Friday, October 26, 2012

Obama Fails on Economy: GDP Growth Worst Since July, 2009 (Media Lies Continue)

It was annunced as "god" (by most of mainstream media) news today taht the INITIAL ESTIMATE of GDP growth for the thrid quarter (ending Septem=mber 30) was 2%. It was actaully terrible news--again showing that the supposed "drop in the unempoloyment rate for September, based on a FICTIONAL increase of 873,000 jobs, ws TOTAL FICTION.  Most of the media headlines failed to tell you many things, including the fact that 2012 had the WORST three quarters since 2008--2009: the WORST 3 quarters since Obama became President.  Nope. The first THREE quarters of 2009 were NOT bad--only th efirst 2 quarters. The second half of 2009, BEFORE Obama policies could DERAIL the "snap back" recovery, had a sTRONG growth rate (much higher than 2%).  Not so for 2012.

ALL three quarters of 2012 had GDP "growth" of  2% (or so), or LESS. That has not hhappened in any single year since 2008.  It is the WORST year of the Obama Presidency, in terms of PERSISTENT slow GDP numbers (although 2009 was a bad overall YEAR, as the contraction in the first half offset the inital recovery in the second half).  The reason that most of the mainstream media "headlin ed" that today's anemic report of third quarter GDP "rowth" was "good news" was that it was supposedly "up" from the 1.3% "growth" of the second quarter. That is a bald-faced LIE. 

"But, Skip, numbers don't lie.'  Numbers may not lie, if looked at correctly, but "jounalists" rouutinesly do.  First, even some mainstream media sources reported that the ONLY reason that the third quarter GDP was as "high" as 2% (a bad number, even if it were not misleading) was HIGHER DEFENSE SPENDING.  Did this concentratin of GOVERNMENT SPENDING in the thrid quarter have anything to do with the elecitn.  A cynic might assume so.  But, whatever the reason, 1/3 of the "growth" in GDP came from higher DEFESE SPENDING (lol).  "Lol" because we are facing thta "fiscal cliff" BECAUSE OF OBAMA AND THE GOP j(see article earlier this week), calling for automatic "cuts" in defense spending.  The rise in defense spending, regardless of whether those 'automatic cuts" take place, will NOT coninue at the third quarter pace.  General Dynamics, and other companies relying on defense spending, have either sent out letters WARNING of layoffs because of lower defense spending, or have only not done so because the Labor Depment has tired to BRIBE and BLACKMAIL them into not doing so (so much for the Labor Department being non-political-see future article based on informatin from one of my brothers, who wroks for General Dynamis in defense).  I digres--not rally.  Without this boost from incrfeased defense spending, which will not continue, GDP would have 'grown" only 1.3%--exactly the sAME as the third quarter. That does not even take into account the MAASIVE deficit spending by the Federal Government, and the MASSIVE "stimulus" from Baiut Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve.  No. ALL of the supposed "growth is ARTIFICIAL, as we make a future real recovery impossible.  But it is even worse than that, as far as MEDIA LIES are concerned.

Look, again, at yesteray's article about the WEEKLY LIES on each Thursday's reported weekly number of new unemployment claims.  The media ALWAYS "compares" each Thursday's UNREVISED number of new claims with the REVISED number from the previus week.  This is an egregius, indefeinsible LIE, especiallly when the REVISIN is always in one directin (higher, whcih means mroe lost jobs).  Believe it or not, the media did the SAME LIE with regard to today's GDP numberf.  Today's reported GDP number was only the FIRST LOOK (initial estimate).  The number will be REVISED at least TWICE, and maybe more times, in the comng months.  Yet, the media comparted today's UNREVISED number with the TWICE REVISED number for the second quarter. What was the INITIAL NUMBER (comparing apples to apples) for the seoncd quarter?  You guessed it: right at 2% (withoiut the massive increase in defense spending for the second quarter, and without the massive new QE3 from the Federal Reserve).  It was the LAST REVISON of the second quarter GDP, from less than a month ago, that DROOPPED the estimated GDP "growth" for the second quarter to 1.3% from 1.8%.  Wil the same thing happpen with today's 2% two months from now?  It is more than possible, although revisions in GDP do not go one directin as consistently as the "one directin" revisonis in new unemplyment claims.  However,, that is offset by this;  Do you really believe that the Labor Department would UNDERESTIMATE the GDP "growth" for THIS third quarter?  Get real.  In any event, it is a bald-faced LIE for our dishonest media to compare an UNREVISED nummber with a REVISED number.  And the media also LIES by not calling the intial number what it is:  an initial ESTIMATE, whcih may be revised SUBSTANTIALLY. 

It all doesn't matter much.  GDP "growth" for the first 3 quarters of 202 has been TERRIBLE:  as stated, the worst since the first half of 2009.  This means Obama has FAILED, and that the economy is NOT going in the right directin.  And, as stated, to the extent the GDP numbers are misleading, it is because they are TOO HIGH.  There is no way they are understated, with so much government effort to INFLATE the numbers (higher spending, deficit spending, Federal Reserve money printing, and all of the rest).

As readers of thes blog know, I am not confident at alll that Romney is going to improve thigns as to government domination of the economy.  I only endorsed Romney because of Behghazi, and because Obama treated the KILLING of 4 Americans as a POLITICAL EVENT.  Boy, was I ever right about that, as new informatin comes out every day.  So I have been REINFORCED in my endoresement of Romney, just because it will be SHAMEFUL (shame on US) if Obmaa again becomes President of the United States. 

Still, Romney cannot be WORSE than Obama. ObamaCare aone will make 2012 look GOOD.. Romney's problem is that he turly is gonig to inherit a MESS from Obama.  I stil find it amazing that Obama insists HE "inherited" an econmic mess from BUSH.  Yes, Bush--who I disowned in 2006--was PART of it.  But SO WAS OBAMA.  Obama was part of a DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY in Congress, from the beginnnig of 2007 to the end of 2008, who did NOTHING to stop the 2008 economic collapse.  It can accurately be stated that Obama "inherited" HIS 'mess" from OBAMA (as well as Bush). Obama was THERE.  That is the consistent theme from Obama, even on the Benghazi terrorist attack:  Obama acts like he is NOT THERE, with the power to DO SOMETHING. Obama has never even CLAIMED that anything he PROPOSED in 20007-2008 would have helped avoid the 2008 econmic collapse.  How could he?  Obma PROPOSED NOTHING in Congress, and pretty much voted for the Bernanke/Paulson (Democratr favorite)/Bush/Democrat policies that did NOTHING to help avoid the economic collapse.  n fact, as I have previusly stated, the DIFFERENCE between a STRONG economy (5% unemplyment) in 2007, and an econmic collapse, was a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS.  That was what CHANGED in January of 2007.  It amazes me that the GOP refuses to make this point: mainly, I think, becaue it calls attentin tot he fact that THEY WERE NO BETTER.  But Romney can righty claim he was NOT part of the Wahsingon that broujght us to RUIN, while Obama WAS.  Beats me why he won't say that. No courage (as he has not had much on Libya). Again, I am not voting for Romney because I have changed my mind abut him. I am voting for Romney because I would be ASHAMED to be any part of Obama again being President of the Unitged States. And it is ture that there is some CHANCE that Romney will be better than Obama: NO chance that OBAMA will be better than Obama (especially with no worry about re-electin, and ObamaCare looming).

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

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Obama Loses 372,000 Jobs Last Week: No Improvement This Entire Year (Media/Labor Dept. Lies Continue)

It is a broken record, but I will continue to note it so long as media lies continue 9as they have for YEARS), and so long as the Labor Department maintains a 3,000 person LIE in the number of new unemployment claims it "reports" every Thursday (supposedly filed previus week, although the number is ALWAYS REVISED the next week UPWARD, usually by at least 3,000, and althogh the number is NOT a "counted" number, but a subjective 'seasonally adjusted" number).

Thus, lok at where this blog wsa RIGHT last Thursday, and the Labor Dept./media WRONG.  The UNREVISED number of new unemployment claims reported last Thursday was 388,000, up 46,000 from the FICTIONAL 342,000 (REVISED) for the week before.  As this blog told you, in foresight, thke "report" in the previus sentence was a LIE.  This blog told you that the "actual" (ignroing, for now, seasonal adjustment problems and perhaps other "technical" problems) numbre--the REVISED number to be released this Thursda--would be 391,0000, or more. Dead on again, as usual.  The actual REVISED number that shuld have been used last thursday (or my 391,000) was 392,000, UP a full 50,0000 (half a 100,000) from the FICTIONAL 342,000 (revised) for the previus week.  Again, as has been true for EVERRY week--aside from maybe 3--in the past TWO YEARS, this blog was ACCURATE, while the media and Labor Department were WRONG.  This is especially bad as to the constant LIE of "comoparing' the UNREVISED number "reported each Thursday with the REVISED number for the previous week.  This is a blatant LIE not only because you are comparing apples and oranges (a revised number with an unrevised number), but because the revision is almost ALWAYS in one directin (up),, and by a remarkably consistent number (mostly right around 3,000--sometimes 2,000 and sometimes 4,000, and sometimes even higher, but almost never DOWN). For the Labor Depar. to produce a number every Thursday with a CONSISTENT ERROR in one direction is a LIE.  I am sorry  It is.  If I can properly "adjsut" the number every week, then so can the Labor Department.  Sure, I start with the Labor Dept. number--for lack of a better one--but I KNOW one way it is WRONG, and so I adjsut "my" number (as I have in the headline above).

The Labor Dept/media lie this week: that new unemployment claimms for last week went up 369,000.  As stated in the headline, based on the CONSISTENT ERROR by the Labor Dept., the actual number of new unemployment claims last week (subject to other glitches) was, most likely, 372,000.  The even bigger LIE is that the number of claims "dropped" 23,000:  from the REVISED 392,000 to the UNREVISED 369,000. On an apples to apples basis, the number of claims actually "dropped" 19,000:  from an unrevised 388,000 to an unrevised 369,000.  Of course, we know that to report any "drop" at all is FICTION, because of the way the number has bounced around the past few weeks.

Look at how RIGHT I was last week.  Two weeks ago the media HEADLINES were about a "4-year low" in new unempoyment claims: that 342,000. That 342,000 number ws TOTAL FICTIN--as I told you at the time.  It was inconsistent with both the weekly trend and what we KNOW is a SLOW economy (no sudden "improvement').  Well, the next week (reported last Thursday), the number of new unemployoment claims supposedly "jumped" that 5,000, all of the way to match the YEARLY HIGH (that 392,000). That is, of course, IMPOSSILBE< in terms of reflecting relaity.  The LABOR MARKET did NOT suddenly "improve' to its best status in 4 years, and the--in one week--go back to its WRoST STATUS of the entire year.  I told lyou last week that the "best guess" as to a correct number, although the numbers have to all be regarded as FICTIN, was to AVERAGE the two weeks, leaving you close to the 370,000 level.  Exactly right again, if you can believe this week's likely number of 372,00 (or the Labor Dept.unrevised number of 369,000).In other words, this week's number is CONSISTENT with weeeks prior to the previus weeks, and with the AVERAGE of the last two weeks.  It also happens to be right in the MIDDLE of the RANGE of new unemployment claims for the entire year: 350,000-390,000 (ignoring total FiCTIN of 342,000 two weeks agoo).  The number of new unemployment calims has NOT IMPROVED this ENTIRE YEAR.  The number is STUCK, ina BAD PLACE Ignoring weekly fluctuations).

As this blog has correctly stated, for years, each individual weekly number of new unemployment claims is basically WORTHLESS, because it is subject to GLITCHES in the "seasonal adjustment"--a SUBJECTIVE formula by which the Labor Dept. "adjsuts" its raw count (by as much as 100,000).  This is the Big Lie in the way this weekly number is "reported"; as if it is a CONCRETE NUMBER OF CLAIMS COUNTED, instead of a FALLIBLE ESTIMATE. 

Even the DISHOENST people at Marketwatch (although maybe not QUITE as dishoenst as the world class disheonst peoplle at CNBC) could not swallow the obvius fictions of the past two weeks.  Thus, they dutifuly LIED about this week's number of 369,000 being a "drop" of 23,000, but the subheadline properly dismiossed this "drop" as FICTIN, by saying that the number of claims showed a "stubbornly slow labor market".  Marketwatch has not yet come around to the correct view that the weekly report does not mwan ANYTHING, except as one data point in an analysis OVER TIME.  In the present case, Marketwatch came close to lurching into the truth:  that the "labor market" has NOT IMPROVEMD this entire year. Yep. This is a major OBAMA FAILURE. Marketwatch could also no longer stand the obvius, absurd fluctuatins of the previus two weeks.  Markewatch had an explanatin: CALIFORNIA. 

Oh, maybe not entirely. But I am not kidding, Marketwatch (and others) evidently BLAMED "technical problems" in CALIFORNIA DATA for distorting the results, along with "seasonal quirks".  This is what I have told you for YEARS, as the media reports the Big Lie:  I have told you that ANY individual week can be DISTORTED, and that these weeekly numbers only mean something (unless the Labor Dept. totally implodes, in which case they are gonig to mean nothing) OVER TIME. But look at what Marketwatch, and maybe the Labor Dept. itself, jsut told you.  They just told you that distorted data FROM ONE STATE can DISTORT  the natinal figures.  And they also told yo that there is NOT a SINLGE "source" of data that goes into these weekly and monthly reports, but multiiple sources.  That is all apart from the GLITCHES in the "seasonal adjustments".  Let us go back to the MONTLY data for September, and that FICTIONAL 7.8% unemployment rate.

Do not these DISTORTIONS in the WEEKLY data from the Labor Dept. cast doubt on the MONTLY employment data?  Of course they do.  They show how distortion s in relatively isolated areas can DISTORT the national numbers.  I don't believe in "greand conspiracies". But what did I tell you about that supposed "drop" in the UNEMPLOYMENT RATE?  First I correctly told you it was FICTION  Second, I told you that INFIVBIDUALS involved in productin g this data could DISTORT the numbers, without any "grand conspiracy".  Was there a "grand conspracy" to FALSIFY weekly jobless claims numbers over the pprevius two weeks?  Surely not.  But is it POSSILBE that DISHOENST INDIFIVUALS were involved?  Absolutely.  And it does not really matter.  The main pont is that Labor Dept. data is FALLIBE, and subject to LARGE ERRORS.  Yuo hae to look at ALL of the numbers, OVER TIME, or else you are participating in a LIE (as our media does every week, and every month).

Go back to that unemployment rate for September.  It was based on a POLL ("household survey") purportedly showing that 873,000 (lol) "jobs added" in September.  THAT was the number--with 873,000 jobs added--used to "calculate" the "drop" in the unemplyment rate to 7.8%.  That was ABSURD, on its face, and the number shuld have been dismissed as FICTIN.  It was just as ridiculous asa the wild fluctuations in the weekly number of new unemplyment claims in the previus two weeks--really MORE ridiculous.  Doubt me?  The Labor Department's own OFFICIAL number of "jobs added" for September was an anemic 114,000.  That was based on the "employer survey"--separate from the "household survey" used to "calculate" the unemplyment RATE.  Notice that the "household survey" is NOT used to determine the "offical" number of "jobs created" each month. But, for September, these numbers were totally INCONSISTENT: with the number used to calculate the unemplyment rate being 750% (7.5 times) HIGHER than the "official" number of jobs created (that 114,000).  Ad we KNOW that the 873,000 number was ABSURD.  NO previous month of the Obama Presidency has been any higher than 25l0,000. The number was FICTIN, and everyone knew it.  But CNBC, Marketwatch, and basicaly all of our media lIED ANYWAY. The RAL "story" was NOT the FICTINAL "drop" in the unemplyment rate, but WHY the number was so obviusly WRONG. But our dishoenst media--including, mostly, the unfair and unbalanced network--pretty much stayed away from that story.  That is because most of them have an AGENDA, and those that don't are both COWARDS and unwilling to "go into the weeks" (showing how much CONTEMPT they have for us all, but not nearly as much CONTEMPT as I have for THEM).

How long am I gong to keep writing this SAME article about how RIGHT I am (week after week), and how WRONG the Labor Dept. and our media are?  Well, I will probably keep writing this same article every week until I die, because THEIR LIES show no indicatin of stopping.  And I have no intentin of letting them outlast me.  Oh.  Some of the LIES are becoming so bad (look at Marketwatch, and at the skepticism that cam thourgh on that FICTINAL September unemplyment rate) htat some usually involved in the lies are choking on them.  But they still continue.  So will I. The MONTHLY "jobs report" for October will come out next Friday.  Will the Labor Dept DOUBLE DOWN on its LIES, along with the media?  Remember, all it takes (as shown over the past few weeks) is for a FEW individuals to distort data, so long as there are not VIGOROUS CHECKS on suspicious data.  There were obviusly no such checks on that absurd data tkhat went into the unemployment rate for September, which really rEQUIKRED a FULL EXPLANATIN of how such an extreme discrepancy could exist in the numbers.  Nope. It is NOT enough to simply say that the nubmers come from different sources, when one of the sources is so obviusly WRONG.  No "grand conspircy", but there are a LOT of DISHONEST people at work here, including in the media.

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesiht).  What is the excuse of the Labor Dept. and our media?  Oh.  I forgot.  The PLAUSIBLE excuse for the latest obvious glitches is CALIFORNIA. Maybe we can blame CALIFORNIA for ALL of the obvius absurdities.  California certainly deserves it, but I don't think California is the only entity to blame for treating obvius FICTIN as FACT.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Obama, GOP and Sequestration

Obama, of course, tried to make a big pont about "sequestration" in the last debate, as if he had nothing to do with it (a really bad habit of his).  Obama made a SPEECH PRAISING THE DEAL that resulkted in this looming, automatic "sequestration".  It was OBAMA'S DEAL  But Obama now says, in the last debate (although White House "backed off" on this) that: Sequestratin will not happen.'  See the upcoming blog article on the DISHOENST Labor Department taking this positon in LETTERS to American businesses, incluidng defense contractors.  But for uroses of this article, realize that this is yet another case where this blog was RIGHT, in FORESIGHT. 

lSequestratin was part of the SHAM DEAL that ended the ARCE of a "fight" over raising the debt ceiling.  The problem was, as I told you at the time, that the "debt ceiling' is the SYMPTOM, and not the CAUSE.  The cause of our DEBT is SPENDING, and what we need to do is TIE the debt ceiling to SPENIDN GBILLS.  Otherwise, we jsut invite Congress, and the President, to commit FRAUD on the Amrican peole by not directly informing us, at the time of the spending bills, exactly how much voting for the spending bills will REQUIRE the debt ceiling to be raised.  Yuo know that the GOP is not serious abut spending because they keep pushing the SAME FRAUD as the Democrats: the idea that they can VOTE FOR spending (as they have, as the GOP House has had to vote for EVERY DIME of spending since the middle of 2010), as if that is not a vote for increasing the debt ceiling.  ONce lyou votre for the spending, you are a HYPOCRITE if you make a big issue out of the debt ceiling. 

As I said at the time, the GOP and Obama compounded the FRAUD I refernce above with a SHAM "deal' on sequestratin:  the idea that IF Congress could not come up with a final "deal" on the budget for the next ten years (lol--Soviet 5-yuear plan, expanded by 5 years), then thre would be (relatively small) "automatic cuts" in both domestic spending and defense spending.  Obma and Democrats insisted on the automatic cuts in DEFENSE spending, while the GOP insisted on the "atutomatic cuts" in "domestic spending".  Yes, tthese "automatic cuts" could be avoided by a later "deal" on an even bigger SHAM:  that ten-year plan that Obama and the gOP failed to agree upon at the time of the "debt ceiling" SHAM DEAL.  No, there ws never any chance that there would be a "big deal", no matter how much some GOP establishment types may have been wilng to do some sort of SHAM "big deal".  The reason is obvius:  Obaama WANTED "taxes on the rich" to be an ISSUE in this electin.  The GOP politiicans had almost all PLEDGED (Grover Norquist, I thank you, even though such "pledges" are absurd) not to raise taxes.  Obama was NEVER gonig to agree to any REAL spending cuts.  The GOP was actuallyl willing to do SHAM  "spending cuts", and gimmicks, but the gOP could NOT (politically) agree to the tax increases on the "rich" that Obma intended to use as his main campaign issue.  No chance.  That left the "automatic cuts".

But, I told you so.  I told lyou at the time that the "automatic cuts" were a SHAM as well.  The theory was that Democrats would make a "big deal" to avoid the domestic cuts, while the GOP would make a "big deal" to avoid the "defense cuts'.  Never going to happen, and it did not.  But I further told you at the time that the "automatic cuts' were ALWAYS A SHAM, too, just as much as the idea of some Sovietstyple "ten-year plan.   Obama, AND the members of Congress, ALL expected that the "automatic cuts' would NEVER go into effect, because Cngress and the President would "change their minds."  What Obama did in the last debate was let the CAT OUT OF THE BAG.  Obama is a DIHSONEST man (the most dishoenst ever to be President, at least in my ifetime).  He never had any intentino of the "automatic cuts" happening.  Neither did members of Congress. It was all a LIE.  What should the American peole do to politicians that LIE this obivusly?  Right.  DEFEAT THEM ALL.  In this case, any member of Congress who voted agaisnt this "deal", which was SIGNED BY OBAMA, is jsut as "guilty" as the ones who voted for it.  DEFEAT THEM ALL (every incumbent).  I told you that way back at the time of the "deral", in the summer of 2011.  And I told you WHY:  exactly the same reason I am telling yu now.  This "deal", and the "automatic cuts", were always a DELIBERATE LIE.  How can we STOP lies on things this important--lies this blatant and obvius?  Only one way;  DEFEAT THEM ALL. 

Yes, the LOGIC of my positoin, as I have told yo in the past, is that I shuld vote for ROMNEY--Obma being the incumbent who was part of this sham deal.  Well, I was never gong to votge for Obama, but I gag on voting for a "politics as usual", GOP establishment guy like Romney. So I endoresed Gary Johnson. However, the Benghazi terrorist attack happpened, and Obama proved himself more disnonest than even I had believed he, or any Presdient, culd be.  Obama now wants to be President over 4 American BODIES that he regarded as a POLITICAL PROBLEM to be handled POLITICALLY.  I could not stand that, and I have now endorsed Romney.  Note that now puts me in a CONSISTENT position . I told yo previusly, AT THE TIME, to vote AGAINST EVERY INCUMBENT, based in part on this SHAM "debt ceiling" debacle (and other dishonesties of similar nature).  I repeat that advice:  DEFEAT EVERY INCUMBENT--GOP or Democrat, including President Obama.  Tea Party?  Does nto matter.  DEFEAT THEM ALL.  As I have said there MAY be as many as 10 (not 10%) members of Congress worth saving.  Too hard to determine which ten.  DEFEAT THEM ALL. 

Agai President Obama--Liar-in-Chief--lurched into the turth when he said that "sequestratin will never hapen".  That is exactly what he INTENDS--now and THEN (at the time of the deal), and NOT because he really intended to "compromise" on some "deal" to "cut spending' so that the "automatic cuts" did not happen.  Ova always intended that he would RUN on the "issue" of class warfare (taxing the "rich").  Unless the GOP CAVED (which politically he knew they could not) on taxes, there would be NO "deal" on the "atutomatic cuts' until after the 2012 electin.  What Obama is counting on, of course, is WINNING the electin, and then getting a "big deal" with REAL TAX INCREASES, and SHAM "spending cuts".  Obama's idea is that the GOP, after LOSING an electin, will be FORCED to go along. Obama is counting on the pressure of the "fiscal cliff" to EXTORT a "deal" out of the GOP, beofre the end of the year, that will only provide a "fig leaf" (at best) for the GOP.  Obama MAY be right.

Does this mean that the "atutomatic cuts" won't happen?  Not necessarily. Depending on how cloes the elecitn is, and the results in races for CONGRESS, the GOP MIGHT still not be willing to go along with a "big deal" that obviusly is really ONLY about "tax increases for the rich".  And, if the GOP wins, the FRUSTRATED Democrats might decide that they will give the GOP some of what Democrats regards as heir own medicine, and NOT COOPERATE with eithe extension of the Bush tax cuts (all of them, unless taxes are increased on the "rich"), and Democrats may REFUSE to enter into any "big deal" that REALLLY (lol) "cuts spending".  In either case, the "automatic cuts' MIGHT go into effect, even though NO ONE (and I mean that literally) intended for that to happen, even if there wsa no "bigdeficit deal'. 

You see why I jsut can't stand "politics as usual"?  You should.  DEFEAT THEM ALL.  And I mean it.  You should vote for NO Fedeeral incumbent:  GOP or Democrat, includng Obama.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). Oh,, I said back at the time of the sham "debt ceiling deal" that I, personally, would insist that Congress LIVE WITH ITS DEAL.  I fully expected that NO member of Congress would actually stand up and say that, and they have not.  Oh, there may be some members of Congress who are "quietly" saying something like this, but it is likely a SHAM. And I am not sure there are ANY.  I have not heard anyone taking this positon: that the "atutomaitic cuts" should HAPPEN, because there is no otehr way to start enforcing HONESTY in Congress and the White House.  No, I do NOT think the (not enough)) "cuts" will really destroy the country, although I don't faovr the "dfense cuts'.  But I don't think "defense" should be IMMUNE from scrutiny, and ONE YEAR of seeing how these "atutomatic cuts" work would not be a bad thing. (but see future article on the Labor Deaprtment and my brother, who may be at risk for his job).  However, I admit many will find this merely "vindictive" on my part.  Maybe so. But that merely emphasizes:  DEFEAT THEM ALL.  Unless we do SOMETHING (and we won't, this year), we will see history rpeat over and over again. 

Monday, October 22, 2012

Bob Schieffer: Worst of Dishonest, Partisan Political Hacks

Remember that game (among othes) where the replacement officials made what appeared to be the WRONG call on the last play of the game, costing the Green Bay Packers the game?  Well, imagine that the OFFICIALS for the NEXT Greeen Bay Packers game (where there ws, in fact, another apparent bad call with regular officials) said this outrageous thing:

"You know, in myexperience, WINNERS do not compalin abut the officials." 

Can you even imagine OFFICILAS of a coming game trying to suggest they CANNOT BE CRITICIZED, and that--by the way--the Green Bay Pacers are lOSERS?  The NFL, and th eofficials, would never hear the end of it. But football referees and baseball umpires are more HONEST than "journalists" (among the most DISHONEST class of peopl ewho have ever lived on this Earth).  Sports officials, will, sometimes at least, ADMIT that they made a mistake, and even APOLOGIZE for it (although I did not see that happen with regard to the Green Bay game). 

This brings us to Bob Schieffer, moderator of tonnight's Presidential debate (terrible "choice"), who is ONE of those mostg DISHONEST people who have ever walked the Erth. Doubt me?  Never do that, unless yo want to look like a fool. Here is what I SAW Schieffer say, when he was asked a questin about previouis debate moderators being "criticized" for their performance:

"Well, i hope you will forgive me for a sports reference, but I have noticed that winners of a sports contest never complain about the officiating."

This is even MORE OUTRAGEOUS than if NFL officials for an upcoming game involving a team where there was an apparent bad call the previus week made a point out of suggesting that only LOSERS criticize the calls of an official.   This is not quite ture, by the way, as sometimes the WINNNER of a baseball or fotball game will mention "overcoming" a bad call.  It is, of course, "true", but DISHOENST and IRRELEVANT, to say that d"winnders' do not get as angry as losers about bad calls.  That is because, if you WIN, the "bad call" can be regarded as pretty much MOOT.  You overcame it.  But does that EXUSE THE BAD CALL.  ONly a man as truly DISHOENST and STUPID as Bob Schieffer would suggest it does.  Debates, of course, are not the same as sports contests (did I not just tell you Schieffer is STUPID).  It is not really a matter of who "wins" a debate, but MINDS CHANGED (r made up).  EVERY "bad call" by a moderator has SOME effecteven if it is "overcome (unless, as I recommend, a candidate does like Newt Gingrich and TAKES ON THE MODERATOR, in which case the candidate CAN benefit, although only with a very risky move). 

Look at what Bo Schieffer, DISHOENST man, attempted to do.  He attempted to say that there is NOTHING he could do--no matter how bad--for which he should be criticized , because "only losers" complain about the "officiating".  Thus, Cany Crowlye can't be criticized for a LIE about President Obama's statements on Libya, because if you complain it is becuase you are on the losing side". 

Sorary.  This is NOT "nit picking'.  This is the aCTUAL ATTITUDE of AlL of our DISHEONST "journalists".  They simply AVOID ever acknowledging mistakes, and even hanllenge the "Right" of people to criticize them.  These are some of the WORST, MOST ARROGANT, STUPIDEST LOSERS to ever walk the Earth.  Memo to Bob Schieffer:  you ARE on of those DISHOENST LOSERS.

If you are not dishonest, why wouuld you make a statment attmepting to IMMUNIZE yourseflf from criticism, no matter how BADLY yu do?  ONly DISHONEST people do this sort of COVER UP for themselves and their profession. 

Oh. You want to know abut the "partisan" part?  Aftter all, were not Jim Lehrer and Candy Crowley criticized from opposite sides.  This is another argumetn, by the way, from DISHOENST LOSERS:  the "argument" that "both sides are unhappy".  This isanother DISHOENST "argument" for "journalists" to avoid facing their DISHOENSTY.  and istakes.  Now I think Jim Lehrer did a pretty good job, becaUse--like a god sports officiall--he let the CNDIDATES (players) pay the game, rather than injecting HIMSELF into the game when he could avoid it.  But the fact is that both sides MAY BE unhappy because "journalists" have been THAT BAD.  More often than not, that is true.    But the "partisan" part of the headline comes from previus experience with Bob Schieefer, as itemized in previus articles posted on this blog (as far back as 2008). This outraeous statemetn I quote from Schiefer establishes that he is DISHOENST and INCOMPETENT.  Take my word for it that he is a partisan hack (also established by the fact that he is a CBS "journalsit").

P.S. No priifreadub  ir soekk cgecjbg (bad eyesight).

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Obama, Libya and Get Smart: Is Hillary Clinton Really a Trained Black Widow Spider?

Oriental detective Harry Hoo (to Maxwell Smart, in a mid-sixties episode of TV secret agent parody, "Get Smart"):  "What do you think this trained (lol) black widow spider means? (found on dead man).

Max:  "It means that the exploding birthday cake was no accident."

You shuld be able to figure out why I feel like Preisdent Obama has put me in some sorrt of "Get Smart" parody of the real world.  For political reasons, Obama denied the OBVIUS from the day of the Libyan attack, and only backed off (very reluctantly, and not really personally)  maybe a WEEK after the terrorist attack that KILLED our ambassador to Libya, along with 3 other Americans.  It is not jsut that Obama spoke to the U.N. and talked ONLY about the video.  It is not just that Obama went on Letterman a full WEEK after the attack, and STiLL reused to call the attack a terrorist attack (USING the "pending investigatino" ploy to maintain his terrophobic fear of the word "terror" and "terrorist").  It is that the Obama Administratin had an obvius POLICY-for POITICAL REASONS--of refusing to acknowledge that the Libyan attack was a preplanned terrorist attack--preferring to BLAME that anti-Muslim for ALL of the violence in the Middle East and Arab world.  That is hwy the U.N. ambassador went on FIVE Suday "news" shows, and blamed the Libyan attack on a "spontaqneous demonstratin" that NEVER EXISTED.  It is simply unaccpetable to me to have a man like this (Obama) as President of the United States, which is why I CHANGED my endoresement from Gary Johnson to Mittt Romney. My vote, in Texas, does not mean anything.  And I don't delude myself that peole will slavishly follow my endorsement.  But I can no longer contemplate, as I could before Obama's disgraceful POLITICAL DECEIT on Libya, the idea of casting a "protest vote" and "endorsement", even if it means I undercut Romney (to whatever small degree).  As I have stated, Obama wants to be elected Presidetn again over the BODIES of 4 dead Americans he has BETRAYED with the POLITCAL GAMES he has played with regard to the Libyan terrorist attack.  The "Get Smart" excerpt above actaully portrays how absurd Obama has been.

Do I really think that Obama would DENY that an exploding birthday cake was a BOMB representing a terrorist attack, if it fit his POLITICAL AGENDA?  That is exactly what I believe, and the evidence is actually conclusive that Obama is willing to be that blatantly deceitful.  Look at the Ft. Hood TERRORIST SHOOTING, by a shooter who EMAILED the al-Qaida head in Yemen (later killed by one of our predator drones).  The Obama Administratin STILL categorizes the Fr. Hood shooting as a "workplace incident".   Do you think they would be doing that if a TEA PARTY "extremist" had done such a shooiing, after emails to Sarah Palin?  Not a chance.  Ft. Hood only directly involved one shooter, but it was a clear TERRORIST ATTACK.  Just like Libya, Obama promised to "get to the bottom" of the Ft. Hood massacre, when what he has really done is try to sweep it under the rug (as he has tried, and is tring, to do with the Benghazi terrorist attack).  The mann simply should not be President of the United States. No.  I do not believe that ANY other Preisdent in my lifetime would have treated the Libyan attack KILLING 4 Americans as a POLITICAL EVENT to be HANDLED POLITICALLY (rather than as a terrorsit attack that killed those Americans).  The Obama emphasis on that VIDEO was totally POLITICAL, and DIMINISHED the deaths of these Americans as virtually an "accident (being in the wrong place at the wrong time).  Do yo see why I say Obama is perfectly capable of saying that an exploding birthday cake was an ACCIDENT?  That is almost what he has done in Libya, with this ridiculous attempted narrative about a "spojntaneous demonstratin" that NEVER EXISTED.

There are other problems with Obama and Libya.  Did he Obama Administrratin fail to take sufficient steps to secure the safety of our consulate, and our ambassador, for POLITICAL REASONS (wanting Obama's Libyan "policy" to seem a "success")?  Maybe so.  However, hindisght always is a danger here. What I thin is more obvius is that Obama was so intent on a SOFT response to the EGYPTIAN attack on our embassy, that the entire Obama Administratin was sending out the message that this was ALL ABOUT THE VIDEO (and not Obama POLICY) . Did this DELAY our RESPONSE to the attack in Libya.  Why was not the American MILITARY IMMEDIATELY SCRAMBLED. We suposedly had a DRONE over Libya at the time.  We had "rapid resonse temas" nto that far away.  Should we not have IMMEIDATELY responded to the "firefight' as best we could, even if all we ended up doing was SECURING THE AREA after the Americans were already dead?  i think so.  Obama had already SET IN MOTION the idea that ALL of this was about the VIDEO, and the Obama Administratin maintained that "message" about LIBYA, for POLITICAL reasons and to keep up this POLICY positon, even after it was obvius it could not fly.  UNFORGIVABLE.  I certainly can't forgive it, and I won't Obama dserves nothing but RIDICULE for what he said and did AFTER the Libyan terrorist attack that killed four Americans.

Hillary Clinton?  You know that Harry Truman (lol) Obama sent Hillary Clinton out to TAKE THE BLAME for LIbya--at least for the failure to have adequate secuirty.  I actually heard Mark Warner, a DISHOENST Democrat, say that President Obama deserves "credti" for the low unemployment rate in Virginia, despite the new GOP governor, BECASUE THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE PRESIDENT. Again, it is another one of those items of evidence that God may not exist that a thunderbolt did not strike Warnter dead on the spot.  More than anyting else, the LIBYAN BUCK STOPS WITH OBAMA--not the Virginia unemployment rate.

Is Hillary Clinton really a "trained black wido spider" for Obama?  Well, I doubt if it is that simple.  Hillary Clinton is hardly a person to simply do Obama's bidding, with no agenda of her onw.  However, I do think Clinton made a MISTAKE here.  IF Clinton has ANY further political aspirations, then I think she has HURT them BADLY by taking "rfesponsibility" for Libya.  Not a good move.  And, to a degree, I believe Obama ut Clinton "in a box", like a traine black widow spider, where shke either had to "take responsibility" (take one for the team), or be finished in DEMOCRATIC PARTY POLITICS.  Clinton may wll have finished herself in NAITNAL POLITICS by what she did, but Obama had her in that box. 

I am now sorry I endorsed Hillary Cltinon for Preisdent in 2008.  yes, I VOTED for her in the Teax primary, and PROMISED to vote for her against McCain.  I could not votre for OBAMA agaisnt McCain, although I could not vote for McCain either, but I did think Hillary Clinton would not DESTROY the country as i thought--correclty--Barack Obama would (and John McCain).  One reason for my ositoion, of course, is that GOP politicians would have MORE REASON to oopppose Hillary Clinton than John McCain, meaing that the RESULTS under McCin woud--in my opinion--have been WORSE than under Clinton, and conservatives would be BLAMED for those results.  It is because I think the same thing that would have happened wtih McCain will happen with Romney that I endorsed Gary Johnson.  However, that wa beofer the last debate made me realize that Obama has gone beyond my capacity for PAIN, antd that it is just UNACCEPTABLE for Obama to be President of the United States.  No.  Evn I had not hought THIS BADLY of Obama,, and I already thought he was the most dishoenst of American Presidents I had ever seen. There is such a thing as ordinary political deceit, which Obama has taken to new heights (enocuraged by his sycophants in the media).  But the Libyan terrorist attack involved the DEATH of four Americans, and to treat that as mere POLITICS is just not what I think ANY other Preisdent would have done.  Obama, with Jon Stewart, said that the death of 4 Americans is "not optimal".  To me, this is an ACCURATE description of how he looked at the matter:  as a challenge for his POLITICAL CAMPAIGN that wa "not optimal".  Again, even if lyou accept (as I do, partly because of US) that ALL politicans are "dishoenst" to one degree or another, this parrticular kind of "politics' is beyond the pale.  I wil never accept it.

Yahoo "News" featured PROPAGANDA headline from tonight:  "After Libyan misfire, pressure is on Romney in foreign policy debate".  No.  Romney may not have handdled evey;thing perfectly , but this is PROPOAGANDA--a LIE to boot--pure and simple.  It is OBAMA wh MISFIRFED on Libya (not to mentin Egypt and the entire Arab world), and who has MISLED the American peole for POLITICAL reasons.  You know the story was PROPAGANDA, when you realize that the LEFTISTS from Yahoo took THIS "featured" story from REUTERS.  Yahoo "News" "features" very FEW stories from Reuters, and every time it does so the sotry is even MORE LEFTIST PROPAGANDA than the despicable AP (which Yahoo usually uses, if not ABC or some other source besides Reuters). No. BOYCTT YAHOO AND AT&T (which uts its name right up there with Yahoo on these "featured" stories), Yep  The body of the "sotry" egven says Rmney faces an 'uphill battle" in the debate.  Again, partisan propaganda, pure and simple, which is true of AlL of Yahoo "News" (really all of the mainstream media, as it is not accident that Candy Crowley LIED in saying that President Obama said, right after the Libyan attack, that it was a "terror attakc').

"Terrorphobia": "Unnatural fear of the word "terror', and the word 'terrorist', especially as applied to terrorist attacks by extremist Muslims.  The word can be used in a sentence this way:  Barack Obama is a victim of terrorphobia, as illustrated by hhis inability to refer to the Libayn terrorist attack as a 'terrorist attack'. The condition hs no known cure" 

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Dames: Trouble

Man in crowd (just before woman in crowd deliters haymaker to him,l from "Double Wedding" with William Powell and Myrna Loy):  "I knew there was a woman behind it.  Whenever there's trouble, there's always a woman behind it.'

Mr. Waverly, ruefuly (head of U.N.C.L.E., from "The Man from U.N.C.L.E."):  "They can cause trouble for you, can't they.'  (referring to young dames, and specifically one yhoung dame who had gotten his youthful self into trouble).

The list just goes on and on.  Old movies and TV shows are almost unanimous:  Dames (women) mean trouble for us poor men.   And that was BEFORE men let women remove the velvet glove, and show only the iron fist beneath, as they no longer even PRFETEND.

Dames (Women): Wisdom of Old Movies (When Men Were Men and WomenWereWomen)

This is the return of the feature of this blog imparting the wisdom of old movies about dames, sicne men have lsot their way and need reminding.  As any hard boiled dick could tell you, by the way, ALL women are dames.

Gabby Hayes ("Sons of the Pioneers"):  Women!!!  There oughta be a law agin' 'em."  (after a women hits him on the head with dishware)

Notice that the headline is a little misleading.  It implies, correctly, that men have CHANGED, as we continue to head fruther into the 'chickification" of America.  However, the headline might imply that WOMEN have also changed. That is ture ony in a sense.  As the Gabby Hayes quote shows, and innumerable other quotes from old movies, women have ALWAYS been the most VICIOUS of creatures:  the most dangerous creatures on Earth.  It is just that thke velvet glove is now gone.  All that is left is the iron fist.  Women used to be willing to PRETEND, because men at least made an eFFORT to keep them under control:.  Women were not quite sure enough of themselves to assert open contorol, for fear men would rebel.  No such fear with the "modern" man.  It does not take much to make men HAPPY (simlple lcreatures that we are).  Men don't care about reality.  We wre happy with the PRETENSE.  Fake orgasms?  Fine with us.  But women no longer PRETEND, and that is what makes the modern "man" such a pitiful, miserable creature.  Men have always preferrred fantasy women to real women, and--to a small degree--women used to indulge us.  No more.  Are women happier?  I doubt it.  But I KNOW men are not happier, despite women now adopting the sex "ethics" of men. Men were HAPPY with the PRETENSE that we were lords and masters.

Notice how our chick controlled media WRITES OFF "white males"--really males in general--as far as present day America. It is ONLY the "woman's vote" that matters. 

Notice, also, the implied INSULT here.  The insult is that women are STUPID enough to buy into this absurd "War on Womne" propaganda;  and even STUPID enough to be BRIBED merely with "free" contgraception.  Women are supposed to be so dumb that they will be willing to have the whole country go down the drain, so long as they are promised 'free contraception", and that they--and only they--will be free to kll a developing human being within them FOREVER. 

Although I waver from time to time, this blog has correctly told you that even women are not dumb enough to seell out this country for "free' contraception. There is, really, a War on Men gong on here, and women know they are winning.  Why should they SELL  OUT a country that they now contgrol?  Because they are socialists at heart, or economic fascists, like Obama/  Dream on, leftists.  As I have correctly told you, women are the most PRACTICAL of creatures.  This may  This lack of real principle may cause them to go wildly off of the beam, to their own detriment, but women are aware that:  There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."  Look at how they DEMEANED tghemselves, and PRETENDED to cater to men all of those years.  Who, besides women, better know that a "free lunch' can COST you more than you can ever afford? No.  The left is deluded if they think women can be bribed with "free" contraceptin.  But I admit that I worry whetghr women really think these things through, or tend to jsut go with the "emotion" of the moment.  I know that is a sexist stereotype, but I have been tyrying to get my sexist identity back ever since the left forced me 'out of the closet" as a feminist.  The shame of that still overwhelms  me, when I think of it. 

No. Polls that may show a supposed 25% difference between men voters and women voters go way beyond stupid, into actual, clinical insanity (loss of contact with reality, which is the real definitin of schizophrenia).  Even as many males rebel abainst the "chickificatin" of America, and get angry about Obama, the leftisat media, and the rest of the left "writing them off", it really is impossible for the "male vote" and the "female vote" to be THAT different.  Media peole who "reort" this as great divide asreal really are clinically insane:  no contact with reality at all. 

"But, Skip, you say men might rebel?  Is it not possible that men are on the verge of a new War of Independence, as they realize that they have LOST this War on men?"

Yep.  That is possible.  I just see no present indictin that modern "men" have yet gotten their act together, and are prepared--en masse--to return to those days of yore, when men were men.  That is why I am returning to my series on "dames":  to inspire men to stand up to women and assert that we MATTER.  I know that it takes extraordinary bravery, and that there will be casualties, because women are such vicius creatures.  But we men have nothing to lose but our cains.  Women hae never been "under control".  But there was once a time, in those days of yesteryear, when women at least felt that need to PRETEND that is so important to us men.  Will we EVER be able to at least make women nervous enough to restore something of that PRETENSE so necessary to the happiness of men?  I don't know.  It may depend on women--correctly--coming to the conclusin that THEY are not happy with the modern, wimpy species of men.

In the meantime, the left is deluded that women are willing to let the left destoroy the country in the name of a "ar on women".  I am more afraid that women, willing to buy into the FALSE "philosophy" of "moderatin", and this idea that you should never be "harsh", will keep us DRIFITING along the path to destruction by continuing to prefer politicians who do not "rock the boat".  Even though I have now endoresed Romney, because of Libya and President Obama's willing to treat four Amerian BODIES as a mere political problem, readers of this blog know that I think thre is little chance Romneywill be any better than Obama. Yes. I DO "blame' women for this unwillingness to actauly vote for politicians who are NOT 'politics as usual".  Romney is "politics as usual".  I believe that it is FEAR (whether justified or not) of the "woman's vote" that keeps giving us candidates like Romney and discourages cowardly politicians from really CAHING DIRECTIN (back to founding principles).  I am certainly not talking about all women, as I wouould prefer Sarah Palin to ALLL of the candidates that ran for President this year.  But it is not ME who is pushing a STEREOTYPE of ""women's issues", and how women "feel" about those issues.  Until we get politic icans, including women poliicians, willing to take on that stereotype, and show women why it is in their interest not to buy  into this stereotype of how they are SUPPOSED to think, we may continue to be stuck in this self-destructive path we are on.

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

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Obama Loses 391,000 Jobs Last Week: No Improvement This Entire Year (as Blog PROVEN Right and Media PROVEN Liars)

Am I good, or am I good (in analysis, not in character). 

The disheonst Labor Department releases the number of new unemployment claims, filed in the previous week every Thursday.  Or, rather, as this blog has informed yhou for YEARS, the Labor Department uts out a dishoenst ESTIMATE of the number of new unemplyment claims every Thursday ,which is aLWAYS revised ONE DIRECTION (up) the next Thursday, usually by 3,000 or more.  And, for YEARS, our dishoenst media (basically ALL of them) have written headlines as if the weekly number released by the Labor Department is a REAL, "concrete" number, like counting on your fingers (or a computer).  First, as stated, the number is ALWAYS 3,000 or so OFF, in one directin, which shuld have long ago been corfrected (leading to conclusion Labor Deaprtment is DISHOENST.).  Second, however, the SUBJECTIVE "seasonal adjustment" means that you can NEVEr accept any one week's number as a real number, when it MAYU be total fiction.  But our mdiea peoole are much MOLRE DISHONIEST than our Labor Deparmtent, and KEEP wriging FALSE headlines:  week after week; month after month; and year after year.  Unlike others, this blog tells lyou this IN FORESIGHT, and I am almost NEVER wrong.  Look at this blog's article last week, about last Thursday's numbers, where I got EVERYTHING EXACTLY RIGHT.  No., not a matter of onpininoi.  What I said last week was PROVEN right today, and the media (not to mentin the Labor Deaprtment) PROVEN WRONG (dishoens and incompetent). 

The media last week, for the FOURTH time this year since the weekly nuimber of new unemployment claims reached a yearly low of 351,000, announced a "four-year low" in new unemplylment claims of 339,000.   The reason the media could previusly RECYCLE the same headline, as to "breaking" the SAME 341,000 number, FOUR times this year is this LIE of comparing the UNREVISED number with the REVISED number to be release the next week.  Three previus times, the UNREVISED number was under 351,000, only to have the REVISED number make the headines a LIE by equalling or exceeding the 351,000 REVISED low of mid-February.  Thus, the 339,000 number of new unemplyment claims released last Thursday was rEVISED this Thursday to 342,0000.  Previously, in support of the same LYING headline three separate times, the media had used an UNREVSIED number of 348,000-350,0000 to FALSELY PROCLAIM (3 times) that the 351,0000 "four-year-low" had been breached.  Notice thqt this time the "low" was low enoguh--as I told you last week it would probably be--to actually end lup below 351,000, even AFTER the usual revisin.

However, this blog told you somethihng else OBVIUS last week:  The 339,000 number of supposed new unemplhment clais was TOTAL FICTIN.  Yes, the media LIED about lthe 339,000, as did the Labor Department, because the REVISED number was 342,000 ("donw" 3,000 less than claimed.  However, the 342,,000 wouuld have been a pretty good number, except it was TTOTAL FICTIN (as was obvius from an aanalysis of the numbers for lpreviuos weeks,, as this blog provided last week, along with the FACT that there was NO obvius "surge" in the economy the previus week which would "explain" a "jump" in the number).  I tell you again, and I jsut PROVED it:  Members of our media who put out that headline abut a "four-year low last week are some of the most dishoenst people who have ever lived.  The HEADLINE needed to be that the number was FICATION, even if yoiu threw in that meaningless "four-yar low" stuff in the body of the article as a statistical clitch: not realy significant. 

Doubt me?  If so, you areall arfe a FOOL. That is because this Thursday I was PROVEN right.  Not only was the 339,,000 number REVISED to 342,000, EXACTLLY as I predicted, but the 342,000 was PROVEN to be FICTIN (just as I had also told you).  How?  The number of new unemplyment claim ms a for last week was announced this Thursday as 388,000 (most likely at least 391,000, for the reasons explained abovwe--and week after week--in this blog).  Okay. Two weeks ago Thrusay the number of new unempllyment claims for the previous week was alost 370,0000.  Then that number supposedly DROPPED by more than 25,000 the next week, as reported last Thursday.  Now, today, the number of new unemployment claims last week supposedly "jumped" 46,000 (actaully, most likely, 49,000).  Is this STATISTICALLY POSSIBLE?  Nope.  It is NOT.  Id ARE you to dipute me on this.  Again, you merely reveal yourself as a fool, if you do.  No.  This Thursday's lannounced, unrevised numbmner of 388,000 new unemplyment claims last week PROVES that the supposed l342,000 for the previus week was FICTION (a statistical glitch of some sort, if yourule out deliberatte dishoensty--the DELIBERATE DISHOENSTY coming in how these numbers are FALSELY REORTED). 

No.  The "labor market" does NOT "jump arou;nd" this way.  Yes the weekly number may "jump around",because of seasonal factors taht are NOT propoerly accounted for in the 'seasonal adjustment'.  But--in the absence of some truly HUGE and unusual event, the weekly numbers cannot be regarded as REAL if they supposedly JUMP back and forth this way.  I told lyou that last week, and it is true.  Unless there is some sort of estalbished "trend", as there has nOT been this entire year, LARGE weekly moves in the number of new unemplyment claims are FICTIN. The media LIES each and every time they even impy otherwise.

Don't these numbers mean anything?  Sure, they CAN mean SOMETHING, but only OVER TIME.  Thus, the number of new unemplyment claims has been in a RANGE of 350,000 to 390,000 this entire year (ignoring last weeek's TOTAL FICTION). That means that the labor market has NOT IMPROVED this entire year.  lAs this blog has told you, week after week, we are STUCK.  We remain STALLED, in a BAD PLACE.  Last week's fiction did not change that.  Over time, as proven this week, the number of new unemplyment clams remains UNIMPROVED this entire year.  Could you simpy average last week and this week to arrive at a "real" number?  It is tempting, since that number would be somewhere around 365,000, which is consistent with the numbers for previus weeks.  It is ture lthat the 391,000 number MAY be just as much FICTIN as the 342,000 number.  But you can only know what is really happpening OVER TIME.  Yoiu can't just assume you can get the "correct" number by using a two-week average, although there is a good chance that will give yu a better picture (as would the "four-week average").  NONE of this numbers is EXACT, and it is a LIE to pretend that they are (as our dishoenst media does every week).  IF the weekly number continues a TREND, then it might have some significance.  But, in the absence of such an esstablished TRND, the weekly number is pretty much meaningless (except to show that there is NO TREND of 'improvement', or, yet, disaster). 

Memo to CNBC, and I repeat: You are The Stupidest People on Earth, and some of the most dishoenst.  But that applies to ALL  of the financial "media', with a very few exceptions (Rick Santelli, on CNBC, at least TRIES, without being able to report the FACTS the way I am correctly doing it, ebcuase the rest of CNBC pretty much drowns him out).

Oh.  You remember that 7.8% monthly unempllyment rate, based on a FICTIONAL "increase" of 873,000 jobs in the "Household Survey", while the official increase in jobs was 114,000 (employuer survey)?  Do ANY of you doubt that unemllyment rate is sheer FICTION?  If so, you are again expoising yourself as a fool.  The ONLY waqy to make sense of these varous numbers is to LOOK FOR DISCREPANCIES, and view them over time.  Taht 873,000 "increase" in jobs used to calculate the unemplymenbt rate was even more FICTINAL than the 342,0000 number on weekly new unemplyment claims. Is there DISHOENSTY invovled here (at least ont he part of individuals--no need for a "grand conspiracy")? I think there is.  But there is NO DOUBT there is DISHOENSTY in the way these numbers are REPORTED.  You MUST pay attentin to descrepancies, or otherwise yo are being DISHOENST and INCOMOPETEWNT.  (CNBC, this means YOU PEOLE).  If you don't see a media outlet reporting these emplyment numbers this way, then you KNOW they are DISHONEST and INCOMOPETENT. 

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

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Obama and Libya: Unforgivable Lie by Our Terrorphobic Liear-in-Chief

It was not only President Obama wo lied in tonight's deabte.  CNN's (The Liar Network) Candy Crowley INTERRUPTED to LIE. 

No.  It is a LIE that Brack Obama called the Benghazie attack that KILLED 4 Americans an "act of terror" the day after the attack.  All th ePresident said, in remarks NOT directed at the "cuase" of the attack, was that he (the President) would nevfr accept "acts of terror". In contrast with taht, the Obama Administration--for more than a week--said it was a "spontaneous demonstratino" caused by that anti-Muslim video clip.  The Obama Administratin continued to do this even AFTER it was publicly known that there was nO "spontaneous demonstration in LIbya.  Meanwhile, President Obama went to the U.N. and talked about the VIDEO, but did NOT talk about a TERRORIST ATTACK.   Our U.N. ambassador was SSENT on FIVE Sunday TV shows to "blame" the Libyan killings on a 'spontaneous demonstration". 

No.  I caN't acept this.  To me, it is unforgivable. It is NOT ACCEPTALBE to do "politcs as usual" on the KILONG of a U.S. ambassaodr, and to mislead the American peole on that.

I feel so strongly abut this that I am going to break a vow.  I vowed NOT to vote for Mitt Romney or any such GOP estalbishment candidate.  It does not matter, except symbolicaly, because I live in Texas, but I feel I HAVE to vote for Mitt Romney.  Despite Sarah Palin, I was never able to come to this point with John McCain, and did NOT vote for him.  I was fully prepared to go the same route with Mitt Romney, and I consider Paul Ryan JUST AS BAD.  And Romney, like McCain, may yet cause me to go back to my original vow.  With McCain, the coice of Palin caused me to waver, but--in the end--I could NOT STAND McCain.  The same thing may happen with Romney, or maybe I will go catatonic, with cognitive dissonance, at the polls. 

However, I simply refuse to put up with what Obama has done on Libya.  "Terorphobic" (my coined word) is KIND for how he treated the Libyan attack.  Now he wants to BLAME everyone else, and "take credtit" ofr a remark tkhat did NOT lable the LIbyan attack as a terrorist attack. 

No.  As of now, I haVE to endorese Mitt Romney for President--very reluctantly.  I jsut can't stand the thought of helpong, in any way, a man (Obama) become President OVER LTHE BODIES of Americans--when he has treated the death of those Americans as a POLITICAL EVENT as to which t oprodue a POLITICAL NARRATIVE. 

Sorry.  I just can't be in a position of helping Obama, by word or deed, in any way, even though my opinion of Romney and Ryan has not changed at all. 

Now you might regard it as "helping" Obama to keep talking negatively about Romney and Ryan.  But I refuse to be DISHOENST about it, and suddently act like I have changed my mind whole heartedly.  Not so.  Obama has jsut, for me, DISQUALIFIED himself to be President of the United Stattes, and I can't be in a position of not doing what I can--without being dishoenst--to DEFEAT him for an office I firmly believeve he does not have the CHARACTER to hold.

Oh. Obama AND CNN also liked aobut OIL DRILLING.  Romney was correct that PERMITS to dirll on Federal lands are WAY down under the Obama Administration.  For Obama to claim that he has SUPPORTED drilling is a LIE.  The man has no shame, and will BLATANTLY LIE. 

How did CNN lie?  First, CNN ignored the fact (in what I saw) taht PERMITS are what Obama has influence over--not atcual drilling and production.  Nevertheless, oil PRODUCTION has gone down 14%. CNN called this "misleading" (a LIE-it is The Liar Network that is "misleadking'), because the BP oil spill "explains" it  Obama, you will remember, although CNN did not mention it, imposed a MORATORIUM on driling int he Gulf of Mexico, even AFTER a Federal court had ORDERED the moratorium to be lifted.  But the lIE has to do with PERMITS, which is what the Obama Administratin has control over.  Tose are down alomst 50%, as Romney calimed.  CNN--The Liar Network--ws not doen.  I only saw a few minutes of the CNN "analysis", and these LIES are what I saw.  CNN cited the President--without saying he was "misleadeding"--as citing increased driling ACTIVITY on Federal lands.  CNN, The Liar Network, said this was "true", and NOT misleading.  WRONG< CN.  Yui are among the worst liars to ever walk this Earth . OIL PRICE is what controls drilling activity.  That is a MISLEADING statistic.  The most relevant statistic, as Romney said, is PERMITS.  Permits are NOT private decisions.  They represent decisions by the Federal Government--Obama.  PERMITS were, in fact, WAY DOWN from the Bush Administratin, and it is a LIE (an obvius lie) for Obama to claim that he has PROMOTED oil drilling.

No.  Mr. President, you are a LIAR.  But I could treat most political lies, includng on drilling, as "politics as usual" even though you are mroe blatant about it than any President I ahve ever seen.  However, I cannot "forgive" Libya, and I WON'T. 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking--bad eyesight.

Harry Truman: The Buck Stops with My Secretary of State

"Um, Skip"

Yeah. Wha is it?

"I don't think Harry Truman said that."

"He must have. Hillary Clinton, who I supported for President in 2008, would not lie to me.  She said:  'The buck stops hre.'  She is not the President.  She is the Secretary of State.  She says she 'takes responsibility'' for what happened in Behghazi."

"I don't care, Skip.  Harry Truman said that the buck stoppoed with HIM, the President, and did not say it stopped with some underling."

"Okay.  I stand corrected. But yu eralize that yuo are a DEAD PERSON.  I would not want to be the one who called Hillary Clitnon an 'underling'.  I would get myself into the witness protectin program, if I were you."

"Skip.  You ARE me--my alter ego--pretty much around the bend, by the way"

Oh, yeah.  I forgot.  Well, if this blog suddeny disappears, readers will know what happened.

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

Monday, October 15, 2012

Obama, Harry Truman and Tony Romo: The Buck Stops Here

See Saturday's article on how Obvama and leftist Democrats have REPUDIATED Truman. You may notice that I left it as an exercies for the reader to remember how Obama has "blamed BUSH" (not to mentin the GOP Congress) for ALL of his problems and mistakes.  Harry Truman would be proud--NOT. Nice of Obama and his team to EXCUSE GEORGFE W.GUSH, however, by saing that the President has a "right' to "rely" on what his "intelligence" people are telling him, even in the face of contrary information (going well beoyond Bush and "weaons of mass destruction" in Iraq).  Do you stil doubt that our mainstream emedia contains the worst hypocrites--gong along witht he Obama view that criticism of Obama on this kind of thing sis merely "politics"--to ever walk the Earth?

Oh. Tony Romo.  I keep watching Romo ABUSE his receivers--on TV--on the sidelines, AFTER omo throws aan interceptin.  Even Romo, with whom the Dalls Cowboys are unlikely to ever win a Super Bowl, does nto come out publiccly (as Obama has with regard to our STATE DEPARTMENT and CIA/INTELLIGENCE) "blamme" his receivers for ROMO'S FAILURES. But it seems to me that Romo ENCOURAGES the "blame game", where it is NEVERF ROMO'S FAULT that the Cowboys can't seem to win any big games. 

Nope.  IT IS Gromo's fauut, and that of Jason Garrett (the most recent coach shoe has FAILED). As Harry Truman said:  "The buck stops here."  It stops with Obama (lIAR on Libya in a way that NO Preisdent in my lifetime wouuld have lied), and it stops wti Romo and Garrett.

I get tired of announcers "balaming" Cowboy failures on everybody but Romo, as much as I get tired of Obama baliming everybody but himself for his own failures. Sure, Dallas receivers may have contributed to the downfall of the Dallas Cowboys, jsut as other peole may have CONTRIBUTED to the downfall (should be) of Barack Obama.  But the quarterback and coach cannot escape responbibility.  I am willing to state flatly;  The Dallas Cowboys will NEVER win another Super Bowl with Tony Romo as quarterback OR with Jason Barrett as coach,.

I saw the Chicago game, where Romo seemed to "blame" his rfeceivers for his interceptions, and so did the anouncers (picknig up on his cue).  I don'tg buy it.  Yes, for example, "Des Bryant" did to seem to run the bet route when one interception was retlurned for a touchdown, but ROMO CHOULD NEVER HAVE THROWN THE BALL. I now.  I am no "expert'. But I know what I saw.  The defeseive players were RIGHTG THERE. MAYBE Brayant could have prevented an interceptin if he had broken off his route, in the face of a blitz. But the defenders were THEERE.  Even if Bryant had run another oute, he may NOT have been "open".  There might have seill been an intercleptin.  ROMO made a MISTAKE, even if the receiver also made a mistake. The result was a touchdow--for Chicago.  That is the dirty little secret:  The Dallas Cowboys FAILURES have been a TEAM EFFORT, and that INCLUDES ROMO. 

Look at this last Sunday.  Yes, "Des Braynat" (not sure of spellign of first name) caught the "tying' touchdown pass, but then DROOPEED the 2-pont conversion so that the Cowboys remained 2 lpoints behind. However, Romo then lOST the game for the Cowboys with a typical LOUSY paly wit the game on the line.  The Cowboys got a break, with a pass iinterference call (correct call) that put the Cowboys on the Baltimore 32 yeard line, after an onside kick revovery, with enough time for at LEAST 2 plalys. What did Rmo do to LOSE the game?  I say that explicityly:  Tony Romo LOST this gbame.  What Romo did was throw a N)O-YARDAGE pass to Des Bryant, with limited time left, and themn paprently did nNOT nknow what to do to get another play off.  The PASS to Bryant was a MISTAKE.  It LOST a yaard or so, whe the Cowbyons were on the EDGE of their field goal kicker's range. IF the coach, Jason Garrett, CALLED this play, then HE was a CO-LOSER of this game.  The Cowboys NEEDED about 5-7 yards to get in GOD fiedl gal positni, with TWO (or maybe three) plays/  What they could NOT do was get tackled in the field of play without a plan oto IMMEDIATELY get off another play.  They had ONE time out left, and they needed htat time out for the field goal. What happened was that Romo comopleted a LOSING pass to Bryant, and then cuuld not get off another lay before callihg the time out for the fiedl goal.  Taht was DISASTER.  No excuse.  Quart3erbalck and Coach SHARED reponsbilitiy for FAiLURE to give Cowboys a better chance. Yes, Romo SHOULD have thrown the pass AWAY, rather than comoplte this DISASTROUS pass. No. You CAnNOT "balame' Bryant for not getting more yardage, or getting "deepter". This wa ROMO'S FAULT--not matter whether Bryant id as well as he could have done or not.  Romo HAD to make sure and GET YARADAGE, or else have an opportuinity for MORFE PALYS.  ROMO FAILIED.  Under pressure, Romon has proved himself a FAIURE.

You say I am too harsh on Romo, and Garrett? Maybe so. See my prvius articles on the St. Louis Cardianls , where yoiu mithg regradr me as "judgemental", but not as HARSH. But I have told you before that baseball is a GAME. Football is NOT just a "game". Footbal lis FOTBALL. That means I am willng to say that the DallaS Cowboys sould FIRE Jasn Garrett (at least att he end of the seasona), and sould TAHINK aobu ttrading Tnry Romo . 

By the way, the Cowboys' DEFENSE is not as good as advertised.  Again, when they HAD to have defensive stops, the Cowboy defense FAiLED to rise to the occaZsion on Sunday . Defensive STATISTICS, over recent years, have often been pretty good. But the bottom line remains the same:  Whe nthe GAME is on the line, the Dallas defesne FAILS. That was ture on Sunday as it has been true for moe than a decade.  Am I sayhing Rob Ryan shouuuld be FIRED as defesnive cordiantor?  How perceptive of you. I am saing exaclty that.  The Cowboys have the TALENT to do better, They jsut don't have the LEADERSHIP (Garrett, Ryan and Romo).  Harry Truman woululd knwo where I am coming from, on Obama, Garrett, Ryan, and Romo. 

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

Saturday, October 13, 2012

St. Louis Cardinals: The Maverick Deserves ALL of the Credit for Cardinal Miracles

I understand if you disagree with the headline, but look at the RECRD.  Last year, this blog MADE THE CALL in August, when the Cardinals were 10.5 games behind the Atlanta Braves for the "wild card" slot in the Natinal League playoffs. No. I did not make the call FOR the Cardinals.  Rather, I made the call that iw was al over, and the Cardinals OUT of the playoffs.  I still think I was right, except for one thing:  I did not adequately take into accont the ability of the ATLANTA BRAVES to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (ging 10-21,, or so, over the last 31 games).  But I did not sto with the "call". 

I correclty said, last year, that Tny LaRussa was doing a LOUSY job as manager of the St. Louis Cardinals, bo put  a talented team in a positoin that it was out of the race in late August.  Tony LaRussa, as with others (Anderson Cooper, for example), obviuslly paid attentin to this blgo.  There is no doubt taht LaRusssa was CAPABLE.  But he was jsut coasting along last year, managing a talented team to barely more than a ..5000 record.  LaRussa, in fact, PROVED my pikint.  He got MAD, because of MY article.  What else can you conclude?  I posted my article right at the LOW point of the Cardinals lat season. From that pont, LaRussa  and the Cardinals SURGED.  It is true they needed a LOT of helpe from the Braves, but the Crdinals suddently became a GOOD team.  LaRussa started producing MIRACLES, jus to SHOW ME that he was still a gnius.  You know the ned.  The Cardinals won playoff series after playoff series in the FINAL GAME (they have now won six straight "eliminatin" games).  And th eCardinals produced that MIRACLE in the 6th game of the World Series, when they were TWICE trailing by 2 runs and down to not only their last out, but their last STRIKE.  All ME.  I produced ALL of it, with my article in August. 

Doubt me?  Never do that.  Segue to this year.  Again, I declared correctly that the Crdinals had been managed unsuccessfully by Mike Matheny, to barely better than a .500 team.  I correctly noted that Matheny kept LOSING most of the game where a manager might be expected to make a difference:  the COMPETITIVE games (close in the late innings).  This would even continue into thtis year's playoff with the WaShington Natinals, where the Cardinals-until the miracle last game--LOST the 2 close games (with Matheyny mking decisins that did not turn ut to be right to win one of those close games, when I think ehe should have won ONE). Again, the Cardinals produced a MIRACLE last night.  Down 7-5 in the 9th, and again down to their last out, and last STRIKE (TWICE), the Cardinals again staes a miracle rally to win 9-7.  No.  I don't think that Matheny MANAGED this game particularly welll.  He left Adam Wainwright in the game too long, despite TELLING the announcers of the game ahead of time that he would not "ride" Wainwright too long if he ran inatop trouble.  This caused the Cardinals to fall behind 6-0 after only 3 innings.  And--not so obiuvsly--I would have given Molina the "take" sign i the 5th inning, with a 2-0 count, AFTER the Nationals' pitcher had already WALKED Cardinal after Cardinal, includng jsut walking in a run.  Molina has not been hitting well.  Why not MAKE the pitcher throw a second strike, rather than swinging at the first strikee? Molina flied out. In the end, howeer, it did not matter. The Cradinals had one more MIRACLED left.

Okay.  It was not quite so dramatic this time.  But WHY were the Cardinals "inspired" to another miracle?  Again, it was obviusly this blog that ws responsbile.  I made the (correct) CALL that the Reds had WON the divison.  Since the Reds are not the Braves, that "call" was never in questin.  I specifically said that becasuet here were TWO wild cadd teams this year I could not "make the call' on the wild card temas (as laSt year).  I also said that I could NEVEr "make the call" again in favor of the Braves, after last year, and that the Cardinals were lucky the Braves were one of the obstgacles in their way.  However, I said that the Braves SHOULD hAve the first "wild card" spot, if they were a normal team, but that the Cardinals wuld have to be regardesd as in the hunt for the last wild card spont becuse of the divison they are in, and the lack of teams really making a statement ahead of them.  Well, the Brves AGAIN were an easy "obstacle" for the Cardinals in the "wild card game", even tough the Braves at least made th playoofs this time.  And the Cardinals DID continue to show lackluster managing, as ALL of the "wild card" contenders COLLAPESED in early September.  Dodgers, Prirates, Cardinals:  they ALL seemed not to WANT to get that last wild card spot.  However, because they were in the Central Divisin, the Cardinals hd 9 straight games, in late Septempber, against the hapless Cubs and Astros. The Cardinals won 7 out of 9, and a team that haD fallen close to .5000 sprinted ahead int he wild card race.  The Cardinals were then at home--albeit against the Reds and Nationals--for the final six games, and managed to BARELY hold off a Dodgers team that missed a chance to come witin one game in the next-to-last game.  Again, the role of this blog ws not QUITE so obvius hhis year, but can it be denied?

 never counted the Cardinals OUT this year, because of the two wild card teams, but I sid three things:

1.  The Cardinals were not even a .5000 team, after their 20-11 start.

2.  Mike Matheny, like Tony LaRussa last year, had not maganed the team well in his first year, as a team with good STATISTICS kept losing the close games.

3.  The "wild card path" was gong to be ALMOST IMOSSIBLE this year, because there would first be that "one-game playoff", and THEN two more series where the Cardinals weill not have home field advantage OR a Tony LaRussa tring to orve me wrong about him not being a genius anyomre. 

I stated, in my articles in this blog, that IF the Crdinals suddenly did find the "magic" again, it wouuld AGAIN be ME wo was responsible.  How can you doubt it?  After what I said abut Matheny, and the Cardinals (sho still had to be smartnig over what I said last year), did the team not AGAIN have an enormous incentive to 'put it together"? I thin so.  True, the timing was not so obvius this time . The Cardinals did play better after my article, but then started lOSING up to those series with the Astroes and Cubs.  But, really, is it not obvius that Matheny took some time--especilly against better oposition in  10 game road trip--to realy figure out how to SHOW ME WRONG.  And, after my comments, did not the TEAM know that they needed to turn it around for their new manager(who they probably LIKE better than the intense LaRusssa).? No. It makes SENSE that my comments did not have their full effect ntil the Cardinals were up against it in games agaInst temas (Cubs and Astros) they sHOULD beat?  And, once they gained their footing, were they not intent on again SHOWING ME that  was wrong about them and their new manager? 

Oh.  No. 3 abovbve is still a problem.  The Cardinals have a THIRD challenge this yea--aganst San Franciso.  However, they should have about an EQUAL chance with SF, which ws probably not ture with the Reds (who San Fran managed thieir own "miracle' against).  Caardinals chances now seem to be at least even, wlthough I would NOT recommend gong down to their last out, adn strike, again.  Even MY INCENTIVVE cannot produce miracles forever. 

If you did not guess, or now from previus articles, I am a Cardinal fan (although not to the ont of being blinded to faults).  have been a Cardinal fan ever since a happy childhood (first 12 years) in the hill country of Arkansas (Mt. Ida)--even tough I have lived in the Southwest (El PaSo and in New Mexico) ever since my 9th grade of school.  I grew up listening to Harry Carey describe the Cardinals--especially Stan Musial--on radio (KMOX ouat of St. Louis).  I only went to one Cardnals baseball game in person, but I have rfemained a Cardinals fan al o fthese years--through the years of Bob Gibson, Lou Brock, Ozzie Smith and al of the others.  Mark McGuire?  Yes, although he never had the e kind of allegiance I gave to Musial, even efore the  steroid thing.  One smal blto on my choldhood was that the Cardinals never made the world series when I was a child, and when I was footing for Stan Musial, as there was that gap between 1948 and 1964 (I was born in 1947).  Still, I have never regretted beng a Cardinal fan over the eyars, and do not regret it now.  I am extremely happy that the Cardinals again have a good chance to make it to the Worl dSeries.  It would even be nice to see the onld--veryold, like back to the 1930s) Yankee-Cardinal rivalry renewed.  Even though I can't root for the Yankees, part of me wuld like to see the Cardinals and Ynkkes hook up again in a World Series. 

Oh.  I was proven right that the Cardinals mae the right decisin to let Albert Pujols go, rather than pay too much.  It is not that Pujols had a baed eyar.  It is just that Pujos is obviusly NOT that god a risk for TEN YERS, and ppears to be clearly on the downhill side of his career (even if still better than most on the uphll side of their careers, and perhaps capable of another monster year or two).  "Money Ball" has a lot to recommend it, even though the Cardinals obviusly owe Pujos an awful lot. 

P.S  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  Should I have TRASHED the Cardinals, to keep the INCENTIVE gong that has worked so well?  Maybe.  But the excitement from last night's new miracle madee that impossible for me.  I do thinl it is time the Cardinals stooped doing miralces, and gvve my heart a brake. I am not as lyong asI once was, listening to Harry Carey and imagining myself to be Stan Musial (even though I am right-handed and ws never able to hit well at all).

Harry Truman: The Buck Stops Here; Obaama/Biden: The Buch Stops Anywhere Else But Here (Curse You, Harry Truman)

Let me see. Obama and th Biden now say it is the INTELLIGENCE people who got it wrong:  confusing a terrorist attack in Libya (with NO "spontaneous demonstratin" even occurring) with a "spontaneous demonstratino".  And once the "intelleigence people" told the Obama Administratin that misinformation, here was, of curse, no way they could take it back until the Obama Administratino FINISHED a "full invesstigation".  Thus, Obama HAD to go to the U.N. and NOT MENTION a terrorist attack in Libya, and the Obama Aministratin HAD to keep talking abut the Liya terrorist attack arising out of a "spontaneous demonstration", even though the "intelligence people' KNEW otherwise (and reported it) within 24 hours of the original attack.  What choice did Obama havee, especailly since it COVERED for the Obama Administerration to "blame' the Libyan attack on that ridiculous YouTube clip?  Unitl the "intelligence community" not only PROVED that the attack was a result of the videao, AND PROVED exactly WHO had committed the attack, weren't Obama and his minions ENTITLED to keep talking about the "original assessment tah" (from SOMEBODY--maybe an office boy at the CIA) that the atatck most likely arose out of the type of demonstration that had just occurred in Egypt?  What?  You say you don't understand how Obama and his HENCHMEN (let us call them by their ture title, in one of th emost disgraceful episodes--this attempt to cover up for political reasons--in U.S. history) can IMMEDIATELY "rush to judgment" basedon very preliminary inteligence, and then erfuse then dismiss MORE COMPLETE, ACCURATE later intelligence (like a few HOUS later) that the "video" was not responsible?  Well, no sane person can understand this "argument", because it is DISHEONST (the most dishonest positoin I have ever seen from a U.S. President), but read the hedline of this article again.  LIBYA came to the quick conclusion that this was a terrorist attack, while Obama was sending out Suan Rice, hi spoor U.N. ambassadro (a WEEK later) to STILL "blame" the Libyan attack on a "spontaneous demonstratin" about the "video".  Then there are those media peole--on CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the mainstream media--who are the MOST DISHOENST 'JOURNALISTS" WHO HAVE EVER LIVED:  I am tlaking aubt those p;eole adopting the Obama LIE that it is all 'politics" to criticize the Obama Administratin over the Libyan attack and it saftermanth, UNLESS you can PROVE (to a 100% certainty) all of these things:  That there was NO demonstratin; WHO conducted the attack; that the Obama Adiminstratin KNEW absolutely that an attack was going to occur; AND that ALL of the information received by Obama and his henchmen, after the attack, absolutely contradicted what Obama and his henchmen said in the weeks after the attack.  Oh.  And th efinal kicker for the DISHONET peole in the media who buy into this:  You can't criticize the Obama Administratin AT ALL until the FINAL RESULTS of the "investigation" are al in.  After all, these media peole assume, ONLY the Obama Adminstratin is permitted to "rush to jugment" (for political reasons, and with NO firm concusion supporting such judgment).  No. I stand by my statement:  These "journalists" buying into this "de"defense" of Obama are the MOST DISHOENST "JOURNALISTS" WHO HAVE EVER LIVED (albeit in a tie with other modern "journalsits"). 

Harry Truman?  IN privatre, the profane Biden CURSES Harry Truman.  Truman might not have even thrown ur INTELLIGENCE PEOPLE under the bus. He might have taken some responsibility for TELLING THE TRUTH.  Yu can even see indications that CNN and the Obama Administratin are throwing SUAN RICE under the bus for going out and presenting the clear Obama line.  Soledad O'Brien, this means YHOUI. Yes, you are one of the most desicable dishoenst peeople who has ever lived, and--as with Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper--I hope to someday be able to tell you so to yur face.  No, there is NO occasion at which I wouiuld be greeted by these peole that I would not make a BIDEN pont of being RUDE, and telling them what I think of them.  These are awesomely dishoenst peole, along with most of the peole of the mainstream media.  I have seen Erin Burnett make SOME attemt toward honestry here, but really not the rest of CNN.  No talk about comparing Harry Truman with Barack Obama on CNN.  CNN agrees with Joe Biden:  CURSE YOU, HARERY  TRUMAN.  Doubt me?  let us now look aat the STATE DEPARTMENT. 

Yep.  Biden and the Obama Administratin, with some confusing and confused "help" from Hillary Clinton, has thrown the STATE DEPARTMENT under the bus.  Now you and I may have thought that the State Department is PART of the Obama Administraitno, and part of Harry Truman's maxim that :  "The buck stops here."  Not so, for Obama, Biden, CNN, and similar minded people.  No.  It is the STATE DEPARTMENT peole who did not TELL the Obama people what they needed to know  You get the feeling that the ONLY way these poor State Department "fll guys" COUULD have done this is to FORCE their way past Secret Cervice personeeel and PERSONALLY hand Barack Obama a report.  Thus, the fact that the dismal secuirty situatin in Benghazi was REPORTED by peole on the ground, before the attack, does not mateer because such reports "nefer reached" Biden and Obama.  That is their story, and they are sticking to it (Obama and Biden). Oh.  And whatever "intelligence" there was did not count, because it was not "actionable intelligence" (the kind of "standard" that wuold have been RIDICULUED by the mainstream media in the years of George W. Bush).  It gets worse.

The Obama Admiinistratin is now saing that seucirty at U.S. embassies and consulates is ENTIRELY the responsibility of the STATE DEPARTMENT.  So much for Harry Truman.  I think you can assume that Barack Obama and Joe Biden have DISAVOWED Harry Truman.  Who HEADS the STATE DEPARTMENT? Right.  HILLARY CLINTON.  Does Hillary Clinton realize that here chances of being PRESIDENT are now GONE?  The Obama Administratin has really thrown HER under the bus, and yet seh is stil out there making vague, confusing and inadequate statements about what happened (and waiting for an "investigatin") as if she does not realzie that her entire political career is now GONE. 

It is amazing how the Obama Administratin takes NO responsibility for AnYTHING that goes wrong.  Operatin "Fast and Furious"--which was APPROVED by peole reaching up into HIGH LEVELS in the Justice Department? Well, that operatin, where the U.S. government actually provided guns to the Mexican drug crtels that KILLED PEOPLE, is not the "responsiblity of Eric Holder, Barack Obama or Joe Biden, because there is no "evidence" those peole PERSONALLY APPROVED of the operatin  That, of course, has not prevented Barack Obama from continuing to LIE abut the operation:  saying that it was an operation "begun" in the Bush Administratin, long AFTER it had been CONCLUSIVELY established that the Bush Adminsitratin had attempted to SQUASH the operatin, only to have the Obama Administratin revive the idea. 

Harry Truman must be rolling over in his grave, to watch Barack Obama and Joe Biden at work.

It remains my conclusion that this whole "video" cover up of what happened in Libya, for puroses of a POLITICAL NARRATIVE, is the worst, most inddefensible thing I have ever seen from an American President.  No,  In terms of MAGNITUDE, and consequences, this does not compartre with 50,000 Americans being killed in Vietnam, in a totally mismanaged war.  And in obvius "crookedness", this probably does not compare to Watergatte.  As far as out-and-out lies go, Clinto was certainly worse in his lies to the American peole (and under oath) about Monica Lewinsky.  However, as I have stated, I lived through Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton. And I don't think ANY of them wouuld have been this dishoenst on THIS typoe of matter:  the ATTACK on a U.S. ambasador.  As I have previously stated, all of the Presidents named, while not veryhonest, were SMARTE$R than this. And I actually believe that they would not have even thought of trying to falsely blame a terrorist attack n the United Sates on a "spontaneous demonstratin" over a video, in th truly disgraceful way Obama tried to do.  No.  Obama is the owrst I have ever seen and the way he has handled the Libyan KILLING of Americans DISQUALIFIES him from being Presdient of the United States--or at least SHOULD, for any reasonable voter. 

Notice that we are now more than a MONTH after the Libyan attack, and we STILL seem to gbe getting NOWHERE in this "investigatin" of what happened in Libya.  At this pont, the conclusion is obvius that Obama is trying to "run out the clock" (Watergate style), so that the electin occurs before the full facts in Libya can be known to the 'satisfactin" of our meda.  This, alone, should disqualify Obama from any considertin for President of the United States. I know he is President now, but we are choosing our NEXT Persident in November.  It should not be Barack Obama.  I continue to endorse Gary Johso, even though I now that could be regarded as a "vote for Obama".  But that oes not stop me from the conclusion that Barack Obama should not be President of the United States.  I can't beleive that Harry Truman would disagree with me. 

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

Friday, October 12, 2012

Joe Biden's S--- Eating Grin: Meanest Hypocrite in Washington?

Joe Biden is supposedly a "good ol' boy" who everyone "likes", and who is forgiven all of his gaffes and outrageous statements because that is just "our Joe".  Hogwash.  This blog has "outed" Joe Biden, long before he became Vice Presdient, as a man who things that a "s--- eating grin" flasehed at the end of a dishonest, mean statement excuses everything.  This blog has correctgly told you for YEARS, taht Joe Biden is one of the most mean spirited men in Washignton, along with being one of the least intelligent.

Last night, Biden flashed that s---eating grin at the most inapporpirate times, but did much mroe than that.  Last night Biden showed that I have always been rIGHT abut Biden, while people lilke Brit Hume have been WRONG.  Last night, I heard the usually mroe inteligent Hume say that he had always found Biden to be "nice', but that he did have this habit of flashing that "inappropriate grin".  Humer said the grin was "almost a tic".  Sorry, Hume.  No cigar.  I have been right all of these years.  The "grin" has ALWAYS been a DEIBERATE atempt on the part of Biden to conceal one of the meanest natures in all of Washington.  The man--not talking persoanlly here, but as a political figure--does not hav a nice' bone in his body. His "grin' flashes--as I have said befoe--right after he has said the most DISHOENST, mean things. It is a DEIBERATE attempt, by a man who kows what he is, to "disarm"--not really successfully, because the "grin" never reaches his eyes..

Las night, Biden exposed himself for all the world to see, as I saw him long ago.  He grinned smugly and co condescendibly.  He mugged for the camera in a insulting way, as Paul Ryan talked.  He "laughed" at what Ryan said.  In general, Biden showed himself for who and what he is:  one of the meanest, most dishonest politicians around.  Joe Biden is NOT a "nice man", and he showed it once and for all, for all time, last night.

Should Paul Ryan have been able to handle it?  Well, probably better than he did, but it is not like Romney could have done iany better.  The proble is the Roney/Ryan attempt to be 'moderate".  Unlike the cartoon that Obama and Biden are trying to put forth of Romneyh and Ryan as "advocates for the rich", Isee Romney and Ryan for who they really are (and said so before Ryan was even chosen as VP choice):  Romney and Ryan ARE moderates--Big Government Guys who just think they can manage our government better than Obama (probably correctly, although the difference will not be enough to "save" us, in my view).  What Ryan needed to do ws two things:  He needed to ATTACK THE PREMISE of some of the "moderators" questions, and TAKE ON the moderator when she interrupted him and tried to put him off course.  This is NOT "hindsight" on my part.  I gave Mitt Romney EXACTLY this advice before the first debate. However, Romney had Jim Lehrer as a moderator, and Lehreer actually appeared to be interested in INFORMATIN, and in letting tghe CANDIDATES talk.  Last night, in contrast, we got a "moderator" more typical of mainstream "mournalism": partisan and with a "gotcha' mentality, where the "journalists" wants to 'make points" instead of bring out informatino or a real debate between the CANDIDATES. Romney wuld have been no better than Ryan at that ind of questioning, in all probability.  Romney needs to learn a lesson from Ryan ,if he can.  Do NOT let the MODERATOR (or media questions) CONTROL the deate.  That is jsut as important as not letting Obama control the debate--often much more important for the GOP canndidate who shuld KNOW that the media are NOT his "friends".  Worse, the media are the "friends" of the OTHER GUY.    Secon, Ryan really needed to pick out a few of the LIES that Biden has been spreading around, preferably in connection with a specific GAFFE, and CALL Biden on the lie.  In other words, Ryan needed to TAKE ON BIDEN, and not jsut obliquely .

For example, as this blog pointed out, Biden (mean and diishonest) mad e a huge point out of being "serius" about Romney and Ryan's tax plan RAiSING taxes on a typical "middle class" family by $2000.00.  Tat was in the SAME event where Biden said that the "middle class" has been HAMMERED the last 4 years (the four years of Obama and Biden--the 'gaffe" part).  Ryan NEEDED to directly accuse Biden and Obama of MISREPRESENTING the ositions of Ryan and Romney, with specific examples.  Merely saying that Biden should know about things coming out of a person's mouth different than intended was not good enough.  This failure to make STRON G points in a STRONG manenr did not serve Ryan well.

Am I saying Ryan "lost" the debate?  No.  I don't think Biden really did anything to show Ryan would not be at least as good a President as Biden.  With Biden's, mugging, it could well be that Ryan was the long-term "winner" of the debate.  But Ryyan did nothing to really "build" on the MOMENTUM that the GOP seemed to have, and--to that extent--he failed last night.  On substance, if you were not already leaning in one diretin, the debate was probably pretty much a "draw".  As stated, that failed to build on GOP momentum, BUT it did continue to UNDERMINE the Obama//Biden message that Romney and Rayn are some kind of two-headed monster that is out to destroy the "middle class".

Now we get to MY problem with both Romney and Ryan: the reason I cannot vote for them and the reason I think there message is MUDDLED at its core (no matter how fair the quesits).  On taxes, Ryan made a big point out of syaing that the 20% "across the board" tax cuts was gong to be offset primarily with taking away tax deductins, credits and loopholes FROM THE RICH.  The clear, and intended, message was that the "middle class" will actually receive a TAX CUT, while the "rich" will probably end up with a NET tax increase.  Now Romney and Ryan might deny this, if faced witht he dirfect questin (which they should be--I am not sure Ryan quite was last night) as to whether the "middle class" will receive a net "cut" in taxes to come from t"the rich".  In short, Romney and Ruyan (as this blog has pointed out) are engaged in their own CLASS WARFARE--adopting the same concepts and rhetoric as Obama and Biden. What is wrong with that, if you can win that way?  Once you win, you can do the details pretty much as you wish and, and the whole thing will be forgotten in debate in Congress that will end up in some "compromise" anyway, won't it (if anything happens at all, and yo may not be able to get ANYTHING through Congress)?

The above paragraph represents the Romey/Ryan DLLUSION.  There is the problemof adopting the RHETORIC of the other side, and how damaging it is to suggest that we can fiance the whole government with an ever fewer number of rich people.  The positin of Ayn Rand (and "Atlas Shrugged", the movie, is coming out now) is that this idea of the MANY living off of the money and tleants of the FEW is SLAVERY for the few. Rand is looking betetter as a prophet each passing day.  However, the problem is that Romney had Ryan have NO clear messagge.  "Deficit reductin"? Don't be silly.  They have essentially abandoned that idea.  Simple tax code rejecting class warfare?  Don't be silly.  Ryan made clear, as Romney did beofre him, that RoneyRyan are BYING INTO the basic idea of class warfare in favor of the "middle class'. 

Look how BAD this really is.  What is the PRIMARY basis oontention beteen the GOP/Romney/Ryan and Obama on the Bush Tax Cuts?  Obama wants to "raise taxes" (take away the part of the Bush Tax Cuts applying to them, wile keeping the tax cuts for the 'middle class") income taxes on people makng more than $200,000/$250,000, as to income over the "rich" level.  Explain to me how that is DIFFERENT than Romney and Rayn saing that they will TAKE AWAY deductins, loopholes and credits FROM THE RICH to "finance" a "tax cut" for the middle class?  There is NO DIFFERENCE in concept here.  Romney and Ryan are almost direclty saying that they will RAISE TAXES on "the rich" to finance a "tax cut" for the "middle class'.  I nkow.  There is sometng to be said for he LOWER RATES, so that the tax code does nto distrot economic reality.  However, is the GOP "ifghting' so hard against raising taxes on "the rich", if Rmney and Ryan are prooposing to do the SAME THING (if mroe sneakily, and eprhaps in a way that helps the overall economy by tryhing to keep the tax code from being a "Christmas tree" of "goodies' for specific companies and people)?  Do you see why the Romney/Ryan message is MUDDLED?  You should.  It is NOT a message that rejets class warfare. It is a message that embraces it, but merely says: We can do it better than Obama. If Romney is right, and small businesses making more than $250,0000 are a prime source of JOS in this country, how does Rmney justify a SNEAKY TAX INCREASE on those same people?

No. That was the real problem with Ruan last night, and it may yet be the porblem with a LIUCKY Romney (lucky in Obama's approach to first debate).  If Rmney and Ryan continue to merely COP the MESAGE of Obama--as stated, I do NOT think this is some sort of "flip flop" on their part, why shuld people believe Romney will realy be much different from Obama.  I don't.  Now will a GOP HOUSE keep Romney in line?  Maybe. Did not work with Bush. But can't Romney win by merely suggesting he will MANAGE BETTER than Obama, and by not threatening peole with any kind of dramatic change?  Sure. Romney MIGHT win that way, just as football teams SOMETIMES win with a "prevent defense". Obama made a mistkae in the first debate.  I don't believe polls, and do not think Romney was EVER in the kind of truble the polls indicatrte.  Nor do I think that his 'surge" hs necessarily been quite as dramatic as the polls indicate (although Romney clearly won the debate).  And the problem with "polls' is that the 'margin of error" is VERY MUCH greater than the acknowledged number--if only because the number of peole wilng ot CHANGE THEIR MINDS the very next day is very much greater than the polls indicate.  We have had polls now saying Obama was 5% AHEAD nationally, and we now have at least one poll (not the same poll) saying that Romney is now 5% ahead.  All the media does with this incredible emphasis on POLLS is make clear their INCOMPETENCE and USELESSNESS.  Today's "journalists" (ye,s essentially all of them, especially on TV) are WORTHLESS.  Their main "mantra" is not to "get into the wees".  Waht is the FUNCITN of "journalism", if it si not to "get into the weeds", insetead of relying on NON-NEWS like polls? Read Michael Crichton's novel, "Ariframe".  Crichton tells you the "functin" of modern "journaism", and it is NOT INFORMATIN.  Modern "journalism" is aobut the "JOURNALIST", which is the proble with most Presidetnial "debates".  Jim Leher was a major exceptin, which I don't expect to be repeated this year. No. Lehrer was not "biased".  taht was his problem, and the reason he was cirticized by other "journalists".  Lehrer did nto push the AGENDA of 'lefitst journalists", which is wht they would have approved him for doing.

No mmesage. A manstream media that will 'double down' against them. Candidates most comfortable with not realy saiyg much. That is the problem with Romney/Ryan.  I is the reason they will have a lot of trouble MAINTAINGING MOMENTUM, even if they are unlikely to "scare" voters with "exttremism". The "extremism" of Romney and Ryan, and of the GOp in general, is an OBAMA CARICATRUE.  The Obama problem is that it is INCONSISTENT with the other Obama message--more CORRECT--that Romney does not have any real principles. Obama's problem is the ECONOMY (although LIBYA shuld disqualify him from being President).

Thus, it is unlikely that either candidate will get a landslide.  Romney and Ryan do not have the MESSAGE, and Obama does nto have the PERFORMANCE.  Now I think it is guaranteed that Obama will NOT get a "landslide", althoguh Rayn and Romney may yet be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. However, I do believe that it is POSSIBLE for Romney and Ryan to come close to a landslide, even without a message.  It may require some more Obama mistakes, but Obama has the problem that his 'message" is FALSE (this idea that Romney and Ryan are 'advocates for the rich").  Plus, as Rush Limbaugh points out, there aare any number of peole who now CAN'T STAND Obama, and would wak through heavy snow drifts to vote against thim.  Ther IS an "enthusiasm gap' that COULD create about the same margn for Romney as Obama got against McCain (and Reagan got agaisnt Carter). Contrary to the media mantra, I hink such a "landslide" is mre than possible.  I jsut don't know that it can happen without a clearer message from Romney and Ryan.  At the every least, do not Rmney and Rayn need to ATTACK Obama to moticate people?  Maybe not, if people have motivated themselves.  And maybe that is happening.

Full circle.  You see why Ryan failed to keep the GOP momentum going, even though he did nto "lose" the debate (even if he is eventually "called" the loser).  Ryan did NOT continue the ATTACK on Obama, and Ryan did not have any trul clear message.  That puts more emphasis on Romney to repeat his performance, under what will surel be MORE ADVERSE CONDITIONS.  I will be impressed if Romney can do it--although I have this feeling that he will do it--if he does--in a way I don't really like (ture of hi sfirst deate, except for flashes where Rmney got in some good lines). 

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