, I don't turn the other cheek. And I do generally turst my barber's views on the Christian religion. He has StUDIED the subject, to my own personal knowledge, for DECADES. Oh, my barber agrees that Obama is nto a Chrhristina, but then so do alost all of the peole of the mainstream media (though they would never say it). If Rick Santourm is gong to be attacked on his religon, then I am perfectly willnig to "attack" Mitt Romney for not being a Christian. You will note that the media simply staqtes that the "large" (not that large, I think) Mormon population of Arizona will vote for Romney, as th eMromons in Nevada apparently did. The media seems to think this is a NATURAL thing, but to sstil assert it is UNNATURAL for evangelical Christians, and othe Christian conservatives, to tend to back someone who they think is raily close to them on religon. In fact, as th is blog ha sponted out, evangelical Chrisitans seem REMARKABLY TOLERANT of other religons--being perfectly willing t vote for the Caholic Rick Santorum and the Caholic Newt Ginrich over theier fellow evangelical Rick Perry. They even seem fariy willing to votre for Mitt Romney.
There yo have it. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are NOT Christians. It is more certain as to Barack Obama, since I cannot be sure exaclty what to call the Mormon religin. It is a rather wild offshoot of Christianity. Still, there is much to supotrt my barber's view taht Romney is not a Crhistian (as to which my barber has NO doubt) . Should yo vote against either man for this reasn> No. But neitehr should the SUPORTERS of either man atatack the RELIGIOIUS statements and views of other candidates. If they, and CNN, MAKE religni an issue, then all bets are off. Then you SHOULD soncider whether Obama and Ropmney are Christians when you vote, ivf only to counteract the eivl attacks on religon by the SUPPORTERS of those men.
P.S. No proofreading or spell chedkng (bad eyesight). As stated (no applause. please), this will be the last article on relign in THIS series, but--also as promised--the HEADLINE will often be repeated between now and Novvember: Obama is not a Christian. Wil I aosl REPEAT the headlie: Mitt Romney is not a Christian? Stay tuned. You can be assured that if Romney gerts the nomination, the media will suddengly discover the same attacks against Romneyh's Moromnism that they made in 2008, and really made ein this elecitn (under the guise of talkng about evnagelicals, who proved to be MOREW tolerant than our media (not great feat). Have I convinced yo to IGNORE the media on religion, and the media view of "social issues' as religgious issues that are more important than thte future of this coutnry? I hpe so. The media is not going to quit, which means I am not gong to quit either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)