Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Obama,Clinton and Terror: Obama Terrorophobia, or is it "Terrorphobia", Confirmed (even by Erin Burnett on CNN)

And some of you (all of yu?) think I have no influence.  Yesterday, I coined the word for that neurotic mental condition of Presdient Obama that prevents him from being able to use the wrod "terror" in connectin with Muslim terrorist attacks.  "Terrorophobia" was the word I coined for this condition, although critics have suggested that the last "o" is not really correctt, and that the word should be "terrorphobia".  Maybe so, although I am not sure it has the right ring.  obviusly I tried to tailor my cointed word after that leftist MADE UP (and inaccurate) word:  "homophobia". But this semantic "controversy" is irrelevant.  the point is that iI IDENTIFIED the condidtin, and suggested a roughly correct word that can be used for it.  The rest is just a matter os SPELLING. 

Thus, Erin Burnett said on her CNNshow tonight:  "President Obama seems unable, for some reason, to SAY the word 'terror'. He talked about the attack in Libya, which Hillary Clinton has now called a 'terrorist attack' linked to al-Qaida affiliated groups', thourghout his entire address to the United Nations, but avoided using the word 'terror' even oNCE in connectin with the attakc"   Thus, Erin Burnett has endorsed the "Obama disease" of "terrorophobia", or "terrorphobia", wihout using a word for it.  She noted that Obama has FAILED and REFUSED to use the word "terror' in connectin witht he Libyan attack that killed our ambassador, for the ENTIRE period of more than TWO  WEEKS after the attack, even though even his press secretary has (reluctantly) usedd the word. 

I have strongly, and correctly, criticized Erin Burnett in this blog.  She has obviusly decided that the ony way for her to IMPROVE is to PAY ATTENTIN to what this blog is saying, and go with it on her program.  This neurotic aversin by Barack Obama to the woord "terror", at least in connectin with Muslim extremism, is so marked as to be similar to the beatnik character in the TV show "Dobie Gillis" ("Maynard G. Krebs? sp.?), who just coud not say the word "work".  However, this is not a OMIC character.  This is the President of the United States, whose "aversino" to the wrod "terror" is forr POLITICAL and IDEOLOGICAL reasons.  From an objective point of view (since I still support neiter Obama nor Romney), this DISQUALIFIES Obama from being President of the United States, or SHOULD.  What if the American peole still reelectg him?  If lthey do, so be it.  That will be a verdict on THEM (or should I say US, even though I would never actualy vote for Obama, because of his Libyan reactino alone, if I had not already made that decision). 

Hillary Clintons sudden "conversion" , by the way, to the (obviusly correct view) taht the attack in Libya that kKILLED our abasssador--and three other Americans--was a TERRORIST ATTACK linked to al-Qaida affiliated groups, was a EVERSAL of what Clinton said a mere WEEK AGO.  A week ago--still pushing the Obama Administratin 'spontaneous mob" LIE which Obama also sent out our U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, to push--Clinton had said there was "no evidence" that linked the Libyan attack to anything but that MYTHcIAL "spontaneous mob". The rats are deserting the sinking ship (CNN and Hillary Clinton being in the position of "rats" here).

I stand by this statement I have made as much as a week ago:  It is UNACCEPTABLE for an American President to react to the TERRORIST MURDER of an American ambassador with th LIE that it was the result of a "spontaneous mob" reacting to an anti-Muslim movvie.  I stand by my assertin that this particular LIE is an IMPEACHABLE offensae, although it would be absurd to attempt to "impeach" Obama over it.  No. I woulld NOT be in faovr of tryng to impeach Prfesident Obama AFTERWARD, if he WINS this electin.  The AMERICNN PEOLE know everything they need to know here.  If why want to elect Barakc Obama ANYUWAY, then they (we?)) deserve what they (we?) get.  I am perfectly aware that my own failure to push ROMNEY'S electin could be regarded as contributing, at least in a smal way, to this unacceptable resutl  But I have my own PHOBIA., and my own VOW.  I jstu can't acutally VOE for a GOIP candidate I regard as a BAD GOP establishment canddiate--which is exctly what I regard Romney as.  As a conservative who has lived through too many of these electins, I jsut CAN'T STOMACH IT. 

It bould be the BEST thing to ever happen to this country if a THRRD PARTY canddiate would WIN a Presidential electin  We jsut can't afford "politics as usual".  Yet, we keep ending up in a situation of "ppolitgics as usual".  Until we break that vicious cycle, I don't see how we ever get through to our politicans.  No, I don't thinkk we can SRUVIVE more 'politics as usual", which means I do not think we SURVVIVE the results of tghis elecitn (Obama or Romney)--at least as the kind of country we have been.

However, I can't accept Obama's Big Lie on Libya as "politics as usual".  I don't think George W. Bush would have done it.  I don't think Bill Clinton would have done it.  I don't think ANY other Presdient, of whom I am aware, would have LIED abouta the MURDER of a U.S. ambassador the way that Barack Obama did.  MAYBE the LEFT has become so DISHOENST than MOST LEFITST politicans would have done it.  But I doubt it.  This particular PHOBIA, and sociopathic//psychopathic lies, seems to be mainly an OBAMA PROBLEM.  I say that, but the LEFT in general is willihng to still EXCUSE Obama for this FATAL LFLAW.  To me, that is also unacceptable.  The idea that this is just ACCEPTABLE POLITICCS is one I caN't even fathom, even from our LEFT.  It is not "acceptable politics". Again, it DISQUALIFEIS Obama fro being President of the United States, for rational people not totally blinded by partisan politics.

It is jsut not acceptable for our P:RESIDENT to have a PHOBIA (basedon POLITICS and IDEOLOGY)  whcih causes him to MISLEAD the Amerifan peole as to a TERRORIST ATTACK which KILLED Americans--including an American ambassador.  That--kiling an Aemrican ambassador--is an ACT OF WAR.  But Obama siimpy seems unable to get his mind around a WAR ON TERROR--even as he "ifghts" that WAR with PREDATOR DRONES that KILL PEOPLE WIHOUT TRIAL.  The man--Obama--is "schizophrenic" in the true meaning of that word:  disassociated from reality.

No. It does not MATTER if we had CONCLUSIVE evidence that the Libyan attack was a terrorist attack at the beginning.  Many peole said so, including the Libyan President.  But the probblem heere is not the President being "cautiuos" abut putting out the wrong informatin  That is EXACTLY what the Obama Administratin did;  PUT OUT THE WRONG INFORMATIN, for POLITICAL REASONS.  The problem here is not being to " cautious", but PUSHING the "rush to judgment"--for POLITICAL REASONS--that this TERRORIST ATTACK was really jsut "spontaneous mob actin" keye to that "video' which the Obama Administratin wantte d to BLAME for ALL of the violence in the Arab world. It was bad enough--uunacceptable--to try to balme ANTI-AMEIRCAN attacks on our EMBASSIES on this "video".  To try to b"blame" the vidoeo, and "spontaneous mob actin", for the Libyan attack was DESPICALBE.  There can be NO "justificatin for it.  It was UNWORHTY of AnY Pesident of the United Sates.  It really is hard to see how Obama thought he could get away with this.  And WILL Romney really take it to him, n the debates, on this/  I wonder.  He sould.  No matter.  There is NOTHING Obma can say or do to excuse this MORAL CRIME of "pplaying politics" with the TERRORRIST MURDER of a united States ambassador.  Obama is obviusly COUN TING ON the media to COVER for him--at least to the point of just looking at this as "politics as usua"--no big deal. 

The media hsuld be UPSET that Obama expects them to COVER for this kind of MORAL FAILURE of a United States lPresident  George W. Bush could NEVER have SURVIVED this.  Obama should not survive it.  We will see.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  This is just th elatest of MANY instances where what this blog says seem to affectg what happens in the maisntream media the very next day, or within a few days.  Do I INFLUENCE what is "reported", or merely ANTICIPATE TRUTHS so obiuvs that even the media cannot keep ignoring them?  Either way, it shows why you should keep reading this blgg. 

Madonna: Obama Is a Black Muslim (Maverick Conservative Again Exposed as Moderate Independent Wimp)

Madonna (in "pro-Obama clip all over the place yesterday, including the unfair and unbalanced network, but generally IGNORED by the dishonest hypocrites of CNN and the rest of the mainstream media):  "We have a black Muslim in the White House, OK."  It does not appear that she was "joking".

There are two EXTREME positions on Barack Obama's relitioin.  The first extreme, absurd position is that Obama is a believing Christian just because he says he is--despite the massive evidence to the contgrary . The other extre position, which this blog has corrrectly labeled as a kook position that some people have been led into by their understandable distaste for Obama and his seeming inability to criticize Muslims, is that Obama is a "secret" MUSLIM.  This latter extreme position is that of my 90 year old mother.  Yep.  I have called my own mother a KOOK (on this), including to her face.

Since I am a moderate, wimpy independent, my own correct, moderate position on Obama's religion is in the MIDDLE. (as usual).  Bill Maher and myself--noted agnostics both, although I am the tolerant one embarrassed to agree with Maher on anyting--agree that Obama is NOT a Christian but is a "secular humanist":  a man with NO religion except leftist ideology.  Maher even backed his opinion that Obama is sympathetic with Maher's militant ANTI-CHRISTIAN viewws so strongly that Maher gave ONE MILLION DOLLARS to an Obama SuperPAC to support Obama for President. 

You should be able to see the difficulty I am now in because I am one of those "independents" so beloved by the media.  I have called my own mother a KOOK because of here extreme position.  My mother is a woman.  I am AFRAID of women, including my mother.  But I thought I had pretty much convinced my mother that she was lettting her anti-Obama sentiment run away with her, and that there is no real evidence that Obama has any religin at all, including the Muslim religion.  

My mother, yesteray, to me  "You SEE.  I told you Obama is a Muslim.  But yu wouldn't pay any attentin to your mother.  You wouild rather call yur won mother a kook.  What kind of a son are you?  Madonna (I doubt if my mother had any idea of who Madonna is beforfre Madonna SABOTAGED me.) is part of that Hollywood crowd who are BUDDIES with Obma.  They know Obama better than YOU do--you stupid wimp.  Madonna knows that Obama is a Muslim.  I bet the whole Holllywood crowd knows taht Obama is a Muslim.  But I have an ungrateful son who clls me a kook because I now more than he does.  What can I expect from a son who does not even realize how great a President FDR was.  I bet you woulld have rather had me STARVE, than have FDR make sure I had enough to eat.  Wel, SEE.  As usual, your mother is RIGHT.  3 of my sons were always going to vote for Romney.  Even Charles, who you brainwashed, has now said that he is gong to do like his mother says, and vote for Romney.  YOU are myonly soon ho pays no attentin to what I say, and calls me a KOOK.  That shows what kind of a son you are."

As you can see, I am never going to gorgive Madonna for this one.  Is Madonna really part of some sort of secret conspiracy, along with my MOTHER and other women, to SABOTAGE Obama and make sure that Romney is electe?  Does that explain those polls which supposedly show that WoMEN are gong to ELECT Barack Obama?  Are women LYLING to pollsters (as I recommend EVERYONE do)/ Surely, even Maddonna cnnot believe that what she dais, laced with vulgarity, HELPS Obama/ Yoiu can see what Madonna has done to me.  I HATE conspiracy theories.  But after the tongue-lahing I got from my mother, becakuse of Madonna (like that anti-Muslim video triggering anger, only worse), I now se3e "conspiracies" EVERYWHERE.  Madonna is in a conspiracy to get me.  I just can't doubt that.  How many other conspiracies are there out there targeting me?  Did my brother know something when he said I should run like Hell if Angelina Jolie showed up at my door demanding sex>  How many poots aginst me are out there?  No. This is MADNESS. I am going insane.

(Google editor's note:  We were notified that something seems to have happened to the blog author, which left thte above partially copleted article frozen on the site, without being posted. We have informatin that the blog author may be in the hsopital.  After discussin, and cnssultation with legal counsel, we decided to go ahead and post the unfinished article on the blog as a waring to bloggers on Google not to get carried away like this.  We are aware of s spike in suicides nationwide, and we don't want our blogs--provided as a publicec service--to be the cause of nervous breakdowns.  We trust that blogggers will heed this warning, and watch yourself.  Dono't let your emotins get away from you. Be calm and ratinoal.  We trust that this is a temporary problem, and that The Maverick Conservative will be back  In the meantime, read this breakdown taking place right before  our eyes, and learn its lesson.  We woul d ordianrily have corrected spelling errors, and other obvius errors, but we noticed that this atuhor, apparently does not proofread at all.  We don't endorse this practice, but felt we should leave the article as written.  The author says it is due to bad eyesight, but ws the sad shape of this blog a sign of the impending breakdown?  We don't know, but thought we shud ost the article as is, so you could come to your own concustions.):

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

President Obama: Terrorophobia


Terrorophobia: Fear of the word "terror", especailly in connectgion with violent attacks by Muslim extremists.  Sample sentence: President Obama is an extgerme victim of the of terrorophobia, as he seems totally unable to utter the word "terror" in connectin with terror attacks by Muslim extremists.

I actually heard significiant portions of Obama's speech to the U.N., as well as the analysis afterwward. President Obama REFUSED (or was unable, because of his terrorophobia) to utter the wrod "terror" in connectin with the Muslim extremist terrorist attack in Libya which murdered our ambassador (first such murder of an ambassador since 1979, and only 6th in our history).

In the U.N. speech, Obama once again showed an OBSESSIN with the "crfude, disgusting video" that Obama WANTS to BLAME for POLITICAL reasons, for the violence in the Arab world.

I repeat what I hav said previously, and it is the WORST thing I have ever said about a President of the Unnited States:  Obaa DELIBERATELY misled the people of the United States about the TERROR attack in Libya which MURDERED our ambasdsador, an dhe did this for POLITICAL REASONS.  It was for POLITICAL REASONS that the Obama Administratin, for basically two weeks, claimed that the preplanned attack in Libya was a "spontaneous demonstraration" arising out to the video. There is NO EVEIDENCE, and Obama knows it, that the vidoeo have anything to do with the attack in LIBYA. 

As I have previously said, this DELIBERATELY FALSE ASSERTION by Obama as to the MURDER of an American ambassador DISQUALIFIES hiim from being Pesident of tghe Uunited States, and would be basis for IMPEACHMENT if the American peole were not shortly going to give tgheir verdict on Obama anyway. I have never meant any more statement more than I mean this one, in the decade of this blog.  To me, it is an illustratin of how BAD the Obama Administration is witht he turh that peole seem to eXPECT this kind of truely disgraceful LIE form him (our Liarf-in-Chief).

There is now doubt thatt Obama AVOIDS the use of the word "terror" with Muslim attacks for POLITICAL REASONS and IDEOLOGICAL RFEASONS (blame America and Americans first syndrome). 

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

Monday, September 24, 2012

Gloria Borger and CNN: Most Dishonest People Who Have Ever Lived

Read the previous article on Social Security, and then consider one of the main DISHONEST "talking points"/mantras of CNN:  I have specifically seen it with Erin Burnett and Gloria Borger, but I am absolutely certain that it is a CNN Big Lie (see Orwell's "1984").  It is "pure' propoaganda, REPEATED overr and over again with the idea people will beging to believe it.  I aam talking about his FALSE assertin that Mitt Romney was referring to epole on SOCIAL SEUCURITY when he made that off-hnad comment about the "47%" of Americans who do not pay taxes, and are dependent on government "benefits".

CNN (Borger, Burnett, et. al.) first makes the FALSE assumption that Social Security is an ordinary government BENEFIT program, that peopole have not PAID FOR.  See the rpevius article.  That is a FALSE assumption, asSocial Security (unlike food stamps, Medicaid, Medicarfe, earned income tax crfedit, etc.) is supposed to be a SELF-FUNDING program. If lpeole paid as much money--as much money as MOST of them have paid--into a real retirement plan, whith personal accounts where the money was INVESTED for them (as in counties that have rEJECTEd Social Seucirty), peole would getr MORE than they get in "benefits" from Social Secuirty.  Thus, is is a Big Lie to suggest that peole who recieve money from Social Secuirty are GENEARLLY receiving "government benefits".  They are receiving RETIREMENT BENEFITS for which they have PAID (even if their payments have not gone into a vested retirement account for them but have been used for CuRRENT RETIREES in a classic Ponzi scheme manner). Trying to make Social Seucirty nito a goverfnent WELFARE progrram is what CNN DESIRES (see previous article again), but it is so far mainly FALSE. 

Are there not SOME peole who receive Social Security who have paid in NOTHING (or very little)?  Of course,.  As I said in the previous article, there are relatively MINOR "welath redstributin" elements in Social Seucrity, but it is peole like Obama (and those of CNN) ho want to make Social Security into a MASSIVE WEALTH REDISTRIBUTIN PROTRAM, insstead of the self-funding RETIREMENT PROGRAM it is supposed to be (even if it was set up wrong).   Now there ARE peole who are TAKING ADVANTAGE of Social Secrity (such as the explosion in DISABILITY payments, which should not even be part of Social Seucirty UNLESS Social Security were made into a REAL retiremnt/disability plan with INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS. that are VESTED).  Then there are immigrants who come into this country AT RETIREMENT AGE, and become qualified for Social Security benefits witthout ever paying into the system. Thus, thre are some elements of Social Seucrity that come within the problem of peole taking advantage of benefits to which they should not be entitled.  Romney, by the way, did NOT say that there everyone who did not pay income taxes was "imoral", or a bad person.  He jsut said that the "47%" were not really very receptive to his MESSAGE on cutting income taxes, since they don't pay income taxes anyway.  Rmney SHOULD have said that--missing an opportunity, as usual) that he does have a challenge getting thrugh to those in the 47% who think they are "benefitting" from government "reebies", not eralizing that dependency on government is COSTING them more than they can possibly afford.  But that is another issue.  The porblem here is that it is a bald-faced LIE that Romney meant to say that "peole on Social Security" are "not receptive' to his message. 

Nope.  IT is ABSURD to suggest that Romney "meant" to WRITE OFF peole "on Social Security" (like me) when he referred to that 47%.  NO ONE--not even Gloria Borger, Erin Burnett and the others at CNN--coululd possiblyl be so STuPID as to believe that Romney meant to say that people on Social Security are "dependent" on the government",, and look at themselves that way.  Do peole who have PAID INTO Social Security look at themselves as getting "welfare" from the government?  Don't be absurd, and it is IMOSSIBLE that Romney meant that.  This means taht Gloria Borger, Erin Burnett and CNN are DISHONEST, rather than jsut stupid.  Sure,m you can argue that the 47% is NOT A REAL NUMBER, to the extent it includes RETIRED people (from AGE, not "disability" retirement).  But CNN is so DISHONESTLY PARRTISAN that they insist on REPEATEDLY saying that Romney was referencing Social Secirty retirees, instead of people receiving WELFARE-type benefits (food stamps, Medicaid, even Medicare--although not entirely welfare, obviusly, actual welfare, etc.). Does Romney's "ponit' depend on the "47%" number being totally ACCURATGE?  Of course not . TOO MANY peoople are being BRIBED byt he government, INCLUDING peole in the middle class. And we cannot keep having FEWER and FEWER people FINANCING our entire government (including welath transfers to other peole form the peole financing the government). 

You doubt me (abut CNN diishonesty)?  Never do that.  It just make s you look like a fool.  What does CNN (includng Borger and Burnett) do whenever OBAMA makes a statemetn that CAN be construed as stupid and overbroad?? Right.  CNN ALWAYS says that you can't take Obama "out of contexts", or constuere him literally when what he MEANT is something obviusly different.  Thus, CNN constantly referred to the IN CONTEXT statement of Obama that "you did not build tat" (referring to a successful small businessman who built a business) as "out of context", and constantly dennied that Obama cululd really have meant what he appeared to say (partially true, of course, as Obama clearly did not mean it to SOUND that way, e even if it is how Obama looks at things).  Then there is Obama' srecent statement that "you cannot chaNge Washington from the inside; you caN only chaNge it from thte outside."  Again, CNN was QUICK to saY that Obama obviusly did not mean that HE wasincapable of changing thigs from the inside, and that you should elect someone frfomt he OUTSIDE (like, say, Romney).  Again, ti iscerftainly true that Obama surely did not mean to say that you should VOTE FOR ROMNEY, as a perosn from the "outside", but that is vrituallyl waht Obama SAID.  Waht I am saying in this article is that yo can criticize Romney for "writing off" people, and for overstatemetn, but you are DISHOENST if you are GORIAL BORGER, ERIN BURNETT or the others of CNN:  purporting to believe that it is OBVIUS taht Romney was referring to peole on Social Seucirty.  What is OBVIOUS, of courfse, is that Romney was NOT referring to RETIREES fro ANY retirement program, including Social Secuirty.  You may not lie Romney (I don't, POLITICALLY, although he seems like a perfectly good human being), but it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to believe he is INSANE, or really was saying that he is "writing off" everhone over age 565.  That is the "gotcha" "interpretatino" of tghe MOST DISHOENST PEOLE WHO HAVE EVER LIVED, and the WORST HYPOCRITES who have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four. Gloria Borger and Erin Burnett, this means YOU (and you others at CNN).

Now the headline I did non my previous article about the LIES of Erin Burnett had a "question mark" at the end.  Whey did I leave the questin mark off this time?  Well, to be honest, I go back and forth.  I really should, I supose, simply erfer to these people of NN as AMONG the msot dishonest who have ever lived, and leave it at that.  In that previus article, I concluded that Erin Burnett was NOT as dishoenst as Bernie Madoff (to use one example) . But I have RETHOUGHT this conclusion.  yes. It is true that Erin Burnett is not as dishonest in a CRIMINAL manner as peole like Bernie Madoff, or (say) Jesse James.  However, is this the ony way to look at dishoensty?  I don't think so.  Do Erin Burnett, Gloria Borger, and CNN do MORFe DAMAGE tto MORE PEOLE than Bernie Madoff, Jesse James, and AlL of tgh e rest? Is tehe CNN dishonesty more PERVASIVE, and affect MORE PEOLE (inclduing KILLING Americans overseas with things like overhyping this anti-Muslim movie).  I hink so, even though CN has the RATINGS of a TEST PATTERN.  This mainstream media dishoensty, as to which I use CNN as a POSTGER CHILD, really does more damage to more people thann any 'historical" CRIMINAL I caN think of.  As I say, I go back and forth on this.  Thus, you may still see me do this headline again with a questin mark, where I settle for merely sayiong tCNN peole are SOME of the most dishoenst peole who have ever livbed (safer, and probably mroe correct).  But this "Scoial Seucirty" stuff, and OVERHYPE of this "candid video", annoys me so mcuh that I am willing to do without the wimpy caveats. 

Gloria Borger has been FEATURED in this very same capacity (as a LIAR, and DISHOENST) time and time again.  That is another reason the queston mark ws left off the hedline.  Borger is a SERIOAL LIAR.  No shame at all, and not turht at all in her.  For example, she insisted gthat this "candid tape" of Romney was "important' (it is not) because it shows Romney saing one thing in private and another in ublic.  FALSE.  That is exaclty what the tape does NOT do  Oh, the tae shoe Romney saying thihngs eh would probably nto say in a prpared remarks (unlike Obama, who makes many of HIS GAGGES in public seettings, although there havve also been SOME l"private" recordings).  But Romney has not said wildly DIFFERFENT things in pubic. He has said SiMILAR things: just not as "off the cuff" and BLUNT--as you would expect in a "private' setting).  No. Goria Borger IS at least equal to the most DIISHOENST peole who have ever lived.  She ins incapable of telling the truth.  Often, she is probably so STUPID as to not have any idea of what the truth is.  But that is not the case here, and often not the case.  EvenGloria Borger, as stated, is not THIS TUPID.  No, but hse IS this DISHOENST> 

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

Social Security Analysis: Obama and Democrats Want toDestroyo SocialSecurity by Making It Just Another Government Welfare/Dependency Program

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR, my 90 year old mother's hero, even as she despioses Obama) set upSocial Security as a SELF-FUNDING RETIREMENT PROGRRAM, where EVERYONE contributes to the program (supposedly, except for people 65 at the time it was strated) , and EVERYONE receives retirement benefits form the program. Unlike the income tax, Social Security funding was set up like a REAL retirement plan, where ALL workers contribute not only the same percentate of their earned income to the program, but the FUNDING is LIMITED so that some people ("the rich") do not pay a MASSIVE amount more into the program than they ever can hope to 'recover".  In other words, you onlly "contribute" to the program on earned income up to around $100,0000, and (unlike the Medicarfe tax) do not pay a "Social Security tax" on ALL income (which would make Social Security a massive WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION program, as would "paying for' Social Seucirty out of the progessive INCOME TAC.

Ino other words, Social Security was NOT set up--for the future, anyway, except for the relatively small number of initial retirees) as a WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION ptogram. However, since FDR we hae steadily moved Social Security more and more toward being solely a wealth  redistributiohn/welfare program, rahter than the SELF-FUNDING "retirement program" it was supposed to be.  FDR's iea was that Americans did not WANT a wealth redistributin program, but wanted a RETIREMENT program where they cuuld feel they were ALL comntgritubing to a retirment program for ALL. FDR's idea was that the only way to get Social Security passed, and to have it survive in the long term, was to have it be a REITREMETN PROGRAM FOR ALL, rather than just another government "relief"/welfare progrram.  FDR was right, but Obama and ohhter leftist Democras (including leftist media and too many GOP estalbishment peole) WANT Social Seucirty to be just another mssive wealth redistributin program/welfare program funded by "the rich".  They WANT Social Security to be FUNDEd by the PROGRESSIVE income tax, which would destory Social Seucirty as FDR set it up.  It will be the beginning of the end for Social Security, and lprobably for this country.  Once Social Secuirty turns into merely a MASSIVE welath redistributgin prgram, instad of the MILD one it presently is where the IDEA has baeen maintained that EVEYONE pays into the probram not TOO disproportionately to what they can expect to get out. 

Problem, as my brother, the accountant, pints out:  Social Security was set up WRONG. No, the concept is not wrong of what amounts to a fORCED retirement program where everyone is forced to contribute part of their wages to a retirement plan.  But if a PRIVATE employer set up a RETIREMENT plan like Social Security, as my brotehr pointed out when he was co-owenr of a bussiness, that private employer would GO TO JAIL.  That is because Social Security (as Rick Perry said) is set up as a PONZI SCHEME, instead of as a real retirment program.

Do the "contributions" (Social Security taxes you and your employer pay into the Social Seucirty program) go to fund our OWN retirment?  If you knoow anything, you know that this is NOT SO.  Your "contributins" to the retirement program go to FUND the BENEFIT PAYMENTS TO CURRENT RETIREES. This is the very definition of a Ponzi sschem, where "contributions" from present "contributors" into the scheme do not go into a rEAL ACCOUNT for the contributors, but go to pay off PRESENT DISTRIBUTEES (for as lng as possible). Thus, your "contributions" to Social Secuirty do NOT go to fund a PERSONAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT, with the money being "invested" for YOU . Your contirbuitns give you NOTHING but a "promise' to give yu SOME KIND of "retirment benefits" in the future, whikle the acutal money goes to PRFESENT RETIREES.  It is actauly wore than that.  You cannot ENFORCE the government "promise". In other words, the GOVERNMENT does regard the Social Secuirty prtram as a government program--not a true retirment plan with "esting" and all of the rest--where the government has thePOWER to REDUCE or CUT OFF benefits.

You can see what is wrong here.  Since you have no OWNERSHIOP interest in a RETIREMENT ACCOUNT or RETIRMENT PLAN which you can ENFORCE, it is easy for peole like Obama, leftist Democrats--incluidng the leftist media--and others to regard Social Seucrity as jsut another government program funded by TAXES  (like any other taxes--rather than being CONTRIBUTINS toward a retirment plan aht is self-funding). My accountant brother even fell into this trap: the accountanmt idea that money is "fungible", and that money taken from you by the Federal Gvoernment represents TAXES like any other tases. Now it is true that you can regard Social Seucrity as NOT a self-funding rETIREMENT PROGRAM at alll,but as jsut another government program where BOTh the funding aAND the benefits can be CHANGED according to your political philosophy.  That is how Obama and leftist Democrats (including the wealth redistributin peooiple of CNN) look at Social Security: an OPPORTUNITY to CHANGE it into the WEALTH REDISTRIBUTIN welare program it should ALWAYS have been.  I, , on the other hand, look at Social Seucirty as a program that should be turned into a rEAL RETIREMENT PLAN, with REAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS for people contributing to the program. This wouuld have been EASY to do when FDR set up the grogram.  The problem now is that Social Secuirty taxes are being used to PAY PRESENT BENEFITS.  This makes it now HARD to BOTH pay resent benefits, and set up a rEAL RETIRMENT PLAN with present Social Secuirty "taxes" (conributins).  But it will be DISASTER to DISCARD the ideaa of Social Seucirty as a retirement program AT ALL, and treat it as jsut another government wealth  redistributin/welfare probram to "soak the rich" and "help the poor".. 

Segue to New Mexico State University, circa 1967-1968:  an "honors" Social Studies class in which Tlhe Maverick Conservative had this same argument with the professor.  I told the class, an the professor the turth:  Social Seucirty is a BAD retirement plan/insurance program and a BAD welfare progaram (bad wealth redistributin program, because of those elements that try to make it at least LOOK like a real, selffunding retirement program).  The professor ended up defending the program as a WELFARE program. So I asked him:  "Why not be HONEST, then, and SAY that it is a welfare program, and not continue this FRAUD that it is a eral retirement program?  Professor's anser: "Gordon, I can't believe yu don't realize the elderly need thei rDIGNITY.  We NEED to let them have this dignity by continuing to treat Social Security as a retirement program, where our retirement is funded by your CONTRIBUTINOS to the program. The way the program is set up may not be defensible as a real retirement program (as my brother says, peole would TO TO JAIL), but it is close enough to give the elderly dignity and keep peole from beng destitute in their old age." 

Do you understand what is happening NOW?  I hipe so.  Obama, leftist Democrats, the leftist media (CNN and the rest), and other are saying this;  To HELL with dignity.  We don't CARE about DIGNITY.  We dont CARE about ERSPOSIBLITY, where peole at elast have some seembalnce of "contribuiting" to their own retirement like anyone else.  We WANT redistribution of weath.  We WANT EVERYNOE to FEEL that they are DEPENDENT on the GOVERNMENT.  Notice lthat my professor was saying that elederly, peole, at least in 1967, wanted to feel that they had EARNED and PAID FORF the Social Security benefits tghat they receive, and that they are not receiving CHARITY.  People like Erin Burnett and Gloria Borger--well aLL of CNN--believe that peole KNEED to BELIVE that Social Seucirty is a GIFT FROM THE GOVERNMENT upon which all of us conserative hypocrites DEPEND--even if we PAID far more into the program than we will ever get out, and certainly paid for a TERRIBLE "retirement program" when we could have PURCHASED an INFINITELY better retirement plan/annuity with the same amont of money.  This idea that Social Security benefits are merely a GOVERNMENT BENEFIT (at their mercy and "discretion") for all peole who receive Social Secuirty is a Big Lie.  It exposes the other Big Lie:  that Social Security was ever really a "retirement program", even though taht was how it was supposedly set up.  

However, think how BAD it is that Obama, leftist Democrats and our leftist media no lnoger think that peole even NEED to believe that they are paying for their own retirement, or that money is not being taken from other peole to GIVE to them.  Has our country realy come to this?  Hve we FALLEN this far since FDR, when people like my MOTHER believed taht FDR wanted people to WORK for what they got, and to PAY for what they got? I don't think the COUNTRY is at this state yet, depite Romney's faiure to tell the "47%" that it is the Obama/leftist/media deire to KEEP them as DEPENDENTS that is COSTING them more than they can ebver afford.  (No, by the way, Romney has not said, despite LIAR Gloria Borger and LIAR Erin Burnett, and the other LIARS of The Liar Network, that people receiving Social Security benefits are "dependents' of the government or "sponging off other ppeole--the kin d of contentin worse than my own contention that Obama has ENDORSED Romney as  a person "outside Washington>).

Why can't the GOP make hay with thie idea that Social Secuirty hsould be a REAL retirement plan, whre poople acutally have ACCOUNTS of their own that CANOT BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM?  Because the present "struture" of Social Secuirty bad as it is, represents a "sacrfed cow"?  I have just explained to you how Obama, leftist Democrats and our lefitst media are willing to DISCARD the entire concept of Social Seuciryt as a self-funded retirement program whre people PAY FOR their own retirement benefits, in faovr of a t total WELATH REDISTRIBUTIN MODEL.  That is a REAL DESTRUCTIN of the original concept of Social Security. But somehow the GOP cannot seemt to even slow doen the Obama/Democrat/media march toward Social Security as a massive wealth redistributin program, even though it is obvius to me that most peole don't wantt it to be that.  That fraudulent "payroll tax cut" was that every thing:  a CONVERSIN of part of Social Secuirty from a self-funded retirement program to wealth redistribution.  The next article will go into this FAILURE of the GOP to even defend the NO BRAINER idea that Social Security should be a REAL RETIREMENT PROGRAM that the Federal Government cannot just take away from yu after you have paid for it.  Hereman Cain tried to take this on, and got NO support. WHY?  Is it because GOP politicians are almost ALL Big Goverfnment, "dpendency" kind of peole at heart, who are ereally like Obama, leftist Democrats and the lefitst medai; WANTGING peoe to believe the FEDERAL POLITICIANS are "giving them" even something that they have PAID FOR (like Social Seucirty)?  My answer is obvius: GOP politicians ARE about as bad as Obama and our leftist medai.  But I will go into it further in the nextg article (or in the next feew days, whenver I have the time to do what will be part II of tghis article). 

In the meantime, I want you to THINK ABOUT IT.  Just how BAD are GOP politicians that they can't even DEFEND the idea of a self--fudinn g Social Security program OR sell the diea that we need a rEAL retirement program where people have INDIVIDUCAL ACCOUNTS THAT CANNOOT BE TAAKEN AWAY FROM THEM?  Sometimes, peole think I am too harsh on the GOP.  Whenever I think about this, I KNOW that I am NOT HARSH ENOUGH.  I wil explain it all further to you in part II.

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

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Obama, Democratic Congress and Bailout Ben Bernanke: To Blame for Economic Mess That GOP House Has Inherited

Hacker Boy (hacking into this disgraceful blg in the interest of truth, despite the ridicule Skip heeps upon me, and no longer bothering to deny Skip's assertin that I am Piers Morgan using the hacking skills I learned as an employee of a Rupert Murdoch company in Britain):  "Skip, I can't even believe that yu are going to have the unmitigated gall to do what the headline suggests you are going to do:  BLAME Obama and the Democrats in Congress for the economic collapse atthe end of the Bush Presidency.  Even yu, as outrageous as you are, could not possible try that.  Tel me it isn't so."

Skip:  "Ah, Hacer Boy knows me so well.  While I would not go so far as to absolve President Bush of all blame, it is absurd to say that President Bush--who I disowned in this blog in 2006--was any more responsible for our economic problems that happened in 2008 than Obama and the Democratic Congress of 2007-2008 (Democrats taking control of both houses of Congress in the 2006 electins), and the Fed Chairman (appointed in relatively early 2006, and thus the most powerfu financial person "presiding" over the Federal Reserve faiure during the crucial 2 year period before the economic collapse/financial "crisis" in the fall of 2008, and the worst recession cince the Great Depression, beginning in January of 2008)."

Barack Obama was eleted to the United States Senate in 2004.  He became part of teh Democrat majority in Jaunuary of 2007. Democrats in that Conggress ARE to BLAME for the terrible recession of 2008, and that includes Senator Brarack Obama.

Lookk at the facts  The "Bush economy" had totally rECOVERED from the Clinton recssin of 2000, which began the Bush Presidency, and from the twin "disasters" of the 9/11 attack and the Enron-WorldCom financial shennigans (a followup to the bursting of the Nasdaq tech bubble that rose under Clinton, when the Enron/WorldCom-type financial games began).   The "Bush economy" ws doing WELL in 2006, and into 2007.  Jobas wre being created.  Unemplyment wsa 5% and UNDER (full emplyment). 

What happened?  Democrats assumed control of CONGRESS in Janaury of 2007, after Bailut Ben Bernanke had been apponted Chairman of the Federal Reserve in mid-2006.  Now it is ture that President Bush apponted Bernanke, but it is DEMOCRATS who have LOVED that choice, and still do  Obama reapponted Bernanke, and you can assume that Obama and Democrats APPROVEd of what Bernanke did id--or did not do--in 2006-2007. Unlike the GOP House NOW, Democrats have NEVEr compalined abut Baillout Ben (The Worst Failure in the History of World Finance). 

Thus, WHAT CHANGED in January of 207 was that OBAMA/DEMOCRATS assueed control of Congres, and Bailut Ben Bernanke (pursuing Democrat/liberal financial policies) settled in attthe Fedeeral Reserve.  Given that FACT, expaln to me (if yu canm, and yoiu can't) why Obama and the otgher De mocrats in Congress, along with Bernanke, are not the OBVIUS people to BLAME for the recession of 2008?  They ASSUMEDL POWER, and the recesskin/economic collapse happened.  Even before 2007, whch is why I disowned him in 2006, Presdient Bush had turned over DOMESTIC POLIOCY to the Democrats in Congress.  Indeed, in 2996 Bush named Hank Paulson--ADMOCRAT FAVORITE, and basicallly a DEMOCRAT himself from DEMOCRAT dominated Goldman Sachs, and who Democrats NEVER criticized to the very end) to be Secretary of teh Treasury.  Was President Bush part of al of this?  Sure.  But CONTROL was now in the hands of DEMOCRATS, and people who believed in DEMOCRAT (leftist) "solutions" to economic threats.  It is no ACCIDENT that the FIRST "stimulus" was the Obama/Bush/Democrat FAILUED "stimulus"  in the spring and summer of 20008 (that $6000 welfare payment to almost everyone). 

It awas always absurd--although a lpint Joh MccAin was both unable to make, because it applied to HIM as well, and unwilling to make) to say that Obama "inherited" the "economic mess" from President Bush.  Obama WAS THERE.  He was PART OF THE POLICIES THAT LED TO THE RECESSION.  Democrats were virtualy in CONTROL of economic policy in 2007 and 2008.  I tis much more accurate to say thatt he GOP HOUSE has NOW "inhherited" the economic mess created by DEMOCRAT/leftist policies (which Bush did not adequately fight), than it is to say that Obama "inherited" the "economic mess" that he HELPED CREATE (along with Democrats who thoiught exactly like himm, such as nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid).  What did SNATOR OBAMA even PROSE that was DIFFERENT fromt he policies being pursued in 2007 and 2008?

What, by the way, DEMOCRATS propose to address teh "financial manipulations"  that were such a problem in 2001 and 2002--a proposal aCCEPTED by the GOP land which became law? Yep.  That is how we got the "bipartisan" Sarbanes-Oxley bill imposing all kinds of PAPERWORK on businesses, while accomplishing NOTHNING.  We always "fight the last war, and wvae a Federal Government "magic wand" that never has any magic.  If you remember, like the Obama/Democrat "financial refomr" bill, Sarbanes Oxyley was supposed to "REFORM" financial reorting by businesses, so that we would never hav3e the "Enron problem" again.  WRONG.  Our banks and mortgage companies engaged in similar kinds of financial manipulations, and Sarbanes Oxlye DID NOT HELP.  Instead, Democrats and the media were so busy pushing  "stimulus" (even before Obama) that the CANCER eating at the economy was totally ignored by OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS in contorol of domestic policy (including Bernanke and Paulson, whether they were nominally "Democrats" or not:  It is no accident that John Corzine, prominent Democrat governor, and Hank Paulson came out of Goldman Sachs at about the same time).

"But, Skip, the PRESIDETN is 'in charge'.  Presidetn Bush may have allowed Democras to control domestic policy from 2006-2008, if not before, but he was still in charge."  Are you really that much of a HYPOCRITE, like CNN.  Soyou AGREE that President Obama cannot BLAME the GOP HOUSE for his FAILURe to improve the economy?  It is actualy absurd to say that the President is SOLELY responsible for everything.  But--especially in his first two years--Obama was MORE IN CONTROL of policy than Bush ever was.  Bush NEVER had that kind of majority in Congress, and even now the GOP only contorls ONE HOUSE of Congress. Even when the GOP controlled both houses of Congress, in the early years of Bush (when the eocnomy was doing WElL, at full emplyment), Bush NEVER had enough of a majortiy in the Seante to overcome Democratic oppositoin there.  Bush could never even get his PERMANENT taxt cuts trhough, and that was a HUGE PROBLEM for the economy over the Obama years. That ten-year "sunset" of teh Bush tax cuts" set our economy up for DISASTER, and Obama and the Democarats have made sure that DISASTER has occurred.  The YEARLY "fight" and UNCERTAINY over the fate of teh "Bush tax cuts" has done as much to sTOP A RECOVERY as anything else (with the possible exception of looming ObamaCare).  To the extent Presdient Bush "got" what he wanted, it was generaly DEMOCRAT policy.  The ONLY "exceptino" was the Bush tax cuts, on domestic policy, and the continued THREAT of the EXP:IRATIN of the Bush tax cuts has SABOTAGED the ecoomy. 

Q.E.D.  There is a BETTER case for BLAMING Obama and the Democrats in Congress for the 2008 recession, and non-recovery, that the GOP House has INHERITED, than there is for blaming Presdient Bush for an "economic mess" that Obama and the Democrats "inherited".  Obama and the Democrats CREATD the "economic mess" in the first place, or--at the very least--wre part of the RULING GROUP wo created it.

As stated, I am not "absolving" Presdient Bush.  But the RECORD shoes how absurd it is to say that President Obama and the Democrats "inherited" the "ecnomic mess" from President Bush--when it was THEIR policies, at least as much as thouse of Presdient Bush (if not more), which created the "econnomic mess" in tahe first place.

I will go further.  You can "blame" President Bush for foreign policy, if you wish, even though President Oba ma has CONTINUE$D Bush's foreign policy (except Obama has disastrously used much weaker languae and attitude, even as the ACTIONS have been pretty much the same).  As I have said repeatedly, Obama is now in "Bush's thrid term", especially in domestic policy, only worse. The problem is that President Bush was NEVER a "conservative", except wtih regard to taxes. An dBush policy on taes was UNDERMINED from the bginnigng by that ten-year limit (forced upon Bush to get it passed).  The expiratin of the "Bush tax cuts" has hung over the eoncomy for YEARS, beginning in the last years of teh Bush Administratino, and it is not too much to say that Democrrat obstructionism has kept our tax poolciy IRRATIONAL for at least 5 years, as it has been impossible for business peole to now where tax policy is headed for at least that period of time.

Bottom line, however, is that it is Obama and the Democratic Congress, along with Bailout Ben Bernanke  (honorary or real Democrat) and a President Bush unwilling to really fight for consrvative principles, who created the "economic mess" that the GOP Housae has "inherited" (without power to do much about it, although my position is that they have not done nearlly as much as they could have done). So much for the Big Lie that Presdient Obama "inherited" this "ecoomic mess" from Presdietn Bush. Simply not ture.

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

Friday, September 21, 2012

President Obama: Vote for Mitt Romney (2012 Presidential Election Over/)

Since one of the twomain candidates havs advised voters they should vote for the OTHER candidate, dos that mean the 2012 Presidential electino is now over?  It would appear so, now that Barack Obama has essentailly endorsed Mitt Romney for President.

Hacker Boy (again hacking into thid disgraceful blog in the interst of truth, justice and the American way, while no longer botghering to deny Skip's continued assertion that I am Piers Morgan, using the hacking skills I leaarned as a British emplyee of a Rupert Murdoch compnay):  "Skip, I can't even beieve how you keep getting worse: more dishoenst with every one of these ridiculous assertions.  You know that Presdient Obama has NOT endorsed Mitt Romney, or said that Mitt Romney should be President."

Skiep:  "I jsut love Hacker Boy, otherwise known as Piers Morgan.  I can always depend on him to take the bait, and give me the opportunity to pund home my pint.. Hacker Boy, what do you think about the following:": 

Presdietn Obama, in recent interview/statement, I hink to Univisioni, although I am not certain of that:  "The most important thing I have learned (as President) is that you can't change Washington from the inside.  You can only change Washington from the outside.'. 

Now, Hacker Boy, jsut how do construe that as anything but an ENDROSEMENT of Mitt Romney. At the very least, it is a statement that voters havve NO reason to vote for Barack Obama.  Obama has been insie Washington, as PRESIDENT, for almost 4 years now.  He is candidly telling everoyone that he has LEARNED that he CNNOT CHANGE WASHINGTON from the inside.  WHY, then, would anyone voe for him  First, Obama has admitted that he has GIVEN UP on being able to "change" Washington.  Second, Mitt Romney--more than Barack Obama was in 2008--is a person OUTSIDE WASHINGTON. Did not Barack Obma just TELL you voterersxs to vote fro Romney, because the only CHANCE to "change" Washington is for a person to come in from  the OUTSIDE.  Sure, Obama is probably telling you that Romney will be CORRUPTED  and/or FRUSTRATED once he is INSIDE Washignton, as Obama himself has been, but has not Obama just told voters that their only CHANCE to chaNge Washington is to bring a person like ROMNEY in form the outside, in the hihopes that he will be ablet o make changes BEFORE  he becomes a Washington "insider" unable to change things from the INSIDE? There is really no other logical interpretatin of what Obama said.  And Obama has actually given voters ANOTHER reason to vote for ROMNEY.  Since Obama is TELLING you voters that he canONLY "change Washignton" from the OUTSIDEE, why is he not telling voters to UT H:IM ON THE OUTSIDE, where he can do more GOOD than being on the "inside"/?  Hacker Boy, perhaps you can telll me just what is wrong with this reasoning?  Am I not correct that Presdient Obama has told voters to VOTTE FOR ROMNEY--at least if they want "chaNge" in Washngon (which Obama is clearly telling voters is a DESIRABLE tghing)? 

Hacker Boy:  "mumble, growl, mumble..  I can't believe he said that.  Okay, Skip, you  KNOW you are being dishonest here, and that Obama didd not really MEAN that.  ButI admit you can consture what he SAID that way.  I have to admit that Obama appears to be channeling his inner Sarh Palin here."

Skip:  "No, Hacer Boy, Sarah Palin NEVER said anything this STUPID.  I think Obama was channeling his inner Joe Biden.". 

By the way, it was always ABSURD for Obama to be talking aoubt "coming to WaShington to change things" in 2008.  I NEVER undersood how he got away with that.  Obama was ALWAYS--since 2004--partr of the Washington PROBLEM, and NOT part of teh "solution".  It is WRONG for Obama to talk about what he INHERITED.  He did NOT INHERTIT these problems.  He was part of CREATING these problems: PART of tghe "inside Washignonton" crowd in 2008.  Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004.  What did he DO, or even ADVOCATE, between 2004 and 2008 to "change Wasignton".  Obama himself, BEFORE he became President, is a prime example of what President Obama has "learned":  that politicians (like Obama) CANNOT "change Washington" from the "inside'.  Obama did NOT come to the Presidency from the "outside" (aS ROMNEY can claim to do).  Obama came to the Presidency from the INSIDE. In fact, DEOMOCRATS took CONTEROL of AlL of Congress in 2006.  The HYPOCRITGES of our media talk about how the GOP haS to be regarded asresponsible for some of the FAILURE now that the GOP has control of the House, bu DEMOCATS had CONTROL--including Obama in this MAJORITY--of BOTH HOUSES of Conggress starttng in January of 2006.  Bush pretty much went aalong with THEIR domestic policy What is this LIE about Obama and tghe Democrats "inheriting' the Bush economic collapse.  Obama and he Democarst were PART of the FAILURE of the last two Bush years, with their MAJORITY in Congress pretty much CONTROLLING domestic policy. 

Why is the GOP unable to pint out this FRAUD of the Democrats disclaiming "accountability" for the tie after Democrats TOOK CONTROL of Congress in January of 2007 (after 2006 elections). Indeeed, yu coul argue that DEMOCRATWS bear PRIME responsibility for the 2008 ecconomic collapse, since the only thing thatCHANGAED fro  the STRONG economy in 2006-2007 was that DEMOCRATS took conrol of Congeress.  How can the GOP LOSE this "debatte'?  It boggle s my mind. 

Now that Obama has said THIS, who can the GOP possibly NOW "lose' this argument on who has a better CHANCE to "chaNge" Washingon" from the OUTSIDE?  I don't know.  But I have confidence in the GOP "estalbishment'.  The problem is that they do not BELIEVE in conservative principles, which mmeas they just vcna't seem to DISAVOWW "Washington insiders'.  That is the REAL reason that the GOP just seems UNABLE to attakc Prsident Obama as a FALED Washington INSIDER partly responsible fo r the BUSH FAILURE (as weell as Obama's own faiure). 

No. I have not changed my miind about NOT supporting Romhey.  But look at how BAD Obama haS done the paat 10 days.  He has BUNGLED the reactin to the LIBYAN TERORIST ATTACK.  Indeed, as I have stated, Obama has done the WORST \thing I have EVER seen an American President do--probably the WORST thing an American President has EVER DONE:  Obama has LIED to the American people about the MURDRE of an American ambassador (for only the 6th time in American history), for POLITICAL RFEASONS.  As I have stated, this is NOT ACCEPTABLE, and DISQUALIFIES Obama from considerratin for Presdient of the United States.  Now Obama has said that HE has LEARNED that HE cannot change Washington from the "inside", because it can ONLY be changed from the "outside". 

How can ANYONE vote for a man like this, who has also ABAnDONED FREE SPPECH in his "balme Americans first" policy. My borhter think sRoney is running the worst CAMPAIGN for Presdient EVER, becasue Romney SHULD be ahead by 15%.  I agree on the campaing, although I DISREEGARD polls as a matter of principle and experiene.  President Carter, even on the FINAL WWEEKNED, was said BY THE MEDIA (based on their view of polls) to be in a TOOSS UP electin.  Regan won in wha amounts to a LANDSLIED (over an incumbent Prfesident).   Unelss the economy IMPROVES, which I don't see happening by electin day, I see this happening to Prfesident Obam--even as the media is in DENIAL relying on their "interpretation" of POLLS.  But think how MUCH Romney would win by if he were a GOOD candidate?  It boggles the mind. 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesigh).  Does Romney really give YOU the impressin taht he wants to "change" Washington, except give us a better MANAGER?  Me neither.  That is why I stil can't support Romney, even though I agee wwith 3 of my brothers that our natin may not be able to SURVIE 4 more years of Obama.  Obama gave us "poliics as usual" from the FAR LEFT.  He has now essentially admitted that.  Romney will give us "politics as usual" as well, but NOT forom tgh "ar rihgt'.  Rather, I am convinced Romney will merely be "Obama-light", with LESS "conservativve" opposition.  But ANYONE who votes for Obama shuld do so ywith your eyes open:  you are voting to DESTROY the country, (as we have known it). By ABSTGAINING, am I voting to destory the country?  Maybe, but ONLY if yu believe that voting for Romney does nto represent the SAME type of vote.  3 of my brotghers say that Rmney at least gives us a CHANCE.  Obama, at least, seems to agree with those 3 brothers.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Obama and Libya: Liar-in-Chief Proves He Should NOt Be President (Ruining Susan Rice)

What can ou say about a President and an Administraitn that has CONTINUED to try to make the MURDER of a U.S ambassador (and three other Americans) all about a "spontaneous demonstratin" relating solely to an anti-Muslim video, when that is obiuvsly UNTRUE?  "Iarin-in-Chief" is jstu not adequate for this attempt by Obama and the Obama Administratin to be DISHOENST about the MURDER of Amerian citizens.  I am sorry.  A President who will LIE this way, and have his entire Administratin out there LYING about MURDER of Americans, is NOT QUALILFIED to be Prfesident Of the United States.  What am I saying?  He is not "qualified" to be dogcatcher of Mt. ida, Arkansas.

Basically EVERYONE (okay,MABYE not MSNBC) now agrees that the murderous attack on ur conssulate in Libya was a PREPLANNED TERRORIST ATTACk which was PLANNED to occur on 91// .  The Presdient of LIBYA is saing that it was a PREMEDITATED ATATACK.  One of our main counterterrorism officials has said the same thing.  Even CNN is reporting that the attack that MURDERED our abassador in Libya was a PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACK, where LIBYAN OFFICIALS had WARNED us in Libya that the situatin was very DANGEROUS days before the 9/11 atttack. 

Meanwhile, Obama sent the poor woman ambassador to the United Natins out to EMBARRASS herself and her sex, on something like FIVE "interview shows" on Sunday.  Her meassagfe was the same LYING message the Obama Adminitratin put out IMMEDIATELY : that the MURDER in Libya was a "spontaneous" attack triggered by that anti-Muslim video.  EVERONE except the Obama Adminstratin now agrees that is a LIE, and the Obama Administratin is actually heading in that direcitn (without ever admitting the EVILl they did by IMMEDIATELY triknig to SELL the idea that this attack in Libya was merely a "spoontaneous demonstratin" gone out of control.  I am sorry.  This is UNACCPETABLE.  Yes, i do believe this is an IMPEACHABLE offense: to LIE about the MURDER of American citizens for POLITICAL reasons.  However, it wouuld be CRAZY to actually try to "impeach" President Obama when his fate is in the hands of the VOTERS not much more than a month from now.  VOTERS have it in their power to "impeach" President Obama, and I really don't see wy ANYONE should support hi for Prfesident.

"But, Skip, you erfuse to support Romney.'  That is still true.  I can't support Romney, but I can't even IMAGNE how a person can vote for Barack Obama.  How can you vote for comeone wh won't even LOOK sqarely at the TRUTH of a terrorist attack that KILLS Americans because of POLITICAS and AGENDA.  The Obama positon--an EVIL positin--is that this TERRORIST MURDER in Libya was all about that "anti-Muslim" video, even though the EVIDENCE was to the contrary from the very beginning.  It turns out that there were NO DEMONSTRATINS even in progress when the TERRORIST ATTACK was launched.  No excuse for this  It is all part of the general Obama attempt to EVADE reposibility for FILURE of their Midle East Policy by making it ALL "aobut the video". 

Nope. Ths has been a TERRIBLE failure of leadership, indicating that President Obama NEVER sould havve been President at all.  Even now, the Obama Administratin is running ADS in Pakistan CONDEMNING TGHE "ANTI-MUSLIM VIDEO, but NOT "condemning" the Muslim VIOLENCE or attempts to INTIMIDATE free speech.  I stand by my conclusin:  The people of the Obama Administratin, as well as maInstream media peole, are BAD PEOLE for BLAMING AMERICANS FIRST, and basically DENYING the very concept of FREEDOM upon which this countgry is based.  Was it Pter who DENIED Christ three times?  I am not enough of a Bible scholar, or even a Christian, and do not remember for sure.  Btu how many times are we going to ACCEPT the Obama Administratin to DENY this country, and the principles for which it stands, before wwe say NO MOER. 

I really wish I could vote for Romney.  Can Gary Johnson win?  No. That is delustin, even if I will vote for him (much as aiI disagree on soeme things).  Just because I jsut can't stomach Romney, however, does not keep me from seeing OBAMA cllearly, as I see the people of the media who DISAVOW the principles that crfeated the United States of America.  Where are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton proclaiming:  "We disagree with what thiese filmmakers said, bout Americans will defend to the death their right to say it.' Where is CNN saying that?  Where are ANY of our mmainstream media peopl?  This has to be one of the most disgraceful abandonments of free speech in the history of this country

Note, owever, that the last paragraph applies to EGYPT and the rest of the Arab world, bruning our flag and engaging in HATE VIOLENCE against us.  Libya was a TERRORIST ATTACK that MURDERED our AMBASADOR. If I believe--as I do--that our government AND media reacin to EGYPT and other property attacks was EVIL and WRONG (this focus on a "video" merely USED by forces that hate us), then what do I think about the LIES that the Obama Administratin has ut out about LIBYA?  Words do not even describe it.  I don't kow if AnY American President has EVER done a WORE thing. 

I am absolutely certain that the Obama reactin to LIBYA wa POLITICAL, aNd based on a POLTICIAL AGENDA to BLAME everything that has happened in the ARab world, on this 9/11 and afterward, on the "anti-Muslim" move.  It is jsut NO T ACCEPTABLE to hve a President who thinks that way.  Ntocie that Romney is NOT really saying that, and has solrt of "bakced offf" (as usual) from his initial criticiasm of Obama.  Rmney anoys me.  Cant' stomach voting for him.  That does not change that the Obama reactin to LIBYA has been UNACCEPTABLE in a way that mandates that NO ONE vote for Obama. To me, the Obama reactin to EGYPT was unacceptable.  And there is evidence that the ETYPTIAN attack on our embasy was PREPLANNED to demand the rlease of the "blind sheik". But Libya is something like one THOUSAND times worse than Egypt, and we jsut can't have a Preisdent who tries to HIDE the facts aobut MURDER of Americazns.  It is not like almsot ANYONE believes the Obama Administraitn on Liibya: this "spontaneous demonstration" absurdity. 

If Presdient Obama had any HONOR, he would wITHDRAW from the Presidential race.  Don't hold our breeath.  In fact, despite CNN challenges to the Obama absurdities on Libya, con't hold your breath as to our media holding Obama TO ACCOUNT for his LIES on LIbya.  Won't happen.  Shuld happen, tough. 

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

Obama Loses 385,000 Jobs Last Week: NO Improvement from Previous Week; NO Improvement for Entire Year

Yu will note that I CORRECTED the dishonest Labor Dept. and our dishonest media in the headline.  The Labor Detp., as usual, reported today (Thursday) that the UNREVISED number of new unemplyment claims last week was 382,0000 (essentially the same weeky number with which we started the YEAR, and well above the range of 350,000 to 365,000 that we were supposedly in from mid-January to Mid-March (when our dishoenst media were saying taht we had "turned the corner"--exactly the same hhing they said in Febru;ary of 2010 and February of 2011. The 382,000 number is, of curse, a LIE, as the number will be REVISED next eek. And th eREVISION is ALWAYS UP by at laeast 2,000, and more often 3,000 (over past two years, although the revision wsa 2,000 more often for a brief number of weeks reccently, but I am back to predicting 3,000 as more likley).  Dubt me?  Present score since January of 2010 is The Maverick CVonservative 4,131  Labor Dept./Media 2. Or you can reverse it as to number of lIES over same period:  Labor Dept./Media 4,131, The Maverick Conservative 0 (mabye abut 2 INACCCURACIES, but which wre good faith estimates and analysis based on a corret view of previous data) 

All you have to do is go back to LAST WEEK, and the articles posted on this blog on Wednesday night, and Thursday.  Strangely ,last week the Labor Dept. reported the SAME number of new unemplyment calims for the previous week as was reported today for last week: 382,0000.  However, this blog told yo that number was a LIE, and woululd be REVISED this Thrusday to 384,000 or more. Right again.  The number was REVISED today to 385,0000.  That means that our DIISHONEST media (I read it on said this:  "Slightlyl fewer Americans filed for unemplyment benefits last week...."   .......................................Sorry........................................Sorty..................................Sorry....................Sorry, on my back in that too comomon fetal positon laughing/crying...........

Is it POSSIBLE to be MORE DISHONEST than to have the Labor Dept. report the SAME NUMBER two consecutuve weeks, and actuallyl SAY that "slightly feewer Americans....".  My head hurts.  The full story even SAYS that the 382,0000 for last week ws REVISED this week to 385,00000.  It boggles my mind.  How can ANYONE be this DISHOENST.  And yet our media does it EVERYU WEEk, in hedlines NEVER CORRECTED, as if the prvius REVISINO neger really happened, and as if we are talking about "concrrete numbers" here arrived at by  "bunting' on fingers and toes in a reliable count.  As this blog has told you for more than TW YEARS, our media LIES every single week by COMPARING the UNREVISED number of new unemplyment claims released on each Thrusday with the REVISED number for the new unemplyment claims for the previus week.  This is a CONSISTENT LIE:  a LIE that jsut never stops.  And I have quit pussyfooting aoround.  The Labor Dept. is DISHOENST for not doing what this blog does:  ESTIMATE the REVISIN that ALWAYS occurss the next Thursday.  It is not like this weekly number is EVER a "counting" number. It is always an ESTIMATE, "seasonally adjusted" based on a SUBEJCTIVE formula, and there is no reason that an adjustment should not be made for the EXPECTEdD refision in the "count".  Thus, this blog was RIGHT again when last Thrusday's posted article told you that new unemloyment clajmims jumped 17,0000 OR MORE last week, rather than the 150000 reported by the medai (wrongly comparting the UNNREVISED number with the REVISED number for the previous week).  The REVISIN today means that the number of unemplyment claims rose 18,000 last week, and NOT the 15,000 reported in the media LIES. And this week--the number of UNREVISED new unemplyment claims released today for last week--the number of new unemplyment calims was UNCHANGED , in all likelihood (not "slightly" fewer, as reported byt he LYING media, although there is some possibility that the REVISIN next week, if it is 2,0000 instead of 3,000 or more, will leave a sight 1,000 meaningless drop.

It gets WORSE (for our media and Labor Dept.), hard as that is to believe. Last week, the Labor Dept. "explained" the rise in new unemployment claims this way:   HURRICANE ISAAC. This blog told you that was a LIE, even though it was entirely ture that it ws POSSIBLE that Hurricane Isaac had affected the reported number.  This blog told you that this "balme" on Hurricane Isaac was a LIE because there are ALWAYS "special factors"  invvolvend in this weekly number of new unemployment claims, which is why it is only OVER TIME that the number means antything (actuallly having quite significant meaning over the entire TIME since January, but subject to DISTORTIN in any individual week).    I told you last week that you could not really say that Hurricane Isaac caused a "glitch" in last week's number, because the numbe was subject to SO MANY factors, until yu ctually SAW this week's number (and beyond). 

You caN see how RIGHT I was (again).  This week's number of new unemplyment claims was the SAME as last week.  And the Marketwatch article said that Hurrican Isaac had NO influence on this week's number (the concsensus opinion).  The article even disposed of one of my caveats last week that I did not know whether the Chicago teacher' strike would haeve any effect.  And you thought I do not have influenc!!!!!!!  People even answer my QUESIONS.  It turns out that Illinois does not allow STRIKERS to make unemployment claims, and so we are left with no OBVIUS "special factor" to expalin why the number of new unemplyment claIms has been so BAD the past two weeks.  Even Marketwatch was forced to say that the numbers show NO IMPROVEMENT in new unemplyment claims since "early spring".  As I have told you, it is worse than that.  There has been NO IMPORVEMENT in new unemplyment claims for the ENTIRE YEAR>  This woululd alrady indicate that th enet MONTHLY emplyment report, absent some extraordinary chaNge of directin in a matter of days or a few weeks, is NOT going to show any improvement in jobs.  Unless there is an ERROR in the data, the MONTHLY emplyment report CaNNOT be "good', if the WEEkLYH jobless calims are NOT IMPROVING. And they are not. 

The range in weekly jobless calims this year has bewen between about 350,000 and 390,0000.  We are ow back at the TOP of that range fore the ENTTIRE Y:EAR, after we had a brief "blip" lower in Juy--before claims haveve ushed steadily back to the middle and tp of teh YEARLY range.  Indeed, as stated, the range of new unemplyment claims from mid-January to about mid-March was 350,000 to 365,000.  We have APPARENTLY DETERIORATED since then.  However, that is perhaps not ture, since this SAME PATTERN has recrred since 2010 (in 2010, 2011 and 2012):  An APPARENT "improvement' in February, whichb is REVERSED  in the spring and summer.  Thus, it may be a "seasonal adjustment" GLITCH that explains the APPARENT "improvement" every February, which then reverses. And the WEATHER was good this winter.  So the APPARENT 'improvement' in February may hagve been FICTIN.--probably was, as this blog told you at the time. 

What the weekly number of new unemplyment claims tells us, and this IS significant, is that we havbve been STUCK al year.  The job market has STALLED in a BAD PLACE for the ENTIRE YEAR.  That is confirmed by DP "growth" of LESS than 25, and an unemplyment RATE that is really the SAME as in January. In additn, monthly "jobs created' numbers have NOT IMPROVED in TWO YEARS, and have NOT IMRPOVED this year.  The monthly number has DETERIRROATED since the obviusly INFLATED number for January (over 200,000). Again, we are STUCK, in a BAD PLACE.  Note that the January "jump" in "jobs created' was FICTIN, as tghe Labor Dept. CHANGED THE CALCULATIN.  Even the Labor Dept.  said that no MEANINGFUL "comparison" was possible fore the emlyment data in January, as compared to December of last year.  The last "jobs created monthly report was TERRIBLE--nt only less than 1000,000 for the month, but REVISED DOWWARD more than 40,000 for the previus two months.  We NEED to be "creating jobs" at a rate of 250,000 per month  We are doing so, at best, at a rate of 100,000 per month (especailly since the fictional number in January and the rather strange large number for February). 

There you have it:  a CORRECXT analysis our media does not give you.  Not a pretty picture, but a correct one.  No, we are not YET collapsing, but we have been STALLED all year.  Obama and Bailout Ben Bernanke, together, ahve made a REAL "recovery" IMPOSSILBE. 

But our media jkeeps using OLLS to say Rmney canoot be elected.  Forget it. My PREDICTIN stands, even as Romney TRIES to lose this elecitn:  Obama LOSES unless the econmy materially IMPROVES by electin day.  Can the MEDIA and OBAMA simply MISLEAD peole into thinking the economy is "improving"?  Not, I think, if the Romney camaign is COMPETENT.  What am I saying? Of courwe it is POOSSIBLE for such a thing to happen.  But I think peole FEEL the econmy, and that it is HARD to LIE to them about it.  OUr media, an dthe Obama Administratin, are certainly TRYING. 

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

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Erin Burnett: Worst Liar Who Has Ever Lived? (on The Liar Network)

Is Erin Burnett the worst liar who has ever lived, and one of the worst political hacks pretending to be a "journalist"?  This blog has actually been examining this burning questin for several months, even if you perceived the articles to be jsut unrelated articlees on individual ll"journalistic" atrocities of Erin Burnett.   The questin was agin bought front and center by the first FEW MINUJTES of the Erin Burnett program this evening (all I could stan; all I can ever stand even as I relax my vow--as the electin comes closer--never to watch bad peole like Anderson Cooper, John King, Erin Burnett and Wolf Blitzer). HORROR is the only apporpirate reactin to Erin Burnett, and her crimes agaisnt both "journalistsm" and inteligence.

Facts?  I have facts.  First, Burnett just sort of offhand said tonight that Social Seucrity is a from of REDISTRIBUTIN OF THE WEATH.  Now thqat is what Erin Burnett, Obama and other SOCIALISTS wnat it to be, but that is NOT how it was sold to the American peoole by FDR (my mother's hero, partly because of things like that and oppositinn to public employee unionis and making peole WORK for what they got). What Erin Burnett and OTHER leftist Democrats WANT Social Secuirty to be  is a WELFARE SYSTEM funded by the RICH.  Now THAT would definitely be a program of REDISTRIBU:TION OF WEALTH. 

As it is now, and a it was set up by FDR, Social Seucrity is supposed to be a SELF_FUNDING program where ALL WORKERS contibute to a program to FUND their retirement.  Thus, Soical Security taxes are NOT "progressive".  Indded, the LEFFT (obama and other lproponents of redistribution of wwalth) often refer to Scial Seucrity FUNDING as a "regressive tax.  ALL wage earners pay the SAME percentate of tehir watges to Social Secuirty fundin (that fictional 'trust fund"), and peole earning over $100,000 a year (or thereabouts) do not have to contniue to pay "extra" taxes on earnings above that level. Again, the original idea was NOT to do a program of CLASS WARFARE redistriubting the wealth, but to do a program in which EVERyONE particippates  on apporximately an equal basis, and EVERyONE shares in the retirement benefits. Again it is supposed to be a SELF-FUNDING RETIREMENT PROGRAM, and NOT a REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH program. 

Again, what is WRONG with this picture?  What is WRONG is that NO part of your Social Securfity funding payments--which should NOT be regarded as a "gneral revenue tax", do NOT go into your RETIREMENT ACCOUNT.  You hav NO "retirement account" with Social Seucrity, whre MONEY is set aside in an ACCOUNT forf YOU 9as with, say a 401(k).  This was WRONG, and may ultimately kILL Social Security.  That is because Social Security--as Rick Perry said--was set up as a PONZI  SCHEME, where YOUR Social Seucrity funding payments go to pay for the RETIREMENT OF PRFESENT RETIREES--not for your own retirement account.  This delibherate perversin of a supposed "retirement program" into a "government program"--where what you pay in has no graranteed relationship to what you take out or what you "own"--leaves Social Seucrity OPEN to being converted into totally a WELFARE, wealth redistribution program by peole like Erin Burnett and President Obama (leftist Democrats).

N, Erin Burnett.  You are a LIAR.  Social Seucrity is NOT YET a true "wealth redistributin" program, even if there are SOME "wealth redistributin" elements in it,  Itg was definitely not SOLD as a wealth redistribution program--either by FDR or later Democats until modern "lefts' like Erin Burnett decide to discard al PRETENSE as to what they WANT. 

Yes. ONe of the reasons I VOWED never to votge for AnY GOP politician who supported that FRADULENT "payroll tax cutt" is that that was solely a WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION MEASURE.  It ATTACKS the funding of Social Seucirty, by DISCARDING the idea of Social Security as a SELF-FUNDING system in favor of the idea of Social Seucirty as a WELFARE SYSTME "funded" by the "wealthy".  Myb borther, the accountant, lsays I fail to really appreciate that Social Secusrity is ALREADY a FRAUD.  But that is not ture.  I do allppreciate that.  I jsut think we discard even the IDEA of peole lpaying for their OWN RETIREMENT if we silmly go down the lpath Erin Burnett advoc ates, and treat Social Seuciryt as jsut another government REDISTRIBUTIN progaram used to "transfer money from one person to another " (as described by Mitt Romney).   I don't think our COUNTRY can survive that kind of thinking, even if Social Security was botched from day one.  I digess (not really). Erin Burnett? Again there was this obvious Democrfat Talking Point LIE about Social Seucrity being a "redistribution" program (in concept other than the relatively minor payments to the original "retirees" who did not contribute to the system).  SOME retirees receive minimum Social Security paymetns despite NOT contirbuting much to the systemn, or nothing at all, and then there is the DISABLITY problem (which should NOT be undre Social Secuirty at all). Still. Erin Burnett and the other leftists are LIARS. Social Security was SOLD as a RETIREMENT POROGRAM, self--funding, and--to a degree--it is that (as evidenced by the "regressvie" nature of the 'tax'). It is the LEFT (Erin Burnett, e. al.) who NOW wnat to say that Social Secuirty is jsut AnOTHEaR government WELFARE program. Can you thiknk of a better way to ultimatelyl KILL Social Security, an dprobably this country? l I can't. 

But Erin Burnett LIES did NOT stop with Social Security. That was jsut a "passig" LIE to show that she truly is a patholoical liar and leftist political hack. Nope.  What Ms. Burnett did was start with theFIRST refuge of a LIAR: the dictionary. You know the "dictioinary".  That is that semi-useful bok that gives you an IDEA of the meaning of words, unless lyou are trying to USE it to TWIST and LIE (as Erin Burnett wa tonight).  Thus, leftist wil go to the "dictionary" (the one they want, and the "definition" they want) to "define" words like "socialism and "redistribution". Then a person like Erin Burnett will TWIST a PART of tht "definition for her LIE. I am not making this up. Tjhat is exaclty what she did tonight, as she went to the "dictionary" for "redistribuition".  While admitting that there are MANY kinds and degrees of redistributin, Ms. Burnett promptly IGNORED that caveat and manfufactured her Orwellian Big Lie.  Yep.  Erin Brunett could apply to work for the "Big Brotehr news agency" in "1984". What am I saying? Erin Burnettt DOES work for The Liar Network, which puts out propaganda jsut as blatant as any in "984". Look what Ms. Burnett did with 'redistributin".

A simple definition of "redistributin of wealth" IS what Romney stated: "government taking money from one personm, or guorp of peole, and giving it to another person, or group of peole.'  That is where Burnett inserted her LIE about Social Security being a "redistribution of wealth". But Burnett went fruther,.  She found a "dictioinary" definition that referred to teh "progressive tax systemn.'  What is tghe Big LIe that Burnett was selling: leftist political HACK that she is?  The Big Lie is that Romney is jsut as much in favor of "redistributin" as sObama, becaluse he favors a "progressive " tax systemn almost the same as obama.  Is it possible to LIE anyu worse lthan this.  Oh, as with any Big Lie, there is some smalll element of truth here.  Romney is NOT a "conservative', and is NOT "bod" enough tin FIGHTING "redistributino"--look at the payroll tax cut.  But Burnett's propositon was ABSURD, and she knows it.  It was jsut a deliberate, SMUG attempt att GIGGING Romney by TISTING definitins to try to show how "clever" Burnett is. She is, of course, NOT "cleve". She is STuPID. 

Is the progressive income tax redistribution".  Burnett ended up DEFINING 'redistributin" TOTALLY by means of the progressive income tax.  That is a LIE.  What is obviusly true is that the progressive income tax has ELEMENTS of "redistribution" of welath inherent in it.  That is why so many favor a "flat tax".  However, even conservatives (and Romney is NOT one, although Erin Burnett would probably LIE about that) say that there are PROPER functins of governmetn.  You know.  Theris DEFENSE.  There is LAW ENFORCEMENT.  You can go down a long list, and arguue over what is a "proper" functin of the FederalGovernment and what is not.  But SOMEONE has to "pay for"--except wwe are NOT--wkhat the government does. Sure, thre are DIRECTG "rfedistributin" items, such as MDICAID and the EARNED INCOME TA CEDIT.  But the idea remainss inarguabel that SOMEONE has to "pay for' teh GOVERNMENT (whatever the government should do).  The reason that the "progressive" tax system CANNOT be used as a "defining" aspect of "redistributin" is that it does NOT say what government SHOULD do.  llFor Erin Burnett to suggest otherwise is a BIG LIE. You can even argue that the progressvie income tax is not NECESSARILY "redistribution" at all.  Is it "redistributin" for the government to say that peole who can best AFFORD it should pay MORe of a percentage of the "bill' for NATINAL DEFENSE?  I thik it IS a from of "redistributin", but hardly the ESSSENCE of the concept.  In other words, the "progressive income tax" as a "redistributio of wealth" is only an ELEMENT of redistribution of wealth, and NOT a "definition". Adn LIAR Burnett KNOWS this.  It is CONSRVATIVES who have long attacked tghe "progressive income tax" as a "redistributin of wealth", and LEFTISTS (like Burnett) who have said that is not taure: taht the progressive income tax is merely putting the "burden" of financing the PROPER functions of government on the peole wo can best afford it.    But Burnettt was not done with her LIES.  The wrost were yeat to come.

Burnett tried to "prove'--using the SAME leftist "tax policy" group that ALWEAYS attacks any GOP plan--that the Romney tax plan is about as "progressive' ("redistributive") as Obama's.  Thus, Romney proposes a 20% REDUCTION in ALL individual tax rates (leaving too complex a structure, because Romney is NOT a conservative and not brave enogh to be accused of "favoring the rich").  To keep his plan 'revenue neutral", Romney would take away DEDUCTINS and TAX CREDITS.  Now Burnett does not know the detials of this any more than I do, but she MADE THME UP (with the "help" of this leftiset group WILLING to MAKE THESE THINGS UP).  Burnett's conclustion:  "The difference gbetween the "top and bottom" rates, after taking in to account the loss of DEDUCTINS, is close to the same for Romney as ofor Obama (again, MAKING UP an INACCURATE view of what Obama proposes). Do you see the Big Le here: the reason Erin Burnett proved hersefl one of the worst liars to EVER live? 

Do you see it? Tell me you do  I have to have some HOPE that some peole understand these lies.  So Romney favors SOME elements of "redistributin", and refuses to be BOLD enough to propose doing away with teh progressive income tax (Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan).  Can you, with a straight face, say that President Obama does not believ ve in MORE redistribution of the wealth than Mitt Ropmney?  Come on.  NO ONE IS LTHAT DUMB, NOT EVEN ERIN BURNETT.  The problem is that Preisdent Obama' sfirst reactn is ALWAYS class warfarfe and redistributin of the wealth.  This is actually a BIG problem with Romey's porposal  Ronald REagan, you will remember, TRADED low TAX RATES for elminating LOOPHOSES that the RICH were using.  The iea was that we needed SIMPLE, lOW tax RATES, rather than peole making ECONOMIC deicisons based on "benefits" in the TAX CODE.  Reagan was right.  But what happened?  Romney is proposing to reduce the tax RATE for the highest icome peole to the SAME as REagan, but Erin Burnett is right about one thing:  Rmney would TAKE AWAY deudtions that EFFECTIVELy raise the rates of a LOT of high income peole (maybe the mortgage deductin, although iit is hard to imagine that getting done).  And rates on the "rich" have been RAIWSED by MORe than others.  Thus, AFTER Rmney's proposed "reductin" in tax rates, the "rich' will be paying considerably MORE than they were paying under Reagan's reforms, and lamost HALF of the coutry wil pay almost NO income taxes at all.  Waht borught this about is the OBAMA ATTITUDE (which the GOP too often will go laong with); REDISTRIBUTION. 

Say Romney's plan PASSES. But say we NEED MONEY, and  the deficit is OUT OF CONTORL under a Rmney Presidency (more than possible).  What will happen, even under Rmney RHETORIC about favoring the "middle class'?  There wil be a lPUSH to RAISE TACXES ON THE RICH.  That is what happened AFTER the Reagan tax cuts. The "rich" lost their DEDUCTIN, but then the RDISTRIBUTIN people RAISED THEIR RATES AGIAN (luckily not back up to the ridiculous level they once were at, and which NO ONE paid). Then the Buhs tax cuts againt caused MORE and MORE peole to pay NO income taxes at all, or very little, whiel the "rich" received a relatively samll PERCENTAGE reduction.  The result has beeen that the TOP 10% of income tax payers pay some 60^ of the total incoeme taxes individual s pay.  IF Romney were to get his 'plan", the "rich' will LOAW even ore "dedutins".  But is the TEMPTATIN not gong to be to TAKE AWAY the part of the "deal" which BENEFITS the "rich", while keeping the parts of the deal which RAISE taxes ont he rich?  I hink so  But I am a pessimmist. 

Look, howver, atg Erin Burnett!!!!!  She is tryin got SELLL the idea that Obama will not proopose MORE "redistribution".  That is ABSURD.  He has ALREADY done it.  Waht Burnett did not seem to realize is taht Obama's plan doews NOT jsut raise income tax RATES on people earning more than $125,000 a year ($250,000 per couple).  Obama and the Democrats propose a SURTAX on "millinaires" (the "Buffett tax").  And that is not all.  What is the Obama/Democrat reacint to where to get the mney to "pay for' their "rdsitributin" government programs? Right.  They want to TAX THE RICH. 

This is the Big Lie i what Burnett said today: thke assumptin that Obama does nto want to REDISRIBUTE MORE THAN HE NOW SAYS HE WANTS TO REDISTRIBUTE.  Does Erin Burnett really belive there is any LIMIT as to how much Obama is willing to propose the "rich" pay in a progressive tax system?  Erin Burnett KNOWS that there is NO LIMIT on how much TAX Obama is willing to suggest that the "rich' pay, IF Obama thinks he can get away with it. 

Romney is CORRECT ont his one, aNd it does not matter whether Romney (not, again, a conservative) favors things with "restributive" elements.  Obama BELIEVES in REDISTRIBUTION: "taking money form some poele and giving it to others.'  That means Obama will ALWAYS PROOPOSE MORE REDISTRIBUTIN  It is how hee is.  For Erin Burnett to FALSE suggest that she "proved" otherwise is a Big Lie.  The SURTAX on millionaires proves that. 

Have I answered my quetin?  Is Erin Burnett the WORST LIAR who haS ever lived?  I do think she is in contentin, as are most of the other "journalists" of CNN.  I honesty, however, I jsut can't see that Erin Burnett has risen to the STAR QUALITY of some of the most famous liars of hsotry.  Is she really, for example, a worse liar than Bernie Madoff?  If I were Erin Burnett, and willing to tell a Big Lie, I would say that Erin Burnett IS the worst liear who ever lived.  But it would nto be true. She does not QUITE rise to that level. 

However, Erin Burnett is a LIAR: ONE of the worst around (along with the rest of The Liar Network).  She is also a leftist political hack putting out pure propaganda, rather than "news".  But oyou already knew that.  I will keep monitoring to see if, in good conscience, I can ELEVATE Erin Burnett into the class of the very WROST LIARS who have ever lied.  She may make it yet. 

P.S No proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesight).  Why is Erin Burnet SUPID/  Do you really BELIEVE that ANYONE--even peole , like me, who cannot support Romney--will do antying but LAUGH at the idea that Romney and Obama want to REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH to essentially the same degree?  Now I don't believe Romney will STOP the Big Government express, but Obama WANTS to REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH.  You know it.  I know it.  Erin Burnett knows it.  Erin Burnett is trying to be too clever my way more than half, and that is STUPID.  It jst highlights how BAD Obama is. STUPID.  One STUPID woman.   Yes, I am tired and the typos are probably bad.  But I am not going to worry about it with Erin Burnett.  She is not worth it. Al I can do is do this "stream of consciousness stuff and HOPE you can read enoguh of it for it to make sense.  Maybe quite a bit of effort for nothihng.  Al lI can do is the best I can reasonably do.  It, at least, keeps MY MIND relatively sharp, even if it messes up YOURS.  No sympathy for you, as I have often stated.  As my female friend, Sylvia tellsme, ABUT HER:  "you are LUCKY I even talk to you.' That is how I look at it;  You peole out there are lUCKY to have me, and to have whatever samll part of what I write that I do not garble. 

Erin Burnett: Liar on The Liar Network (CNN/Media Poll Lies)

Erin Burnett is a piece of work, and I do NOT mean that in a good way. Bouth competence and teh truth are not in her.

Ms. Burnett yesterday:  "Does his mean Rmney is DONE--his campaign is over. No, not quite (clear disappointment here).  In 1980 Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan by 1 percentate pont in Septermber, and Reagan won by 2."  erce

Ms. Burnett, it may surprise you to learn that Ronald Reagan efeated Jimmy Careter in a LANDSLIDE (although not a landslide of the magnitude Reagan would defeat Walter Mondale in 2984). Reagan won, in 1980, by about the SAME margn that Barack Obama defeated John McCain.  And the MEDIA was still calling the 1980 race a "toss-up" based on the POLLS, the WEEKEND before the electin (not just in september). 

"How do I LIE to thee; let me count the ways."  (again, with apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning).

It is a LIE--and media peole KNOW it is a LIE--to say that either Carter was "leading Reagan by 1 percentage point, or that Obama is NOW "lleading" Romney by 1 percentage pont (latest Gallup poll).  Forget about all of the many problems with polls.  Even taking polls at their face vaule, and as meaning someting, the EXPECTGED MARGIN OF EROR in these polls is 3-4%, and the plls are often not even measuring the same people.  It matters a LOT whether a poll is lookng at "likely voters" or "registered voters"--much less lthe truly disgraceful "all peole".  IF Galluyp is right, the "race' between Romney and Obama is now a dEAD HEAT: well within the EXPECTED margin of error. 

But does it not "mean something" if he AVERAGE of polls shows an Obama lead.  Sob.  NO.  This is a STATISTICAL LIE.  An 'average" of polls adds NOTHING to the validity of any individual poll.  In fact, if the polls differ much, that mrely shows gthat POLL S ARE UNRELIABLE.  Nope.  This is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a statistical TRUTH.  Yo CANNOT "bootstrap" polls by 'averaging" all of the polls.  Sure, you can reduce teh margin of error, usually by only a little, by ADDING TO THE SAMPLE SIZEW.  But atht is NOT whaqt you do when yuou "average" olls.  You aonly add to the sample sie IF yu use the SAME POLLING METHODS AT THE SAME TIME.  This "averaging" of polls "averages" polls using DIFFERENT polling methods (different samples, often), and usually the polls are taken at DIFFERENT TIMES.  "Averaging" helps you NOT AT ALL. Oh, "averaging" does do one thing because of the nature of 'averaging" (not becaue any "accuracy" is added).  By definition, "averaging means that the "avrerage" is AL:WAYS SOMEWHEERE BETWEEN THE EXTREMES (unless all of the plls are the same, in which case ou don't need "averaging') . Taht means that an AVERAGE (of anything) ALWAYS will reduce the possible MAGNITUDE of error. Look, for example, at this ossible set of percentages: 30%, 40$ and 50%.  The AVERAGE is 40%, but statistically that is nO morfe likely to be right than the plls that found 30% or 50%.  Hoever, notice that IF you say that you "agree" with 30%, and use that poill, you may be a full 20% OFF (maximum error--the eifference between 30% and 50%).  However if yu choose to go with the AVERAGE, you can "only" be 10% in error, because that is the MAXIMUM error if ANY of the polls are right.  And, if there is truly this spread, NONE of th epolls is probably right.  Of course, what I said is not quite true.  What if the actual percentate, in my example, is 20%?  Then the average can be wrong more than 10%, but still CAnNOT be wrong as much as if you go with either extgreme.  Thus, all "averaging" does is reduce your MAXIMUM possible error.  It tells you NOTHING about the correct number. 

Erin Burnett's LIES are not over.  Not only did she INGORFE the "margin of error" for AGENDA purposes, but she went to the "battlegound" state polls (namely ONE on Virginia) to try to say that Rmney is really pretty much falling WAY behind.  I have previusly informed you of the LIE in this stupditiy. True, Al Gore showed that you CAN lose the electin, even though you win the popular vote.  But Al Gore also showed that is ONLY true if the popularer vote is CLOSE (within half a percent or so)  Thus, if either Romney or Obama wins the popular vote by as much as a full percentatge point, that person will (99% or mroe certain) WIN TH EELECTIn . It does not matter that the electin is a "state-bystate electin, when the NATINAL PESULT is almost SURE to be the SAME as the state-by-state result UNLESS the electin is within about HALF OF A PERCENT in the popular vote.

Erin Burnett is a LIAR.  With a straight face, she quoted a Washington Post Poll showing Obama ahead by 8 percentage pints in Virginia, while Obama is TIED (that one percentage point) with Romney in the natinal oll.  Nope.  That is IMPOSSIBLE.  One of the plls has to be WRONG, and Ms. Burnett MUST be a LIAR (not to pont that out).  It si INCONSISTENT for Obama to be TIED natinallyl, and 8% ahead in Virginia.  Isn't it POSSIBLE? Sure, but it is also POSSIBLE for ALL of tghese  polls to have an ERROR of about 100%.  Oh. The ODDS are long. But there is SOME chance, by cance alonge, that you will pick the ONLY 1000 people in Virginia who support President Obama for yuouir poll, wile EVERYONE else supportes Romhey . True, the odds are aoubt the same as the universe ending TOMORFROW, but it is OSSIBLE.  In the real world, whre polls CAn easily get a sample wrong by 5, or even 10, percent, Obama is NOT "leading" Romney in Virginia by 8 percent. That is espeically true wehn Bruneett said taht Viirginia was pretty tyupical of what is happening to Romney in a NUMBER of the battleground states.  Nope.  NOT POSSIBLE for the NATIONAL POLL to stay the same (actually moving SLIGHTLY in favor of Romney from the preivous poll_, while there are these dRAMATIC moves in "battlegournd states. 

Message to CNn and Erin Burnett (as well as all media) You should FORGET polls alltogether, and reort REAL NEWS.  But sicne yo are BAD PEOLE, I don't expect that.  Failing that, at least don't be this DISHONEST about plls.  There is SOMETHING WRONG if the "battlegound statates" show a supposed DRAMAATIC move in the plls, while the natinal polls remain the SDAME.  Cannot be.  IT is a LIE to report that with a straight fgace. 

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