Thursday, May 31, 2012

Obama Fails on Economy: GDP "Growth" Minimal

This is the THRID article today alone on SEPARATE bad econmic news today.  New nemployment claims data was AGAIN BAD. ADP monthly numbers show a SHARP DECLINE in hiring growth in the second quarter.  See the previus two articles for a full description f thsese two items. 

The THIRD item today was a REVISION of the GDP "growth" number for the first quarter. This is another one of those numbers reported as a concerete number, when it is just an ESTIMATE. The original nummmber, reported more than a month ago, was 2.2%:  our GDP (Gross domestic Product) supposedly 'grew" at 2.2% in the first quarter (ending March 31). Oly it did not.  Today's REVISION showed that--subject to furtehr revision--GDP only "grew" at 1.9% (less tlhat 2%). Compare this with the Ronald Reagan recovery, where the econmomy grew an AVERAGE of 6% as the recovery occurred. Obama has not even had ONE quarter of 6% growth.  The closest was the second half of 2009, BEFORE Obama's policies had a chance to take full effect.  I think the last quarter of 2009 showed a GDP growth of someting like 5%.  The HIGHEST "growth" since has been about 3%.  Ging in the right direction?  That is an Obama/media Big Lie. 

In other, words, the econom;y DID NOT GROW in the first quarter.  "But, Skip, it did grow 1.9%." Hey, "growth" of not muhc less than that was called a RECESSION during the first six months of 2008.  The ENTGRIE 1.9$ "growth" (as was true of the 1% "growth" during the Bush/Obama/Democrat "stimulus" in the spring/summer of 20008, was "created" by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (including Bailout Ben Bernanke) THROWING MONEY at the econmy. Remember that "payroll tax cut" (a/k//a welfare payment for the "middle class") that was supposed to 'stimulate" the economy?  And Bailout Ben is continuing to pump TRILLIONS of dollars into the economy.  We are KILLING our future, and all we are getting for it is an ARTIFICIAL "growth" of 1.9%.

I know.  The OBAMA way to look at this is that we would not even have 1.9% if it were not for Obama.  Ha e you finally seen the LIE here?  When the GOVERNMENT stifles any real recovery, and makes it impossilbe, then the GOVERNMENT has to "double down" on the obvious fact taht the GOVERNMENT cannot "create" growth my CONTROL and MANIPULATION.  Unless you set the stage for a PRIVATE recovery, as Reagan did, thee BEST you get is STAGNATION. , and eventual collapse as the government house of cards/Ponzi scheme finally collapses (as it has in Greece, and is doing in a good part of the rest of Europe, as Bailout Ben, Wall Street and Oama are PUSHING a complete bailout of the BANKS of Europe).

No. Today is a truly BAD day, as far as indications of the health of our economy go.  Not that ANY of the days of the Obama Administreatin have been that much better, except on a momentary basis as the economy briefly "bounced back" INTO STAGNATION created by Obama's policies.   

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight0. 

Obama Fails on Jobs, as Employment Data Bad (Marketwatch Liars)

Here is the headline on the actaul STORY on "Hiring trend for private payrolls slows down:  ADP"

Here is the headline the LIARS at Marketwatch (see previous article on the same subject of emplyment numbers)  put on the website home page, linked to that same article:  "ADP reports private sector emplyoment up 13,000 in May"

How can teh TRND be BAD, and the number of employees go UP 3,000 in May?  Easy.  13,000, as the people of ADP know (where my only female friend, Sylvia, words as aa "configuration analyst", after USING her employment with me as a legal secretary/assistant to get an IT degre) know, is NOTHING:  well within the "margin of error".  It is an UNCHANGED number.  Problem: It is also a BAD number.  The ADP report, and the actual Marketwatch article, notes that the AVERAGE for the first quarter was a gain in private employment of more than 200,000.  The AVERAGE for teh first two months of the second quarter is 123,000.  ADP, and the Marketwatch articlle, call this a SHARP DELCINE.  Thus, it deos not matter that thre was a miniscule 13,000 "rise' in jobs "created" for May.  The "trend" from the first quarteris VERY BAD. The Marketwatch article even goes so far as to say that this "isgn" of a SLOW DOWN in the economy is CONSISTENT with other economic data (see, again, the previous article), as 'fears" of what is happening in Europe cause problems in the U.?S. economy. 

What does this mean?  See, again, the previus article posted today on this blog. What it means is that the monthly GOVERNMENT emplyment data, to be reported tomorrow, CANNNOT BE GOOD.  That is, it cannot be good, and be consistent with other data.  IF, by some chance, the data reported tomorrow was really "good", that would merely mean the data is FALSE (not necessariy deliberately, but becuase of a glitch in the way these SUBJECTIVE numbers are calculated).

Thus, the indications are that the monthly employment numbers to be reported tomorrow will be BAD (showing that there is NO "improving" "trend"). If the monthly GOVERNMENT numbers contradict other data, it mereely would make those numbers suspect.  There is also this consistent seasonal pattern, over the past three years, of the numbres looking worse at this time of year.  ADP cannot report a SHRP DECLINE in hiring "grends", and the government reort some sort of robust gAIN in employment.  At best, the government numbers tomorrow will show that the situatin did not GET WROSE in May.  But you have to look at ALL of these numbers together.  No matter what "spin" is put on tomorrow's numbers, or wahat they appear to "show", the SLLOWDOWN in U.S.economic growth in the second quarter is already ESTABLISHED (unless lyou want to say that the first quarter numbers tghemselves were FICTION--reflecting seasonal factors and weather, in which case the numbers for the first quarter were NEVER as good as they wre advertised, and we are still just muddling along in the mire at about the same level).

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

Obama Fails Again on Jobs; New Unemployment Claims Rise for Third Straight Week; No Improvement This Year: Media Lies Continue(, Liars,Liars, Liars and More Liars)

The Maverick Conservative is PROVEEN right again, as we try to dispose of LAS WEEK'S MEDIA LIES, --before going on to this week's. The number of new unemploymnet claims filed in the previous week was released today, as it is every Thursday, along with the REVISION of the number for the previous week.  It is ONLY this blog that informs you that revision is almost ALWAYS an UPWARD (up being bad) revision of 3,000 or more.  Read last week's (Thursday's) article in The Maverick Conservative, which again got it EXACTLY right.  Remember how the media, including hte LIARS at, told you that claims "dropped" slightly last week, from 372,000 to 370,000?  Well, this blog put the CORRECT informatin in the HEADLINE (next week's news today:  a specialty of The Maverick Conservative). As The Maverick Conservative told you it would be, the 370,000 number iniitially reported lasst week was REVISED upward to 373,000:  the EXACT number PREDICTED by The Maverick Conservative.  This was a slight RISE from the previous week's 372,000, instead of a slight "drop".  The same thing thad happened the previous week, as the number had originally been reported at 370,000, unchanged, when it actually had RISEN 2,000 (to that revised number 9f 372,000).  If I have confused you, here is how the numbers have gone for the past month, starting with the earlier number: (showing revisions):  370,000 (REVISED from 367,000); 372,000 (REVISED from 370,000); 373,0000 (REVISED from 370,000); and 383,000 (the number released today, likely to be REVISED next week to 386,0000, as all we have now is the UNREVISED number).

Note that The Maverick Conservative has got the REVISIONS almost exactly right every single week.  The ony "error" in The Maverick Conservative PREDICTIN was last week, where the REVISED number ws 372,000, innstead of the 373,000 "predicted" by The Maverick Conservative.  Meanwhile, the LIEARS of the media (including those LIARS at marketwatch.ocm) report each week's number as if it is not CONSISTENTLY revised IN ONE DIRECTION.  This means that the media CONSISTENTLY reports the situation to be abut 3,000 better than it should be reported. This means, as for the last two weeks, reporting either that the number stayed "unchanged", or dropped sightly, when the number actually ROSE for both weeks.  As this blog has consistenty tod you, the way the media reports this initial EXTIMATE each week is always a LIE.  The media compares apples and oranges:  comparing this week's UNREVISED number with last week's REVISED nnumber.  This is especailly bad because the number is almost always revised upward (about 95% of the time, or more). The upward revision is usually 3,000 or more.

Media LIE this week:  "Jobless claims jump 10,000, to 383,000."

Correct headline:  "Jobless Claims Likely Rise to 386,,000, a Jump of 13,0000 (Initial Estimate 383,0000, up 13,000 from Previos Week's Initial Estimate)" 

Even the LIARS at are gtting embarrassed at being EXPOSED by The Maverick Conservative every week.  So these LIARS said thiis (approximately, AFTER the lying headline and lead):  "Last week's number was revised to 373,000, from 360,,000, as MORE COMPLETE DATA BECAM E AVAILABLE."  (emphasis added to emphasize the LIE)

Message to you people at  You peeople are such LIARS that I don't evven know if you recognize dECIET when you see it:  whether, in other words, you are DELIBERATELY telling a whopper like this, or are jsut too STUPID to point out the obvius lie.

"More complete data"?  This weekly number of new jobless claims, released ever Thursday, is an ADJUSTED number n the first place.  In other words, it is an SUBJECTIVE number, based on an "adjustment formula" to try t give you a "better" idea of the real number than you would get just trying to"report" the "raw" number.  What the LIARS at marketwatch.cmom FAILED to tell you is that "complete data" almost ALWAYS results in the SAME REVISION.  That, of course, is not a mere matter of "complete data".  That is a CONSISTENT BIAS in the number being reported.  The ONLY way this "excuse" makes nay sense is if the revisions bounced all over the place:  down 3,000 one week and up 4,000 the next week.  As it is, the Labor Department should just ADD 3,000 to its weekly ESTIMATE of jobless claims.  This would actually be MORE ACCURATTE than the much more problematic "seasonal adjustment" that the Labor Department makes.  Yep.  Reporting this weekly number as if it is an exact number is an Orwellian Big Lie that the media tells EVERYU WEEK.  But failing to not the OBVIUS, CONSISTENT upward revision in even the "raw" number is CRIMINAL DECEIT.  Media people, includng especially financial media people, are incapable of telling the truth, or trying to give real information.  They are the very definition of PSYCHOPATHIC LIARS. ,. or maybe SOCIOPATHIC LIARS (depending on whether you think they are capable of even knwoing what the truth might be, or caring)..

Again, as this blog has accurately told you almost every week for years, this weekly number of new unemployment claims ONLY has any significance OVER TIME.  One week's number has little or no significance, except as a single data point in looking at the number OVER TIME.  But lok at what has happened. We ended last year, and started this yea (especially once you got beyond the holiday fluctuations) at a number of unemplyment claims below 400,000.  That number quickly dropped to a low of 351,000 in February, as we settled into a range between 350,000 and about 365,000.  However, this "low" of 351,000, and range between 350,000 and 365,00, was quickly shown to be FICTION (as had also been true when the same pattern showed itself in 2010 and 2011).  For the last two months , and more, the number of new unemplyment claims has shown a HIGHER range:  between 370,000 and 390,00. For three weeks in a row, the number AVERAGED 390,000--right at the 400,000 level that represents a rEALLY BAD number. Then the number fell back to 370,0000, only to now jump back to 386,000 (estimated REVISED number to be reported next week).  This is ABVVE that previous, and obviously false, range of 350,000 to 365,000.  What is the "correct" number?  Wo knows?  Indeeed, we CAN'T KNOW, as all we have are FALLIBLE ESTIMATES.  What we CAN do is get an idea of whether there is any kind of CONSISTENT TREND, showing we are getting better or worse.  Since the beginning of the year, there has been NO TREND.  The labor market market has NOT IMPROVED.

Qu.E.D.  The Obama FAILURE of JOBS continues.  The monthy employment data for May will be released on Friday.  This is even more FALLIBLE data: an ESTIMATE based on significant "adjustments".  There is simply no way for such data to be "good news and be CONSISTENT with the UNIMPROVED data on unemployment claims. We are STALLED, and any data that purports to show otherwise has to be SUSPECT.  Wha tthe jobless claims data is showing us, OVER TIME, is that there is NO IMPROVEMENT in the labor market.  Yes, there is improvement from the DEPTHS of the recession.  And we are not getting wore.  We are STALLED, in  pretty bad place.  How long can we remain this way?  Well, the "crisis" in Europe, an slowdown in China, indicates that we lmay face trouble ahead.  But JAPAN muddled along, STALLED, for moree than a DECADE. Hae we put orselves in a situatin where we CANNOT realy "recover", but where Bailout Ben Bernanke, Obama and teh rest are pumping enough money into the system that we can m"muddle along" for sojme time ntil the final collapse?  This would be my "best guess", although this ontinued reliance on the mere WORDS of politicians, and ever moe substantial BALIOUTS, leads me to believe that the collapse may be sooner rather than later. 

This blog has already predictreed that Obama LOSES the election, unless the economic pictgure IMPROVES. (in a manner substantial enough to convince peole that we are really on an UPWARD path).  There is no present indicatin that theis will happen.  Obama needs to get LUCKY.  He, and Baiout Ben, will move Heaven and Earth, but it is the real prolbem here that mere MEN cannot CONTROL the world economy (althogh they can certaily destory it).  Is it POSSIBLE that we have a BLIP up in the eoconmy as we approach the electin?  Sure, it is possible.  This blog has shown you that we have made any REAL, long-term "recovery" IMPOSSIBLE.  And relying on mere MEN to CONTROL our econmic destiny HAS to destory us in the end (both theory and practie tell us).  But a short-term "blip" is POSSIBLE.  It is really Obama's ONLY hope for reelection. 

P.S. No proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesight).  As usual, I taook special care with the NMBERS, which is not to guarantee no typo.  I tend to be redundant enogh that any isolated typo should be obvius.  I do GUARANTEE the accuracy of the numbers that I INTEND to type.  They are accurate. 

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Silvestre Reyes and Barbara Carrasco: El Paso Politics

Despite being a blind hermit, I have an amazing number of contacts with the race for Congress for the `16th District in Texas (voters for which come almsot entirely from El Paso County, which is not ture of the otehr Congressional district which includes voters from El Paso).

I was a relatively hyoung lawyer (under 40) hwen I met Silvestre Reyes.  Reyes was using the reputatin he gained as a "tough" Border Patrol commander (or whatever) in El Paso to run for Congress for the first time.  Reyes was apparently responsible for the strategy whihc PARKED border patrol vehicles at measured intervls along the Mexican border in lthe El Paso area--sort of a "living fence" where there was no "crossing' not under observation from one or more bordfer patorl units. Reyes was actualy given credit for doing someting abut illegal immigratin, even though it was a very BORING and manpower intensive way to keep tis area of the border under control.  This was before El Paso Democrats, and Democrats everywhere, chose to IDENTIFY Hipanci voters with ILLEGAL immigration: as if Hispanics were mainly the product of illegal immigration. I have always found this strange: this idea that Hsispanics WANT to be identified with illegal immigrants. I don't think that is true. What is true is that Hispanics, becaasuse so many are recent immigrants who did not come to this country with a whole lot of oney, are generally POORER than some other ethnic groups.  This is what cauess them to TEND to (wrongly) vote for Democrats as the people who promise to BRIBE them. What they, ansd so many others, do not undrstand is that voting for peole who KEEP YOU DEPENDENT on them is a lsing game, in the end.  This explains why El Paso generally votes Democratic, especially for Congress and President. Further, El Paso tends to keep the SAME person in Congress for a LONG time.  This was somewhere around 30 years ago that Silvestre Reyes ran for the first time (easy to look up how many two year terms he has had).

Enter my ex-wife.  No, she was not a real power in El Paso politics.  Nor was, or is, she a big Democrat.  Her older brother here, in fact, is one of teh most rabid gOP voters--along with his wife--that you will find.  But my wife had an aunt, or maybe a great aunt, who held one of those "coffee) events for Silvestre Reyes.  My wife's aunt invited our famiy to the "event" (very few people attended), and my wife dragged me there.  It was plesant enough, but Silvestre Reyes was never what you wuld call an intellectual heavyweight.  He seemed to want to foolow in the footsteps of Richarfd White, the previous long-term El Paso Congressman, who had basicaly took up space in Congresss while avoding worknig for a living (voting the Democratic party line).  Richard White ws ot an intellectual heavyweight either.  Reyes pretty much achieved his objective of emulating Richard White, with perhaps a little extra feeding on the public tit thrown in. 

That has been the recent "scandal" involving Reyes,.  He has been alleged to USE his long-time position to LINE THE POCKETS of himself and his family. I attended a "graduatin party" for my nephew over Memorial Day weekend.  I laready knew that Reyes was in a fight for his political life with a man from an old-time El Paso political family named "Beto O'Rouke".  Now MOST El Paso Democrats have been at least on the edge of SCANDAL over the past decade or more, as many have been indicted andor convicted of various kinds of graft. Many more have been rumored to be lunder FBI investiagatin at one time or another.  I believe that included Pat O'Rouke, former El Paso Country official.  But Silvestre Reyes had obviusly worn out his welcome with Democrats:  a walking advertisement for term limits.  Beto O'Rouke tok him on in the Democratic primary, and APPEARS to have won (barely avoiding a runoff).  At my nephew's graduation party, I had an indicatino that this was going to happen.  There were some "connected" Democrats there--lathouhg not real heavy hitters--who were talking about how Democrats had to "get rid" of Silvestre Reyes, because he was a THIEF.  The fact is that Democrats have controlled El Paso politics too long, and think the government is "theirs" to do with as they will.  That explains why there have been so many sccandals in the past decade or more in the El Paso area.  Yes, it would surelly havapen, and has, with GOP politicians as well (when they control offices for too long).  Nope.  The GOP has NO credibility on term limits, and it is one of the many reasons I do not call myself a member of the GOP. Well, the Democrats at my nephew's graduation party (from medical school, as he is heading off to be an intern in Baton Rouge) were RIGHT:  Democrats had pretty much decided to get rid of Silvestre Reyes because they thought he had been obviusly lining his own pockets (or at least pockets of  associates and members of his family).  You can look at the archives of the El Paso Times if you want to know the exact allegatinos. 

Wait, though.  This does not end my connection with the participants int he 16th District race. Look att the GOP NOMINEE.  Althoguh I have lost contact with her in recent years, Barbara Carrasco used to work as the bookkeeper of the law firm where I was a partner ("Schwartz, Earp, McClure, Cohen and Stewart"). . I knew her pretty well, although almost exclusively in a business context.  I dealt with her on a daily basis.  I can assure you, and everyone, that she would be a better member of Congress than Silvestre Reyes, simply on character and intellectual grounds.  Barbara was empllyed by our law firm for several lyears, before moving on.  The exact dates MAY well be on her website, at which I have not even yet looked (although I am relatively certain I will support her for Congress--as if theat will help her any).  Yes, I am relatively sure that she will make a better person in Congress than Beto O'Rouke, beyond the obvius fact that O'Rourke is an Obama Democrat.  But I did not even know that Barbara was the GOP nominee until TODAY. Yes, I saw Barbar's name as running for the nomination, and as having gotten the nomination (unopposed, I think).  But I simply did not connect THIS "Barbara Carrasco" with the Barbara Carrasco with whom I had worked for enough time to know here pretty well. The only reason I found out was that Sylvia, my only close--albeit platonic--female friend, called me all excited that Barbara had won the GOP nomination.  Sylvia had recognized the name, and checked the biography, although Sylvia had not known Barbara was running.  Sylvia was first an employee of the law frim, and then my personal legal secretary. She worked for the law firm at the same time that Barbara was there (working a total of more than five yearss for me in one capacity or another--I have known her some 23 years now).  Sylvia even once took a trip with Barbara into Canada.  They were friends, although Sylvia has lost contact in recent years. Sylvia was excited to see that Barbara was the GOP nominee, and immediately called me.  Sylvia and I still talk by phone fairly regularlyl,  In fact, she tired to KILL me tonight by taking me on an uphill walk of about 4 miles, for the 4th day in a row.  Sylvia is 48,. I am 65.  As I say, she is tryiing to KIL me.  She is USING me because she is on this campaign to lose weight, probably inspired by Michelle Obama.  I digress.

In any event, I am glad Barbara is the GOP nominee.  She faces an uphill battle in a heavily Democratic city. I doubt if Barbara has, or will have, a whole lot of resources to throw at this uphill race. Still, I think the GOP NEEDS candidates like Barbara, and I hope the sttate/national party will at lest give her some support.  She has MY endorsement, for what it is wroht.  She would probably disavow many things said in thsi blog, and I am absolutely certain she has never read this blog.  However, I do hope she runs an aggressive camaign of IDEAS (12-year term limits for ALL non-civil service Federal officials, including Federal judges, would not be a bad place to start in terms of ideas).

Good luck, Barbara, if you see this sometime.  It would be an obvius mistake for me to even try to involve myself in your campaign.  Read this blog, if you doubt that.  You might pay special attentin to those times I say that women should never have gotten the vote.  Yep. I will probably make a minor contributin to Barbar's campaign.  But she will ahve to run and finance the campaign without much help from me.  Not that I am implying that she would accept me as some sort of late addition to her campaign staff.  Not bloody likely.  Barbara is smarter than that.  It is always possible I will get a chance to tak to Barbara, if ony through Sylvia.  If so, I will act as a "REPORTER", and report to you in that capacity the 'on the record" parrts of her campaign she is willing to talk to me aobut.  As stated, Barbara faces an uphill battle, but that is NOT the way to WIN (that attitude).  Democrats in El Paso are scandal plagued, and Barbara may well have a chance IF she takes it to this Beto O'Rourke in an aggressive, "Scott Brown-type" campaign. Or maybe like Rick Santorum's "shoe leather" campaign in Iowa.  It CAN be done.  That, of course, does not mean it will be done (or that Barbara is at fault if it does nto happen, bother than not being good enough to pul off a miracle). 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Just think of how MANY walking, talking ADVERTISMENTS there are out there for term limits.  Yes, VOTERS should impose thme, to the extent they can, if politicians refuse to do it.  In this case, voting in Beto O'Rourke would be just the same as voting in that younger Silvestre Reyes.  Apart from ideology, voters of El Paso need to let the DEMOCRATIC PARTY know that they cannot be taken for granted, and merely USED to obtain a lifelong sinecure for Democrats wanting to live off the government.  By the way, I don't know anything to discredit BARBARA--more the opposite.  Barbara, of course, knows mroe than enough toDISCRFREDIT ME--as if this blog were not enoguh.  So those of you who worry that I might enter the political arena--have nightmares aobut it:  DON'T. 

Obama, Polish Death Camps and Humialiting an Entire Country: Meanwhile, ABC and Yahoo Concentrate on WHINING Mother of "Humiliated" Eight Year Old

President Obama was giving the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a former member of the Polish underground, who opposed the Nazis.  In the process, Obama referred to a POLISH death camp. It was, of course, a GERMAN (Nazi Germany) death camp, as millions of Polish citizens (not just Jes) were killed by the Nazis. 

For Obama, of oucrse, WORDS are jsut things to be USED POLITICALLY, for which he never expects to be held accountable.  Thus, Obama promptly compounded the problem by simply expressing "regret", in a WRITTEN STATEMENT, that he (Obama) "mispoke". Poland--including the famous leader of Solidarity, Lech Walensa (sp?), now wants a much better apology that EXPLAINS that Poland was the VICTIM of Nazi Germnay. The man who took on the totalitarian Evil Empire of the Soviet Union, of curse, knows more about COURAGE than Obama even suspects exists.  Thus, Obama has managed to HUMILIATE Poland and all Poles:  an entire country.

Meanwhile, what is the ABC "News" headline FEATURED (main picture story) on Yahoo "News"?  The Yahoo (boycott Yahoo) headine is:  "Mom and eight year-old humiliated over award".  The ABC headline is:  Eight year-od humiliated over 'catastrophe' award".  This is what ABC and Yahoo-evil people spreading evil--regards as IMPORTANT, MAJOR "news" in this country.  Get over it, mom. Yep. I hereby give this "mom" my own award, featuring a "medal" with a WHINING woman on it:  "Persons I would least like to know" award.  Oh, I would give ABC and Yahoo my "Catastrophe in Journalism" award, but I have already done taht so many times that ti would merely represent an REDUNDANCY.

Nope.  I  am sorry.  In fact, I am SORRY FOR any child with a mother lie this.  The "award", by the way, was for  "most homework excuses".  Again. Get over it.  This is NO a 'national" story. This is NOT a LOCXAL story.  This is NOT worth even a complaint to the xhocol, because it sends the WRONG MESSAGE to the child.  I am now reading "To Kill a Mockingbird", and the difference in the teaching of PERSONAL RESPONSIBIITY (rather than WHING) is striking.  Exactl7y when did we become a NATION OF PRIGS ND WHINERS?  And when did our "journalists' totally abandon "journalism'? 

ABC and Yahoo, meanwhile, are likely to pay little or no attention to the HUMNILIATION of Poland by President Obama.  Sure, yu can argue taht Poland, and Polish people, are OVERREACTING to what is rally a verbal slip (although you might remember that Presdient Obama has previusly indicated he had no idea of the difference between a "death camp" and a "concentration camp" when he visited the sites at the beginning of his Presidency).  But let me be clear here:  Who has thr RIGHT to "overreact" a little?  A whining mom who is making WAY too much--although her CRIME does not compare with the "journalistic" CRIME of ABC and Yahoo--out of what should be a "teaching moment" for her child (rather than an opportunity for national pubicity, and teaching her child to WHINE)?  Or the man hwho stood up to the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union had tghe power of life land death over him?  If yoiu answer THIS questin wrong, YOU are a person I do not want to know. 

To me, this is a microcosm of where we have recently gone wrong, and are going further down the wrong path.  Is it "right" to "humiliate" a young child (as, say, with a dunce cap) in school?  I would say it may depend.  But WHO CARES?  This idea that schools,m teachers, etc. have to "walk on eggshells", rather than "offend" or "humiliate" our "precious darlings" (sarc sm disease recurring) may partly explain why we have so many people who thin they are ENTITLED to a PERFET life.  GET OVER IT.  You are teaching your children the WRONG THING.  Indeed, I have much more respect for a child, and parent, who stands up for ANOTHER CHILD, than I do for a parent who makes a big deal about his or her "poor darling" being "humiliated" this way.  Again, READ "To Kill a Mockingbird", and realize how FAR DOWn we have sunk. 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell ehecking (bad eyesight).  I feel bad that I am HUMILIATED by some of you who keep pointing out how BAD mky spelling and typing is.  You should be ashamed of yourselves, picing on a BLIND PERSON that way (lol--go ahead, you may be right to criticize me for not figuring out a way to do better:  jsut not worth the ffort for me). Then there is my senior high school English teacher:  one of those old "ixtures" that they have at every school, who prretty much TERRORIZED her students.  I, personally, thought she was--and htink so today, 50 pus years later--a BAD teacher, while he very pretty 'trainee" eahcer (who tookk over my junor English class) was a VERY much beter teacher.  This evaluation MAY be affected by the fact that Miss Vaughn HUMILIATED me by making me READ my notebook to her (because she could not read my eriting).  You can see that some of the critics of my blog have a lot in commmon with Miss Vaughn.  I don't think Miss Vaughn thought I could write at all (and, admittedly, my handwring was always TERRILBE, and now my type writing is TERRIBLE--I can't win).  The only reason I got a "B" in her class was that I was VALEDICTORIAN of the schol (before the days of kids with an average beyond 100), and she was a little relucttant to givew me too low a grade. You may get the impression that I refused to be intimideated by authority, even that early (remember, I was an agnostic by age 13).  You would be right.  I LIKED the pretty young teacher, and not just becuase she was prety.  She was a BETTER teacher.  I did NOT LIKE Miss Vaughn, and would not likke here today. But it would NEVER have occurred to me to COMPLAIN to my parents about being HUMILIATED by Miss Vaughn.  Oh, I am sure I MENTIONED it, but both myself and my parents knew that there was SOME excuse for my "humiliation".  Miss Vaugh was facing the prospect of reading a notebook with some 10,000 words in it, and maybe her eyesight was not much better than my present eyesight.  She did not "stick it out", by the way.  I read a few pages after schol, and then she thoiught my 'humiliation" had gone far enough.  She have me a "B" on the notebook, with this notation:  "I assume there are some good insights here, if I could only read them."  More HUMILIATION for me (lol).  Did I actually make my writing WORSE becaue I did not like her?  I don't think so.  My handwriting really was "naturally" pretty bad.  But I definitely had NO incentive to offer--say--to TYPE thke notebook for her--I did take typing in high shciool, believe it or not, and got an "A"). Nor did I offer to have someone else write out the notebook for her.  Pigs would fly before I went to all of that trouble for HER:  fort of my attitude toward figuring out how to proofread this blog.  I have previously mentioned that a PE teacher FLOGGED me. No, I did not complain about that either, in high shcool.  I don't think I even mentioned that one to my parents. Okay, "flogged" is the Anderson Cooper/ABC exaggerated way of describing it.  Again, I was deliberately HUMILIATED by "suffering" several blows on my bottom with a thin SWITCH that STUNG (although left ono injury).  Today, Anderson Cooper  might devote an entire week to that sort of thing--especially if I were GAY.  Hey, wati  a minute.  At least half of the school (those who had an opinion, as we did not OBSESS abut the subject in those days) surely thought I was gay.  As, again, I have previously said, I did not even ASK a girl out during my ENTIRE high shcol years.  No doubt about it.  I was born too late. I could have been a STAR,. Anderson Cooiper would have made me a STAR, for being BULLIED by Miss Vaughnn and my PE teacher BECAUSE I WAS GAY (not a chance, by the way,, that this was any factor in my "humiliation").  Oh. My PE teacher "switched" me because I was in a nothing scuffle with another boy in PE class (no "bullying" there either). Maybe we should nto ahave physical disciline in schools.  But this constant overreaction to kids being 'humiliated" is doing kids HARM.  I can asure you that we were BETTER OFF when I ws a child, even if our "rights' were not so well "protgected".  You just can't go through life expecting that you will be "protectged" from EVERYTHING.  Now, too many peole seem to be TAUGHT that you CAN expect to be "protected" from even "mental" unpleasantness":  even thinking that the GOVERNMENT should GUARANTEE this (and everything else you need).  You can tell I prefer my "humiliation" in high shcool to the way we are FORCING schols to pander today.  I wonder if Anderson Cooper, who is gay (explaining why he obsesses on his CNN program on the subject) was "humilitated WROSE than I was in high school?  Heck, he probably got along better with GIRLS. (the vicius creatures). 

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Michelle Obama and CNN Over-Hype Gardens, Making Donald Trump and Other "Birthers" Look Good: Environmentalists , Meanwhile, Continue to Kill People

Food is not a problem in this country, which produces more than enough food. Now the PRICE of food is a problem, exacerbated by teh INFLATIONARY policies of  Bailout Ben Bernanke and teh Obama Administration.  But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Radical environmentalists are KILLING peoiple world wide with any number of DEADLY lpolicies that are dpriving poor people in the world of food.  There is the fraud of 'global warming", which is taking food out of the mouths of people to be used as FUEL (as the United Nations even said).  This WAR ON FOSSIL fuels by the left is KILLING PEOPLE, and rasing worldwide fod prices in a number of ways.  Framers are being encouraged to plant crops that can be used for FUEL, instead of FOOD. Then the price of TRANSPORTATION is much higher than it should be, because of the DISCOURAGING of the drilling of oil.  Then there is that WAR ON LIVESTOCK (supposedly another "global warming" thing, but I think mainly coming from PETA as "global warming" is exposed as the general excuse ofor LEFTIT policies that it is). Igm etgabik us ab UBFFUCUEBT fyek, 

Now we have First Lady Michelle Obama out there PUSHING gardens.  Now I have nothing against gradens.  If you LIKE gardening, have a garden.  You may even get some "ehealthy" food out of it.  However,

Youu ARE a KOOK if:  (a new entry in my 'you are a kook if:" series)

201. You believe that "gardens" are the answer to ANY kind of food "problem"

202.  You believe that having a "garden" these days is the equivalent of a World War II "Victory Gardnen" (which, tthemselves, did not material good, excpet maybe to morale).

203.  You believe that gardens are a way to "fed" communities.

204.  You believe that "gardens" can show that Americans have not lost what it take. 

No.  Donald Trump is a MINOR LEGAGUE KKOK comared with the kooks of CNN (and maybe Michelle Obama).  After all, even though the mainstream media likes to pretend otehrwise, Barack Obama COULD have been born in Kenya.  I have called my own mother a KOOK for believing that Obama WAS born in Kenya, and I definitely regard Donald Trump as a kook.  There is no EVIDENCE that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and considerable evidence that he was born in Hawaii.  Still, he COULD have been born in Kenya.  Have not mothers gotten babies into the U.S. before, when they were born in other countries.  Notice that this does not even say AnYTHING about Obama, if it haed happened.  He was a BABY.  The media likes to pretend that this is some kind of MORAL EVIL, to be open to the POSSIBILITY that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.  Again, it is a mere matter of FACT, and if he WERE born in Kenya he would be FACTUUALLY barred from being Prfesident of the U.S., no matter whether Obama is a good President or not--even if Obama THINKS he was born in the U.S.  However, you are still a KOOK if you still want to make somehting of the "Brigher" "issue", because peoile are rightly going to dismiss the idea without CONVINCING evidence.  The MINOR "evil" here is hthat people who profess to believe that Obama was born in Kenya MAINLY oppose Obama for other reasons, or want to PROMOTE themselves (Trump). My mother does not like Obama, and therefore is willing to assum me the wort about him (although it is not OBAM'S fault if he were born in Kenya, was "suuggled" into the U.S.  I am maybe more open to this idea than many, because I live in El Paso, and I KNOW it has happened here on the Mexican border.  However, I don't dislike Obama so much as to think it is plausible that Obama's family managed to SMUGGLE him to Hawaii from Kenya, without any REAL evidence that such ever occurred.  Still, as state, this is a MINOR "kookism" (and lpartisan blindness).  This idea that 'personal" "gardens' are some sort of "magic wand" to provide peopele with food--"heatlhier" food than supermarkets--is a MAJOR KOOKISM that threatens to KILL EVEN MORE MPEOPLE: people crucified on the ideology of the left. 

It is not too strong a statement to say that CIVILIZATIN itself comes from a DIVISION OF LABOR, where every person does not have to hunt or grow his own food.  Personal "gardens" are an INEFFICIENT way to grow food for masses of peole.  Obviosly, that does not mateer if you LIKE gardening, and LIKE growing items of food YOUR WAY.  I have no problem wiht that.  But I have a HUGE problem with the way the really stupid WoMEN of CNN hyped the truly asinine idea that "personal gardens" are some sort of "gransforming" idea for America.  yep.  They would "transform" us all right, if we really relied upon them for food:  "transform" us right back tot he days of pre-civilizatin, hwere no okne had the leisure to do something useless like typee on a blog few people read becakuse every one is too busy merely scratching out a way to STAY ALIVE.  Sure, SOME peole like to sew their own clothes, as well.  I ADMIRE those people (admittedly because it brings back visions to me of the way some women used to be before we made the mistake of lettting them have the vote--my one personal 'kookism"). You can't FEED the masses this way.  You can't CLOTHE the masses this way. 

Doubt me?  Never do that.  I live in El Paso.  We have a WATHER problem in El Paso.  Yuo may remember that California CUT OFF WATHER to a significant number of California farms for suposed "environmental" reasons.  Those Californinas who did this, or supported it, were KOOKS--the industrial grade kind rather than the harmless Donald Trump kind.  But look how much BIGGER a problem it is to try to "water" a PERSONAL GARDEN in El Paso (or, really, many areas of California).  If you are not in an irrigation area, you may well get in TROUBLE with the 'water police" in El Paso.  It may certainly cost you an arm and a leg.  And it is MASSIVELY INEFFICIENT.  No. Don't even START to tell me how you radical "environmentalists" would "get around" this problem of WATER in El Paso, to make Michee Obama's "vision" come true.  That would merely emphasize that you reallyl need PROFESSINALS to grow food, or people wiling ot become EXPERS, or else it is just an inefficient "hobby" which may make you happy (not to be sneezed at, so long as you don't get Obama/CNN delusions of grandeur).

Did I just call ur First Lady a KOOK?  Maybe.  I certainly have an article doing so IN RESERVE (on "obesity" and the "body mass index").  But I am not sure thi stime . That is because the peole I KNOW are KOOKS here are the WOMNE OF CNNN.  I did not really hear jsut how far our First Lady went.  If I can go by experience, I have no trouble believing she went way TOO FAR.  But I do not have a cable TV mind.  I refuse to speculate on what I don't realy have any evidence on . Her, all I have is the DESCRIPTION of how GREAT Michelle Obmaa is trying to TRANSFORM American, and bring back our GREATNESS, with "victory gardens".  I HEARD a CNN anchor call this VISION of "feeding communities" with personal gardens as POETRY.  But the anchor was listening to a KOOK guest talk about how personal gradens would transform America into this paradise.  Thus, the "you are a kook if:" items below really only aply, FROM MY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, to CNN.  They MAY apply to Michelle Obama, and CNN certainly led me to believe they do.  But I have learned NOT to rely on CNN (The Liar Network).  CNN wa trying to HYPE BOTH personal gardens and Michelle Obama.  It would make sense that Michelle Obama "oversold" this idea as some sort of "magic wand", because otherwise it is just a piece of "happiness" advice from the First Lady ("happiness advice" being something with which I have no problem, so long as it is not OVER-HYPED the way CNN definitely did).   You CANNOT "feed communities" wiht personal gardens and it wuld be INEFFICIENT if you could somehow do it.  I don't dilike people ttalking about how "fulfilling" gardening is, or extolling its virtues. But when people start saying how "gardening" can "gransform" this country--showing aht we have not lost our mojo--then I have to point out such peoiple are KOOKS.  More importantly, once peoile startr ADVOCATING NATIONAL POLICY based on INSANE FANTASY, then they are worse than mere kooks. They are EviL KOOKS, trying to ram their  kooisms down the throats of other people.  Michelle Obama has shown herself that ind of kook on obesity. CNN would have me believe she is that kind of kook on gardening.  If the glove fits, Mrs. Obama, wear it (multiiple pun on O. J. Simpson and gardening gloves).

By the way, I have not NEARLY exhausted my list of how radical environmentalists KILL PEOPLE.  I have not even gotten into PESTICIDES, which are important in providing FOOD for the masses. They also happen to be important in STOPPING MALARIA.  This blog has previously noted how INSANE it was that we have patted ourselves on the back for providing MOSQUITO NETTING to places like Tanzania, because we REFUSE to provide PESTICIDES.  MURDER is what I call this.  Are any of yu people really so insane to believe lthat MOSQUTIO NETTING can be used so extensively as to keep people frm being bitten by mostuitoes?  I hope not. I like to think better of anyone smart enough (and patient enough) to wade thought these blog araticles. 

"Sklip, how can yu ATTACK gardening?  You will attack motherhood next.' 

I leave attacking motherhood to the left.  But, again, I am NOT attacking gardening.  I am attacking the KOIOK idea that "personal gardens" can have a major impact on this country. Now you should realize lthat my Constituionial Law professor, Lino Graglia, kused to use the examle f the Federal Government REGULATING the growing of wheat in a BACK YARD as an example of the reach of the POER of the Federal Government under the Interstate Commerc Clause.  If gardens DID start really affeting FARMERS, and government "farm policies", then you might well find the Federal Government tring to REGULATE GARDENS> Needless to say, I OPPOSE farm subsidies, and this kind of really expansive extension of the "Commerce Clause".  You wil note that Barack Obama wants to extend the "Commerce Cluase" even further with ObamaCare.  The questin is now, of coufrse, before the U. S. Supreme Court. 

Oh-another "by the way"--I DO know MUCH more about Constitutional Law than Barack Obama.  I actually have a lot of company as far as people who can say that. 

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  No, I have not forgotten that Anderson Cooper is gay, and my stil incomplete finale as to how that has influenced Coooper's program on CNN (and maybe CNN itself, although this is a "chicken and the egg" problem).  But I thought you deserved a break from that subject for today. My brother even "joked' that he had gotten the  point (although it realy is not quite the point):  Anderson Cooper is gay.  See previous aricles over the past several days. 

Monday, May 28, 2012

Anderson Cooper Calls Muhammad a Murderer: Opposes Free Speech (Anderson Cooper Is Gay Series, as The Maverick Conservative Reveals More of His Past)

People like Anderson Cooper--dishonest hypocrites--are against frree speech (for those who disagree with them). The MaverickConservative has fought this battle, and these leftist hypocrites (whether calling thems welves by some leftist name or acting as part oof te GOP "establishment") for more than 40 years. 

Segue back to about 1970, when I was in the United States Army. I was stationed in Ft. Carson, Colorado (outside of Colorado Springs). At that time, I often read (at least in part, and often at least skimming through the entire newspaper) two newspapers a day.  In law school, after the army, I would often read (at least skim through) 5 newspapers, or more, in a single day (partly at the library), including The Daily Texan (liberal UT "student" newspaper), The Dallas Morning News, The Dallas Times-Herald, and the Austin American-Statesman.  I quit reading ANY newsaper long ago--before my eyesight made it impossible for me to read such things. And this is NOT just because you can now get all of the "news" you want online.  It is a total wastee of time to read modern newspapers, as I have tried to show in my documented, decade-long, futtile Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honestr, competent AP "reporter" (the AP being pretty much a poxy for modern "journalism", and especially newspaper "journalism", everywherre). Once upon a time, I even regularly read LEFTIST pubications like The New Republic and The Nation, to se what the left was saing.  Again, I have long found thi sto be a waste of time, as the left has said NOTHING new in at least 40 years.  Again, I can tell that from TV surfing and internet surfing.  I digrrss (not realy).  Back to 1970, when one of the newpapers I read regularly was the liberal  Denver Post. Back then, however, it was not "all agenda, all of the time", even in the so-called "news" pagges, as it is today.

One of the stories I came across--as if Anderson Cooper were a reincarnation of the same people trying to stamp out free speech then, as now--was a story about the FCC (Federal Communicatins Comission) taking away the license of two "Christian" radio or TV stations who put out rather exxtremee, "right wing", religious fundamentalist views. These were still the days when the "Fairness Doctrine' was being used to SUPPORESS free speech.  It is no accident that the LEFT has recently tried torevive the "Fairness Doctrine"., to try to silence people like Rush Limbaugh. Then, as now--and as I have been for at least 52 of my almost 65 years--I was an agnostic.  Take my word for it that these preachers on radio and TV have never been my cup of tea.  In fact, I grew up in the era when Oral Roberts, and others, would "heal " people on TV:  lay on hands and tell people on crutches to "rise' and walk (supposedly "cured").  The particular "fringe" preachers putting out this stuff were not the kind of people I either like or "support" (except that on ISSUES< including even premarital sex, I probably agree with most of their positons, if you can separate their political positions from the extreme religius rhetoric). 

Well, I wrote a ltter to the Denver Post, and it was printed.  What I said was the same thing I say regularly in this blog, and had said earlier in my philosophy class term paper on Juhn Stuart Mill's "On Liberty".  (when I was an undergraduate at New Mexico State University, before going into the army).  What I said in the letter was that I had no real sympathy for these two radio stations putting out a rather extreme, "intolerant" 9although Bill Maher culd give them lessons on intolerance) view. What I said in the letter, and what I say now (more than 40 yhears later), is that it does not matter that those two radio stations (I believe, althugh it is possible they were TV stations)  were putting out stuff that I did not like, especailly in a way that I did not like.  That did not give me the "right" to try to SUPPRESS the FREE SPEECH of peple whith whom I disagree--even disagree strongly.  No, it  does not even matter if some might call what these two statinos were putitting out "hate speech", it was still a SUPPRESSIN of free speech to shut them down becauseeople did not like the material they were putting out (not, I would mentin, material that used prohibited words, or anything like that). Yes, the letter was an ATTACK on the very idea of the "Fairness Doctrine", as I was again ahead of my time.  People like Anderson Cooper, and others on the left, would STILL like to shut down the kind of radio station shut down 40 years ago, and for the same reason:  DISAGREEMENT with what is being said.  In fact, I have no doubt that attemts are still being made to use the GOVERNMENT to STIFLE the speech of peple like this . See below, as to what DISHOENST HYPOCRITE Adnerson Cooper tried to do with one North Carolina pastor (ONE poor guy giving SERMONS in his church). 

Segute to 2011, and Andeson Cooper conducting his crusade against Christians, or at least large sections of them.  This time, a religius writer put out a book (actually a series of books) about "Christian discipline". All  this Christian writer advoated was the "old-time discipline" ("spare the rod and spoil the cild") in effect for basically the entire 19th Century, and most of the 20th Century. In fact, this tlype of discipline was siill beig used in HIGH SCHOOL (at least by PE sinstructors/coaches) when I went to Silver City High School rom 1970-1964). The idea, of coures, was that discipline should STING (cause "pain", to the sanctimonious "horror" of Anderson Cooper) so that the lesson would be remembered.  You know know, because of this series of articles (if you did not know before), that Anderson Cooper is conducting a VENDETTA agaisnt Christians (especailly fundamentalist Christians) because ANDERSON COOPER IS GAY. He does not like the Christian oppositon to homosexual conduct.  Anderson Cooper did story after story--I think at least 10 of them, including a REPEAT of the whole theme in a "special" last Labor Day), accsuing this poor religious couple of "child abuse" and MURDER for WRITING A BOOK. The CNN assertion was that this book was present in the homes of some three people (or couples) who committed murder and;or extreme child abuse.  AT least in one case,  passages in the book wre even underlined (HOORORS!!!--my od sarcasm diseasease recurring).  Anderson Cooper actually USHED the idea that maybe the writer of this BOOK could be CHARGED WITH MURDER.  Does Ray Bradbury know abut this Anderson Cooper idea that this book should be effectively BURNED?  If I were Cooper, I woud worry about Bradbury HAUNTING him from beyond the grave.  I kid you not . Coper attacked a BOOK forom the point of view taht a book on "old-time discipline" (NOT advocating seriuos injury or death to any child) be effetively BANNED.  Anderson Cooper, BULLY that he is, PERSECUTEED this poor Christian couple for merely writing a BOOK on old-timme discpline.  Not that Anderson Cooper, DISHOENST HYPOCRITE that he is, falt out AVOIDED the "issue" of whether modern discipline is too lax, or whether "physical disciipline" (like spaniking, or rapping a hand with a ruler) shuld be BANNED.  Iinstead, Cooper--really an EVIL man trying to spread extreme evil--was trying to TAR these people with MURDER and cCHILD ABUSE for merely writing a book on Oold-tie discipline" that even Coper could not assert actually advoated either cild abuse or murder (as Cooper --dishonest hypocrite that he is--did not quite DARE to say that spanking, and other physicaal disciipline of all kineds, was child abuse). Did I mentin that Anderson Cooper is a COWARD?  Well, he is. 

If MISUSE of a book by psychotic individuals DISCREDITS the BOOK, and the BOOK AUTHOR, has not Anderson Cooper said that Muhammad is a MURDERER, along with MUSLIMS who "teach" the Koran?  Should not Muhammad be "trie" poshjumously for MURDER, or at least suffer an Andeson Cooper "special" on how he has PROMOTED MURDER?  Logically, yes.  But, remember, Anderson Cooper is a HYPOCRITE, merely ursuing a PERSONAL VENDETTA agaisnt Christians.  That vendetta will be the direct subject of a futre article.  Is not the Koran allleged to specificaly INSTRUCT MURDER by many extreme Muslim ms (yu may remember 9/11)?  Did even Anderson Cooper, LIAR that he is, say that this Christian boook on not 'sparing the rod' ADOVATED MURDEER?  Nope.  Even Anderson Cooper could not even ALLEGE lthat.  But look at the Koran. Again, and I accept that this may be a PERVERSION of the Koran, as any use of this book on discipline to "justify" extrem child abuse wass a PERVERSION of that book, but it is absolutely ture that there are Muslim CLERICS out there saying thtat the Koran TELLS Mulims to murder infidels. 

Note that I COULD have used the BIBLE, and JESUS CHRIST, in the headline.  Has not the Bible been used to "justify" MURDER?  Of course it has (albei maybe mainly in the Old Testament).  "Thous shalt not suffer a witch to live.".  Was that not directly responsible for the Salem Witch Trials?  And what aobut the Spanish Iquisitin, and all of those other attacks on heretics and infidels (including Muslim infidels) by the medieval Christian church?  This blog has told you that one of the problems with the world today is tha tthe CHRISIANS ha ave MAINLY left the Spanish Inuisition behind.  But TOO MANY MUSLIMS have not left  behind the idea that peole here on Earth should ENFORCE God's law here on Earth, instead of letting God do it by condemning heretics to Hell.  Too much of the Musim religon is still stuck in the palce the Christian Chruch was at the time of the Spanisth Inquisition, and that is a very BAD thing. However, that is NOW wy I chose the Muslim reference for the title, and not a Christian reference:  an  assertion that the BIBLE is attacked by Anderson Cooper as an evil book ushing child abuse and murder.  The reason I used the title I did should be obvious to you.  If I used Christians, and the Bible, in my intended SATRIIC headline, it would not be "satiric".  That is exactly what Anderson Cooper is really asserting with regard to Christians and the Bible--although he is too muc a COWARD to directly say so.  However, Cooper is NOT, even by impliatin, saing those things about the Koran, and Muslims.  It is the LOGICAL consequence of the RIDICULOUS "book-banning" pproach of Cooper  that the Koran is an EVIL book because of its effect on the minds of people giving to Muslim extremism.  But no one can really find were Cooper has actually aTTACKED the gneral Muslim religion for ENCOURAGING PSYCHOPATHS, and thus the title I actually used can have a SATIRIC effect.  If I had used the Bible in the hedline, the headline would hav been LITERALLY TRUE. 

Go back, mentally, to 1970 again., and my letter in the Denver Post.  Waht did Anderson Cooper do with regard to this North Carolina pastor who "advocated" rounding up lesibans and homosexuals behind electirfied fences (non-werious as you have to regard any such hyperbole, whether the pastor actually believes that would be a good idea or not)?  Well, Cooper was not satisfied with merely attackng this OBSCURE North Carolina preacher for over-thhe-top hyperbole, on multiple shows.  Remember, Cooper OPPOSES free speech for those who oppose his agenda (the entire idea of this ridic;ulous "featuring" on a single North Carolina preacher being to INTIMIDATE other Christians with the threat of "guilt by association").  It is not enough for Anderson Cooper to merely "criticize" this single preacher.  Cooper wants to SHUT HIM UP.  The "Fairness Doctrine" no longer exists, and never did apply to SERMONS (lol--as if the DEVIL wre entitled to "equl time").  So what do leftists DO when faced with wanting to SHUT DOWN someone, without any real jsutification to do so (other than the real leftist view that peole just should not be ALLOWED to say these things)?  Well, the government DOES have  "nexus' with churches.  It is called the IRS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Churches of all kinds, along with many LEFTIST organizatinos, receive a TAX EXEMPTION.  Yu are not supposed to receive that tax exemptn if you "engage in politics".  Think of how ABSURD it is what Anderson Cooper did.  It is well known that the Caholic Chruch says things about ABORTION (and other things) WITH POLITICAL EFFECT.  NPR and PBS use TAXAYER MONEY to actualy PUSH a LEFTIST point of view (which realy is bad).  If yo believe in the Frist Amendment, about freedom of religion, yoiu simply CANNOT try to USE this government tax exemption to try to ATTACK BOTH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FREE SPEECH.  That means you can't start picking apart the POLITICAL intent of what a leftist BALKC PRECHEER, or "right-wein" fundamentalist preacher, says. You just can't inoovle the Federal Government in SERMONS this way, unless lyou are a DISHOENST HYPOCRITE like Anderson Coooper, hwo does not believe in either religious freedom or free sppech.  Sure, you can't have a church FINANCING a political campaign, or actually involved in the POLITICAL OERATION of a candidate's campaign (or the political operation of a referendum campaign). However, you simply cannot try to slay that giving sermns, knowing that they have political effect, even if they "advocate" a political position in some, way, gives lthe government an EXUSE to tlry to take away a church's tax exemption . That is an EVIL, UN-AMERICAN thing.  That actually describes Anderson Coioper:  an EVIL, UN-AMERICAN person on TThe Evil, Un-American Network (also The Anti-Christian Netwrok). 

My life life has just about come full circle.  I am still fighting, in my own way, the same battle s I wa fighting 40 yars ago, when I wrote the Devenver Post, on the same goround (read Joun Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty", if you are still not sure what that gouround is). As Mill said:  If every person but one believes one way, the majority is no more justified in silencing that one than h would be in silencing everyone else-had he the power to do so.".  But I believe in free speech.  Anderson Cooper does not believe in either free speech or religious freedom.

P.S.  No proofreading or sepll checknig (bad eyesight).  This is especially bad in an article this long, where I get tired.  And here they made Twitter just ofr people like me, who can't type or proofread more than a few words with any coherence.  Too bad I can't limit myself to a few words. Too bad mainy for you, if you try to read all of the words.  Still, you will miss some important stuff.   Oh yes, Anderson Cooper is gay.  That is relevant because it explains the AGENDA behind the way he donducts his program, and the hyhpocrises and lies in the program.  There are sitill a few "Anderson Cooper is gay" articles to go, as this blog reachees a crescendo before leaving Anderson Coper forever (unless my nowse is rubbed in something by someone else).  I have stoopped even surfing Cooper, as of the first article in this series, and therefore there will be no NEW material (except by accident).  But I need to finish up the old material, and I will .  This blog is MINE, as Cooper's program is his.    I still invite Cooper to try to shut me up. It would make my year, but I don't think e ven Cooper is that dumb (given my very limited audience although Cooper may underestimate my VAST influence well beyond the size of my audience).

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Anderson Cooper, Dishonest Hypocrite: Go Damn America (Anderson Cooper Is Gay Series)

Let us go back to a "Christian" LOON in whom Anderson Cooper and CNN were totally UNIINTERESTED (except to defend him).Yep.  We are back to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who was President Obama's pastor for 20 years (the closest thing to a SPECIFIC relition that Barack Obama has ever had, although Bill Maher and I. --declared agnostics bothl--have informed yu, correctly, that President Obama is not a Christian).

Remember Reverend Wright, who President Obama discarded for totally POLITICAL reasons, as President Obama's various positions on same sex marriage have been for totally POLITICAL REASONS (as James, Carville and I agree that his "real" positoin has ALWAYS been in favor of same sex marriage)?  CNN and Anderson Cooper considered the sermons of Revernd Wright IRRELEVANT (except then they finally threatened President Obama's candidacy):  isolated examples of hyperbole that said notihing about Presiident Obama being part of that church for 20 years. To refresh your memory, Reverend Wright is the one who professed the sentiment:  "GOD DMAN AMERICA".  No, that is NOT taken ut of context. Reverend Wright meant it, in the context of his crusade agaisnnst "white Europeans", and the alleged destruction by "America" of blackk people (especailly black males).  Reverend Wright even gave a RACIST speech to the Detroit NAACP, after his "bad sermonss were revealed, where he said things like:  "black people, becaukse of t their history, learn differently than white Europeans, and that has to be taken into account in or education systmen which is geaared toward white Europeans").   Reverend Wright is also the reverend who expressed this POLITICAL "conspiracy theory" that the CIA is deliberately providing illegal drugs to African-American males to DESTROY THEM (among other things, by making sure so many of them go to prison). Again, Anderson Cooper and CNN defended this as justifiable HYPERBOLE, as Reverend Wright expressed the frustrations oof t black people.  And, of oucrse, it had--in the Anderson Coooper/CNMN view--NOTHING to do with whether President Obama should be President.  After all, it was nothing but a few SERMONS from a single pastor.  To try to "tar" then Senator Ob ama with these seroons would be GUILT BY ASSOCIATION.  Message to Anderson Cooper and CNN:  You are the WORST HYPOCRITES to ever walk the Earth, on tow legs or four, as Anderson Cooper DAILY "tars" ALL Christians (who actually believe in their religion), and ALL peole who oppose a gay activist agenda, with the ISOLATED sermons of selected Christian pastors somewhere int hte United States.

As stated in prvious articles, this has everything tod do with Anderson Cooper's very PERSONAL agenda.  Anderson Cooper is gay.  He is USING his program to PUSH a gay activis agenda, BECAUSE HE IS GAY.  I have been asked, by "modern generation" peple who are all mentally challegned, why I CARE that Anderson Cooper is gay.  I don't care.  But ut I CARE that Anderson Gooper is pushing GAY ATVISIT PROPAGANDA, in a totally DISHONEST way, out there as "news'.  "Skip, yu don't have to listen" (as I no longer will, even giving up SURFING Anderson Cooper as a total waste of time). YOU HYPOICRITES who say tat, and then think that what Anderson Cooper is puttin gout is some kind of "news" that he has a RIGHT to put out.  Sure, he has a "right" to put it out, but he is NOT RIGHT to put out such dishonest propaganda.  Thus, look at the view of you HYPOCRITES.  Reverend Wright is irrelevant because he is only a single pastor putting out hyperbole explained by his background and who he is speaking for.   Anderson Cooper is supposedly merely a single, irrrelevant gy on CNN, who can put whatever he wants on his program, even  if it is DISHOENST stuff promoting his PERSONAL GAY ACTIVIST AGENDA. But ISOLATED Christian pastors around the country are "news", because they are "spreading evil".  Anderson Cooper, you ARE a DHISHONEST HYPOCRITE.  Doe s anyone have to listent o these sermons?  Of coures not.  And, small as Anderson Cooper's audience is, Anderson Cooper's audience DWARFS that of any of thee pastors. Lest you rally believe that Anderson Coope and CNN are realy against "guilt by associiation", need I mentin RUSH LIMABUGH--whhere every single "controversial" sentence is JUMPED on by CNN to condmen eVERY member of the GOP and every conservative.  Reverend Wright not only mma y have INFLUENCED the thinking of the President of the United States (evidence is that he did), but the President of the United States SUPPORTED Reverend Wright for 20 eyars (not on terms, necessarily, of monetary suppport, but in terms of supporting Reverend Wright by attending and promoting his church).  But Reverend Wright is "irrelevant, whoilke rural preachers can be said to represent the entire opposition to gay marriage in this country.  YOU HYPOCRITES. (Anderson Cooper and CNN).

What am I talking abou? First, again, you need to realize that Anderson Cooper is gay.  No, I con't care aobut that in the abstaract.  But ti EXPLAINS the gay activist propaganda Coooper puts out almost every night.  North Carolina, yu may recall, recently had this ELECTIN (Anderson Cooper and the left do not believe in dmocracy when it does not fit their agenda).  60% of the VOTERS of North Carolina ut in the North Carolina constitution a provision that both gay marriage and civil unions would not be recognized in North Carolina.  Was Anderson Cooper interested in WHY 60% of the people of North Carolina would oppose gay marriage (aligning themselves with MOST of the world, and ALL of human history up until this century)?  Not a chance.  Before the electin, Cooper featured video of a SINGLE North Carolina pastor talking about what parents shuld do if they suspect a child of "turning gay":  "Take that child's limp wrist and crack it.  Punch him.  Tame stuff, right, especailly from a pastor evidently known for hyperbole?  Tame stuff, in any event, in com parsion to "GOD DAMN AMERICA", from the pastor of a man running for President of the United States.  But this--straight off of the gay activist internet--was FEATURED "news" on Anderson Cooper's progaram two nights in a row (mabye more, but I saw it two nights). So a single preacher in North Carolina said a FEW SENTENCES that were unChristian.  SO WHAT?  Why is this 'news".  It is "news" ONLY because ANDEROSON COOPER IS GAY, and has this crusade and vendetta agasint Christians where he is perfectly willing to use GUILT BY ASSOCIATION.  There is no eviddence that this pastor is "typical" of people in Norhth Carolina, or people who opose gay marriage.  And hwhat the siad was NOT MUCH.  Yet, Anderson Cooper featured this guy for TWO NIGHTS right before the North Carolina vote.  It didn't work ((surprise, surprise!!!!!).

But Anderson Cooper, and the gay activist community, were BITTER aboutt he Noth Carolina vote.  "Trrops" fanned out over North Carolina.  'Surely, we can find more examples of "hate speech' showing what HICKS voted for this'  was the refrain that went out across North Carolina, from Anderson Cooper, CNNN and gay activists everywheree.  These propaandists were determined to invoke GUYILT BY ASSOCIATION against 60% of the voters of North Carolina.  Lo and behod, they FOUND another North Caolina preacher who went "over the top" with a sermon.  This preacher fit the Anderson Cooper AGENDA-the gay activist agenda--perfectly.  He said "agin".  No, that was not his pronunciatin of "again" (I do that).  That is this preacher's way of saying "against".  Pure hicksville, right?  If yoiu have an AGENDA it certainly is (no caveats about 'background", or speakng in the "language" of the people wh you know), since this is not Reverend Wright). Did tis preacher talka bout some sort of "conspiracy theory" about how gays are kidnapping children and FORCING thm to be gay (instead of forcing school curriculums to refelct a gay activist agenda)  Nope.  This preacher went off on an obvius FANTASY.  Sure, it was a HATEFUL fantasy, but it was still NOT REAL.  This preacher said something like this;  "We need to set up two aras surrounded by electrified fences. We gather together all of the lesbians and put them in one area.  We gather together all of the queers and homosexuals and ut them in another area. Then we drop them supplies and let them die off"."  Anderson Cooper  sneered at the idea of gays "reporcuding".  But Anderson Cooper is a DISHONEST HYPOCRITE, and professed to take this stuff literallly (when his pont HAD to be that this represented a hateful ATTITUDE toward gays).  Did this preacher really expect that gays would be rounded up, and tha we would eliminate mosexuals in this manner?  Don't be silly.  It takes a LIBERAL PRESIDENT to round people up and put them in concentratin campss (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, with Japanese AMERICNANS in World War II, over the objections of J. Edgar Hoover).  This was pure hyperbole, and Anderson Cooper knew it . Sure, it was hateful stuff, but this preacher had as much "right" to say it as Anderson Cooper does to put out his nightly gay activist propaganda. No one has to listen.  Cooper, by the ay, makng clear the INTENT to invoke the GUILT BY ASSOCIATION,  that CNN and Cooper have declared to be an EVIL thing,, make a point of syaing (in the extensive segments on both of these preachers) that you can hear the "audience" saying "amen". I imagine you could hear that when Reverend Wright said"God Damn America" too.  So what?  Cooper is tryig to CONDEMN60% of the people of North Carolina based on ISOLATED hyperbole from two preachers. Anderson Cooper, you are an EVIL person: convicedof that by yiour own network, which aso convicted itself in the process. No attempt to put on a rEAL spokesman for the North Carolina votters. My daughter sugggested last night that Anderson Cooper put ME on his program, to rEALLY ratchet up this "guilt by association"  tactic.  He will not do it, because I would accuse him of usng his pr0ogram for PROGAGANDA to advance his own, PERSONAL, agenda.  And, as an agnostic, I would hardly fit the Cooper narrative, or be regarded as a proper spokesman by most Christians.  But putting some SEROUS person on to defend the North Carolina vote would be "news". Waht Cooper did was straight PROPAGANDA (as my snide daughter recognizes).  Again, Anderson Cooper FEATURED this second preacher at least TWO NIGHTTS, and went so far as to PUSH the idea of taking away this poor preacher's "tax exemptioin" for dARING to oppose the Cooper agenda.  Actually, of course, Cooper probably tthnked God (who Cooper believes in conssiderably less than I do, on the anti-Christian networrk) for this preacher, since how else could Cooper adance his theory of GUILET BY ASSOCIATION.  Oh, by the way, Cooper is surely right that you cannot eliminate homosecual CONDUCT by not allowing them to reporduce.  But Cooper is transparently WRONG when he impies that  'homosexuals" never reporduce.  My nephew married a woman who has now declared herself a lesbian, and they HAD A CHILD.  The governor of New Jersey had a family, and then declared himself to be gay.  It is Anderson Cooper who is bone-deep STuPID.  Butyou already kew that.

Then there are Muslims.  Hypocrites Andeson Cooper and CNN CONDMEN--as evil--the idea that Muslims in general should be held responsible for terrorists and Muslim extremists: the idea that the Muslim RELIGION should be held responisble for the CLERICS, and other inndividuals (however numberus) who are corrupting the religion. Let us be honest here, as Anderson Cooper and CNN are not: When you COMOPARE the relative EVIL of a rural North Carolina preacher's FANTASY of how to get rid of homosexuals with the Muslim extremist REALITY of how to get rid of "infidels', whichg is the more "newsworthy" and DANGEROUS.  There is obviusly not contest. In fact, this North Carolina preacher mentioned that homsexuals were oce hnged.  Who is it that PRESENTLY HANGS HOMOSEXUALS?  Right.  President Ahmaninejad, of Iran, BRAGGED that there are no homosecuals in Iran, "because we hanng them".  But do Anderson Cooper, and the other hypocrites of CNN, scour the country to find MUSLIM CLEIC who say bad things abut homosecuals?  Not a chance.  "But Skip, Muslims are a small minority in this country."  Yuo DISHOINEST HYPOCRITE you (Anderson Cooper, the people of  CNN, and all who think this way).  Are Muslims really a SMALLER minority in this  country than the congregations of thiese individual "Christian" pastors?  Not a chance.  That is a LIE.  The Orwelian, evil Big Lie here, than Anderson Cooper is deliberately promoting, is that ALL Christians (at least evangelical Christians) can "fairly" bwe "tarred" with EVERY statment madde by eVERY Christian pastor.  CNN itself says this is an EViL BIG LIE, but the hypocrites at CNN only say that with regard to MUSLIMMS, "Occupy" pepolee, Reverend Wright, Bill Maher, and any other LEFTIST "extremist" who says indefensible things.  Dirty little secret here: If Anderson Cooper and CNN LOOKED around the world for OUTRAGEOUS things said by MUSLIM clerics (including  those how are not directly terrorists), they wuould not have space for any other examples of religious "hate" speech.  Unilike North Carolina rural preachers, these Muslim clerics are atually RESPONSIBLE for much of the terrorism in the world. Al-Qaida grew out of the "eaching" of Saudi Arabuian clerics in the refugee camps of Afghanistan.  Where were CNN and Anderson Cooper, talkng about the EVIL these Muslim clerics were spreading (real evil, and not the "hate" fantasies of individual Christian preachers). If you really think that North Carolina preacher was SERIUSLY advocating that we have concentratin camps for homosexuals, anywhere but in his fantasies, then you should aply to work for Anderson Cooper/and/or CN. Your mind will fit perfectly . In contrast, these MSULIM EXTREMISTS are SEROUS abut what they want done, in the name of Islam.  If yu doubt that, go back and look at those vidoes of what happned on 9/11.  Notice that I don't defend what this one crank North Carolina preacher chooses to say, other than being willing to defend to the death his righ t to say it.  Nor do I condmn aLL muslims.  Wht I condmn are Anderson Cooper and the otehr HYPOCRITES of CNN.

CNN is simply NOT INTRESTED in the 'extreme" statements of clerics in this country who are not "fundamentalist" Christians, Catholics, or some other DISFFAVORED religion.  Look at the "Occupy" peple.  They have SAID--inividuals--some of the most HATEFUL things saifd by any people alive in this country today: much more HATEFUL than this North Caolina preacher, because more connected to erEALITY.  These "Occupy" peple have COMMITTED CRIMES.  The North Carolina preacher has not . But are CNN and Anderson Cooper, interested in publicizing the HATE SPEECH (and bizarre speech) of "Occupy" peple?  My daughter says that the "Occupy Boston" peple squatting in a park appear to be a cloection fo HOMESLIESS peole (and this daughter voted for Obama). CNN and Anderson Cooper are simply UNINTERESTED n the EXTREMISTS and SLEAZEBALLS int eh "Occupy" mmovement.  Ratehr, the CNN "toryline' is how the "Occupy" people express a real frustation, even if they don't all articulate a coherent message. YOU HYPOOCRITES (referring to Anderson Cooper and CNN).  You support the "Occupy" people, and therefore would not think of geaturing the (numerous) outrageous statements thyhey make.  But let a rural Christian preacher, ANYWHERE in this country, say ONE SENTENCE  that could be regarded as "hateful", that Christian pastor is likely to find himself FEATURED on Andeson Cooper's CNN program.  There is ONE reason for this--well, actually two.  First, ANDERSON COOPER IS GAY, and pushing a gay activist agenda.  Second Cnnn is The Anti-Christian Network.  Nope.  These preachers are not braking the law, and defeecating in public parks (not to mentin raping, and wore).  These preachers are merely putting out there (admittedly rather extreme) view of what the Bible tell s us, in their own relatively small churches.  But these preachers are the target of an anti-Christian VENDETTA (amounting to a bllod feud) by Anmderson Coooper against believing Christians. 

Q.E.D.  Anderson Cooper is a DHISHONEST HYPOCRITE (keeping him honest).  And this is the most relevant fact behind Cooper's agenda:  Anderson Cooper is gay.  Taht would not matter to me, excempt it is BEHIND the disgraceful propaganda Cooper puts out on his program.

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  Is there ANYONE out there REORTING on what MUSLIM clerics are SAYING in the United States to their "congregatinos?  I would be interested in knowing.  Nope.  I am positive the unfair and unablanced network is NOT really reporting on this, UNLESS it hits them in the face. They are too mcuh COWARDS, and wanting th e"aproval" of CNN types (not matter how much they may deny it).  The ony difference, of course, is that CNN will NOT "report" on Musllim clerics unfavorably, EVN IF IT HITS CNN IN THE FACE.  To be as blunt as I can, and as this blog said with regard to that florida rpreacher who announded he would burn the Korran:  The statement sof these individual passtors, in hcurch sermons, are NOT  NEWS.  The only people, like Anderson Cooper, wo try to MAKE this stuff "news" have an AGENDA, and are tryng to USE this on-news stuff to promote that agenda. By the way, the "gay activist moovement" and the peole who support it, are aobut lthe most DISHOENST people who have ever existed (esceeded only by Planned Parenthod).  How INSECURE are these peope to REFUSE to "debate" the publkic policy as to homosecual "issues' ON TH EMAERITS--instead relying on CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, and every other unfair, dishoenst tactic they can cnceive.  Thiis is all about INTIMIDATION.  You will notice that this blog refuses to be intimidated. For those of youy, like my daughters, who think I should just ignore Anderson Cooper (jsut not watching), I want you to consider just how much LESS excuse Anderson Cooper has for not ignroing these individual preachers out there.  I am not a Christian.  I do not turn the other cheek.  If Anderson Cooper is going to be this HYPOCRITICAL and DISHOENST, he is going to here from me. As I told lmy younter duaughter, who promised to write Anderson Cooper and tel him he needs to look into this blog spreading "hate speech" about him, I am morally certain Anderson Cooper will never invite me on thhis progaram (even though I probably have more acutal "influence" than these OBSCURE preacers, small as my "audience' may be).  Anderson Cooper well knows thaat having ME on his program would do ME a whole lot mor good than it would do Anderosn Cooper.  Cooper is bone-deep StUPID, but not THAT stupid. One can dream, however,  ypep.  It does not matter if Cooper mademe look like a fool, because it is HIS program  (or lyou think I am a fool).  It would still be GREAT for me, and bad for Cooper, to have me on his progrram (or to mentin thi sblog, or comment on it).

Thursday, May 24, 2012

New Unemployment Claims Rise Slightly, as Media Lies Continue: No Improvement This Year (Do Economists Read This Blog?)

As usual, let us dispose of last week's media LIES exposed (, this means YOIU, as wellas the regular media liears). Look at last week's REPORTING of the newemployment claims data released every Thursday.  First, look at ths blog's CORRECT reporting, as compared to whtat th eLIARS in the media reported.  The media reported that the number of new uenmplyment calims was UNCHANGED, at 3570,000, even though that number wsa 3,000 MORE than the ORIGINAL number reported the week before.  This is the usual media LIE,, although it is hardly the ony lie in the way the media reports these numbers. This number of new unemplyment claims released every Thursday is REVISED the next Thursday . Last week, the number was REVISED (for the previous week) from 367,000 to 370,000.  This alowed the LIARS of teh media to say that the number ws "unchanged, even thugh it was UP from the initial number reported the previuos week . As this blgo told you, the number is almsot ALWAYS revised UPWARD, usually by at least 3,000.  Thus, there are only tow ways to even try a "comparison" of this week's number with last week's number.  You can either compare last week's reVISED NUMBER with this week's PROJECTED REVISED NUMBER (to be announced next week),based on the CONSISTENT history of these prevision,s, or yu can compare the UNREVISED number for last week with the inital UNREVISED number announced this week.  Thus, this blog PROJECTED--based on this consistent history--a REVISION of last week's number to 373,000 meaning that new unemplyment claims ROSE last week--instead of the media LIE lthat the number was ttoally unchanged.

This blog ws "wrong', by 1,000.  The actual, REVISED number for last week was 372,000 new unemplyment claims, instead of the 373,000 PROJECTED by this blog.  In other words, as this blog told you, the nmber of calims ROSE last week by 2,000.  Notice that the LIARS of teh media were wrong by 2,000, and this blog was only "wrong' by 1,000 (whith this blog being far more HONEST in teling yu exactly how the PROJECTIN was made, instead of LYING to by that this weekly number is some sort of exact number).

The media lies, and the media liears, just never end.  They keep telling the SAME LIES week after week after week after week.  Here is this week's headline, based on this week's UNREVISED number:

"Jobless claims drop slightly, to 370,000" 

That is the Market watch headline . The people of Marketwatch are LIARS, along with the rest of the mainstream media.  These people (Wall Street people, iincluding financial "journalists") truly are The Stupidest People on Earth, and some of the most DISHONEST.

Notice the LIE in the Marketwatch headline.  Last week's UNREVISED number was  370,000, which is this week's UNREVISED number : that SAME 370000 (no change. That "dropped slightly" is a LIE.  But it is worse than that.  My headline is correct, in all likelihood, based on the BEST PROJECTION.  The usual UPWARD REVISION is 3,00. That makes the PROIJECTED number for this week 373,000, or a RISE of 1,000.  Sure, the UPWARD revision for this week was "only" 2,000--although it has infrequently been as high as 16,000).  But the previus tow weeks this blog predicted the number EXACTLY (an upward revision of 3,00).  Thus, the REAL number for this week can be PROJECTED as 373,000, and SJOULD be projeted as 373,000 (in headlines AND the body of stories). In fact, the Big Lie here--the Orwellian media Big Lie--is that these numbers are "exactg"--a mere matter of "counting"-EVEN AS REVISED. That is BUNK.  These numbers are "seasonally adjusted", and very SUBJECTIVE.  The "margin of error" in any individual week is AT LEAST 50,0900.  There is at least that much possilbe error based on chlitches/possible surpirise factors in the seasonal adjustment.  This is also ture of the MONTHLY emplyment data, in additin to the many other porblems with that data. This weekly nummber shuld be REPORTED as an ESTIMATE, and this idea of "reporting'  a single week as if it means much is a LIE.  This supposed "rise' , or fall, of--say--10,000 in a single week is MEANINGLESS.  It does not mean a dman thing, but that is not how the media reports these "changs" from week to week.  It is only OVER TIME that that these weeekly numbers mean anything. 

Okay.  Let us look at these weekly new unemplyment claims since the beginning of the year.  The number droppe d BELOW 400,000 at the end of last year.  There may have been a week or two right at 400,000 at the very beginning of the year, but the number promptly drooped well below stuck there as we headed into February.  The LOW in February was 351,000, and the LIARS of the media tired to HYPE two separate weeks where the INITIAL number dropped to 348,0000 (only to be REVISED upward the next week BOTH TIMES). The hsyterical, LYING media headline on that drop below 350,000 (which wasn't):  "Jobless claims drop to 4-year low". . That was, of course, a LIE.  The jobless claims then "stabilized" into a RAaNGE (which held for the first few months of this year) from 351,000 to 365,000 (or so).   Notice that we are now ABOVE the TOP{ of that previous range, as we have "settled" right around 370,000 for the past FOUR WEEKS.  In fact, the LIARS at Marketwatch did have the SHAME to at least note--in the subheadline--that the number has now STAYED right around 370,000 for a number of weeks.  Before that, the number SPIKED upward, FOR THREE WEEKS, to basically 390,000  Nothe that THIS THREE WEEK SPIKE matched the HIGHEST level of the year.  The three week spike was surely FICTIONAL (based on a glitch in the seasonal adjustment), just as the "drop" to around 350,000 was FICTIONAL.  The few "highe" numbers at the begining of the year mean little, as well, coming out of the Christmas holidays and the new year (with who knows what ADJUSTMENTS in the "seasonal adjustment" formula, where we KNOW that the calculations for the MONTHLY emplyment numbers have been SUBSTANTIALLY changed (, to the point that the Labor Department actually said that you could not compare January's numbers with December.

Okay.  It is time for this blog to REPORT where we are.  This weekly number of new unemplylment claims is a measure of layoffs, and the "health" of the laor market.  It has NOT IMPROVED this entire year.  If yoi look at February, and then the last seven weeks or so, you  could say the labor market has DETERIORATED.  However, I hope yoiu realize that you ccan't really come to that conclusion.  The "seanal adjustments" are just too "iffy".  The number close to 350,000 were jsut TOO LOW (not "real"), and the numbers around 390,000 wwere just TOO HIGH (not "real').  Nope. The "labor market" does not realy "shift" back and forth on this kind of SHORT-TERM basis. 

The most we can now say about the labor market, and the number of new unemplyment claims,s, is that the situatin has NOT IMPROVED thisis whole year.  Let me put it another way:  President Obama has NOT IMPROVED the job market this entire year.  Contrary to his assertins, and to the media assertions, there has been NO TREND.  Things are NOT "gonig in the right directin".  And they have NOT beeen "gong in the right directin" this entire year.  The monthly emplyment numbers confirm this.  We are STUCK (in a BAD place).  Sure, we are not getting  (substantially) WORSE.  But neither are we getting BETTER.  We are STALLED.  Th emedia people who have "onted" to a "steady" improvement in the labor situatini arfe LIARS.  This includes the people on the unfair and unbalanced network (including the business network).

You ca can take it to the bank, from a person who has SHOWHN yu that he can report these numbers CORRECTLy--while lthe media shows you the opposite. We are NOT IMPROVING.  Nor are we getting worse.  We are STUCK, and the jury is out on WHICH WAY the "trend" will turn (there now being NO TRNED).

Oh.  Do "economicsts surveyed by READ THIS BLOG?  There is circumstantial evidence to that effect. If not, they at least finaly seem to be "understanding" (vast progress for "economicsts", who are hopeless).  The Marketwatch "survey of economists" had "predicted" 373,000 as the number of weekly new unemplyment claims for this week.  That is possibly--even probably--EXACTLY RIGHT (once you figure in in the PROJECTED 3,000 REVISION next week).  However, note that this blog PREDICTED last week that the "real" number for LAST WEEK was 373,000. You shuld know the WAY economists "predict" this number as well as I do.  They look at the PAST (not having any idea of the future, or any way of predicting it other than by looking at the past).  Jobless claims have been pretty much UNCHANGED ovver the past 4 weeks.  lBut have economists FINALLY learned that they MSUT look at the PROJECTED number, and not the MEDIA LIES, when making their "prediction"?  Maybe so.  Or maybe they just read this blog (or hear about what I say).  Is it an ACCIDENT that economists "predicted" exactly the same number (373,000) PROJECTED by this blog as the "real" number last week?  Were nto "economists" really just trying to "predict" that the number of jobless claims would be UNCHANGED?  I think so.  Note that if economists BELLIEVED the  LIARS of the media, "unchanged" would have been 370,000.  If economists BELIEVED the more accurate PROJECTIN of this blog, the "unchanged" number would have been 373,0000 (the number "economists" actually "predicted").

Q.E.D  that is the case for saying that "economists' now pay attentin to this blog!!!!!!!

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


George Zimmerman, The Associated Press, Yahoo "News" and AT&T: Racist, Evil Lynching of George Zimmerman Continues (Boycott Yahoo and AT&T: It Is Working)

The Anti-Amiercan, Despicable Associated Press (complete, official name)   had this headline on THE featured picture story on my Yahoo "News"/AT&T "welcome" page this morning:

"George Zimmerman complained abut Samford police in 2011"

I am not making this up This what the EVIL (i mean this word literally RACISTS ) of the despicable AP, and Yahoo"Nes"/AT&T (name right there on top with Yaho "Nes", as I go on the internet every day knowing that these evil people are trying to HEP me by getting my adrenalin going--knowing I am getting old)  regard as "news".  It is not "news", of course. Only pepple like th eEVIL RACISTS of AP/Yahoo "News"/AT&T could regard this as "news". It does not even rise to the level of EVIIL back fence gossip, which is what it is inteneded to be.  "SO WHAT" is the only appropriate reaction to this piece of crap masquerading as "journalism" . This is meant to be a continuation of the LYNCHING of Geroge Zimmerman, HISPANIC, as the media continues to play RACIAL POLITICS (this time choosing to LYNCH an Hispanic, to support African-American racial politics).

The Yahoo (I beg yu:  BOYCOTT YAHOO AND AT&T: it is workng with Yahoo, as the despicable company can't even keep a CEO, and hires new CEOs who LIE about their college education) headline, on its featured picture story, was WORSE:

"George Ziimmerman calls police 'disgusting' "

Say what?  Would you not take that to mean that George Zimmerman called police "disgusting" AFTER HIS ARRESTT?  Read that AP headline again.  This particllar item of allegd back fence gossip occurred in 20111.  So help me, this may be a new LOW for the AP, and for Yaho "News".  And that means this  may be the WORST single "news" story in the history of the universe.  That is how low they sink EVERY DAY.  For them to set a "new low" means that they have reached a new low for the history of 'journalism". What possible difference couuld it make if George Zimmerman had called the Samford police "m.... f------ in 2011.  What does it tell yu about whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense, or not, when he shot Trayvon Martin while LOSING that fight?  It tells you NOTHING, except that the people of the AP/Yahoo?AT&T are EVIL RACISTS trying to conduct a LYNCHING.  Again, llthnese (AP/Yahoo/AT&T) are some of the most evil peeople who have ever lived.  God help George Zimmerman if he had used the phrase I reference above.  THAT would be a story lasting at least a WEEK, and regurgitated about weeky thereafter.  Look how long the eVIL media remained fixated on "f------ coons", and still try to make a lot out of Zimmerman saying "f------ asshole". 

Then there is the way the Yahoo descriptoin of this story appears under the picture (a picture NOT of George Zimmerman, but of a black man):   "Alleged murderer George Zimmerman.......'

Message to the peole of Yahoo: You really are some of the most EVIL RACISTS who have ever lived.  Again, I worry that I am REPRESSING my reeal feelings here: hlding them in so mcyh that it may make me sick  I can't even express my CONTEMPT of you people at Yahoo.  I hpe I meet one of yoiu some day, so I can tell you to your face (which I wil do, evven if it is in church, or some similar inappropriate place).

"George Zimmerman complained abut the AP, Yahoo and AT&T in 2011"., "translated" on Yahoo (whose lpeople probably don't speak Spanish) as follows:  "George Zimmerman calls 'journalists' 'disgusting' "

Wait.  Those headlines immediately above refer to ME.  However, the headlines would be just as "relevant" to ANY "issue" in the Zimmerman case as the actual headline.  I want ANY of you pepople from the AP, or Yahoo, or AT&T to tell me why it is 'news" that George Zimmerman said an uncomplimentary thing about the Sam ford police a YER BEFORE the shooting.  It would not even  likely be relevant if Ximmerman had been accused of murdering a police officer.  What does George Zimmerman's alleged, one-time comment on the Samford police have to do with ANYTHHING.  Nope.  This is NOT NEWS.  It is not even BACK FFENCE GOSSIP.  It is the eVIL propaganda of EVIL RACISTS with an agenda (desperate to deflect the news from the FACTS that have come out SUPPORTING George Zimmerman's version of events). 

For the "disgusting' people of the AP/Yahoo/AT&T, this is a "win-win" thing.  WHO is it who has said REALLY BAD THINGS abut the Samford pollice?  Hint: it is NOT George Zimmerman.  Ruight.  It is the EVIL people of the MEDIA.  This headline has a "double' benefit for these EVIL peopple.  It vaguely attacks George Zimmerman as a "wild man" (loll--a person who calls the police "disgusting"--how terrible), and it also is a way for the MEDIA to put out its PROPAGANDA against the Samford police (who may desserve it, but the media do not CARE whether they do or they don't). This is not even 'new" stuff.  I heard a BLACK friend oof Zimmerman say that he understood why peole might think the Samford police "blew it", since the Samford police have been so bad that he wouild have thought the same thing himself if he did not know George Zimmerman. 

"Martin family despises Samford police:  calls thiiem 'disgusting' "

Now this POSSIBLE AP/Yahoo/AT&T headline is almost certainly TRUE (at least in substance as to the attitude of the Martin family toward the Samford police).  But you will NEVER see this headline from the EVIL RACISTS of the media--except phrased much more favorably toward the Marint family..

How can it possibly be RELEVANT that George Zimmerman might have ONCE held a low opinino of the Samfor d police, when that is apparenty true of more than half of the people of the town. In fat, Zimmerman's commment might only indicate that he picked this up from his BLACK friends:  showing that ZIMMERMAN is ot racist.  However, the AP/Yahoo/AT&T ARE RACIST.  George Zimmerman could teach them a thing or two.  In fact, he could teach them a thing or gwo about "journalism", but the same could be said of your average psychpathic inmate of a criminal insane asylum. 

You may remember that I was a TEXAS LAWYER for some 35 years.  I only handled a few criminal cases, but this is elemnetary stuff.  Is it ADMISSIBLE "evidence" that George Zimmerman MAY have called Samford police "disgusting" in 2011?  Not a chance.  Why is it not admissible?  It is because it is IRRELEVANT. Even if it were remotely relevant on the issue of whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense (it is not), or on any other 'issue' i the case, George Zimmerman's "opinion" of the Samford police is a COLLATERAL ISSUE, which cuould only deflect the jry from the real issues in the case, and maybe haing a prejudicial effect on some jurors way beyond whatever remotely "relveant' probative effet there might be. In this case, there is NO possible probative effect: whether George Zimmerman said that the Samford police were "disgusting" does not have ANY probative effect as to whether George Zimmerman "murdedered" Trayvon martin.  It does not make that either more or less likely to be true.

Read the above paragraph carefully  I say that not because it is a useful, brief lecture on "relevance", and collateral issues", in the admission of evidence.  No. I told you, in the abovve paragraph, exactly WHY the EVIL RACISTS of the AP/Yahoo/AT&T "featured" this "sotry".  It is MEANT as a "distraction".  It is MEANT to deflet people away from the REAL ISSUES in the Zimmerman case, and from the truly despicable previous performance off the evil peope of the "news" media.  It is MEANT to DEFLECT yur attentin toward a totally irrelevant "collateral issue" that has nothing to do with any 'issue' ih this case.  The media is dong EXACTLY what a lawyer mmight do trying to DEFECT the jury onto a collaterl issue, when the lawyer KNOWS that he is LOSING on the real issues. 

You can actrually look at me as an expert on this.  First, I am a lawyer who finished 3rd in my law school class at the University of Texas School of Law (albeint almost 40 years ago). Further, I have been a "critic" of the "news" media for at least a DECADE, and that means almost daily DOCUMENTING the multiple failures of the modern 'journalist".  These people (oru media) are getting WORSE, and no one has cocumented it more than this blog  This particular story hit me immediately as one of the WORST I hav evern seen.  This is terrible stuff, and there is NO defense to it.  As usual, I welcome any comment (which will NOT be edited or deleted) trying to "defend" the indefensible.  The only caution I would gi ve you as to this mainstream medai ploy (inviting a response) on my part, is that I fully intend to comment on any comment.  And I don't think I will be kind (if it is a comment defending this despicable media conduct). 

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