Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Obama Fails on Jobs Entire Year: New Unemplyment Claims (Dishonest Los Angeles Times)

I am simply never wrong.  I told you a little more than 2 weeks ago tht the "drop in new unemplyment claims to 343,000 was TOTAL FICTION:  created by the seasonal distortin of superstorm Sandy. 

Last Thursday, I was shown to be right again, as the number nof new unemplyment claims "rose" at least 17,0000 (maybe 20,0000--when REVISED figure released tomorrow), to a "seaonsally adjusted" 361,000 9again, likely 364,000, after being REVISED tomorrow). For one of the few times in the last 3 YEARS, my own (pre-announced) "revisin of the 343,000 announced 2 Thursdays ago was less accurate than the media/Labor Dept. headline number of 343,0000.  Last Thursday, the previus week's intitial 343,000 was revised upward only 1,0000: less thaan the most common 3,000 UPWARD revisin that usually occurs. It has been FOREVER since the uncrevised number of new unemplyment claims (to be announced tomorrow) has been revised DOWNWARD, revealing just how dishoenst our media and Labor Dept. are to accept the consistent ERROR in the headline number every week, year after year.  Until a new patttern is firmly estalbishmed,as it has not been in more than 3 eyars, I will continue to REVISE the Labor Dept .number myself, IMMEDIATELY, by the same 3,0000.  That means that last week's initial number of 361,0000 will likely be revised tomorrow to 364,000 or more.

It does not realy matter.  The number of new unemplyment claims is significant ONLY OVER TIME, and shows the "labor market" has NOT IMROVEDE the entire year of 2012.  The range from geginning to end was 351,0000-392,0000:  ignoring the "temorary" distortions of Sandy and the FICTIONAL 342,0000 ne week, when the dishoenst Labor Dept LEFT OUT CALIFORNIA (or much of it), wihtout ever correcting the error (although acknowledging it). 364,0000, or even 361,0000, is essentially in the MIDDLE of the yearly range of 351,0000-392,0000.  Nor has that "range' shown some sort of steady "improvement" at the end of the eyar.  From mid-January to about mid-March, the range of new unemplyment claims was about 351,0000-365,0000.  Last Thursday's initial number was at the TOP of that range early this year: again indicating NO "improvement" this entire year. 

Dishonest Los Angeles Times?  Their headline last headline last Thursday was: "New unemplyment claims rise 17,0000, but still  relatively low."  As I have shown you, that is a LIE.  Yep  I jsut called the Lost Angeless Times LIARS, and I =stand 100% behind that statement.  In fact, I PREDICTED exactly this LIE.  How can LA Times say number is "relatively low", when it iswell within the yearly range and would have been at the tOP of the February range?  Easy.  LA Tiemes, which DISCOUNTED Sandy-induced spikes to 451,0000, 416,0000 and 395,0000, is suggesting that 364,0000 (or 361,000) is "relatively low" when compared with those SPIKE numbers that the media said WERE NOT REAL.  You jsut can't get any more dishoenst than that, and can't get any more dishoenst than the "journalists" of the disgraceful Los Angeles Times. 

Year is "in the boks" now., and the whole YEAR was a FAIURE for Obama:  NO IMPROVEMENT. No. It does not matter what happens tomorrow, or the following week. We still hae possible seasonal distrotins from Sandy (distortions which can go both ways), and HOLIDAY numbers are impossibly unreliable.  So next two weeks don't even mean much (whether numbers go up or down).   The YEAR is already in the books, and it was a FAILURE for the labor market and Obama. Any fluctuations in these last two weeks merely represent statistical "noise". 

We really are not going to get much of a handle on 2013 until looking at the numbers over the weeks from mid-January to the beginning of April.  Sure, we might get some idea of where we are gonig, starting in mid-January (away from holidays), but lat THREE eyars have shown sAE new "seasonal pattern":  Misleading, APPARENT "improvement" in February, followed by apparent DETERIORATIN as we go into sprin and summer.  2012 was especailly notable in that regard, as there was NO real "improvement" even as we head into the end of this year. And we will not have any, since there is no way to know whether any suposed "improvement' these last two weeks is 'real'. or a result of distortins from both Sandy and the holiday season.

How did we end up with NO "improvement' in new unemlyment claims, and this supposed "improvement" int he unemplyment ate?  Inconsistent numbers.  I prefer the number of new unemplyment claims as a better indicator, even though it is hardly free frm manipulatin.  There are simply more data pints, and somewhat less subjectivity in the weekly new unemplyment claims numbers.

Again, I have prepared you to look thorough the media LIES tomorrow.  Tomorrow's number of new unemlyment claims is pretty meaningless, because of possible distortins. But expect the media to SAY that ONLY if the number is BAD.  A "good" number will be "evidence" that the "labor market" is turning around--NOT.

We continue to be STUCK in a bad place, as far as JOBS are concerned.

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

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Unemployment Claims and Labor Dept./Media Dishonesty

Read last night's article.  Then consider: Is The Maverick Conservative ever wrong?  Hardly ever.

The minor point, of course, is the CONSTANT Labor Dept./media dishoensty as to the "revision" ALWAYS made in only one direction-makng a mockery of the absurd clam that the revised data is merely a matter of more "complete" data.  If there is a CONSISTENT error not included in the original "eadline" numbers, then the PROCEDURE shuld be changed to include an "adjustment' for the constant error. Not to do that is DISHOENST, as I have been telling yu. Thus, last wek's reported number of new unemplyment claims was REVISED upward from 370,0000 to 372,0000 (median is a upward revison of 3,000, but--as almost always--my "prediction" of 373,000 was CLOSER than the Labor Dept./media figure).

But where I have really been right over the paset weeks, since Sandy, is my prediction that the media, and Labor Dept. would emPHASIZE the distortins of Sandy for UNFAVORABLE numbers, but ignore the distortins of Sandy for favorable numbers.  As I told you, the weeky number of new unemplyment claims is going to mean NOTHING until probably mid-Janutary, and we will not realy get a pcutre of where 2013 is headed until posssibly April. (as to the labor market).

"But, Skip, once the effet of Sandy has dissapted, the number surely means as much as it ever does, even though it is true that the number bounces around such that one week never means much. We get your pint that the seasonal adjustment alne, especially around holidays, is so unreliable that the weekly numbers only mean anything OVER TIME.  And the media is dishonest for ignoring this, and acting like each weekly number is some sort of concrete, accurate descritpn of the weekly status of the labor market. However, surely the number does not mean less than usual once the dramatic, initial effects of Sansy have passed."

Wrong.  Yep. The media, as usual, LIED when they tired to place actual significance on today's "dramatic" (too dramatic, meaning it is likely PURE FICTIN) "drop" in new unemplyment claims to 346,000. Ok.  Annnounced number was 343,000, but I always take into account that CONSISTENT ERROR (that Labor Dept./media dishoensty).  There was a purported "drop" of 29,000.  Even without Sandy, that kind of a drop would be suspicious, as I previously told you when the Labor Dept. "reported" 339,000 (revised to 342,000), only to find out that the Labor Detpt. had LEFT OUT CALIFORNIA (or a significant portion of California claims). With Sandy, as I told you last night, and previusly, today's number is not even surprising.  Why is that.  It is because Sandy did NTO just DISTORT the numbers one way.  Yes, Sandy caused an immeidate jump in jobless claims because of Sandy shutting down business. But Sandy also DISTORTED the seasonal pattern/seasonal adjustment.  That means that this week's number cannot really be regarded as any more reliable than that 451,000 number right after Sandy. Once the 'bounce back" from Sandy in the weekly number got beynd Sandy causing any more layoffs, it was to be expected that the disruptin in the seasonal pattern would cause the weekly number to go TOO LOW to be representatvive of the real status of the labor markt.  Sure, yuy could AVERAGE the numbers over the past 4 weeks.  But the better way to look at this is that these numbers since Sandy, INCLUDING THIS WEEK'S SUPPOSEDLY "GOOD" NUMBER, just don't mean anything about the "normalized" satus of the labor market, exculsive of the SHORT-TERM effect of Sandy. 

But you won't hear from either the Labor Dept. or (espiecally) our dishoenst/incompetent media that the "good' number today was likelyl DISTORTED by Sandy just as much as the bad numbers right after Sandy. So where are we?  No way to know.  That is the point.  Until we see how this goes, OVER TIME (and outside of holiday influence), we really are not going to have any god idea of where we stand.  Oh, you can say that at least the effects of Sandy on layoffs are proving mainy TEmPORARY, rather than some sort of major body blow to business in the northeast that is causing a downward spiral. As I have stated, it is just absurd to say that Sandy was GOOD for the economy. But if the effects of Sandy are, indeed, temporary, then that can be regarded as somewhat "good" news in a negative sort of way (not as bad as might have been). But you, and the media CANNOT now conclude that this weekly number on new unemplylment claims is now a "true' picture of whre the labor market is.  You canot even do that as to ANY one week, but yu especially cannot do it when it is absurd not to at least SUSPECT that Sandy is still DISTORTING the number--just in the oppposite directin because the "formula" does not take into account the changes in the seasonal pattern caused by Sandy. 

Over the past three eyars, in any event, the WINTER has lproven an espeically misleading time forthese weekly jobless claims numbers. Why?  Well, the Labor Dept. "formula' for "seasonal adjustment" may be FLAEWED (surelyl is flawed, by the way, as it can NEVER be regarded as any more than a fallible ESTIMATE, especially for any one week).  Secondly: WEATHER.  The WEATHER in WINTER has much more effect on things like construction than weather variations at other times of the year.  Sandy showed the effect weather can have.  A winter BLIZZARD can paralyze business over a good part of the country (that is, heavily populated NYC, Boston, D.C., Philadelphia, Chicago areas).  What the dishoenst media dos NOT tell you is that the LACK of blizzards and BAD weather can distort the seaonsal adjustment just as much as bad weather--more, in fact, if the "seasonal adjustment" is based on the expectatin of a certain amount of bad weahter in areas subject to cold, bad winter eather). ope. These weekly numbers are FALLIBLE ESTIMATES, whose ONLY meaning is OVER TIME. 

What if the number KEPT going down?  Obviuisly, at some point that would be significant. But the point is that there is NO reason to believe that this week's number emans ANY more than the obvisly distorted 451,000 number of abut 4 weeks ago.  This number is likely to have been DISTORTED by Sandy, just like the 451,000--just in th eopposite directin.  Time will tell. But it will probably not tell until at least mid-January, because of the distortions of the holiday season, as well as lingering distortions of Sandy. 

I expect a SHAM "deal" on the "fiscal cliff", whre the GOP cements my conclustin that it is a party that now deserves to DIE (and be replaced by something else). But I don't think it matters. The real chalenge as 2013 progresses, aside from Bernanke/Obama making a real "recovery" impossible, is ObamaCare.  ObamaCare is gong to loom over the 2013 labor market, and our economy, like the asteroid in "Armageddon".  Even without ObamaCare, I would be pessimistic about the new religion of Wall St. economic fascists that all we need ot do to "save' us is to PRINT MONEY.  With ObamaCare, I see no hope at all. GOP--coward to a man and woman, as far as ai can see--has already shown in 2010 that NO vicotry in 2014 is gong to be enugh to change course.  No courage.  Thus, we are going to be on this path until at least 2016 (when I wonder whether the GOP will be headling toward that 1,000th and final death that cowards suffer, while a brave man dies but once).  Can we make it TO 206, even if there is someone to vote for then who will actually change course?  I doubt it.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  As I have said on Twitter, by the way, I believe that the bst of the POSSIBLE results to the present "crisis" is to go over this "fiscal cliff", and at least require our politicians to LIVE WITH their previus choices.  Disaster.  But LEAST of the disasters we face, which is a sad comnetary on where we are.  IF we go over the "fiscal cliff", and STAY THERE, we will at least make a stab at BOTH "cuttnig" spending (not enough, even, and partiallly in the wrong places) AND reducing the deficit (even if with the disastrous tax increases that wil occur).  Note that "goning over the fiscal cliff" merely (subjet to certain distortions caused by failure to properly adjust things like th eAMT) would merely return us to the tax rates of the CLINTON YEARS: the very tax rates that our media and opther leftist Democrats say led to PROSPERITY.  It MAY be possible to survive those tax rates, as we did under Clinton.  What I know we cannot survive, and yet the argument the GOP is not even makng, is the idea that 2% of the country shuld SUPPORT the other 98%.  This CLASS WARFARE iddea destoryed the Roman Republic, and it will DESTROY US.  It is absurd for GOP to say that they can "give" on this PRINCIPLE of class warfare, and "concentrate"on SPENDING.  Dems/media will make SPENDING the SAME ISSUE.  Medicaer? Raise Medicare taes on the "rich", AND reduce the benefits/raise the cost ("means tet") Medicare for the "ricxh". Social Secuirty?  Ditto.  Same thing.  If GOP concedes CLASS WARFARE arguemtn, as they--and too many conservaitves already have--then they have LOST the WAR.  There is no recovering from it, because the sAME leftist argument can be made on EVERY tax and SPENDING issue we ever face. Ayn Rand will prove to have been a prophet ahead of her time ("Atlas Shrugged").  Will the "rich" (Alex Rodriguez?  Albert Pujols? Tom Brady?) be content to be SLAVES using their tlaent/money to support the REST OF US?  Not in the end.  My big beef with the GOP, and to omany conservatives, is that they are not even ARGUING against this ultimate diaster. Not acceptable to me.  I will not accept it.  that is why I do NOT expect to support the GOP nominee for President in 2016, OR to support GOP incumbents (ANY of them) in Congress in 2014. 

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Jobs and Dishonest Labor Dept./Media

Last Friday, the Labor Dept. issued monthly employment numbers that have to be regarded as total FICTIN: purporting to show a DROP (although slight) in unemplyment and 146,000 "added" jobs (not good, but strange with Sandy)--despite Supestorm Sandy.

Why fiction? Look at how those numbers CONFLICTED with the weekly numbers on new unemplyment claims. Here are the numbers on new unemplyent claims released the pat four weeks (released every Thursday, as they will be tomorrow): 451,0000 (18 month high), 416,000, 395,0000, 370,0000 (to be REVISED upward tomorrow by the disheonst Labor Dept, as this was the UNREVISED number released last Thursday).  Note that EVERY one of these numbers would have been new HIGHS for the YEAR, before the 451,0000, until we got to last week's annnounced 370,000.  But even that nuber was in the MIDDLE of the YEARLY range for the weekly number of new unemplyment claims (351,0000-392,000, before Sandy and disregarding 342,0000 when dishoenst Labor Dept. neglected to COUNT most or all of new claims from California, and never corrected the admittedly erroneous number).

How can Superstorm Sandy cause a HUGE jump in new unemplyment claims, and the unemplyument rate DROP? It can't. These numbers are INCONSISTENT, and REQUIRE exlanatin.  But our dishoenst Labor Dept. and media simplyl refuse to look into the obvius discrepancy here, althogh they WILL do so to explain the UNFAVORABLE results of Sandy (such as that huge jump in new unemplyment claims).

What happened?  I don't know, for sure.  These monthy numbers are getting less and less reliable, to the pint of being entirely useless. The weekly number of new unempllment claims--despite being itself subject to errors and manipulatino--seems to be giving a better picture, OVER TIME, of wha is going on in te labor markte. Notice that the weekly number of new unemplyment claims seems to have given the EXPECTED results from Sandy, while the monthly numbers appar to be FICTIN. Yes, the weekly number of new unemplyment claims was DISTORTED by Sandy, but those high numbers still represented REAL lsot jobs:  just not necessarily the ongoing picture of the labor market as Sandy's immediate impact dissipated.  No. You jsut can't reconcile the weekly numbers and the monthly numbers, as the monthy numbers seem to indicate NO impact from Sandy at all.  That is not possilbe, and the economy did NOT "improve" that muc (as the weeklly number of new unemplyment claims indicated), such that Sandy's losses were matched by big gains elsewhere.

Again, what happened.  Problem MAY be in Labor Dept., and unreliability of monthly numbers. There is at least ONE other POSSIBLE way to envision that the monthly numbers might be misleading (besides the way the numbers are collected and calculated, including the timing of when the info was obtained during the onth). As I have previusly stated, Sandy did INCREASE emplyment in some ways, although the net effect was surely negative.  Waht aobut all of those TEMPORARY and PART-TIME DISASTER RELIEF peole? It is possible that Sandy actually distorted the monthly numbers in a "positive" directin, even though Sandy's effect on the economy and labor market was really negative.  As this blog has told you, the problem with Sandy is that it is hard to PREDICT exactly how Sandy will afect the numbers for individual months and individual weeks.  For example, if tomorrow's weekly numbe of new unemplyment claims wer "really good", would that mean real "progress" in the labor market?  Almsot surely NOT.  It wouud merely mean that the DISTORTINS from Sandy, includng distortins of seasonal patterns, had gone the other directin.  ObamaCare, by the way, remains the REAL "fiscal cliff", as it starts to realy affect employers in 2013.  As I have stated on Twitter (where my material has been appearing more requently lately @mavconservative, despite the obvius fact that I am not really a Twitter person), my positin is that we would be MUCH better off going over the "fiscal cliff" (as usually described, not including the really terrible effects likely from ObamaCare) than we are likely to be with any "deal" "negotiated" by tghe COWARDLY GOP.

Oh. I made an ERROR in my aricle of almost two weeks ago, when I acutally gave the DISHOENST Labor Dept. too much credit.  I said that the Labor Dept., for the first time in livng memory, had actually revised the number of new unmplylument claims DOWN, rahter than the ALWAYS upward revison over many previus months, and even years. Not so.  Somehow, because of a mistake by my media source (entirely possible), or because of my own eyesight, I got the idea that the number of new unemloyment claims was reported as 383,0000, down 23,0000 from the previous week.  That would have made the previus week 406,000,m nstead of the initially reported 410,000.  Actually, the number of new unemloyument claims was reported as 393,000, down 23,000 from a REVISED 416,000. I was off 10,000, and the dishoenst Labor Dpet. had REVISED the prvius week UPWRD from 410,000 to 416,000: a continuance of the DISHONESTY of the usual, consistent upward revsion week after week.  Thus, last Thursday, the Labor Dept. again REVISED the preius week's 393,000 to 395,000, which is te number I included in my recakkp of the past 4 weeks above.  as stated, the number of new unempllyment claims initially reorted last week was 370,000.  Youi can EXPECT that number to be REVISED tomorrow (or "today", since this is being typed right at midnight El Paso taime) to 373,0000 or so (using most common weekly revision of UP 3,000).   Everything else I said in that article two weeks ago was accurate, and even my error did not cuase me to give any credence to the Labor Dept. suddenly beocmign more honest.  I was right in my expressed skepticism, as the revisin turned out to be the same directin in which it always is made: UPWARD (as the dishonest media keeps reporting the initial, UNREVISED number as if it is not gong to be REVISED the next week in only one directin).

Again, it is difficult to "predict" what tomorrow's number of initiallly reported new unemplyment claims will be.  The distortins of Sandy, including the subtle one on the "seaosnal adjustment', may still be operating.  Further, we are in the CHRISTMAS season, and the Labor Dept. numbers around holidays are esopecially unreliable.  Even without Sandy, the Laor Dept. often gets the "seasonal adjustment" WRONG as seasonal patterns change from year to year.  As this blog has correctly told you, I don't think these numbers are gong to mean much--or at least we won't know what they may mean--until at least mid-January.  And since 2010 there has been a consistent FICTINAL "improvement at the end of one year and the beginning of the next (through February), that has turned out to be FALSE as we go into spring and summer.  These numbers will ONLY have any significance OVER TIME, and we may be all of the way into April before we can arrive at any reasonably confident evaluatin of how the labor market is doing in 2013.  The usual SEASONAL "improvement" ni new weeekly unemloyment claims has NOT yet occurred this year.  It remanis to be seen if it will maek a belated appearance as we head toward the end of the year, and beginnng of next year.  Then there is the fact that the BASE  numbers and formulas used to CALCULATE both the weekly and monthly numbers usually CHANGES in January. 

The media may have orgasms, as usual, if the numbers APPEAR to be good", as they have FALSELY appeeared for the past 3 years.  We will have to wiat and see for the real situation to become established. Or, rather, YOU will have to wiat and see for my DEFINITIVE evaluatin of the situatin.  I can give you better analysis than anyone else, but even I cannot accurately tell you the real status of the labor market until there is enough reasonably reliable data to see whether the PATTERN of the last three years is repeating itself or not.  And I really am afaid that these numbers--weekly and monthly--are becoming more subject to possible manipulatin with every passing week and month.  Tha tis why you have to TRY to RECONCILE the  vaiurs numbers (includnig GDP growth and other non-emplyment data) with EACH OTHER.  Yu cannot reconcile the last four weeks of new unemplyment claims with the supposed MONTHLY emplment numbers for November.  We will see what time adn more data, bring to us in the way of clues. 

No.  Whehter the economic data starts to really look better or not, ObamaCare (along with so many other things, including the Fed makng real recovery impossible because printing money will cause immeidate SPIKES in inflatin as any "recovery" starts) is a SWORD OF DAMOCLES hangng over the American economy.  I don't see how we survive it. 

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

Saturday, December 1, 2012

Islam and Global Warming/Climate Change (lol): Clinically Insane Leftists (Boycott Yahoo)

Here aer two of the "featured (most important, for the point of view of far leftists at Yahoo?) "news" stories on Yahoo "News" early Saturday morning:

1.  15-yearold Afghan girl beheaded for rejectiong marriage proposal". 

2. " Some (translation:  AP, Yahooand other lefitsts) wish Islam woud inform on climate change."

Test for the reader: before i tell yu, do you see what is wrong with these two headlines, especailly the second one?

Right.  The second headline is CLINICALLY INSANE, especially in conjunctin with the first. This is using the correct definition of schizophrenia, and psychosis, as referring to conditons where a person is disassociated froom reality.  Doubt me? It gets far, far worse. Is the left so ISANE as to realy believe "climate change" (I use "global warming", because "climate change" is a LYING term made up for political reasons, on the idea that eVERYONE sees the climate/weather "changing", as it has done for all of the history of the Earth. but I will use "climate change" in this article, because that is what the lefdtists of the AP did).  is one of the top 100 problems facing Islam at all, or a RELIGIOUS "issue" in any e event?  It is absolutely amazing how the left (Bill Maher, CNN, et. al.) has total CONTEMPT for religion--includng Obama--except when THEY want to USE religion for POITICAL purposes.  Here is the (only slightly paraphrased) firs paragraph of the ridiculous/desicable AP/Yahoo story:

"people gathered at a mosque on Friday to say prayers.  The imam discussed the civil war in Syria, the unrest in Egypt, and the U.N. vote on Palestinian recognition." 

Okay.  Nothing about beheading 15-year-old girls, the disgraceful attitude of so much of Islam toward women, or the rather extreme attitude of much of Ilsam toward homosexuals (ahmadinejad: "Hang 'em"). But this may be a problem with the REORTING of the despicable AP, rather than the imam.  This imam strikes me as SANE (at least in wht he perceived as important), in contrast to the AP/Yahoo wanting to "insprire' a "jihad" in the name of "climate change".  Here is how the second paragraph began, word for word (exact quote):

"Not one word about climate change.".......

Say what?  The Middle East and northern Africa are in flames.  Too much of Islam is being perverted toward terrorism and intolerance, and our media/left thinks that imams shuld be "discussing" "climate change" (three guesses on HOW, and the first 2 don't count).!!!! 

What is really going on here?  The complete, official name of the Associated Press will give you a clue:  "Despicable, Anti-American Associated Press".   Yes, this is all about LEFTIST IDEOLOGY (the religion of the leeft, including Obama), and not abuot the real challegnes facing "Islam" as a religion.  For the anti-American left, "climate change" IS a RELIGION, and therefore one of the things that GOD/ALLAH should be ASSUMED to include in any other religon being practiced on this Earth.  I wonder how many rabbis "discuss" "climate change" in their synagogue on their sabbath. I knwo. I am sure there are SOME leftist priests who do discuss it, but you are delulded if you think those priests believe in their religion even as much as I (an agnostic) do..  For leftist clerics, as well as other leftists, the RELITION is LEFITST IDEOLOGY.  But I am not kidding.  This particular insanity is specifically ANTI-AMERICAN. 

You know the assertion:  that we are energy/resource HOGS using 25% of the world's energy, creating a world where the SAHARA desert is gong to take over alost the entire Arab world, and a good part of the rest of tghe world (as sea levesl rise and "thrid world" humanity dies like flies.  No. I am not going to discuss the FRAUD of "gblobal warming" in this article.  The point here is that this has noting to do with "Islam", but has everythign to do with anti-American, leftist ideology and POLITICS.  In fact, the invented "theory" of "global warming" has always bewen about leftist ideolgy (rather than science). 

What are the despicable peole of the AP, Yahoo and the left realy telling radical Islamists?  They arre almost directly telling them this:  "You should not be distracted by things like Americans on the "holy" soil of Saudi Arabia and elsewhre--unccludng American troops.  You shuld realize that America is trying to DESTORY you with climate change, which will make your countries unlivable.  THIS is the reason wyou should realy be joining US in a LEFTIST JIHAD against any America that does nto conform to our ideology."

You know the underlying idea here. The idea is that Muslims, especially Saudi Arabia, are being USED by the Great Satan/Wet, as we are using up their resources to make it impossible for Islamic countries to ever have any ind of real economyu.  When the oil is gone, or even before that, all that will be left will be the Sahara, while the "rich" USA adds to our weath and exploitation of teh world's resources to destory the rest of the world (while our wealth makes it possilbe for us to aovid the immeidate consequences of our folly).

No. In today's ecnomy, our leftist media is talking to the wind.  You notice that Obama did NOT make "climate change" an issue in the recent electin.  In fact, he asserted that he is in FAVOR of the economic benefits from driling and the developometn of America's own fossil fuel resources.   But this AP/Yahoo article shows you that the INSANE ideology is still there, and that leftists (including Obama) have not given up on the idea of pretty much crucifying our economy on the cross of "clf "climate change" (to paraphrase, and misquote, William Hennings Bryan and his famous "Cross of Gold" speech). 

"Skip, did you just say the the President of the United States" is ANTI-AMERICAN? "  Yep. I did, and he is. Oh, I understand that he is not "anti" the America that HE wants us to be, and thinks we can be.  But the America that became the greatest nation in the world:  really the most successful nation the world has ever known?  No, Obama does NOT believe in that America.  He believes that America is an evil influence in the world, and has been for many, many years (mabye since our founding). 

Oh.  Do you feel GUILTY about living in a SUCCESSFUL, tolerantnation, where freedom hs not yet been extinguished?  Do you feel GUILTY abouta living in a country that uses 25% of the world's energy?  Neither do I.  But that is what that disgraceful article from the AP/Yahoo was all about.  And the despoicable peeople of our media are actually TRHING to give "Islam" yet another insane reason to HATE US.  My CONTEMPT for tghe truly despicable peole of our media grows every single HOUR. 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  Okay, I COULD use audio, although my present comuter (Windows xp") does nto have it (even though there maybe a "free dowload").  But I have not grown up blind (lathough extremely near sighted  since high school).  If I had grown up blind, or were now totally blind (instead of my "good eye" BEST corrected vision being 20-170), I am sure I would be using audio.  As it is, it is out of my 'comfort level"--to quote Obama from a different context.  I will surely go to more audio, as I now do with READING (since I can't read text, but only audio books).   Whehter I will ever find it easy enough to PROO(FREAD, and READ BACK, audio articles, rather than just frustrate you with typos, remains to be seen.  yes, for a person who is blind, I can still see pretty well.  For somene who can see, my eyesight is the pits.  Oh.  And it is not just the 20-170.  Due to my scarred retina, I cannot FOCUS in such a way as to read words and paragraphs, even when I should be able to see them.  Macular degeneration of an untreatable type.  I try not to bore you with the detaisl of this, but I like to somewhat satisfy your curiosity every several months or so. And I know some of yu tech savvy people scream at the screen from time to time because you wuld be able to do much better.  So you probably could.