George Zimmerman and CNN: The Liar Network Covers Its Lies

George Zimmerman had another bail hearing, as the stae of Florida continues to PERSECUTE Zimmerman.  Nope. It was absurd to ARREST Mrs. Zimmerman for lperjury (almost NEVER done for upposed "lies" in a BAIL HEARING, in the abasence of a conspiracy to FLEE).


Again, the PURPOSE of bail is NOT to 'puhish", and esepcially not to take away every dime that the accused has.  The purpose of bail is to assure that the accused shows up for trial.  Look at how absurd this situatin is!!!!  All teh Zimmerman family had to do was DEFER any "defense fund" until AFTER BaIL, or make sure all funds went into some kind of "trust" they did not diretly control.  $250,000 seemed to me to be a reasonable bail--even a little hihgh--UNLESS your entire goal was to KEEP ZIMMERMAN IN JAIL.  Was that the goal?  Seems so.  And NO, whatever "deception" thaere was at the bail hearing has NOTHING to do with whether Zimmerman committed a crime, and should not be acmissible to "prove" that he did (despite the DESPICALBLE lpeole of the unfiar and unbalanced network, who said ltghe opposite).  Sure, yu MIGHT have "punished" Zimmerfman for the bail hearing "deception" by RAISING THE BAIL.  But to ut him back in jail, and keep him there, calls into question the inttegrtity (racism?) of the state of Florida and the judge.  The ACLU, for example, would ordianriy be OUTRAGED for someone to be DENEID bail (at a time a person is PRESUMED innocent, since a trial has not occurred, and obviously no conviction). 


All of the above is mere background to what prompted this article.  As part of teh bail hearing, the defense attorneys called an EMT (emergency medical technician) to testify: yes, one of the "frist resonders" to see Zimmerman.  This EMT testified that Zimmerman's face (and head?) was a MASK OF BLOOD---covering at least 40% of his face. The EMT testified that Zimmerman's nose appeared deformed, and probably broken.  We know, of course, that the ONLY "injuries" on Trayvon Martin, otther than the gunshot would, were SCRAPED KNUCKELS on his hands (presumably from hitting Zimmerman).   The EMT testimony, of course, was designed to show how UNFIAR it is to hold Zimmerman in jail, without bond, when there is a substantil chance that Zimmerman is INNOCENT. 


I heard one of the DISHOENT woman anchors on CNN (The Liar Network) report the above factgs(in the previous paragraph, wtith the exceptioni of the known facts on Martin's LACK of injury, except to his knuckles)..  But here is why the CNN report CONFIRMS that CNN is The Liar Network.  The CNN anchor said lthat the EMT testimony contradicted the "PUBLIC PERCERPTION THAT GEORGE ZIMMERMAN WAS NOT HURT."


Say what/  Do you understnad NOW why I say the people of CNN are  among the worst, most disoenst hypocrites to ever  walk the Earth, on two legs or four?  To the extent thtat there is a "public perceptin" (mainly, I think, a CNN PERCEPTION) that George Zimmerman was "not injured", that is because of the LIES spread by CNN (and the rest of tgeh mainstream media).


No, this is NOT "hindsight" on the part of this blog.  This blog TOLD CNN, and the amainstream media, that their use of second-hand, stale, and SPECULATIVE "gossip" to say that George Zimmerman was "not injured" was EVIL stuff being spread by EVIL LPEOLE (the lpeole of CNN and the rest of teh maisntream media).  You can go back and look at this blog's articles.  I TOLD CNN SO, IN FORESIGHT.  I said that there were 3 DIRECT sources of informatin as to the actual INJURIES of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin:


1. The autopsy on Trayvon Martin, which would SHOWE whehter Martin was likely the aggressor in the FISDT FIGHT (as it has done, indicating that Martin was the aggressor and that Zimmerman did NOT strike Martin in any way that actually INJURED Martin). 


2. The first hand observations of the "first responders" who SAW George Zimmerman, and OBSERVED his injuries, right after the indcident occurred.  As this blog previously stated, these were PROFESSIONALS, wh necessarily paid professional attention to Zimmerman's injuries.


3.  Any medical reports on Zimmerman's injuries, and the medical report from examination the next morning has been released (supporting head and facial injuries). 


llMessage to CNN:  you have just cnvicted YOURSELFES of being EVIL liears, and CREATING a FALSE "public perception" of the FACTS.  CNN, and other mainstream media sources, had no business putting out SPECULATION as to the INJURIES, and things like who was "yelling for help", without the FACTS that either were availble (or would be). What CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, put out was EVIL GOSSIP, rathr than facts.  And now CNN has the outrageous GALLL to slay that the EMT testimony contradicted the 'pubic perceptin" CRFEATED by CNN.  Nope. These are EVIl, BAD PEOLE.  I am ttalking here about the people of CNN, and not either Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman.  Why did CNN not LOOK for the facts to start with, including linterviewing lpeole like the EMTs?  In fact, that should lhave been the FIRST thing CNN did, before even TALING to--for example--Trayvon' Martinn's LAWYER (who CNN put on the air time and time again to say taht Zimmerman had "obviiusly" "knocked this innocent kid down".  Day after day ,CNN put out "evidence" (specualatin) that it was MARTIN who was "caling for help".  What CNN SHULD have been doing, and what this blog SAID CNN (and the rest of the mmedia) SHOULD have been doing, was to look for the FACTS (such as what peole like this EMT saw).  But the eVIL epole of CnN (Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer and all of the rest) wwer ONLY interested in the NARRATIVE (their narrative).  They were UNINTERESTE$D IN THE FACTS.


Nope again.  CNn is The Liar Network.  These are NOT "journalists". They are "back fence gossipers" spreading evil gossip based on an AGENDA.  I refuse to back off on this charge, and would be glad to go on CNN as say it to their faces.  As usual, I invite ANYONE who wants to "dfend" cNN to comment on this blog. The only 'editing" will be Google's.  I will not "edit' a word. (Notice, as susual, my use of the CNN/mainstream media PLOY that is no more "sincere" when they do it than when I do it. No, it cannot do CNN any goodto put me on the air, or comment on this blog, just as it cnnoat usually do any person ATTACKED by CNN any good to ogo on CNN and have the ATTACKS REPEATED--usually in a "bullying way".)


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

Obama Losing 390,000 Jobs Per Week: NO Improvement This Entire Year (The Maveri ck Conservative Continues to Get It Right, and the edia Continues to Get It Wrong.)

SOME of the media outlets may be finaly getting it--after only abut TWO YEARS of instruction from The Maverick Conservative--as The Maverick Conservative gets it RIGHT every week, while the media gets it WRONG. If you doubt this, look at this blog's posted articles every Thursday or Friday EACH WEEk, including last week. Here is the Bloomberg headline today, which abut gets it right (for a change, where ANY of the media are concerned):


"JJobless claims in U.S. hovered last week near 2012 high"


None of the usual lies, at least in this Bloomberg article, about how the number of new unemplyment claims"fell" 6,000 last week, tto 386,000.  In fact, Bloomberg did NOT put the usual, MISTAKEN, emphasis on today's FICTITIOUS number, but gavve lat least as much prominence to the REVISION this week of the number of new unemplyment claims for the previus week.  Taht revisin--as this blog lpredictged last week, although it was slightly WORSE than usual--was from 387,000 t9 392,000.  Notice how much of a FICTION it is to say that the number "dropped" 6,000 this week, when the INITIAL NUMBER (before next week's revision) stayed abut the SAME (386,0000 not being materially different from the 387,000 INITIALLY reported last week, and LIKELY to be revised to AT LEAST 389,000 next week. This upward revisin of 3,000 or more is CNONSISTENT each and very week, to the extent of making the initial report a constant GOVERNMENT LIE.  The number of ne unemplyment claims filed the previsou week is "released" every Thurssday, but it is ALWYAS (with very rare exceptions) an UPWARD revision of at least 3,000. This week the UPWARD revisino of the previious week's numbers wsa a full 5,000.


Do yu EVER doubt this blog?  If so, look at last Friday's article on the jobless claims numbers released last Thursday.  You will remember that the MEDIA HEADLINES said that the number of  jobless claims FELL slightly, to 387,0000 (from the previus week's REVISED number of 389,000--revised from the same 386,0000 initially ereported this week).  The media headline was a LIE.  This blog's headline was CORRECT: "Jobless calims ROSE slightly last week, to 390,000 ."  Note that this blog told you the number ws usually revised AT LEAST 3,000, and sometimes more.  In this case, this blog was "conservative",as the number has been revised to 392,0000 (instead of the expected 390,000).  But this blog was EXCTLY right that the revision meant that the number of claims ROSE, rather than fell.


But Bloomberg has it right.  The important FACT here--a feew thousand here or there not meaning much, except that the CONSISTENT UNDERSTATEMENT calls into questin the entire process--is that we are NOT IMPROVING.  Note that Bloomberg correctly says that we are HOVERING near th HIGH for 2012 (that 392,0000 number), and we are doing so WEEK AFTER WEEK.  Her, no improvement means NO improvement. 


Obama has FAILED on jobs again, and we are NOT "going in the right directino". If anything, we are "going in the wrong directino".  As this blog has noted, although it was FICTION (as this blog noted was probble at the time), the nmber of jobless claims 'droped' to abut 350,0000 in several February weekly reports.  If yu believe lthose numbers, we have GOTTEN WORSE.  If you don't beleive those February numbers, and they are surely misleading, then the situatin wsa NEVER THAT GOOD IN THE FIRST PLACE (desite lthe media having orgasms about hwo the labor market was "improving"). 


Nope. It is not like these are GOOD numbes.  390,000 is a BAD number.  400,000 is the "psychological" number here, where everyone admits that the "sky is falling" if we go above 400,0000. But there is little material difference between a cONSISTENT number around 390,000, and a number around 400,0000.  A GOD number here is 300,000, or below. "Progress", which the LYING media asserted we were making in February, would be to at least go CONSISTENTLY below 35l0,0000.  After all, we reached a "low 9f 375,000 n February of 2011.  We have really "improved" LITTLE since then, especially when yu consider that the FORMULA keeps changing every year (m,aking year over year comparisons difficult). 


I repeat.  This number is yuet another indicatin that President Obama has FAILED on jobs.  Further, it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the MONTHLY "jobs numbers" to be GOOD.  If the June jobs numbers were "good", that would just call into queston the NUMBERS. The "labor market" for June is already BAKED IN.  Most of June has already happened, and you can't turn these numbers around "on a dime".  Thus, "good" employment numbers for the onth of June are effectively IMPOSSIBLE. 


As this blog has told you, Obama is running ut of time.  As sated, you can't turn these numbers around "on a dime".  With ObamaCare LOOMING over tlhe economy, especially after the Supreme Court decisin, and with the situatin in europe, i it is hard to see how Obama's CONTINUATIN of his FAILED policies can possibly produce any 'better" results by November.  This blog has already PREDICTED that OBAMA LOSS this electin if the economy does not materially IMPROVE by election day.  We are almost at the pont, again, where it is BANKED IN that the eocnomy CANNOT "improve" by electin day. 


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  No, I still don't understand how "phantom underlining (not by any conscious actin on my part) "crept" into a previous article today. It almost makes me believe in Hacker Boyo (Piers Morgan)--a figure of my own inventino (I thought). ObamaCare really is a BLACK CLOUD hanging over the economy.  Even apart from other Obama/Democrat threatened tax incrfeases, ObamaCare contains MULTIPLE TAXES beyond even what the Supreme Court called the TAX if you don't give in to EXTORTIN and buy health insurance of the type the government is going to FORCE you to buy.  Obama is "celebrating" the Supreme Court decisin. However, the decisions MAY hve cost Obama any chancee of winning the electin--because it DOOMED the econmy. That is aide from "energizing" the OPPOSITIN to Obama:  for lpeple who are ot as tried of BETRAYAL as I am, and could not stand more of it from Mitt Romney. Chief Justice John Roberts, who I was muchMORE confident of than I am of Romney, shows lthe FRUSTRATIN that conservatives like me have with "estalbishment" GOP figures.

Chief Justice Roberts: Did He Destroy This Country with His Betrayal on ObamaCare

Premise:  ObamaCare is going to destroy this country.  That is a totally accurate premise.  The "Affordable Care Act" is going to DESTROY this country.  The sheer BURDEN of "implementing" the ridiculously complex law, and all of the TAXES in it, will alone destory our economy--not to mentin the COST. Subsidiary premise: Even if the GOP wins the next electin, the MESSY process of "repealing' ObabaCare (not to mentin "replacing it" with some GOP atrocity) is going to destroy this country (in any recognizable form, with any kiind of viable economy). Again, this is a perfectly accurate premise.


Thus, can we say that Chief Justice Roberts has DESTROYED this cuntry?  This, of coure, is a trick questin.  The only "god" thing abut the Supreme Court decision is that it upholds DEMOCRACY (at the cost of DESTROYNNG the Consitutin).  Leftists, of curse, do NOT believe in democracy.  They ony beieve in POWER. The reaction to the Arizona illegal immigratoni law again proved that, as does the whole absurd, successful lefitstt attempt to SUBVERT democracy as to abortion.  They have done the same thing, of curse, with the DEATH PENALTY, but just have not yet totally succeeded.  No.  Leftists do not believe in democracy. However, it is true that the Obama "health care law" was the RESULT of the democratic lproces.  Chief Justice Roberts did NOT "create" the law.  It is really going too far to say that Chief Justice Roberts is "responsible" for ObamaCare.  What Cheif Justice Roberts is "responssible" for is DESTOYING THE CONSTITUIN of this country--at lest in terms of its fundamental conccept of a LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.


Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."  Yes, WE are "responsible" for ObamaCare--not Chief Justice Roberts.  By "w", I mean the people of the Unnited States, and obviusly not the people who OPPOSE this diretin of the country.  Now I admit that you might accuse ME of being part of the problem, since I REFUSED to vote for John McCain, and still refuse to vote for Mitt Romney (even asat least one of my brothers says this clinches it:  "you MUT vote for AnYONE with a chance to beat Obama and get this repealed."  Sorry, I understand the argument, but I just can't take the BETRAYAL.  Yes, this action by Chief Justice Roberts is one of those BETAYALS that I just can't take anymore.  But OUR PRESIDENT, and OUR REPRESENTATIVES, gave us ObamaCare.  They did not just "spring up" out of some sort of fungus in Washington (appearnaces to the contgrary).  We (as a public) VOTED for these peole.  As Pogo said:  "we have met the enemy, and he is us."  Se seem to WANT to be BRiBED, and to have the government take care of us.  We votge for people who either promiise us that, or ACT like that is what we want (referrnig her tro the GOP). And we KEEP electing these same peole (with rare, meaningless exceptions that do not change the overall trnd of where we are headed). I am not just talking aobut the general electins here.  I am tlaking abut the whole process, incuding the NOMINATING process where ewe end up with these hopeless choices.  No, Chief Justicde Roberts canot be "held resonsbile" for ObamaCare.  Ultimately, WE are "responsible" for it. And WE can still FORCE it to be REPEALED (not only with our votes, but by not accepting any evasions and "compromises" to "fix" it so that it "really works").  I accuse Chief Justice Roberts of pundng the final nail into the COFFIN of the CONSTITUTION.  But I absolve him of 'responsibility" for ObamaCare.  That is OUR responsibility, in the end.


The other thing that Chife Justice Roberts failed to do is SAVE S from ourselves.  Now that is what the Constitutin is there for, and Roberts has fianly killed off the Constitutn.  Still, it was not Roberts who produced ObamaCare, or produced the President and Congress who passed it.  In that area, he was only ONE of  about two hundred million (and more) possible voers. The problem is, as stated in the prvius articel, that the Supreme  Court was the LAST, BEST HOPE for a CLEAN END to ObamaCare.  Once Chief Justice Roberts decided to abandon the Constitutino to its fate (at the hands of leftists), the "path forward" became UNCERTAN and MESSY.  As stated in the previuis article, we are now in the hands of POLITICIANS. God help us all.  (I know, I am an agnostic, but this situatin is almsot desperate enough for me to call on God as the only "hope" we have left--a MIRACLE now being necessary).


Is it now "too late" to "save" the country (in its present from)?  I think it probably is. But I admit that I am a pessimist.  The problem is that we need DRAMATIC changes--the kind Obama has been willing to make on the OPPOSITE SIDE, and which the GOP has been reluctant to push because they are COWARDS.  I applaud the optimists who think they can still accomplish these kinds of dramatic changes in the face of these constanat BETRAYALS.  The problem is that too many of these people, like Mitt Romney, think that we can do everything we need to do with POLITICS AS USUAL: moving continually to an ever bigger and more powerful Federal Government, but in a BETTER MANAGED pace, and with BETTER MANAGEMENT of the process. To me, this is just a SLOWER DEATH, and that is why I still cannot support Mitt Romney. 


This Supreme Court ldecision will certainly "energize" conservatives, and n the right directino (CONVINCING PEOLE we are on the wrong track, and not relying on the Supreme Court to do that job for us).  But will all of that "energy" be BETRAYED by GOP politicans who (unlike the rank and file) do not really BELIEVE in the PRINCIPLE of a smaller, more limited Federal Government?  Good lucck.  I am with you gallant fools who think it can be done.  You are definitely better people than I. I jsut wish you were SMARTER than I. 


P.S.  No proofrading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  Oh, by the way, I amy have given a slightly wrong impresson of the Supreme Court decisin in the prior article.  I suggeted that the Supreme Court had held "part " of ObamaCare unconsititutional.  It is true that Roobers said that ObamaCare "held a gun to the head of states", and that SHOULD have meant that the Medicaid expansion in ObamaCare would FALL.  And yu can say that the Roberts opinion "held" that the MEDICAID expansin was "unconstitutional" IN THE WY IT IS WRITTEN IN OBAMACARE.  However, Roberts bascially went on to REWRITE the law's Medicaid provisons so that Roberts found the Medicaid expansion to be ultimately unconstitutional.  As stated in the previus article, there was no "logic" to the Roberts opinin.  He basically CONDEMNED the MANDATES in ObamaCcare--both  the individual mandate and the mandates to the states--and then UPHELD them (under different terminology).  Do I have any 'respect" left for Robers?  NO. The man has no intellectual honesty.  This is my problem with electing GOP "estbalishment" people like Bush an Romney . It SHULD mean a LOT in terms of the Supreme Court.  In the end, what conservatives get is these BETRAYALS:  from GOP Presidents, Congress peole, AND Surprme Court justicies who supposedly agree with a "strict" interpretatin of the Constitution.    Oh, where did the underlining come from?  How the Hell do I know.  I certainly did not mean to put it there.  When I figure out how to delete it, I will.

Supreme Court: Our Liar-in-Chief Has Lied Again, as He Has Imposed a TAX on Americans

You remember the typical., ofer-the-toop 'promise by President Obama: our Liar-in-Chief:  If you don't make over 4200,000, NONE of yuor taxes will be raised."  Obama made it clear that he was referring not just to income taxes, but to ALL kinds of taxes. He lied. 


Yep.  The United States Supreme Court has just CALLED PRESIDENT OBAMA A LIAR.  The Supreme Curt has held that the "individual mandate" in ObamaCare is NOT a 'mandate" at all, but a TAX. The opinin made it clear, once and for all, that President Obama is a LIAR.  Oh, the government had alrady made that claear ayay, since this was the government position.  In other words, as he has often doen, OBAMA has called OBAMA a LIAR. 


Yes, the Supreme Court decision was even more lacking in logic than usual.  Have you noticed that LIBERAL idologues NEVER depart from their ideology.  In onntrast, conservatives are constantly BETRAYED by people supposedly "on our side' (bassically the GOP, and anyone appointed by GOP politicians). Here, Chief Justice Roberts declared PART of ObamaCare unconstitutional: the part which REQUIRES the states to EXPAND MEDICAID.  Justice Roberts reasoned that the Federal Government was "holding a gun" to the head of states, to FORCE them to do what the government wanted them to do.  The Chief Justice ereasoned taht this was way beyond "incentives", and amounted to unconstitutinal eXTORTION (an accurate descriptoni of MOT of the Federal Government "mandate". What Justice Roberts FAILED to do was explain WHY it was "holding a gun to have a MANDATE for STATES, but not "holding a gun to the head" to have a similar MANDATE for individuals.  But the peole who BETRAY conservtives NEVER have any "logic".  Their "logic" is that they are fundamentally 'Big Government" guys who want the 'aproval" of the "establishment" of this country.


In this case, even the "establishment" in this country is going to CHOKE on ObamCare.  Well, of coure, that is not quite right: true, but not quite right. It is US--you, me and the COUNTRY--who are going to CHOKE on ObamaCare.  Yes, we got OURSELVES into thhis (see upcoming article).  We elected Obama, and his supporting caset. The problem NOW is that "undoing ObamaCare", involving many GOP politicians just like Chief Justice Robers, will now be the FOCUS of the country for YEARS.  How can the economy survive this?  If ObamaCare survives, in any form, we are DOOMED.  If ObamaCare does not survive, we are probbably DOMMED anway, because the UNCERTAINTY of HOW and WHEN we undo it is going to WEIGH on our economy.  No win.


I have said, correctly, that it was a Romney and GOP MISTAKE to rely too much on the Supreme Court.  This blog was right again.  Romney and the GOP needed to keep up a CONSTANT ATTCK on ALL of ObamaCare, and not focus so much on the "individual mandate" and the Supreme Court. However, it is ture that the Supreme Curt was probably the "last, best hope' of a CLEAN, "surgical END to ObamaCare.  Now we get to proceed tto our POLITICIANS to "save" us. ........................................................................................sorry............................sorry........I have to end it here.......I may never stop laughing/crying..........................................sorry.................sorry......


P.S. (after laughing/crying for about 30 minutes, on the floor in that fetal positoin):  No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).

Obama to Arizona; Drop Dead--I Crossed My Fingres When I took an Oath to Faithfully Execute the Laws of the United States. I Only Enforce Obama Law.

President Obama's reactin to the Supreme Court decision on the Arizona illegal immigratin laws tells you more about the man than almost any other ingle event.  The only "law" which President Obama regards himself to be bound is HIS "law". 


Sure, President Obama "won" the Supreme Court decsision on the Arizona laws.  More of the laws were "struck down" by the Supreme Court than were upheld.  However, Obama LOST the part of the Arizona law about which Obama had made the big issue: LYING by saying that Arizona Hispanics how "wnet out for ice ream" would be sjbect to being picked lup by the police merely becaue of the way they looked. The Supreme Court said that Arizona could ENORCE the part of its law that said that police should CHECK into the immigratin status of peole stoopeed, arrested or detained for OTHER REASONS, and about whom there was "reasonable suspicion" as to immigratin status (after the stop for another reason).  You might note that if people cannot CHECK "immigratin status" (including the police), it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever enforce our immigratin laws (the actual GOAL of proo-illegal immigratin advocatges AND Obama).  In this age of comoptuters, and matching names and Social Security numbers, it is INSANE not to CHECK any discrepancies in employment enformation (and not to use 'e-verify" for major memployers).  But por-illegal immigratin advocates want it to be IMPOSSIBLE to ever CHECK who is in this country illegally:  whether we are talking abut employers or government.  It does not matter WHAT the immigratin "laws" are if ONLY OBAMA LAW IS ENFORECED.  That is what Obama's reactin was to the Supreme Court LOSS as to this 'key" part of the Arizona immigratin law (on "checkng" for illegal immigrants, and then HOLDING them for the Feds). 


Obama does not accept "defeat", because he ONLY recognizes OBAMA LAW.  Thus, Obama told Arizona that he does not care what the Supreme Court said, he (Obama) would not RECOGNIZE whatever Arizona proposed to do about illegal immigrants it was holding for the Feds.  In ohter words, Obama will NOT "faithufully excecute" the laws of the Unitted States, when a "call" comes from Arizona about illegal immigrants they are hoilding.  Essentially, the Federal Government will not take any calls from Arizona about illegal immigrants they have "discovered". 


Instead, Obama set lup an EMAIL ADDREESS for peole to COMOPLAIN abut Arizona law enforcement officers--putting a direct TARGET on their backs as surely as if Obama had aimed a rifle at them holding a reomote trigger.  Obama is teling ACTIVISTS in Arizona:  we will HARRASS police and sheriff's officers for you , so lnog as yu take advantage of our INVITATIN. 


Arizona still haas a law that the Supreme Court has said it can enforce, because reasonable peole canot ASSUME that the law will be wrongfully enforced. But Obama is NOT a "reasonable person".  No, he is NOT a LIKABLE person.  He is one of the most ARROGANT, dislikable persons of whom I am aware.  Obama simply has indicated he does not care whether the Arizona law is LEGAL.  Obama simply erfuses to LET Arizona enforce its LEGAL law, just as Obama refulse to LET the government DEPORT illegal immigrants (unless "cuught" right at the border).  This s the same thing Obama has done on the "Dream Act", where Obama has violated what OBAMA had previusly said were the limits of hiss authrotiy.  Again, ALL Obama recognizes is OBAMA LAW.  Obama, in ffect, will not accept cvalls from Arizona askng the Federal Government to merely EXECUTE the laws of the United Sttates (after Arizona has done the HARD stuff).  But President Obama thinks nothing of VIOLATING HIS OATH OF OFFICE.  He, Obama, has no intgentin of enforcing the laws of the United Staets with which he disgarres (even if that meay be mainly for political purposes).  Imagine if President Bush had taken this positin--say on IRAQ? You will remember that President Bush DID take this positin, wtih MOE justificaitn, but still went to Congress for APORVAL anyaway.  Obama des the opposite.  The Supreme Cuort has decided, and Obama STiLL intends to follow onlly HIS view of the law and the Constitutin.  This is an incredibly ARROTANT, DANGEOUS man--not a "likable" man. 


No.  Arizona has followed the "law'.  It is Obama twho REFUSES not only to 'foloow" the law, but to do his DUTY to EXECUTE the law (indlucng parts of the law which which he disagrees). 


We owe Arizona a debt for exposing Prfesident Obama for the ARROGANT OATH BREAKER he is. 


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

Kyra Phillips, Joe Johns and L.Z. Granderson: Some of the Worst Hypocrities and Liars to Ever Walk the Earth, on The Liar Network

What is the official CNN "position" on the controversy over "Operatin Fast and Furious", where officials of the United Stats essentially HANDED weapons to the Mexcian drug carterls--at least two of which weapons ended up near the BODY of a MURDERED border patrol agent?    In other words, what is the CNN PROPAGANDA postion, in support of Eric Holder and the Obama Administration?  (Yes, the first Orwellian Big Liew here is that CNN is a "neutral" "nes" organization, when that is flatly, objectively NOT TURE--as CNN has EARNED its official name of "The Liar Network").


This official positin of CNN--permeating ALL of its references to the subject, is lthat this is a NOTHING story being "hyped" for political reasons.  Thu;s, I saw HYPOCRITES extraordinaire Kyra Philiups and Joe Johns hold this "discusission"--repreating a discusson that Phillips said she had with Johns off air, as they coordinated the TALKING POINTS for this propaganda (this last being my accurate interpretaton of this admitted off-air "discussion"), about how the proposed "Contempt of Congress" citatin againt Attorney General Holder is ALL POLITICS. Granderson was even worse, in an article on CNN's website, as he bascially proposed that "times have changed", and that we just have "no business' POLING OUR NOSES where it does not belong (such as into the oerpation of the Justice Department and the Obama Adminstration)).  Message to Phillips, Johns and Granderson: You are HYPOCRITES, and BAD PEOPLE. Nope.  I have gone way past the idea that lyou people lhave "good intentions'.  No, you don't.  You are BAD, DISHOENST people:  nothing but partisan,.political hacks lPRFETENDING to be "journalists". 


Doubt me?  Never do that.  Remeber Alberto Gonzalez, and his successor as Attorney General under the Bush Administration?  Gonzalez was CRUCIFIED, incuding by Senator Obama and the BVAD people of CNN, because he "went along" with the "firing" of eight U.S. attorneys (which the Bush Administratin had a perfect right to do, as Bill Clinton had FIRED ALL 93 usch attorneys when he too office). POLITCAL/ Dman right it was ALL political.  But Gonzalez was essentiallly FORCED OUT OF OFFICE because dishoenst media peole like those on CNN would not let the story die. Note there was NO MURDER. There was NO CRIME.  There were not 200 people being killed by guns in Mexico that WE "let walk" into Mexico as part of a Justice Department program.  The U.S. Attorney "firing controversy" was ALL POLITICAL.  However, "times have changed".  Oh, you BAD, DISHOENT people.  Yes, "times have changed".  What has CHANGED is that OBAMA IS PRESIDENT AND HOLDER ATTORNEY GENERAL.  Grnaderson, you are one of the WORST PEOP:LE I have verr ben heard about.  Lest peole doubt me on this, Granderson called lthe DEATHS (murders) of OUR border patrol agent, and the hundreds of people in Mexico with the gunss WE LET WALk, as mere "collateral damage" not "justifying" this kind of "interference" with the jobs of officals that let this atrocity (the policy) take place.  Granderson said that Congress should not even be TRING to get to the botoom of it, because "times have changed".  Again, Granderson, anyone who would refer to "collateral damage" in this manner, and be this HYPOCRITICAL, is a BAD PERSON (another person I have NO desire to ever know, and whose hadn I would SPURN if offered to me in handshake).  Tell the family of the DEAD border patrol agent, Granderson, the HE was "collateral damage" not "justifying' "sticking ur noses" into something that is "not our business".  As yu can see, I am again worrying that I am HOLDING BACK my real feelings here, and not adequately expressing my CONTEMPT for Phillips, Johns and Granderson (not to mentin ALL of CNN).


If lyou remember that ridiculous POLITICAL "fight' over the firing of thiose U.S. attonreys, the MEDIA kept demanding EVERy EMAIL, and every other doucment having anything to do with it. Democrats in Congrss were much more aggressive than the GOP in the "Fast and Furious" matter, and they were fully supported by CNN.  CNN dismissed the idea, then that it was ALL about POLITICS.  yet, again, noe one DIED then, and there was NO CRIME by anyone. 


Still doubt me?  Remember Valier Plame--another NON-SCANDAL about the mere "naming" of a CIA EMPLOYEEE (with NO effect on any actual US. operation, o creating any danger to CIA covert operatives).  Contrast that with the OBAMA ADMINSTRATIN LEAKS, which have turly ENDANGERED NATINAL SECURITY.  Again, it lturned out that NO CRIME occurred.  Yet, CNN HOUNDED Karl Romve., A "special prosecutor" waas appointed. Again, EVErY email was demanded. Indeed, the MEDIA even ABANDONED its idea that "leaks" are FINE, because they provide the peole with what they "need to know", all in the intereest of GETTING KARL ROVE.  How can you even BE this much of a hypocirte and live with yourself?  I odn't know.  You have to ask the people of CNN, an the mainstream media, tat.  All "politics"?  Of coure it was, and even Thje Washington Post eventually called it a MANUFACTURED "scandal", whcih was never important.  But the media did not talk about being "nosy", or letting peole do their jobs.  They did not talk about the "evils' of "interfering" with internal developmnet of policy.  They did not talk about POLITICS.   President Bush, and Karl Rove, were expected to PRODUCE EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT, and endure a full criminal investigatin by a lspecial prosecutor.  The "result'?  NO CRIME HADF BEEN COMMITTED (other than the "crime" being committed by ERIC HOLDER and many others in the Obama Administratin: "obsturctin of justice" in "lying" to the special prosecutor who should never have been apointed). 


Now the above examples of MEDIA and DEMOCRAT POLITICAL WITHCH HUNTS were obviusly POLITICAL.  "Politics", of course, affects everything that happens in Washington.  But in the case of "Fast and Furius", PEOLE DIED (and, really, are still dying) because of weapons WE GAVE (by the program) to the drug cartels n Mexico.  You can oviusly artgue taht this shuld not be a "fishong exxpediton" to attack the Obama Adminstratin rather than seek the "truth" in a rasonable way.  But CNN did not accept that "argument" in the MORE OBVIUSLY POLITICAL witch hunts of the Democrats in the Bush Administratin.  Again, in this case PEOLE HAVE DIED.  That can hardly be "all politics", or even mainly politics. 


That did not stop Kyra Phillips and Joe Johns.  Thes BAD PEOPLE--dishonest to their very core--"discussed" how EVERYONE realizes lhis is basically all political. Philiops and Johns dismissed the entire thing as being ONLY a matter of politics, as the SHILLS for the Obama Adminsitratin that they are.  No.  Phillips and Johns did NOT even use the usual excuse that 'Democrats" assert that this is "political".  Rather, they tried to say that there is not even any queeion abut it.  This goes beyond mere "bias".  This is the kind of thing you do if you are one of the wrost hypocrites and liars to ever exist on this Earth, and that is my ACCURATE description of Phillips and Jons. 


Oh. This is not the first time you have heard about Kyra Phillips, and I think even Joe Hons, on tis blog.  This is not an isolated incident for these peole, or for CNN.  It is actually the way they usually ooperate.  BAD PEOLE.  DISHOENST PEOPLE.  HYPOCRITES. 


P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  CNN tried to IGNORE the controverrsy over "Fast and Furious", which has really been gong on all of this year.  Wehn they finallly could not continue to IGNORE it, they are trying to DISMISS it as "mere politics".  Truly, this is The Liar Network, and it si comopaosed of some of the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four.   These peole are worthy only of contempt, and that is what I give them. 

Obama and Illegal Immigration: The Most Arrogant President--th eMost Arrogant MAN--Who Has Ever Lived

Roman emperors declared themselves gods, and were not this arrogant. 


Look at what President Obama has done on illegal immigration!!!!  First, Homeleand Security simply STOPPED deporting people--even un nder a depportation order--unless they are "known" "criminals" (of the kind Obama disapporves.  This was eferenced by Justice Scalia,in his dissent, where he "blasted" Prfeisdent Obama for his "deportation stay", and his policies on illeagl immigration.  If you are an illegal immigrant, not actaully CAUGHT at the border, then the Obama Administraton is not going to deport you (even if yu are CAUGHT--so long as it is away from the border, and you are not "cuaght" actually trying to get into the country). That is, you will not be deported unless the OBAMA ADMINISTRREATIN considers you "undesirable".  The law be damned.  (Scalia's dissent being referenced above being his dissent in the Arizona illegal immigration laws case--SEE taht dissent for the criticism ROMNEY shoululd be makng of Obama, but really is not.)


Then there is the "Dream Act"--a POLITICAL PLLOY to try to USE "innocent children" (and the "idea" of "innocent children") tas a lever toward general amnesty.  Obama and Reid couuld not get it passed, mainly because they WAITED TOO LONG pushing ObamaCaer with BLACKMAIL and EXTORTION. Plus, the "Dream Act" was NEVER the goal here: general amnesty is the goal.  But the "Dream Act" became a POLITICAL necessity for Democrats after they SACRIFICED illegal immigratin activists (not Hispanics in general, who do not really want to be treated as if illeal immiggrants DEFINE them, and their concerns) to ObamaCare.  Still, Obama couuld not get it passed.  Leftists,, of course, don't care aboutt he law.  They urged Obama to ignore the law and simply DECLARE the 'Dream Act" to be the "law" (Obama's law).  President Obama, a year ago, said he did not have the authority to do this: to simly declare that Homeland Security act like the "Dream Act" had passed even though Congress had refused to pass it.


Then in the past few weeks, Obama went further into his "I am God--Roman emperor mode (in the inteest of his election, which is all Obama presently cares about), and Obama reversed himself (making this about 100 times he has done that, or maybe 1000, as Obama makes Romney look like a man of steadfast principle in comparison).  Thus, Obama ORDERED Homeland Security to simply treat OBAMA"S VERSION of the "Dream Act" as law.  Obama's version is actually a very strange version, seemingly trying t convince "young people" that he is 'on their side".  Obama's strange version says that an illegal immigrant who came here before age q6 suddenly receives "Obama status" in this country, so long as he or she graduates from high school and is NOT YET e0 yuears of age!!!!!!   Saly what?  You mean that th eLONGER lyou have been in this country, the LESS Obama tinks you "deserve" to stay here? 30 1/2, and you are OUT.  29 and 1/2, and you are IN (nder "Obama's law"). EXCEPT. This is all a FRAUD anyway.  Presumably it does not applly to "criminals".  Read the first paragraph again. Under Obama lpolicy, NO ONE is really being 'deported".  This was all a further POLITICAL STUNT aimed at getting Obama elected for a second term, when the most arrogant man ever to live will have NO CHECK on how much PoOEER he can ASSERT.  My mother and one of my brothes think Obama will find a way to declare himself 'President for life".  I don't think he can go quite that far, but the LAW will certainlly not stgop him.  He does nto care aobut the LAW. As far as Obama is concerned, HE is the LAW.  I just don't thinnk even Obama can believe he can get away with becoming the Hugo Chavez, or Valdimir Putin, of the United States.  That is the ONLY limit, however, on Obama's arrogance: what he THINKS he can get away with doing.  And it is obvius he thinks he can get away with ALMOST ANYTHING.


Look at the Supreme Court decisin on the Arizona law.  This was a DEFEAT for Obama, in that the Supreme Court said that Obama was WRONG to BLOCK the ONLLY portin of the Arizona law that Obama had PUBLICIED: the provision directing police to check into the immigratin status of  peole stopped/detained for some other reason.  You remember what our Liar-in-Chief said:  that if you are Hispnaic in Arizona you can be picked up gong for ICE CREAM merely because of the way you look (always a LIE about the Arizona law). Well, the Supreme Court obviusly thinks Hispnics don't need ice cream!!!!   Actually, of course, the Supreme Cuort saw that the LAW did not actually say what Obama had asserted it said, and saw no problem with the law on its face.  What is wrong with REPORTING to the Federal Government that:  "we have an illegal immigrant here who has run afoul of the law; come and get him." 


By notw, you now what is "rong" with the Arizona law, form Obama's point of view.  It vioilates OBAMA LAW.  "Obama law" is that the Arizonal law is a challenge to the arrogant Obama, and to where OBAMA wants t take this country (law ro no law).  Therefore, as Obama did with court rulings that INVALIDATED hi s 'moratorimum" on drillng n the Gulf of Mexico, Obama simly gave "the finger" to both the Supreme Court and Arizona.  Obama has simly DIRECTED that Homeland Security, and other Federal officials, lpay NOT ATTENTIN to Arizona. In othe words, here is how the conversatin is gong to go: "Hey, buys," an Arizonala law enforcement source twlls ICE (or whatever "fed" they would ordinarily report this to), "we have an illegal immigrant here for ou to ick up"  Respons, pursuant to "Obama law" "So?".  "Didn't you hear us, we have this illegal immigrant here.  It is our JOB to enforce the law."  Reponse from feds:  "No, it isn't. We only enforce OBAMA LAW.  We don't enforce the laws of lthe United States.  Don't call us again.'


I kid you not.  President Obama has simply told Arizona that the "feds" will NOT COOPERATE with Arizona, no matter what the Supreme Curt says about the Arizona law, and no matter what the laws of the United States say.  Arizona is being SHUNNED by the Obama Administratin, which is what I have suggested everyone do to our MEDIA for putting out notthing but eveil propaganda (including propaganda supporting  Obama in this idea of "Obama law').


It actually gets worse.  The Obama Administratin has INVITED people to COMPLAIN abut Arizonal law enforcement. Yep.  Obama has put a TARGET right on the back of every Arizona sheriff's officer and olice officer by TELLING epole to EMAIL the feds if they even THINK that they have been "profilked" by an Arizonal law enforcement officer.  Not that Obama is puttin g'Obama law" WAY above the laws of the United Sttes, includng the OBAMA ASSUMPTION that Arizonal law enforcement lpeole will not omy with "Obama law'.  "Obama law' HERE is that ANYONE who "complains" abut an Arizonal law enforcement officer is CORRECT, and that even ONE individual msitake by an Arizona law enforcement officer INVALIDATES the Arizona law. This, of course, is OBAMA LAW, annd NOT the "law" as Anton Scalia and the rest of us have known it.  Ordinarily, you give a law a CHANCE to work, and it is ony if there are SYSTEMATIC indications taht the law is being misused, and subject to misuuse, do you ASSUE the law is bad. Here, under OBAMA LAW, the ASSUPTION is that the Arizona law will be misused.  And even it it is not, ACTiISTS will make sure and COMPLAIN.  In any evevent, it does not matter, because Obama is SHUNNING ARIZONA under OBAMA LAW.


Sad, sad, sad:  that our country has come to this. 


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

ObamaCare and Media Propaganda: George Orwell's "1984" Comes to Life, as Our Dishonest Media Pushes Big Lies on ObamaCare

What is a Big Lie? It is an obvius, outrageous lie that "19844"-style propagandists (our media) attempt to force upon the public with sheer repetition and disregard for any factual truth. See the revius article.  Here is the outrageous Big Lie headline, from Reuters and Yahoo "News", even though it really came right out of  "a984":


"Most Americans oppose the health care law, but like lthe law's provisions"


Did yu see why this Big Lie is so OBVIUS, after I gave you some hints in the previus article?  I hope so. 


First, Reuters and Yahoo "news" called lthe American people STUPID. How else can you take the (false) assertion that "most Americans" opose a law, but like its provisions?  That, of course, is absurd, and the BAD people of Yahoo and Reuters are fully aware of that.  But this is not about 'facts", or "turth".  This is about "1984-style Big Lies and PROPAGANDA.  Reuters, of course, made that clear when the body of the article contradicted the headline, and admitted that "most Americans" did NOT likke the "provision" of ObamaCare (a term the maisntream media simply refuses to use) that they know most abut: the INDIVIUAL MANDATE.


But the body of the article "doubles down" on the Big Lie by saying that most Americans "like' "most" of the provisions of ObamaCare.  It is hard to LIE any worse than this.  This riidiculouss assertin was based on a POLL.  THINK here (which media propagandists de not want you to do).  Is it eveven lPOSSIBLE to do a POLL on AlL of the provisions of ObamaCare:  a 2700 page bill?  Of ocure not.  Do most Americans (indeed ANYONE) even UNDERSTAND the "provisions" of ObamaCare? Then how can you do a POLL that you SAY shows lthat "most Americans" "like' the "provisions" of ObamaCare?  You can't.  It is a LIE.  Even if you have all of the good faith in the world, and the peole of Reuters, Yahoo and the organization which did this poll have NO good faith at all, you could not devise a pll on the 'provisions" of ObamaCare. The "insurance exchanges" alone are beyond the comprehension of most people, , and the REGULATIONS have not even been fully put into place for a law that will not be implemented (as to most of its "provisions") until 2014. This is a meaningless poll, being merely USED as PROPOAGANDA to push a Big Lie. 


"But, Skip, cannot the poll simply ASK whethe the respondents 'agree' with 'most' of the provisions of he law?"  Sure, you cuold "ask" that quesiin, but it would be a LIE.--unless "most" Americans were AWARE of ALL of the "provisions" of ObamaCare.  In other words, the "poll" wouuld HAVE to LIST the "provisons" it is talking abut, and that is IMPOSSIBLE to "fairly" do. 


Therefore, what is this realyl about?  Well, what th media has been doing, and this Reuters story about a "poll" is only one example of the RPOGAGANDA approach outfits like CNN have been PUSHING for weeks, is to try to HIGHLIGHT the POPULAR "provisions" of ObamaCare in the most afvorable way possible.  The idea is to PUSH the propaganda idea of the Reuters/Y:ahoo story thahat "most" provisions of ObamaCare are POPULAR and "good", and that those "provisions" will be "sacrificed" if Obama Care is completely repealed, or doomed by the fall of the "individual mandate".  COST is INGORED.  Government DENIAL of "choice" in coerage is IGNORED.  All of the "problems" with ObamaCare, includng with some of the "popular" "provisions", are ignored.  All that is done is to list the BENEFITS of the bill, as the propagandists of the media want to PUSH them.  Thus,


You shoulld know the litany by now.  Coverage of pre-existing conditions, and not allowing insurance companies to cancel coverage?  Media check mar.  Free contraceptin (without mentin of the cost, and why CNCER CARE is not "free")?  Media check marrk.  "Business" "tax credits"?  Media check mark. "Coverage" of 33 million Americans--or whatever number is MADE UP this week)? SOMETIMES a media che mark, because it is hard to ignore the COST and MANDATE here).  Coverage of "children" up to age 26 (again without mentin of cost or DENIAL OF CHOICE)?  Media checkmark.  Questin about whether people want the government TELLING them WHAT COVERAGE they MUST HAVE?  Media non-no.  You can see why people might say they "like" the "provisions" of the bill, if the "provisions" are presented this way.  But ask peole whether they want their CHOICES taken away, as with the individual mandate, and they have avery different answer.  Obviusly, you do not need a "comprehensive" law represeting a Ferderal Government TAKEOVER of the entire health system, and PREVENTING peole form having the "choice" to "keep" what they once haD (it being another LIE to sugggest they can, when insurance compnaies and emplyers HAVE to comoply with the GOVERNMENT idea of what health insurance should look like), in order to do something about pre-existing conditions, coverage of children" to age 26, and insurance compnay "cancellations". But there are many CHOICES to be made here> Is ree contraception" the best CHOICE as to coverage, such that it needs to be FOROCED on the whole country?  The "best solutoni" remains to have the various states make their own CHOICES as to how to do these things in the most cost effective way.  There are MANY ways to go about covering 'prre-existingng conditins", while trying to keep "free loades" from WAITING to be SICK before getting any coverage. 


The American people understand what is gong on here.  The govevernment is gong to  FORCE everyone into the GOVERNMENT"'S idea of wlhat is best for them.  It is a massive power grab by the Feeral Government, and people understnad this.  Yes, if peole reeally want the Federal Government to deal with "pre-existing conditions", coverage to age 26 for "children", and insurance cancellations, that can be done WIHOUT this MASSIVE government takeover of an enrie industry (the health insurance industry, and ultimately the health care industry itself).  People understand that.  They even have a chance of "understanding" what these SPECIFIC laws are about. They have NO chance, and they know it, of understanding how a Federal Government TAKEOVER is really gong to work. Experience, of course, shows you that the result of this kind of massive government program is BAD.  Ask peole, for example, whether they "agree" with the MASSIVE EXPANSIN of MEDICAID in ObamaCare, at the COST of destrohying state budgets, and see what anser yu get in the "poll'. 


No, this whole poll is based on a Big Lie:  the idea that it is even possible to ASK fairly about the "provisions" of ObamaCare.  You certainly canpt "chery pick" the "rpovisions" you want to ask about, and then assert taht "most Americans" "like" the "provisions" of the law.  That is absurd.  It is a Big Lie in itself.  It deliberately obsures all of the defects of a Federal Government TAKEOVER of so large a part of our lives:  depriving us of CHOICES that w can now make ourselves. as to the kind of insurance coverage we want. 


Has tghe GOP maade a MISTAKE by concentrating so much on the Supreme Curt and the individual mandate?  For sure.  Why else would the GOP fail to ATTACK the idea of "free contraception" as a denial of FREEDOM and of CHOICE?  This is because the GOP "establishmemetn", as usual, is not realy against the idea of the Federal Government becoming ever more involved in "health care".  The GOP estalbishment"---unprincipled fools to a person--merely wants to assert that it can "manage" our LOSS OF FREEDOM better,.  The GOP estalbishment totally buyis into this media BIG LIE that the American epeople WANT the Federal Government to "provide" all of these "goodies" (like that "free contraception" BRIBE for young women).  But merely because the GOP estalbishment politicians are prety much on board with the Big Lie here does not make it anything other than a Big Lie.  It is no accident that the GOP establishment oncdee SUPPORTED the idea of an "individual mandate".  Ask my borther about the LETTER he got fomr Senator Corker of Tennessee, who my borhter will vote AGAINST this fall.  DEFEAT SENATOR CORFKER. 


No, the American peole are WAY ahead of both the media and our politicians.  They know when they are being "sold" a bill of goods:  "I am from the government, and I amm here to help you".  In this case, the correct statement is:  "I am from the Federal Government, skupported by media Big Lies, and I am here to FORCE you to have exacvtly the insurance coverage and heealth care that WE think you should have."  This goes way beyond whether people "like' any individual "provisoin" of the bill.  There are THOUSANDS of "provisins", but it is not a matter of "counting" whch provisins peole may think they "like'.  It is a matter of waht the entire bill does to FREEDDOM and COICE in this country, and PEOPLE understnd this.  Our politiciaNs do not, because they are alomst totallly Big Government people (even if they claim to be part of the GOP, or even the Tea Party). 


P.S. No proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesight).  I will say that if you do not udnerstand why the quoted headline is PURE PROPAGANDA, without even my accuratgte analysis, that you are much more BLIND than I am.  It would be incorrect, however, to say that media poeple can be "explained" by the mere fact that they are more "blind' than I am.  They are, of coure.  But this is not really a matter of "blindness".  it is a matter of DISHONESTY, and "1q984"-style PROPAGANDA.  That is what the media is really all about, and the afact they are STUPID is merely a FACT that does not really explain what they are about. 

Illegal immigrants: Do We "Need" Them to Do Jobs Americans Won't Do, Or Can We "Use" People on Food Stampls/Extended Unemployment/Public Assistance (A Modest Proposal)

One of those dishonest assertions by pro-illegal immigrant "activists", and SOME self-interested "business" people and farmers, is that illegal immigrants are "needed" to do jobs that Americans jsut won't do.  This, of course, assumes that we need to KEEP illegal immigrants "illegal", and that we need a constant new supply, since they rpresumably WON'T do thsese jobs once they become "Americans" (or else why don't the illegal immigrants who have previously received "amnesty", and the children of illegal immigrants (once adults) do those jobs?).


But look at the INDICTMENT of t this country represented by the above assertion.  We are givingMONEY and FOOD to allkinds of people, including people who assert that they cannot find a job.  Why not tel people getting extended unemplyment, food stams, Medicaid, and welfare that they MUST take a minimum wage job "picking grapes", or LOSE their taxpayer paid handouts?  Why shuld we accept this idea that we "need" illegal immigrans, when the whole problem is that people are "unwilling" to take "dirty", low-paying jobs BECUSE they can live just as well, or better, WITHOUT THEM? 


Segue back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt--the hero of my 990 year old mother.  My mother's descriiptin of Barack Obama, remember, is:  "He wants to give tings to peole 'free', and tell people what to do"  If FDR is my mother's "hero", why does she think so badly of Obama?  It is becauseFDR, in her view (which is somewhat defensible) made people WORK for what they got. You might remember the WPA. Well, neither do I (quite, as I was not born until 2947), but my mother does. Why not make people WORK for the assistance they get, as FDR did?  40% of El Paso (where I live) are on food stamps. SOME of these 40% are obviusly from a "heritage" of "farm workers", or other minimum wage jobs that "Americans won't take".  Hey, it is lthe LEFT who are composed of BIGOTS who want to IDENTIFY Hispanics solely with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, as if tlhat is their main concern (even if they are American citizens).  If farmers around El Pas "need" low-shilled ablor, or other businesses "need" low-skilled labor they can only pay about mininimum wage, why do the people who get food stams in El Paso (with, obviusly, some screening as to whether tlhey are healthy enough to do thihe job) represent a POOL of people who can be REQUIRED to take these jobs. 


"Americans" won't do it?  Fine, so we are "too good" to do honest work!!!!!!!  We prefer HANDOUTS from other people (FORCED handouts, yet).  As I say, this is an INDICTMENT of the people of this country.  Again, that is why my mother keeps talking about how FDR did not do it this way.  According to her (maybe through somewhat rose-colored glasses), FDR made peole WORK.  He did not jsut "give' peole handouts.


What about all of this Obama tripe about "infrastructure"?  Forget it.  Forget, eslpecailly about expensive boondoggles like "high speed rail" and the Boston Big Dig.  Why not go back to the WPA?  No "unions.  Just MINIMUM WAGE for peole to help with infrastructure, as a condition of gettting government benefits.  Notice that what Obama proposes is mainly WELFARE FOR UNIONS.  He is not really interested in "basic" infrastructure using minimum wage workers.  He wants UNION JOBS, and "stimulus".  But is this not IMMORAL: to make peole GIVE you things, bebause you won't lower yourself to do a minimum wage job?  Should you not HAVE tdo such a job, as a condition for your "benefits"?  If lyu want Medicaid, should you not (if able) HAVE to do work that 'Americans won't do"? 


Oh, I have my doubts about whether we skhuld go this way, because it INCREASES the role of government in the "economy".  But it is ABSURD for us to be giving all of these "benefits" to people, SOME of whom aRE illegal immigrants, when there are supposedly jobs available for them to do.  The idea that we "need" an UNDERGROND economy of "illegal immigrants" is basurd on its face. No, we don't ev ven have to reduce unempollyment benefits "dolar for dollar" as to peole who go to a job thta"Americans wont't do" --as set up on some kind of registry.  WE can give some "incentive", provided it is onlyu LONG-TERM unemplyed that get to "keep" SOME of their unemplyment (only for a limited period of time). 


Enough. It is not worth a full "analysis" of  this "modest proposal", since I would expect OUTRAGE from ur "entitlement" society, and from the dishonest proponents of illegal immigratino.  It is not gong to happen, although some versin of it may happen some day if our policies lead to a Great Depression type of collapse.  In the meantime, you advocates of illegal immigratin can "talk to the hand".  I know you for the dishoenst peole that you are--including many who want to EXPLOIT illegal immigrants.


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

Reuters and Yahoo "News": Some of the Most Dish0nest People Who Have Ever Lived: Bad People

Here is the offending headline: 


"Most Americans oppose health care law, but like individuall provisioins"


That is a paresent "featukred" headline on the desicable Yahoo "News"/AT&T defaklut page for the AT&T internet service.  It is an outright LIE.  In fact, it is an Orwellian Big Lie straight out of George Orwelll's "1984". It is pure propagqannda, as the mainstream media puts on a full court press before the expectreed Supreme Court decision.  No, I think even the idiots of the mainstream media realize that the Supreme Court decilsion is ALREADY MADE (just has not been announccedl).  So this PROPAGANDA is aimed directly at LYOU (people iin the country)--no matter what the Supreme Court may say. This is an attempt to SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA, as Ovama's electioin (and suport of the left wing agenda on heaalth care) is the mainn media goal here. 


Oh.  Why is the above headline a LIE?  Will, it is obvious. Therefore, I am--for now-going to leave that as an exercise for the reader, before I tell yuo in another article tomorrow. 


For now, consider these items:


1. The individual mandate--the key to the entire bill--is the EXCEPTION to the headline (read body of article).  A heavy majority (really about 2/3) of Americans OPPOSE the individual mandate, even according to this obviously biased "poll".


2..  Do most Americans KNOW what the "individual provisions" of the bill are, byond the publicized "opposition" to the individual mandate, and the publicized propaganda in support of the bill based on the POPULAR provisions of the bill?  Hell.  Does AnYONE know khow this bill is going to 'work", unntil iits major provisions are to be implemented in 2014.  Right now it is all about lthe indivvidual mandate, simply because that has been the focus.  The media propagandists, of course, do not even TRY to
explain" what the entire bill will do, when implemented, or the COST.


3.  The bill is NOT referenced as ObamaCare, or even as "Barack Obama's health care law", in the headline, which is a clue that this is PROPAGANDASA.


Again, I will give you a full analysis of  why this particular headline, and article (which I labored through most of in diisbelief at the DISHONESTY) , represents one of the most DISHONEST "news" stories ever written by DISHOENST people. In the meantime, see if you can folow the (rather obvious) path of my reasoning, with the hints I have given you.


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

Jerry Sandusky and the Boy Scouts: Does the Case Prove That the Boy Scout Policy Against Gay Scoutmasters Is Correct? YES

"But (you argue with the headline, fool thatyou are), Jerry Sandusky was not obviously gay.  It would not have mattered if Penn State, or the Pen State associated charity youth program invoved, had such a policy."  Possibly true, but irrelevant.


"Why ony "possibly" true?  See the previous blog article on this subject, back when Joe Paterno was being lynched by the media for not acting like Obama (like God, in other words), instead of like just th efootbabll coach he was.  Was the Jerry Sandusky tragedy partly the result of GAY ACTIVISM, and a rluctance to challenge someone for homosexual "attraction" ("orientation")?  It is entirely possible--even probable.  No, lyou can hardly "blame" "gay activism" for everything, but it is not an easy thing to handle unless you have the "gright line" policy of the Boy Scouts.


That is actually the biggest problem here, and why you should not hire a homosexual man--or accept him as a volunteer--to supervise young boys in ANY sports program, or any program like the Boy Scouts. It is actuallyWORSE lthan hiring a heterosexual man to be in a similar positoin in the Girrl Scouts (which I would not do either, unless in desperation).  Why is it worse? Because of all of this GUFF about "discrimination" against homosexuals, and supposed "harrassment" of homosecuals.  When a heterosexual man inapporpriately "looks" at girls showering, he has NO "defense".  Oh, a coach of a girl's basketball teeam may get away with a certain amount of inadvertent exposure of girls in a state of semiundress.  But ANY kind of complaint is going to be taken VERY seriously, and the man is going to get absolutely nowhere claiming he is being "discriminated" against, or "harrassed".  An admitted homosexual, however, can easily make a claim of "discrimination" or "harrassment".  To me, that is an UNACCEPTABLE positin for a yuth organizatin, or realy a shcool, to be in.  Homosexuals simply should not be put in an obvious close association with young boys, as in the Boy Scouts (or the case of Jerry Sanddusky).


No.  I don't care aobut the "right" of people to engage in homosexual sex (a "right' which I consider ridiculous, a some sort of "right", once you get away from the essentail concept that homosexuals should not be persecuted).  What I care about is the CHILDREN.  Did I jsut say leftistss only USE children (as in the illlegal immigratin debate), and don't cARE about children?  Yep . That is exactly what I jsut said.    What is it that you don't understand abut the leftist position on abortion (to take one other example)? Adoption by homosexuals?  etc.


Look at what hapens with regard to someone like Jerry Sandusky, not obviously a homosexual (and even aparently a heterosexual), if an organizatin like the Boy Schouts cannot "discriminate" againswt homosexuals.  What if this hypothetical Jerry Sandusky, in association with young boys, shows signs of "attraction" to young boys?  Easy, right.  You just GET RID OF HIM because he LIED about not being gay, or becuase ou SUSPECT that the lied.  But what if your are "not allowed" to "discriminate" against homosexuals?  Not so simple, is it?  Notice that you don't really have the same problem with getting rid of a HETEROSEXAUL man who lyou only SUSPECT of having unhealthy "urges" toward GIRLS>  Those men have no "protection". from being UNFAIRLY terminated, even tlugh you cannot PROVE actual abuse.  That is the phuge problem I have with constantly expanding anti-discrimination laws (for example, to FAT people or STUPID people).  The problem is having to constantly provide PROOF of things you only SUSPECT. 


Was Penn State, or the charity, supposed to let Jerry Sandusky alone unless there was actual evidence of CHILD ABUSE?  To me, that is an unacceptable sitiuation,, becaues I care about CHILDREN (unlike, again, your ordinary leftist).  If Sandusky seemed to have too much interest in boys whowering, even if he did not actually shower with them, then I see no problem with GETTTING RID OF HIM.  Whose rights predominate here:  the "rights" of homosexual or the rights of innnocent children to be PROTECTED?  Again, the people at Penn State were not faced (at least by the time of the actuall allegatino of abuse) with the kind of more ambiuous situation I am talking aobut here.  But that is the pont.  Do we have to wait for a child to be ABUSED to protect children?  I don't think so. 


The Boy Scuts have it right.  In their situation, a "birght liene" rule is best that bends over backwards to protet the CHILDREN.  Homosexual activists can go to the devil (where Christians may say they come from, but I am an agnostic who has to reason thes4e things out without God's help.  I say the Booy Scouts have a "bright line" rule.  Is the PRESSURE from homosexual activists beginning to erode that a little?  There are signs, which I find distressing, although I think the rule is still in place.


No.  I have no problem wwith a scoutmaster having to sign a statemetn saying he is not a homosexual (or, really, any problem NO such "requirement"--as oto which I have no knowledge of wahat the Bopy Scout policy is). . I see no reason whatever to donductgt an FBI type "investigation" of whether a scourmaster "is, or has ever been", a practicing homosexual.  I consider a "non-practicing homosexual" to be an oxy;moron, by the way.  If a person can SUCCESSFULLY "conceal" that he is a homosexual, even if he lies about it, I would not "worry"--if I were the By Scouts--whether "closet" homosexuals mmight "sneak in".  So long as the POLICY is in place, and enforced, there is no real difference between a heterosexual and a person who SUCCESSFULLY HIDES that he has any homosexual tendencies.  As Jerry Sandusky, and many, many others, porve, you have no assurance that an apparent heterosexual--even married to a woman--will not abuse yong boys.  But if ANY such tendency shows itself, you should be able to GET RID OF such a lperson without having to PROVE "child abuse".


What if you, as an organizatin, think you can "handle" this, without adding danger to children?  Well, I hink you are deluded, but I have no problem with a VOLUNTARY policy of an organization th dealing with young boys (including teenaged boys) that homosexuals (engaging in homosexual conduct, atlhough not with the yojn ng boys) should not be discriminated against.  I have a HUGE problem with the prsent "movement" to FORCE the Boy Scouts of America to accept homosexual scutmasters. To me, that is obviusly putting homosexual acitivists ahead of CHILDRFEN.  I know whhich side I come down on here. 


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

George Zimmerman: Can He Get a Fair Trial After the Media Lynching?

Do yu remember Dr. Sam Sheppard?  "The Fugitive?"  Richard Kimble (fictioinal character based on Dr. Sheppard)?  The one-aremed man?


Well, Dr. Sheppard is famous for the "landmark" Supreme Court case that "pre-trial publicity" could be so unfair as to make a criminal convictin UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I alwyas disagreed with that result: not that the media should not be mrore responsible in its coverage, or that courts sould not do their best to avoid a trial being "tainted" by outside publicity, but the idea that thehe Constitutin really shuld be involved in this.  I actually think my position has been vindicated, because the Sheppard case has really led to almost NO follow-up cases reversing convictions on this ground (as a matter of the U.S. Constitution). 


But what is most annoying about this?  What is the main problem?  Right.  It is the EVIL PEOPLE (again,, I mean it) of the MEDIAwho are realy UNFAIR--not the courts. Take George Zimmerman, for example.  Would there be ay problem with him getting a "fair trial" if the media had simply presented the FACTS (as they became known)?  Of course not.  It is the media LYNCHING of george Zimmerman that makes a "fair trial' almost impossible.  SOME of the jury are going to want to ACQUIT George Zimmerman, becaue they are tired of lthese media LLYNCHINGS based on RACE. SOME of the jury are going to want to CONVICT George Zimmerman because the media has convinced them that we are a racist county, and the only way to "cure" that is by convicting peole likke George Zimmerman. I don't think it is POSSIBLE to get a jury ALNYWHERE that is going to decide this case solely on the FACTS.  Indeed, the prosecution has given every indicatin it is going to TRY George Zimmerman on everything but the facts, including "racial porfiling".   Why else arrest George Zimmerman's wife, which I regard as blatant persecution?The facts have been LOST in this cae, and it may now be effectively impossible to get back to them.


Remember that stuff from EVIL media peole abut "f------ coons"?  This one of tghe most DISGRACEFUL, EVIL CRIMES ever conducted by "journaliss".  These people (the "journalists"--not Zimmerman) shhould be SHUNNED.  Anderson Coper, Wolf Blitgzer, and the people of CNN should be SHUNNED (in public). Then there was the NBC alteratin of the tape to LIE about George Zimmerman being the first to bring up race (when he was not--merely responding to the police dispatchrer's question on the race of the suspicious person). Agiann, NBC should Bbe SHUNTTED.  The reporters who made this all about race should be SHUNNED.  I have wondered before, in this blog.  Do you "journalists" out there mind that i truly think of yu as EVIL lpeole, regularly spreading EVIL?  It should bother you, because I think more and more peopole are coming around to my point of view on this. As I hav ve said before, I am sure there are a fFEW exceptions.  I just have been unable to find, or remember any recent ones-despite my 10-year, futile Sodom And Gomorrah search  for ONE honet, competent Associated Press reporter.


I simply cant't stand the HYPOCRITES of the mediia. They act like this is NOT their problem, when it is.  Since the time of Dr. Sam Sheppard, the media has gotten WORSE.  Cable TV people routinely ADVOCATE "guilt".  Nope. It is an eVIL thing for TV people to even ARGUE over "guilt" and "innocence".  The media is NOt the appropriate place to conduct a trial. I have actually heard these EVIL HYPOCRITES say that this is not a problem, because the media can't put anyone in jail . Well, the Dr. Sheepard cae stands for the propositin that the media CAN effectivvely put people in jail.  And that is besides the EVIL that the media can tdo to a person's LIFE. No.  I can't stand thee people.  And they do it for MONEY :  ratings and circulation (as well as for agenda).


This blog has accuratelyl told lyou that it is INSANE to put a JURY in JAIL (sequestration) for any sifnificant length of time.  As a judge, I would NEVER do it.  And we often do this INSANE thing because of the EVIL people of the media simply hammering people.  As stated, I don't think that the Consitutinn requires this kind of "cosmetic" attepts to "handle" media UNFAIRNESS.  But the one thing I wuld do is put the matter squarely on the media, and call them out to be responsible (plus "gag orders" and the like).  The attack here needs to be on the PROBLEM.  And the PROBLEm is the MEDIA.  No, you can't violate the First Amendment.  But people can start telling it like it is, like this blog does.  And there is always SHUNNING.  The media shoiuld worry that their present stock in trade is almsot exclusively "back fence gossip" (wore than that in any small town--see, for example, the movie "The Children's Hour"). 


Whhat prompted this tirade? It was this mainstream media headliine/story that has been "featured" ALL DAY on Yahoo "News" (my AT&T  default page), from something called t"The Lookout":


"Can George Zimmerman get a fair trial in Samford/"


I can't tell you how ANGRY this story gets e.  Do you see that this is an attempt to act liike Pontinus Pilate?  The media jsut wants to wash its hands of any  responsibility for this.  As stated, I don't think George Zimmerman can get a "fair trial" ANYWHERE in the United States, based on what the trial is supposed to be about: the FACTS.  To the extent it is worse in Samford, it would be because the LOCAL MEDIA has compounded the problem stirred up by the natinoal media (and racial "activists").  Again, this is a MEDIA problem, and they deserved to be CONDEMNED for creating it.  I, of course, am glad to do the condemning.  It is a pleasant job, but someone has to do it.


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

Obama Fails Again on Jobs: Losing 390,000 Jobs a Wekk--No Improvement This Entire Year (part II)

These are the new unemployment claims for the past 3 weeks, beginning withtthe current week's number announced Thursday (yesterday): 390,00 (announced yesterday as 387,000, but extremely likly to be revised next week to 390000); 383,000; and 389,000. The number has pretty much "settled in" between 380,000 and 390,000, although "dips" tward 375,000--or 3ven 370,000--have occurred n the past three months.  See the previus part I of this article for a discussin of the actual numbers, and how this blog gets them right.  This article will look at the significance of the numbers.


As the headline states, these nuumbers are a record of FAILURE by Barack Obama. Despite media orgasms as the number of new unemplyment claims LOOKED to be "imroving" early this year, there has been NO "improvement for this entire year. We fell under 400,0000 at the end of last year--repeating the pattern of the year before (2011), when the number dropped to a reported 375,000 in February (to be greeted by similar media orgasms). This year the number of new unemployment claims "dropped" to right at 350,000 in February, and settled into a "range" of 350,000-365,000 for about two months.  This represented a sLIGHT "improvement" over LAST YEAR, but that ignores both the better weather and teh fact that the FORMULA (and baseline) for "computing" these adjusted numbers is CHANGED basically every year.  This is espeically true of those monthly employment numbers ("jobs created" and teh unemployment rate).  Again, the 350,000 number in February was probably FICTIONAL.  If it was not fictional, then we have DETERIORATED since February ("headling in the wrong direction"). 


Thus, the 3500,000 (351,000) low in Februar, and the 350,000-365,000 range, quickly disappeared (as hapened in 2011 as well, as we headed into summer). We had a three week SPIKE, where the number of new unemployment claims AVERAGED 390,0000 (always realizing that these are NOT "concrete" numbers, but subjectivve numbers using a "seasonal adjustment" formula).   That "spike" was probably a little bit "fictional", as was the "drop" all of the way to 350,000. But we then went into a range of 370,000-390,000,--wher we are now, except that we havve now "settled" more toward 380,000-390,000.  You shoul be able to see, again that this represents NO IMPROVEMENT since the beginning of the year. 


But what is a "good" number?  No, 350,000 is NOT a "good" number. Everyne agrees that 400,000 is a REALLLY BAD numbe, and that we can't "create" a SUBSTANTIAL number of jobs at that level.  We are really right at that level NOW.  But we really need to be CONSISTEENTLY at 300,000 or BELOW.  Yes, we really should be able to get to new unemplyment claims around 250,000, in a HEALTHY economy (or strong recovery). 380,000-390,000 just does not cut it.  As the headline states, President Obama has FAILED again on jobs. 


And it is really worse than just the number of new unemplyment claims.  That is a measure of layoffs, but it also tells you a lot about the other employment numbers. We have now had new unemplyment claims at 380,0000-390,000 for MOST OF JUE.  And we had similar numbers--maybe even SLIGHTLY etter--in MAY, when we had  DISMAL "job creation" and an INCREASE in the unemplyment rate. Therefor, June is already "baked in" (correctly using a phrase that Wall Street MISUSES to LIE about stock prices and "news"). June job numbers CANNOT BE GOOD (unless the numbers lie).  You will hear the idiots in the financial 'media' taling as if they are "waiting with bated breath" for the June jobs numbers.  Are they really that STUPID (actually, they are).?  The June jobs numbers are ALREADY DETERMINED, within a a very narrow range, unless there iare lglitches in the "seasonal adjustments". If we got a "good" jobs "report" for June, it would be INCONSISTENT with the many economic numbers that we have had over the past month, and especialy with the number of new unemployment claims.


It is now getting serious for President Obama.  When teh media was having orrgasms, in February, about how the economy was "obviously improving", it DID NOT MATTER (as polls are meaningless until right at the electin, with limited meaning even thien). As this blog told you (correctly, as usual),, the economic numbers for February, March, April, and even May mean almost NOTHING for a November election.  However, that is no longer quite true as we get to the end of JUNE.  Yes, the numbrs--and reality--in July,m August, September and October are MORE SIGNIFICANT.  Remember, the November numbers (for October) will be TOO LATE to affect the electin.  And the economy is like the Titanic:  it takes a LONG time to really "turn around", unless the momentum is allready there.  We have NO MOMENTUM. 


We are approaching the point where things can get BAD (collapse of Europe, or more big bans, for example).  But things cannot really "get good", or obviously better, if we are STAGNATED (stalled).  Now it is absurd to suggest thatt he Federal Government can "control" tehe economy in any event.  But we are reaching the pont that NOTHING eith3er Obama or anyone else can do will AFFECT the way the econmy will look at the beginning of November (other thann gross shocks to the econmy on the bad side). Oh, I think Obama can still have some hope of a 'miracle" through july, and maybe August. But the way the economy will look on electoin day is beginning to be BAKED IN. 


This lob is on record as PREDICTING Obaama will lose the electin, IF the economy is not obviusly BETTER by election day (nope, the "same" is not good enough).  Again, the June numbers already appear to be pretty much "baked in".  Obama is heading to the pont that he CANNOT RECOVER (as the economy is not really "recovering"), because the state of the economy on electin day will be alreaey deterined.  As stated: July, and maybe August.  Does it really look like we can "turn around" the Titanic by the end of August, or even have the PERCEPTION that we are doing so (perceptin being a big thing, but NOT from the PROPAGANDA put out by the meidia but the way people see actual signs of rel improement "on the ground"). 


Thus, these numbers on new unemplyment claims do have importance.  They may already SIGNAL the DEFEAT of President Obama.  Remember, the economy did not APPEAR to "improve" the previous two years (2010 and 2011) until NOVEMBER of each year.  This blog has previously told yu that Obama is facing a SEASNAL PATTERN, where the economy just does not look "good" in the summer--even as it appears to look "better" as we head into Christmas and February of the new year. It could not happen to a nicer guy (Obama--sarcasm disease recurring).  No, by the way, Obama does not strike me as a "nice guy".  He strikes me as an egomaniac. You say it takes one to know one?  You may be right.  That is how I KNOW that President Obama is NOT a Christian (as an agnostic myself, as Bill Maher and I both use our own knowledge of ourselves to tel  you that President Obama is not a Christian).


Stay tunned for the "cliffhanger" resolution next week. Will the media ever get it right?  Wil Obama ever ADMIT that he has failed on jobs?  Okay.  I admit it.  These are shamel, FALSE attempts to build "suspense".  The media has been wrong for at least 100 STRIGHT WEEKS. How can this be a "clliffhanger"? And President Obama has NEVER admitted he made a mistake, except to explain how he has REVERSED himself based on "evolving". George W. Bush was FLEXIBLE by comparison. 


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

Obama Fails Again on Jobs: Losing 390,000 Jobs a Week--No Improvement This Entire Year

Did you notice that yesterday's (Thursday's) Labor Dearment release of the ESTIMATE of new unemployment claims filed the previous week yet again made a prophet of this blog, and LIARS out of the media?  In fact, it is amazing.  For three weeks   in a row, The Maverick Conservative has gotten the REVISION of the previous week's "headline number" on new unemplooymnet claims EXACTLY right.  Almost forever, this blog has PREDICTED the REVISION better than the liars of the mainsteam media "report" the announced number. Here, again is the CORRECT h headline for yesterday:


"New unemployment claims RISE slightly, to 390,000--assuming usual revision


Here is the INCORRECT headline from the LIARS of our media, based on the INITIAL ESTIMATE of the Labor Department:


"Jobless claims FALL slightly, to 387,000"


Look at last week.  The media "headline" was that new unemployment claims were at a concrete number of 386,000. The Maverick Conservative headline ws that new unemployment claims were at 389,000. The Maverick Conservative was EXACTLY right.  The media liars were wrong, as usual.  Why am I right?  "Talent" is one answer. But this is not really rocket science, which is why the media LIES are so obvious. The number of new unemplyment claims, announced each Thursday is almost ALWAYS revised UPWARD, and the revision is almost ALWAYS at least 3,000 (by far the most common revision---sso common that it makes a MOCKERY of the estimate announced each Thursday, as the ADJUSTMENT shulduld be made for the expected revision, so that the "revision" is not simply a correctino of an obviusly, consistentlyl incorrect number).


Thus, this week's announced number of 387,000 will most likellly be revised net week to 390,000 (or higher). I can't even remember the last time there wass a revision DOWNWARD. I can remember ONE week, in about the last six months, where the number was unchanged.  When the "revision" i this consistent, it is a LIE to even release what is laready an ADJUSTED number (seasonal adjustment formula with its own accuracy problems), withuot adjusting for this obvius weekly error.  It is especaillyl a LIE for our incompetent media liars to keep reporting this "annnounced" weekly number as it i a real, concrete number which is not ALWAYS rvised upward the next week.


Here are the number of new unemplyment claims for the past three weeeks, starting with the most remote week:  389,000, 3830,000 and 390,00 (MOST LIKELY, after revision of 387,000 number released yesterday. 


Now these numbeers indicate Obama has FAILED on jobs yet again, and is losing close to 390,000 jobs (gross--as are the Obama/Obama supporter figures on jobs "created/saved" by the Obama "stimulus") A WEEK.  This is a BAD number.  But I have spent so much time and space analyzing the actual numbers, and how the media fails to report them correctly, taht I don't want tto start the analysis of the significance of the numbers this far down the article.  Therefor, see part II (to follow quickly) of this artile for the analysis of the significance of these numbers (over time, which is the only way each week has AnY significance).


Oh, maybe I have been "exazctly" right "only" 3 out of the last 4 weeks. or 5 out of the last 7, although more right than the media reporting 7 out of 7.  "Economists", however, should eat their hearts out, including the "economists" of the Labor Department who keep releasing an obviusly INCORRECT number each week  But if I could not do better than "economiss", I would do the honorable thing and end it all.  "Skip, did yu just say that ll economists shuld commit suicide?"  Pretty much. Or at least stop suggesting that they, includng Ben Bernanke, "know" so much that they can both PREDICT and CONTROLL our massive economy . This absurdity iss accepted both on Wall Street and in Washington, and it is OBVIUSLY untrue.  It is, in fact, the basis for ALL "central planning" advocated by Big Government pepple who believe that the Federal Government (or Bernanke or whomever) can simply wave a magic wand and "solve" any and every problem we have. 


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

President Obama, Out of Touch on Illegal Immigration: Dishonest Media Try to Prop Him Up

755 of the American people SUPPORT the "harsh" arizona law on illegal immigratin:  CNN poll (that right wing organization--lol). 


But what wa the "big news" yesterday--at least on MSNBC?  I think yu can actually gueess.  They did a "poll" on how many people "support" the President's unlawfu (according to the President, last year) action to UNILATERALLY (Mubarak dictator that he would LIKE to be) adopt the "Dream Act".  In the first place, of course, how many people have any real idea what the President actually DID?  This is a 'poll" made for MANIPULATION, and tht was its only purpose.  There is no way to do a fair" question on this.  And then there is all of that PROPAGANDA about the "innocent children". Tihis is all merely fraudulent poitical gamesmanship.  But the PROPAGANDA here is to turn the entire "debate" on illegal immigratin into a "debate" on the "inocent children" (and military service, allthough almost nobody even opposes that, if anyone were actually serius about a simple, one-item bill on that).  As stated in previous blog articles over the past week, this is an atttempt by the dishonest mainstream media to have the "tail wag the dog":  to distort the illgal immigratin debate by makeing it all abut thsi politically manufactured sideshow involvning "innocent children (see previous article abut Candy, Crowley, Liar on The Liar Network).  First,  our DISHONEST media has tried to make the questoin of ILLEGAL immigration (a term they basically refuse to use) into an argument about IMMIGRATIN (as if illegal immigratin and illegal immigratin are the same thing).  Now, our dishonest media ss trying to make the subject of illegal immigratin SOLELY abut the "innocent children".  These really are some of the most DISHONEST peeople how have ever lived. The"hype" over this "poll", which suposedly "showed" that 2/3 of the American people (or is it just Hispanics--the media is not always very clear on these polls, because they are POLITICAL in the first place),, "support' the President.


But what abut those multiple plls that show 75% of the American people SUPPORT the Arizona law against illegal immiigratin, including 62% of NON-WHITES?  That poll has two obvius superiorities over the "poll" on 'innocent children" (USE of same as mere political pawns) . First, the Arizoan law is EASY to understand, and the PROPAGANDA has been the other way:  AGAINST the law.  Second, the Arizona law is abut  the ENTIRE subject of illegal immigration, and not this attempt to "carve out" "innocent children" as a special class (intended, of course, to consume the 'rule", to make it impossible t "deport" anyone).  But our dishonest media is not interested in FACTS, or even discussing the honest meaning of polls (once you get past the fact that all polls are eveil, pretty meaningless things). Our dishoenst media is ony intersted in PROPAGANDA.  Thus, all of the polls on illega immigratin are IGNORED, except when they fit into the media narrative.  Do yu ssee that this INGORING of polls that disagree with yu, and featuring of only polls that fit our ageanda, is a form of lYING?  You shoululd see that.


"But, Skip, how do you reconcile these poll results?"  I don't, in terms of logic and ratioonality . Note that these kind of poll results merely PROVE how USELESS and EVIL polls rreally are--a "tool" for propaanda and lack of thinking rather than any kind of "news".  But the dishoenst media is not interested in a real analysis of polls.  Our dishoenst media is only interested in PROPAGANDA.  Thus, the media will not talk about how to "fit" this latest poll "result" into other poll results.  No, it is not that hard to come up  with "explanatins", but those explanations don't fit the media narrative.  Therefore, they just ignore the whholel problem, as they pursue their present narrative taht illeagl immigratin is now all about the "Dream Act", and the innocent children.  What do yu EXPECT people to say, if all they get is this propaganda about "innocent children"?  It is a totally one-sided debate, because the COWARDS of the GOP refuse to engage in the debate at all.  In fact, those COWARDS do not even reallly want to engagge in a "debate" about illegal immigratin, and the Arizona law.  In other words, the GOP COWARDS are perfectly willing to throw away a WINNING ISSUE (supported by 75% of the American people), because they think it is too risky.  Nope.  The GOP does not have to make the entire electin abut llegal immigratin, even though it hsas something to do with JOBS and WAGES of American citizens.  But to simplly cede the ground is insane, which is my general view of the GOP .


Look at Romney's "reactin".  He seems to be mainly saying that President Obama can hardly be viewed as a "leader", or the Democrats as "serious" abut the Dream Act being the most important "issue" in illegal immigratin, when they failed to do AnYTHING abut illegal immigratin laws when they had COMPLETE contorol of Congress (the first two years of Obama's Presidency).  This, is, of course, true, but hardly a very strong statement of PRINCIPLE.  Everyone knows that President Obama spent those first two years on ObamaCare, and that the reason the "Dream Act" was not passed was that democrats WANTED A MORE GENERAL AMNESTY (even though the 'Dream Act is meant to lead to that). The "Dream Act' is only the POLITICAL attempt to get the "Hispanci vote", as a POLITICAL PLOY.  Democrats insist that what we need is "comprehensive reform' (always a deception), but they are perfectly willing to try to USE a very minor part of the whole as a POILITICAL PLOY.  They will not, however, take up other aspects of illegal immigratin, or legal immigratin, policy becasuse they insist that it is "comprehensive reform" or nothing (excpet when it comes to their political purposes). These are the worst hyporites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or fur, but you already knew that.


But Mitt Romney only talked AROUND these things.  He did not talk about how 75% of teh American pele believe that we should really DO something abut illeegal immigraition,, supporting the Arizona law.  He did not really talk abut President Obama as an OPPONENT of democrac,y, a evidenced by his lawsuit against Arizona (and othes). Romney did sort of VAGUELY suggest that Obama's actin was merely political theater, but Romney hardly said AnYTHING about the overall importaince of a real policy to STOP illegal immigratin.  Note that Romney culd  have done this in a few sentences.  No let me admit that the mainstream media--unlcuding the unfair and unbalanced network--is DISHONEST.  Thus, Romney could say things like I suggest he should say, and both you and I would NOT HEAR ABOUT IT (unless the media thought they culd make points against Romney that way). That is the whole point of this article:  our media people are DISHONEST PROPAGANDISTS.  All Romney has to do is keep  saiing that Obama and the Democrats are flouting the will of the American people, and trying to DFLECT people away from the IMPORTANT subject of illegal immigrration to a sideshow that they diid not think important enough to pass when they had the votes.  Then move on to the econmy, and even talk abut illegal immigratin being a problem for American jobs (while at the same time saying the same thing about Romney's ideas on LEGAL IMMIGRATIN--doubtful as I find them--and how Romney is dedicated to a policy on both illegal and legal immigraitn that both supports the law and helps the eocnomy of this country.


I don't hear it.  Do you?  In the primaries, my 89 year old mother LIKED Romney because he ws so strong on illegal immigratin.  Romney is throwing away that vote: throwing away the 75%, in favor of the MEDIA and the 25%.  I am actually okay with that, because I am NEUTRAL anyway.  I call them as I see them,, because there is NOTHIN Romney can do (well, never say never, but nothing he is at all llikely to do) which wuld cause me to support Romney is tis electin. No, I won't support Obama either. That is why I am NEUTRAL.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  No editing or revisions.  Just can't do it (in reasonable time or effort, considering what I am getting paid--noting). 

Traitors USA: The Washington Post and Mainstream Media as Anti-American Traitors and Despicable, Antti-Human People

ERE IS HOW THE dRUDGE (DRUDGEREPORT.COM) BANNER HEADLINE STARTS: "lEAKS USA......", as, for once, Drudge nnderstates the problem (b ecause Drudge wants to concentrate on the Oama Administrration LEAKS, which are WORSE than ever was even aruguably true with regard to Valerie Pllame, while this blog prefers to concentrate on the turly bAD, CDSPICABLE, COPNTIMTIBLE TRAITORSS of the mainstream media).


Here is the headline from teh Anti-American, BAD peole (I give them no pass, and call them for what they are) of The Washington Post (probably to be picked up by the ALMOS eqwually despicable peole of the unfair and unbalanced network, to whom I also give NO pass):


"U.S., Israel developed Flame virus to slow down Iranian nuclear efforts, officials say"


You will notice that the DISHONEST, incompetents of  the Washington Post left out probably the MAIN part of this "story:  WHO the 'officials" are.  That is because EVIL (I use tghe word literrally, and as an accuragte description) "journalists" of The Washington Post, which is true of almsot every "journliast" alive today, are willng to let ANYUNYMOUS SOUCES SABOTAGE THIS COUNTRY FROM THE SHADOWS.  I saind The Washington Post is anti-American, and I mean it.  I said The Washington Post is anti-human, and I mean it.


Dubt me?  What if Iran eXPODES a nuclear bomb because our secrets have been exposed? I thik I understating to call The Washington Post, the desicable aP, and basically ALL of our mainsstream media "anti-human".  How is this, which I believe is more accuraate:  The people of teh Washington ost are potential MASS MURDERERS. And if Iran does ANYTHING to killl a lot of people (in Israel, Iran, or anywhere else), I am gong to ACCURTELY refer to the Washington Post as MASS MURDERS--for alltime, as far as this blog is concdrerned.


No, I don't excuse the peole of the Obama Administratin.  Prsident Obama, himself, our Liar-in-Chief, is the most anti-American man to ever occupy the post of Presient of the United States, and he emplys peole who folow is lead. But I call out the media "journalists" for who they are:  soem of the msot CONTEMPTIBLE peole to ever wal this Earth, and some of the worst HYPOOCRITES to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four.  Jut go back and look at how they "covered" the nonsense Valerie Plame matter, as if the entire security of the United States had been put at risk k by the Bush Administratino, and then contrast it with how they "cover' these attmpts to COMPROMISE the security of the United States.  I welcome any Washington Post person willing to "defend" his or her newspaper against the wrost sriticism I can bring against any person. or entity.  YOU  ARE CONTEMPTIBLE PEOLE: BAD PEOPLE; AND PEOLE I HOPE TO MEET IN HELL (even though I am an agnostic, meaning this will be a big sacrifice for me that wil affectg me for all eternity). I don't edit any comment.  So if AnYONE wants to try to defend The Washington Post, be my guest. I, of course, don't promise not to CRUCITY lyoiu. in my own response.


No.  There is NO excuse for this.  If Iran ever sets off a nucelaar devise in New York City, , I am going to BLAME The Washington Post, and I will be CORRECT to do so.  "We only 'report the news'.  Tell it to the marienes, or to the hand.  You are not gonig to tel it to ME, you DESPICABLE PEOPLE.  Hell is to good for you.  I may have to sttart my own religion , featureing a WORSE place for modern "journalists".  I am certain Dante would lhave created a new "ciercle" jsut for "journalists', if he had the misfortune to have encuntered any modern "journalists" in his time.


I know.  I am REPRESSING my real feelings again.  It will shorten my life that I cannot bring myself to exress lthe real CONTGEMPT I have for modern "journalsits". Maybe it is punishment enough for you peole--your own private Hell--that you have to live with yoiurselves.  But you are so clueless, I dont' think so.  I justr hope so.  As a fallback, I truly hope that a Christian Hell exists, even toiugh I am=m an agnostic how will peresumably go there.  It will be more than worth it for you "journalists' to jon me there, as I KNOW yoiu will.  All eternity, in TORMENT.  Neop. It is NOT LENOUGH.


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